This has been a relatively short week,as we've only  had three Theatre periods, in which we basically tried to analyse the feedback we had gotten from the play, and try to reach conclusions in terms of what could've been improved on the play.

Firstly, one of the major problems was that even though people seemed to enjoy the play, they didn't understand our game, and were confused by it instead of encouraged. This was apparently due to the fact that every time the audience changed point of views, the perspective through which they saw the characters changed as well, so this constant need for the audience to re-adjust their understanding of who is who, and why their character is seeing another in a different way than the previous scene. This left the audience without constant elements to grab on to, patterns changed to rapidly for them to create a clear structure of what was happening, it didn't allow for coherence to form in their experience.

So our game was too ambitious, we should've only changed the point of view, and not the perspectives, that way the audience would grasp the concept more easily, as it is simpler to understand, that you change character every scene. But the big problem was that the whole changing perspective vs. dimensions and characteristics of the characters was paramount in terms of expressing the idea of power and control. So that  would not have been an effective solution, as a big part of the message we were trying to transmit would be lost. Other ways of improving the play were to add a narrator for example, to sort of guide the audience through what was about to happens, reminding them the nature of the game they were about to experience. A narrator strictly under those terms, as in it would not be involved in telling the story, but only to guide the audience and prepare them for an experience they might not be able to enjoy if not prepared. This last solutions seemed the only feasible one, since others like, projecting what the audience should say once they are spoken to, were not practical, and it would make it too blatantly obvious for the audience to understand what was happening. If the audience need not become involved in what he/she is seeing to understand it, then it becomes boring, there is no challenge, we would be spoon-feeding them.

The other solution was in terms of the script, given that most of our audience isn't English speaking, and some can only handle very simple English, then the script should have been simplified, firstly in terms of terms and words we use, such as minions instead of servants or pawns, and also in terms of making the interactions between the audience's character and the ones on stage more obvious, and to establish who said character is from the get go, so that they are not confused for half the scene to then understand who it really is and have to trace back everything they've just seen in order to understand why things are portrayed the way they are.

All this would help the audience become more easily adapted to the game, and for them to perceive and experience the play in the way we intended for them to experience it.

If due to some technical issue or some mistake in terms of acting or scenery, or even if a single mispronounced word changes the direction in which the plot is left to continue, and the audience get a completely different experience than what was intended, is the play considered to be a failure?

In art, sometimes artist intention is said to be irrelevant, and once the work is published or publicly shown it is completely open to interpretation.