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?