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?