Fire Burning - Sean Kingston

Friday 2nd

Today we went to watch a play that was somewhat an Opera. It was a obra colombiana and it was WAAAAY tor creepy. My comment about this play is: TIM BURTUN's PLAY and there was something there, something that really was praying to be seen however, it was boring. So let's analyze this play:
1) Face expression: there were TWO actresses that were amazing at this. First it was the fatty one, she made faces that you couldn't recist to laugh. However, whenever she did it when she was not important it distracted me from the main action. The other was POLI, her face was amazing, her eyes were open and she even viroleaba un pooco and her mouth was closed like a tiny bird's beak.
2) Posture: again, the postures were tim burton some how. the two that i liked the most were: 1) the dad's posture, that whenever he listened to the other he turned his face like upside down and he bent hiw back backwards. the other was Poli's: her posture was SOOOO difficult that i was impressed she could keep it forr a loong time. Her walking was amazing too.
3) Scenery: The part that i liked the most was the wedding part, that was amazin, like the scnery + the costumes fit perfectly and it was like gorgeous to watch, and it reminded me to the "ultima cena" and the levels were good also. NOW, the house scenry well it was ...ok, i like the idea of a tall deks where the dad could write, however whenerver he came off it it will move like a freak and that distracted me all the time. I think that for a scenery to work it must not distract the audience from the action but it must be noticed too.
4)Costumes & Make up: i think that this why the play looked so gloomy and tim burtonish, however i liked it a lot. It helpped to distinguish from characters and even when the actor changed character, you knew it was the same actor but you also knew that is was another character isntead of a GREAT CONFUSION. the make up was great also, i mean great if it's idea was an ODD one, i liked it.
5)MUSIC: music was used as the transition form one scene to the other, but it was not a short one, it was a looooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooong musical part sung by the actors and so at first it was cool, but thenn it started to become a heavy play to follow, and i think this shows that if you put too much music (or dance) you will bore the audience. However, i liked the music (well the first songs) they were great, and the voices were also funny.
6) I HAVE TO SAY MY "WTF" OF THE DAY BECAUSE THEY USED A VIDEO!!! AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHH! I HATED IT!! why tell me! why use it?!?...i think it was a low blow for the play...it was...URG! and the worst part is when they saaid about going to bed and SHOWED A PICTURE OF A BED...that was pathetic really.

I think that is all i have to say about this play,..and so this was a freaky play to watch and too long. So, let's see...the thing that i could rescue is make up and POLI. however, i'm thinking why did all the other people at the play stood up to clap, and as i went out the theatre i heard them say WHAT A GOOD PLAY. ...maybe is because..i really don't know. So how to rank a play? good? bad? and on what it depends?...is it a good play when 50% or more of the audience likes the play?

Fly Fly Fly TO THE SKY!! -peter pan's song.

Thursday 1st

Peter pan kinder's play.

This is just a plus for the blog. As prefects we had to help tonight in the Kinder's Play. This year it was Peter Pan. And as i watched it I kept thinking about the play for next year, and this lead to several ideas.
1) There is a difference between a CHILDREN's PLAY and a PLAY FOR CHILDREN. there are many aspects about this:

• Mistakes: since the Peter Pan was a children's play and the actors were childs then it was reasonable for them to make mistakes, however, US doing a play for children it is not acceptable to make anymistakes, because they are not stupid, the audice (grown ups and kids) will notice if we make mistakes.
• Relationship with audience: how far can we go there? i mean, if there is a relationship with the children then how much of a Theatrical play will it be? will they still consider it a play? or a show (like the ones at Bembos) and if so...if that is a play to? AND also, if we treat the audience as stupid like "LOOK AT THE MOUNTAIN!+ point at the mountain +"do you see it?" sort of a Dora la exploradora thing, will they like it? personally, i wouldn't, i'm not stupid see? soo why treat me like one.
• Music & Dance: I still think it MUST be there,however later on i will talk about a play that we are going to see tomorrow so, let's see how does music affects the play. We need to learn to put the right amount of music to not bore the audience with too little but also with too much. I think that Disney movies will teach us HOW and WHEN to put music.
• Scenery: in Peter Pan it was just a telon painted but very COLORFUL. however, will that is a convention that we will follow?. I think it should be a real scnery and maybe not that "complex" in the sence of metaphoric or so, but still be a real/solid scnery.
• Effects: ok so the special effects to make them fly were awesome for a childrens play, but if we make it that way will they understand? or will they think that they were holding on to a rope. THIS IS THE TROUBLE WITH CINE, it shows what they want to show and it reduces the imagination of the audience, however...I really don't think this might be a problem (I'm trusting on the audience!!).