This Wednesday we saw the play "Hebras" in the school theatre performed by the theatre group "Cuer2".

This wasn't the first time I saw the play, but certainly, by seeing it again, different things emerged which I had not been able to give sense to before. I used to have a more objective view of the play, given that there are two "characters" which seem to be involved in a power struggle, I used to think that the play was about the relationship between two people, and how humans always want to be able to control what's around them. But this time, it wasnt so.

One of the things I missed last time, and that shaped my understanding of the play in a different way this time, is the fact that the characters seem to merge at the end, they join and become entangled. That could be interpreted as two parts of a single thing, instead of two different beings.
The fact that they seem to go on a loop, or that each seems to be a mirror image of each other also helps prove this point, because it reinforces the idea of them being the same, and we all tend to fall into the same patterns over and over again.
And also the fact that they had bandages is evidence of some sort of wound, or in this case some sort of violent separation, that seemed to have occurred before.

So these things changed my point of view of the play from a play a bout a relationship between two people, and the power struggle involved, to a play which shows our internal struggle, and how everyone has more than one side to him/her.

Apart from my understanding of the whole performance, one of the things I really enjoyed about the play was the physical work. Regardless of meaning, intention or context. The way the bodies interacted and the mastery of the body is something that I instantaneously appreciated. As well as the music, which seemed to fit in perfectly with the performance.

An observation I had from the performance was that people started clapping when there was a fade-out of lights on the actors, but the musician's light was still on, which meant the play wasn't over yet. This may have been because there were some people who couldnt see the musicians because they were facing the other  way, and so when they started clapping, a chain reaction occurred, leading to the premature clapping.

La cura en Troya

Is theatre ever complete without the illusion it creates? If all the elements are there, but lacks the illusion, is it still theatre?

The play being reviewed is called "La cura en Troya" directed by Jorge Guerra performed at "Centro Cultural de la Universidad Catolica". The play is an adaptation of a play written by Seamus Heaney, an Irish Poet, which is based on the classic play "Philoctetes" by Sophocles.

In theatre, there is usually an illusion, which transports the audience to a fictional space, where the play occurs. This however, is critical to the audience in order to have a certain level of credibility towards what they are seeing, a fictional credibility if you will, and if this illusion isn't present, then the play wont work at all.

This is what I felt when seeing this play, because even if all the other elements where coherent to some extent, the lack of this credibility made me lose concentration on what I was watching.

One of the things that I felt uneasy about at first, and made me lose this credibility was the constant mention of an island, to make the audience believe that the play was happening on an island (Lemnos), but there was no hint whatsoever on stage that would give the impression of an island, and words themselves are not enough to actually create the illusion. To me the scenery were just white square columns to each side, and that was basically it. So by me not believing the setting of the play, everything else just didn't seem believable, it was like seeing characters act in the middle of nowhere for no apparent reason.

Another element that broke this illusion was the fact that at one point in the play, a table was put on stage, with two chairs. Given that the whole play was supposedly set on ancient times, and the costumes were all (except one) classic, I expected the table to be a bit rustic, or resembling that era, but instead it was a "Cafe table" and the chairs were also quite modern. So this clash between eras confused me a bit, and had me thinking. Usually these things have a purpose, but if there was one this time, it didn't get through. At least for me as an audience member. And the same can be said for the costume of Odysseus, which was that of a contemporary Yacht owner, and clashed against all the other costumes, which resembled Greek times.

Perhaps, these two elements, the lack of setting and the apparent incoherence of certain costume and scenery elements made everything that came after just seem far fetched, or that just didn't fit.

For example, at one part, an image of a volcano is projected on a long panel on the top of the stage, and the voice of Hercules is heard, while the actors remain still. It might be just personal taste, but firstly, the animation just didn't seem to fit the quite basic scenery and empty space, because it was detail-rich, and really contrasted the stage. So I think that the projection was if anything, unnecessary, because just the voice would've been enough, and would make more sense in terms of simplicity than a short video.

It seemed like a steep slope, where the first little mistake turned into increasingly larger consequences. The lack of setting gave in to a lack of credibility, which made almost anything that came after, slightly bogus. That, plus certain ideas that might not have come through to the audience, like the nature of Odysseus's costume, or the modern table just killed the Illusion for me. I was just seeing actors perform on a stage, not characters living on an island.

