From Order to chaos and from chaos to order

Description:

This week we improved a lot our concept for our Paucartambo performance that will be taking place soon. We had a story and now that has changed along with our acting concept.

Analysis:

Our story, was that the students were going to steal the school and create ‘order’, therefore our concept was from order to chaos. But this week, we changed this; instead of the students stealing the school, he thought of a more well-known problem that we have, and that students complain a lot about: the kiosk. We always complain of how the prices always risde, the ‘milanesa’ started from 3 soles I think and now it’s 5, everything is expensive in the kiosk, and we always complain about it, therefore we thought of making the Paucartambo performance according to this social problem. We tried to stick to the previous idea, of a three-day performance, and so we did. We decided that in the first day: we will see the kiosk selling stuff and us (maybe as qollas), complaining about the rising prices, just like the guerrilla that they had billboards saying: ‘conga si va’ we could have some of that saying ‘Salim baja los precios!’, then in the second day we could have the qollas stealing the kiosk and the third day the qollas with the kiosk throwing all the food to everyone.  We decided that that is going to be our plot, but what took us most of the was the place that our performance was going to take place.

We thought of Churchill, we thought of the advantages and the disadvantages, the advantages we thought were: It has a big space, It is in the middle of the field, so everyone can see it, we could do the ‘bosque’ on top of the theatre. But the biggest disadvantage this place has is that maybe it is too big, as we are only 7 actors we were wondering if it would be a good idea to do it there, because what if not many people comes to see? Then it will look empty and so therefore boring and not attractive. We tried to solve this problem by thinking of the many possibilities there could be to attract the audience, we thought of just before the break maybe the maqtas (if we use those) can go with their waracas and attract the audience, or maybe just run through the field with the boards attracting people. But still we thought of another place.

The kiosk, where the kiosk is placed on top of the infirmary, everyone said it was too small, and personally I also thought that, but after the class finished, I went there, and it turned out that it wasn’t THAT small, and it even has places where we can do the bosque, and we don’t have to make a kiosk as there is one already there. The space is big and we even have sticks to place our big sign that is going to say: ‘WELCOME TO PAUCARTAMBO’S FESTIVAL’. I think that the best place to make the performance is there.

Also we thought about using the real Salim in our performance as we are going to kidnap him, it would be more interesting to the audience, but Salim didn’t want to, we are still going to try to persuade him to act. I personally think that having salim acting will be of a great help to attract the audience, as the audience is always attracted by a character that is already known, in this case Salim.

At the end our acting concept is going to be from chaos to order, and from order to chaos. This means that at the beginning there is ‘order’ for the kiosk as everything is on its place, but it is a chaos for us as the prices keep going up, but by the third day this changes as it turns for the kiosk into a chaos as everything is disorganized, but it turns into an order for us, as now there is ‘balance’ in the prices of the products, as we are all getting free food, on consequences of the high prices we were paying.

Connections:

So how do we came to do this ‘play’ that It’s not even finished?, we had to think of many different things to try to do it as well as possible so that it can work, but one of our main issues was on how to attract the audience. Because let’s be realistic, if I have a play, in front of me but I also need to go and eat my lunch, I will definitely prefer to eat rather than to see a performance. In the normal plays, such as La falsa criada, La mancha, La cocina, and all the other plays we have seen, we go to the theatre to see the play, they do not attract us, they just do the normal advertising but then you PAY for the performance and you NEED to see it as you have already pay for it, but in this case it’s different as it has no cost and the audience choose whether to see it or not, it is not even similar to the real festival, as you go to Paucartambo in July JUST TO SEE the festival, and you actually pay for it, in your trip: the plane, the car that take you to the town, you are actually paying to see it, but in our case, the students will not pay to enter the school, they don’t even know what Paucartambo is or what the festival is.

