It does not only rely on the fact that the director has a vision, that is the starting point, one director might have a vision, a rather simple and plain one and then the play would just go along those lines, with no real effect provoking no impact. However, once the vision has a certain exploration to it, there is an attribute gained, this opens the possibilities for the rest of elements to explore. A vision is something the entire play must rely on, a direction concept from where all the other elements initiate. Therefore this must be open enough for those things to start from, if the concept is too ambiguous the resulting play would be too hard to follow or shallow at times, since the ideas haven´t been well organized before being performed.
After having a concise vision, there must also be a harmony found between different production elements, one must not interrupt with other, if the lighting plan goes along one direction, the texture shouldn´t go in the other affecting badly the resulting effect the lighting would have on the play. If there has been a plan from the start for the acting to be in such a way, there should´t be an interference from the scenery in the movements or acting style chosen. Those elements must harmonize to create an impact, since a great vision can be completely damaged by a lack of harmony between these elements.
Therefore, I believe the whole creative structure of a play is what eventually causes this impact on the audience, however, what exactly would this mean? Causing an impact would be merely causing an emotion? Or would it go beyond causing a reflection, is the response from the audience always going to be subjective?
A very good entry. Keep it up.
ResponderEliminarRoberto
I've recently read Peter Brook's The Empty Space and I find these posts very interesting.
ResponderEliminarThanks for visiting my blog.