In my opinion, the play itself wasn't bad at all, I think that if the illusion had been created, everything else, would've had that underlying coherence that the play lacked. The acting was satisfactory, but again, if the setting was clearer, the acting would've just blended perfectly, because at times, even if i thought the acting was doing OK, the lack of setting made it look artificial. Compared to other plays weve seen this year, its fair to say that this one had a lot of potential to be an overall good play, but due to lack of certain elements, it just didn't work fully.

It is important to lure the spectator into a work of art, so that it can soak in and create some sort of reaction. The spectator shouldn't feel the obligation to make an effort to understand art, rather, let art guide him through an experience.

Script-making is something we never really learnt or practised throughout most of the drama course at school, and only became a concern this  year, while trying to make our plays, Split and Dystopia. Since little to no theory  about the script-making process was presented to us before writing the scripts, all we had to rely on was plays we'd seen or we had read, to have a vague idea of how it worked. First of all, the idea, or concept has to be clear, in order to know what to aim for. Then the outline of a story, or an already existing one, to be the vessel of this idea or concept we had previously chosen. After these two steps are clear, starting to focus on the characters may be a good idea, because when understanding the characters, and their intentions, the script will start flowing easily, rather than just leaving character development behind, and use them as excuses for the play to happen. For example, in the play "Fiesta de cumpleaños" we saw the other day, the actors didnt seem to understand their characters, thus it didn't really work, but im sure that another director, or acting group could take the exact same script and make a better job. After that, in terms of script the remaining process is free, and very dependant of the play and the approach the director decides to take. For example a consistent style, or certain patterns that are repeated throughout scenes, are completely dependant of each play. But in most plays at least, it is important no to be too direct, or objective with what you writ on the script, some of the meaning has to be given to it by pauses, intonation, or situations, so being a bit more abstract with what you write could potentially have a greater impact on the audience, and the play itself. Research is also helpful in the creation of the script, that way you can have a background of different playwrights and their style, or ways of writing, etc.

A playwright may have his ideas about characters, and write with certain tone of voice in mind, in order to give a specific effect. But once the play is published, it is totally open to interpretation. How can a certain boundary be set by the playwright?

40 le ?!?

Last monday we went to Larcomar to watch "Fiesta de cumpleaños" a play written by Harold Pinter.
When I entered the theatre, the stage was dimly lit, so that the whole scenery was visible, and my first impression was quite good, for it looked quite good, with the windows to the side, and the double-height roof, the old wallpaper, I thought it was a promising play. (Also due to the fact that the ticket costed 40 soles, a part of me wanted this play to be promising) And so the play started, with a relatively old couple living in the house having breakfast. The first thing that made me realize that something wasn't working was the volume of the voices, which was extremely low and was difficult to keep up with what they were saying, and a little boring too. If at first it may have seemed an effect to reflect the quiet nature of a cozy morning, any regular morning, started becoming too frequent, and throughout the play the volume of the voices was almost consistently too low. One thing I quite liked was the vagueness of the lines, conversation which were not relevant in themselves, but more interesting in their subtext. The use of pauses, at first, like the volume, may have worked as an effect, in this case to make the audience fill in the blanks with subtext, and create a bit of tension, but again, the extensive uses of these pauses made it painful to keep watching the play, because they created an enormously dense and monotonous atmosphere. Then, as the play progressed, it was more and more difficult to understand what was actually happening, and I don't blame it on the text, I think it was the fault of the actors, because they did not really transmit what they were trying to say with their intonation and way of expressing themselves, and due to the lack of this hinting, the audience was left with no material in order to speculate or recognize any consistent flow in the subtext. I dont think its very important to analyse every character in this play, because most of them dont deserve individual criticism , as a whole, it didnt work. The only character which I found interesting in terms of the characterisation was Meg, the old lady, which had obviously worked with the voice and physicality to convey her character. Also, the scenery, mixed with the costumes created a somewhat flat ambient, because the colours were alike, and nothing really stood out, it was a combination of opaque colours, which could've been good if it had something to highlight, or if the play itself gave sense to it through the plot or acting, but it didn't, which made it even more dull to watch.
It was certainly the worse play I've seen so far this year (excluding one-act play performances)

Is it possible to get to an agreement wether a play was good or bad, if the play relies heavily on subtext? Because in that case, different audience members could arrive at different conclusions which affect their perspective of the play. Making it different for almost everyone.