Reflexion:

So how to attract the audience?  By our acting? And what if they just don’t care?, then they will just leave, I think that in this case, only the people that really want to see it, will stay and enjoy our performance and the ones that are not interested, then they will just leave. But then what effect do we want to create for the people that want to see us? Do we want to let them be aware of the existence of a festival call la Virgen del Carmen and that’s what we want to transmit? Because if we would want that, then we can just do a power point presentation and a little video we took from there and done. So no, what do we want to transmit? Is it just to show that we can do a play? Is it just for the Ib subject? Because as far as I know, this doesn’t count as part of the subject, because Roberto won’t help us, it is up to us to do it or not. Maybe this is just to prove ourselves that we can make a performance on our own and we can work as a team, but still we have to have something to transmit, maybe it is just the idea of the kiosk and that we want to do a ‘revolution’ talking about the high prices, but no-one would do anything about it. The kiosk won’t lower their prices, so for what are we doing this? Would we discover this on our process? What do we want to create on our audience? What do we want to truly transmit and that will teach our audience something in someway?

Paucartambo

Description: this week we talked about Paucartambo performance and the PPP that we will be doing at the end of the year.

Analysis: We started the Paucartambo structure in order to make the performance, we started with a stimuli, as always, we did a mental map and tried to figure out a social problem as Felipe told us to start there, so we ended up with our problems and problems of the rest, we focused on the conflicts of the society, of our problems and of the problems of the rest. We needed to focus on something that the school will link to, so we decided of a conflict, that the students would take the school as their own, we were planning on play with this idea of "Yo" and "the others", so we visualize, 3 acts, for three days, the first day, the"yo" could be the teachers and the headmasters, that could be played by the Maqtas, these are supposed to create order, but they are the one that messes everything, so similar to this, the teachers and headmastes, that are supposed to create the order, create the chaos, they could shout, and make a lot of chaos. In the second day, the students could take the school, we didn't thought much of the characters, but i think that the students could be the Qollas, as they are funny, and entertaining. And on the third day, could be all organized by the students. This took us to the concept: from chaos to order, which made us thought of "Pachakuti", which is when everything is upside down, like the play we want to do, that the teachers that are supposed to make the order, make the chaos and the students make the order.

Connectors: We tried to choose everything thinking on the audience, we want to make a clear performance in order for them to understand, and to get entertained at the same time. Like our One act play, we wanted to entertained the audience, and for me that was our main achievement, "where we wanted to get", and we did as everyone enjoyed the one act play, so we want to do the same for the Paucartambo performance, but in this case we have lots of limits, as we already have the "characters" settle, we cannot add characters as that would be breaking one of the most important conventions. This also made me think about La Falsa criada, which we never understood which was its purpose? and where did it wanted to get?, we definitely don't want that to happen to any of our plays, therefore we need to have a clear concept and a target, in this case, to get very similar to Paucartambo, but to entertained everyone, and to make sure everyone understands.

Reflections: we need to make sure that we all have a same target, in order to focus and to get where we want to get, not like our one act play, that for us our target was to entertained where for Roberto was to develop a lot more our characters, which, we agreed on a beginning but then we forgot, and we develop to a certain extend, but still the play was well done, and everyone liked it, so do we really need to follow a target in order to make the play interesting? or we can do just like our one act play, which, we put effort, a lot of energy in the final performance, but out target was like all the plays target: to entertain, so do we really need to have another target? or is this just because the IB tell us to? Because we have prooven that we do not need to get where we wanted to get in order to make a good play, so then what is the point of triyng to get somewhere? if we already want just to entertain?

Play analysis

Description: This week we talked about "La falsa criada" we were looking for the things that worked and didn't worked. We talked about the acting and what they wanted to achieve. We were learning about analyzing a play, and we analyse La falsa criada.

Analysis: First of all there are steps in order to analyse a play, every analysis should have:
1. Acting:

• body, voice and face expression, the use of space and design elements, styles and techniques, energy and stage presence, response to every action, intentions and characterization, timing and rhythm.

2. Design: 

• scenery and scene changes, make-up, props. music and SFX, lighting, costumes and masks and puppets.

3. Structure:

• Plot or story, settings, order and duration of scenes, characters and their objectives, conflict and climax, beginnings and endings and perspectives.

