ENERGY

 This week has been “Puppets” week, we use all the skills and energy we learned just to do puppets in every single moment we could. We finish joining the pieces of the body, of the big puppets, which Manu took lots of time to do them and then we were filling them with cotton, until one of them broke, we had to paste them with the “Africano” which we are all addicted to now, and we mostly did a lot of puppets. But what I want to center my entry about is the two plays we went to see this weekend: “Mades Medus” and “Mas pequeños que el Guggenheim”.

First of all “Mades Medus” had a really  “thinker” storyline, as it was not easy to understand and it was very complex. In order to transmit the message they wanted to transmit to the audience, which I think it might be the “paradoxes”, they would have had to use the setting and acting in a different way.

First of all, we all agree that at some point the play was boring to see, this was because the actions in the play were not continuous and did not attract the audience’s attention. Even though their entrance was really interesting as they were one on top of the other one and it catch our attention, not only because they were in an acrobatic way, but because of their actions and movements. It started with a really nice energy and very catchy until they starting talking and until the plot started developing. The energy never reduced as the actors were always motivated and never loosing energy (in my opinion) but in this case the actions and the acting did not work well with the script, as they used the typical prototype of “funny and silly characters” with “difficult and complex script”, this they usually use to “make the scrip interesting” but instead of doing this, they opaque the script.

I personally think that the script was really difficult to understand, and even though  the script was made to transmit controversies and knowledge, it did not made sense at all. If we might talk about the setting I might say that it was really “cheap”, as they didn’t use the colors well and the setting was very poor, as the costumes and make-up, we could even see the make up going out and leaving pieces of the actors skin uncover, which gave the impression of unimportance. Also even though on a stage you do not need too much props to make the play interesting, in this play the props were used in such a poor way, that it was not catchy, and so instead of helping the actor it disturb him.

We also have “Más pequeños que el Guggenheim”, which was the second play we went to see. This play was a comedy and it was just amazing, somehow it made Robbie stand up, so we can agree that it was outstanding. This play made me laugh through all of it, and on the contrary as the previous one I did not get bored.

This play started and ended with the same energy, but what made it different?, first of all the plot and the storyline, as it was simple but not “cheap”. It was easy to understand and follow, which made the audience even more interested. Also they used a really “informal language”, (bad words, I would say), but instead of making the play vulgar, it made it funny, and enjoyable. We couldn’t take our eyes off the play. The acting was just great, every single actor had its different type of walking, speaking and expressing, which showed how much work in characterization they did. Which I may say, that it showed that they worked a lot in that, and was with this that they gain the audience attention. They even danced, and even though the dancing in plays tend to be a little be childish and boring, in this one, it end up being a master piece, with more laughter and attention from the audience.

I haven’t enjoy a play this much since a long time ago, as we are cursed from the “analysis” point of view every time we go and watch a play. But this one made my mind flew away and unconsciously I was analyzing but at the same time enjoying the play.

We can say that in both of them the energy of the actors was very high and well developed, but what made it different? Why was one play more interesting that the other one?, and I think that it is because of the script. So in a conclusion I can say that if it is difficult to understand and the acting is “funny” so that it “makes it interesting” then it won’t grab the audience attention. If the script is easy to understand and the actions are well developed as well as the characterization, then here we will gain full attention of the audience. But would this work for every script? Or just special ones as the last play we saw? How can we get into such a deep and well developed characters? What does it take? How can we know which jokes can work and which ones won’t? Is it a risk to take? Any steps to get there?