The Tusday on USURA DRAMA WEEK, we went to watch a spanish play called Divina Palabras, which practically was a Giberish for me. I understood NOTHING. However, I did like the play, but yet again, up to one moment on which the play just was too much for me, the lost my atention.
Story Plot: ...what I understood is that some reddish hair was having an afair with some guy. And someone die and the family was fighting for the earinngs of the dead...but more thant that...nothing.
Performance of the Actors: meen! the actors /actresses were great! they had control of they body 100%. They could perform any kind of acrobacia. And as a matter of fact, I saw the play more in the idea of beauty of movement. For example, I loved the stand of the women, all women stood with the right toes up and hands in hips. And I also loved and think was very rescueABLE, the voices and characterisation of the character. Every character had a different voice, stand, movements etc. But I got confuse whenever the actor changed roll, since the outfit really changed much (or like the face of the actor stayed the same, so I thought it was the same character but dressed up differently).
Bellatrix!: the actress that looked like bellatrix (harry potter) was the oscar winner in this play. She created this character that was sort of a creature with a very squicky voice. and she also acted as a lady. and when I realized it was the same actress I was shocked. That was impossible! good versability.
Scenery: the toillet paper rolls were great! I think every body liked the rools used as tables, wheel barrows, towers etc. It was a very creative way of creating different setting witout saying them explictly, HOWEVER, the bad things about this things is that they rolled all over the place. There where 2 times that the rolls went out of controls and the actors had to improv. in order to prevent them to fall from the stage.
Narration: every scene change, a character came in front and talked (whcih I didn't get) and I supposed that they said something about what happened or ..what is happening.
Temptation: the most amazing part of the play was, the temptation. The Actors where semi naked and they made this cool dance that everyone ending up loving. This shows that doing things that look difficult for tha audicen is a very effective technique in order to impress them. However, this distracted the whole idea of temptation, as the audience payer atention to the acrobatics that the actors were doign a the background, the main action of the ginger head and the man was completely ignored.
Outfit, The outfit of the play will help sandri in the making of the outfits for our own play, specially I think for the outfits of the Aceitunas.
In conclusion, characterisation is very important, however, sometimes making funny noices / voices might not allow the audience to get what you were trying to say. Also, the scenery for this play was very simple but very effective, and ours is more explicit, there is a palace a tower and a hill. So, what is better!? to show a table!? or to use somehting else and let the audience think it is a table? how much do props have to be the actual thing we need?! and finally!? is text effective in a play!? upto wahte extend?! sometimes text ruins the play (e.g this play, since I didn't understand a word)
Story Plot: ...what I understood is that some reddish hair was having an afair with some guy. And someone die and the family was fighting for the earinngs of the dead...but more thant that...nothing.
Performance of the Actors: meen! the actors /actresses were great! they had control of they body 100%. They could perform any kind of acrobacia. And as a matter of fact, I saw the play more in the idea of beauty of movement. For example, I loved the stand of the women, all women stood with the right toes up and hands in hips. And I also loved and think was very rescueABLE, the voices and characterisation of the character. Every character had a different voice, stand, movements etc. But I got confuse whenever the actor changed roll, since the outfit really changed much (or like the face of the actor stayed the same, so I thought it was the same character but dressed up differently).
Bellatrix!: the actress that looked like bellatrix (harry potter) was the oscar winner in this play. She created this character that was sort of a creature with a very squicky voice. and she also acted as a lady. and when I realized it was the same actress I was shocked. That was impossible! good versability.
Scenery: the toillet paper rolls were great! I think every body liked the rools used as tables, wheel barrows, towers etc. It was a very creative way of creating different setting witout saying them explictly, HOWEVER, the bad things about this things is that they rolled all over the place. There where 2 times that the rolls went out of controls and the actors had to improv. in order to prevent them to fall from the stage.
Narration: every scene change, a character came in front and talked (whcih I didn't get) and I supposed that they said something about what happened or ..what is happening.
Temptation: the most amazing part of the play was, the temptation. The Actors where semi naked and they made this cool dance that everyone ending up loving. This shows that doing things that look difficult for tha audicen is a very effective technique in order to impress them. However, this distracted the whole idea of temptation, as the audience payer atention to the acrobatics that the actors were doign a the background, the main action of the ginger head and the man was completely ignored.
Outfit, The outfit of the play will help sandri in the making of the outfits for our own play, specially I think for the outfits of the Aceitunas.
In conclusion, characterisation is very important, however, sometimes making funny noices / voices might not allow the audience to get what you were trying to say. Also, the scenery for this play was very simple but very effective, and ours is more explicit, there is a palace a tower and a hill. So, what is better!? to show a table!? or to use somehting else and let the audience think it is a table? how much do props have to be the actual thing we need?! and finally!? is text effective in a play!? upto wahte extend?! sometimes text ruins the play (e.g this play, since I didn't understand a word)
Good entry, though you could have made a deeper analysis of the aspects you commented, in terms of trying to find out WHY something worked and HOW they made it work. Interesting final questions.
ReplyDeleteRoberto