Starting with acting in La falsa criada; I personally think there was a lack of body and voice characterization/expression, "El varon" wasn't that different from the girl, the voice could have change a lot more, and the body expressions, the varon more as a men: the way of walking, expressing, etc and the girl with a more feminine way of walking, sitting, talk, etc. The condesa for example, was a wrong character, as it didn't fixed with the play and with the type of condesa that the play was asking for, the play needed a more voluminous women, taller, with a refine but strong voice, the voice she used was 'fake', and it didn't fit the play, the script was for a much 'big' condesa, also for a much younger, and we had, an 'old', fake and little condesa. I think these two where the two characters that more needed characterization, they needed to work a lot more on their characters, and how do they interact. In my opinion everything in this play was forced, the use of the space and the levels they tried to use on stage, where to fake, the actions they did, and the response between the character. They needed to say the lines in one way or another and so they put the actions, just so the public does not get bored. The rhythm, was ok, meaning that it was enough in order so the public doesn't get bored. In the design part, the scenery was poor and there was  no colour scheme, they mixed old stuff with modern stuff, which made no sense and gave the play less coherence. There was not much make-up, they could have use way more for the condesa, to make her younger, but they didn't. The costume was too 'cheap' even though it looked good, this didn't had a colour scheme neither. So on stage it did not look good, didn't made sense. The music was the worst thing in the play, the music didn't match the story or the actions that the actors where doing, specially at the end, when the Varon turned into a girl, the background music did not have any coherence at all. The structure of the play, was ok, they knew their lines and the script was a very nice scrip, even though, maybe it was not for our times, the duration was of 40 min each act, there were 2 acts. The conflict and climax, were not well developed, as the actions and the actors did not helped to develop this. Every play has a perspective, this means that through one character's eyes is that we are watching the play, but in this play, through which character was the play from? Because all the story is from the point of the Varon but it ends with the tragic bad luck of The condesa, this makes no sense, as through all the story we've been looking of the importance of el varon to finally end with a secondary character been the center of attention and the principal, as secondary.

Connections: We try to think a lot from who was the perspective in this play, and we ended up with 'there was no perspective', and therefore the play did not had coherence at all. For example, in our one at play, the perception was through the dead's eyes, and there is where our concept comes from, dead is at the centre and life is at the top, meaning that dead is the centre of attention, and therefore all the play flows around him. Not like La falsa criada that did not had neither a perspective or a concept. Even Vedova in Lumine which was the worst play ever, had a perspective, and a very strong one, so strong and clear, that there was just ONE actress and the rest were puppets, and these puppets were controlled by these actress. 

Refletion: Most of the plays have a perspective, but La falsa criada didn't which made the play even worst that already was, this means that the perspective is very important for the plays, but to what extend is it important? is it because La falsa criada did not had a perspective that didn't worked?, what if we fix, all the acting mistakes, and the design mistakes and everything but we do not have a perspective, will it be a good play? what if in our one act play our perspective was from the good wife, or the bad wife, or the priest, or the doctor, I think it will change the whole story, it will go around many other stories and be VERY long, so long that it will bored the audience as it will not focus on the purpose of the play, but what was La falsa criada's purpose? did it had a purpose? maybe the important thing is the purpuse of the play? So in order to be a good play it has to have a purpose and achieve the purpose? what was our purpose? did we had a purpose? and if we did, did we achieved it? and if we didn't then our one act play was a non-useful play?

A Matter of Dissection

Description: this week we presented the one act play, and after this we analysed the good and bad things about it, and how we could improve it.

Analysis: We practices before the one act play, we went to Hiram Bingam, and practice on stage, we tried improving some things such as; the rhythm of the play, as it had to be more quickly because it had to be dynamic, and also some actions we had, we add at the beginning a choreography,  with a background sound. The day of the play, we also practiced, but we didn't expect much, as we didn't practice a lot and we didnt put all of our effort into the performances. We never had everything ready to perform and we only had ONE performance with all the play but with many errors, we didnt had all the props, not even the day of the performance, the mustache of Mateo arrived that same day, and because of this we had problems with the mustache as it fall various times, because we did not rehearse with the mustache before, so we didn't know if it would work or not. Luckily for us we had time to prepare the stage, before performing, as the Markham school was not available to perform that day, we prepare our stage, and we acted. I did not expected much of the play, but we all put a lot of effort, to keep the "newton school" name clear. We stay in silence and concentrate, and it went good, and better than expected, I think this happened because we finally worked as a group, we had a talk backstage and we united our selves and concentrate, we even helped each other with the changes (thing we didnt did before), and we keep quite on the back, we tried to do everything Roberto told us, all the feedback and all the practices, the work, the staying lots of days; we tried to make it worth it, and we put all of our selves, we believed our characters, and we got into the characters. Everyone liked the play, they screamed, they clap hard,. they laugh at out jokes and even at our mistakes. 

