This week we went to see a play with two different acts in it. It was a very corporal performance, resembled more of a dance performance rather that conventional theatre. The first thing that I experiened was a 10-or-more  minute waiting time before the play started, and eventhough I wasnt particularily bothered by it, I think it is important to start a performance on time, to show repect for the audience that is paying to watch you perform. The play itself was visually attractive in my opinion, the performance as a "dance" was well executed, and the fact that I didnt really like it that much was due to me expecting to see something more like a play. The first part involved a female performer and two other actors, and they seemed to have a certain type of relationship, or attraction at least, the bond between them was the only thing I could work out of the performance, but all of the movements were well synched and the flow of movement seemed natural. The second performance only included the two previous male actors, and they seemed to again, have a sort of relationship, and the mood seemed to be one of comedy at times, and the blend of the performance, lights and David Bowie songs did seem to give a sort of 'nice' result. One thing I feel the need to emphazise would be the use of the lights, because in my opinion was one of the highlights of the performance, the way they were set to be invisible at times and then when actors came closer the blue lights would bathe them, or when out of nowhere the lights shut down and only left lower ones on, so that the floor turned darker and a different mood was created, overall the lights were just amazing. I didnt fully understand the play, if there was a sort of objective meaning anyways, but still found it interesting to watch, for it was a change from all of the other more conventional types of theatrical performance.

What is the relationship between dance and acting? did one influence the other, or are they totally different types of performance that sprung independently?

One of the most interesting things we did this week was to try and give sense to the play as it is and express our vision of it. Obviously it was quite challenging to create a vision after the play has been made, because a vision usually would come before the play is created, and with that vision we start shaping the play as we see fit. But what we realized as we discussed in class is that theory usually comes AFTER practice, and not the other way around, thus our vision, even if created after the play had already been started, is valid. When we talked about who and what a protagonist was, we concluded that a protagonist was the character which made the biggest effort to get what he wanted, there needed to be an object or goal that he had to make a certain amount of effort to get. But is there only one kind of protagonist? I mean, if there was a play about a character which did nothing, yet things happened to him without any kind of effort, would he still be a protagonist? I think there can be different types of protagonists, and we can only create a sort of "profile" of a protagonist depending on the most frequent one we see in plays within our context and society. I presonally think that a protagonist can be the character who's actions have the biggest impact on the overall development of the story, he can have a goal or object to get to, or simply just a bystander of circumnstances that change him/her and therefore taking their story to another direction. I havent seen many plays where I can easily identify the protagonist, I mean apart form children's stories and plays which are REALLY obvious, the protagonist seems to unfold throughout the play and at some point we realize that he /she actually is the protagonist, I preffer them to be that way, for the character to change, and be shaped, rather than staying on a flat position and not changing much. That is, i realized, what I look for in a play the development of characters in situations, for I find un-changing characters quite boring.

Can there be more than one protagonist in a play? what if there are parallel sotries with two "protagonists" whos stories merge at some point?

This week we had to include metaphor, synecdoche and metonymy in our blogs, so here it goes. I see our play as being a metaphor itself, its like saying "this play is Kabuki" when in reality we should be saying "this play is like Kabuki", because a metaphor is a comparison without the "like" part, it just is. This is due to the fact that our play, from the start, was destined to be only a vague approximation to Kabuki, and not Kabuki itself, for it wouldve been impossible to have real kabuki play (actors take almost half a lifetime mastering the technique). I realized that usually, most people who watch a play only comment on the actors performances and by their appreciation of their performances they qualify and critizise the play, but in fact the play is much more than that, they are reffering only to a part of the whole, because actors, even if they are deemed by some as one of the most important parts of theatre, are still only one of the many elements that compose it. Only when one gets an insight into how plays are actually done is when we realize how important the stage design is, and that in fact, acting is only a small part compared to all of the elements of stage design, like SFX, LFX, costumes, props, scenery and makeup. So if we were to make a comparison, acting would only be the bones in an arm, still important, but not as complex as all the other elements that make it up. And trying to look outside the box a bit, i realized the word theatre is actually a metonymy, because the word "theatre" itself only means "a building with a stage and audience seating for performances", so everytime someone refers to "going to the theatre" they actually mean they are going to see a play performance. The word "theatre" acts as a substitution for play because of common association in our society. So there it is, a blog including all three terms required, quite restrictive in terms of flow of ideas really.


Could there be a working play without actors? like only with the playing of lights and sound?

When we were having our class with Pilar on Friday, she talked about how actors try to get back to the way their bodies were when they were infants, like going back to a blank canvas so we can build something from scratch. But not only because its an un-altered version of our body, but because our natural behaviour when we breathe, and move is present when were young, and is lost gradually as we pay less importance to it. Why are we humans the only living specimen which gradually loses its natural body/breathing faculty? because animals always have a certain body movement as they breathe, usually a movement of the spine, which then has repercussions on other parts of their body, but we humans seem to forget it. Its probably due to the fact that we are shifting, with progress, from being a physically driven species to a more intellectually driven one, which does not need of the everyday physical tuning to survive any more. Thus it is the job of the actor to try and go back and retrace our steps to get back to that initial way of being, that mere physicality where body is mind, and vice versa, to reach that ultimate state of expression where ideas are as physical as they are psychological. And once we get to that "empty canvas" state, the possibilities are endless, which is, in my opinion the ultimate goal of the actor, and not only to reach that state but to be able to go back and forth from it, to be dynamic. So this leads me to question if performers which are not dynamic can really be called "actors" I mean if they only represent one personality, or slight variations of it in different plays or occasions, they're still just working from the same mould, changing superficial aspects but not the core itself. Obviously there are many different approaches to acting, and none can be deemed as invalid, yet I feel strongly that this particular method is the one that makes the most sense, and that sets a clear (and difficult) goal to achieve personal success in the profession.

Is part of the thrill of watching an actor perform the fact that we get to see that long lost version of how we used to be in their physical work? 

P.D. 

(Im still developing the Craig / Appia blog, which will probably be in next weekend or during the coming week)