Connection and Reflexion: The opinion of everyone were very enthusiastic and they liked a lot our play, they congratulate us, and they compared our plays with the other ones, and the common comments were: the other ones, were horrible because we could not understand, we could not hear them, and they didn't had movements, the story was boring, the scenery didn't match the story, there was no colour scheme, they had many props, but they did not use none of them, and the acting was slow and therefore boring. They didn't follow what a play must have, as always, compared to other one act plays that other schools made years before, newton's plays is always better, but why? Because we try to make the play interest, and we prepare, we speak clear and loud (at least try to), we try to have as many movements and actions as possible (as theatre is about action), we try to make it dynamic and as quick as possible to make it more interest. The audience like so much our plays that they even laugh at our mistakes, as the stefano one, that the boob fall and he improvise so good that many people asked me if that was a mistake, or if it was plann, how can someone be so good in improvising that they even belief that?, why does the audience like SO much our plays, because it is really good made or is it because they are used to it?, that the newton theatre group is really good?, or not even that, why is the audience so open to us and so close to the other ones?, is it really because they are horrible made? and ours is very good?, or is it that they are too used to the idea of us been the good ones and them been the bad ones?

Play review: La Falsa Criada

The play: “La falsa criada”, was written by Pierre Carlet Chamblain de Marivaux, and it was directed by Alberto Isola. This play was a about a girl “El Baron”, by Alejandra Guerra, “Lelio” by Leonardo Torres Vilar, “Trivelino” by Miguel Iza, “Frontino” by Akberick Garcia, “Arquelino” by Christia Ysla and “La condesa” by Norma Martinez.

This play was about a girl, that is about to get married, with someone she doesn’t know, and she founds this guy in a party and she was dressed as a boy, he saw his future husband with another women, and in order to safe his heritance and the money she was going to give him, she decides to stay as a men and be his friend and discover his secrets.

In my opinion the main important purpose for this play was to introduce a new way of making the play, as this play is very popular, I think the director wanted to propose a new way of making and acting this play. I think that the game in this play was the change of character within one actor which is “ El baron”, as he is a girl dressed as a boy, and how she changes her character so spontaneously.

The voice and intonation used in this play was really well-used as the voices changed in order to distinguish the different characters, specially “El Baron”, that as it was at sometimes a girl and at some others a boy, the voice had to change a lot.

Regarding the scenery, It was very simple, it had 3 walls, they were fixed. The one in the back had a door, and the only thing that changed in the scenery were the little things, such as the chairs, the fountain, and those little things that the stage had. The scenery was very simple, as it didn’t had many changes, I think that they just changed in the change of acts.

The costume, in this play, was very important, because at the end  El Baron changes costume in front of the audience. Showing her really identity. The costume was old costume, with big long dresses and fancy suits. I think that the costume in this particularly play, was a very important element, as it changed the characters, because of the plot of this play. Also the music, it gave the play a m0ore interest way of watching it, but in my opinion,  some of the music in this play didn’t match the actions the characters were doing, for example, when “El Baron” finally takes of the ‘men costume’ there is this song, and I like the effect that this makes but the music in this part was ‘out of place’.

They used ‘still pictures’, specially in the end, when the girl changes and takes out the costume to reveal the truth, every other character stays in still picture, which gives the scene a very interesting and original action. As it just lights the action that is the most important.

In a conclusion, this play makes a new and interesting way of making the play, by the use of still pictures, the costumes, the actions, the characters, and the scenery.