"I've grown accustomed to your soul."

Just yesterday I had the opportunity to witness community theater at its best. While at the Chino Community Theatre's production of They're Playing Our Song, I felt completely intrigued and engaged by the small yet profoundly moving cast. Although the context of the play could have been perceived as limited due to the fact that there were realistically only two speaking roles, the director and cast found it as a challenge to prove just the opposite. As the plot proceeded and was able to develop, I too began to relate to the main characters Sonia and Vernon better each time. It was almost as if you were building some sort of audience-actor relationship that made the entire performance more believable despite its proximity to reality.

Now at the beginning of the performance, I was actually quite disappointed with the actors on stage. Though I am far from an expert on the matter, I was consciously aware of the minor indiosyncracsies of Gracie Arvizu (Sonia) and Christopher Diehl (Vernon) that almost detracted from the overall success of the performance. What probably irritated me to no end was the fact that Vernon would never make any connection with the audience. It almost seemed as though he was too afraid to look into the eyes of a viewer for fear of breaking character, perhaps. Still, his gangly sort of complacent personality really did his character in for me. Another minor concern regarding the performance was that as the only essential characters of the performance, Sonia and Vernon themselves did not have the initial spark that would make them believable as a couple. With differing internal clocks, Sonia and Vernon constantly stepped on each other's lines or interrupted each other. This may have come across as unprofessional on the part of the actors.

That's going to be all for now, but I'll make sure to elaborate a bit more on the context of They'e Playing Our Song and the entire set-up of the performance.

Slow But Steady

Once again the same group flaw, that I had previously mentioned, came into play as we began to devise our script. With such a small group of only six people, I felt as though the creative process was consequently hindered for fear of hurting someone else's feelings. Obviously with six different minds one must take into account the varying styles and opinions of each one. What I felt segregated the group, though, wasn't so much a difference in aesthetic as it was a lack of enthusiasm and creativity. And one point, everything became too much to handle that we eventually split into two groups two complete the scripts simultaneously.

With really only one week to develop and finalize our script, we were ostensibly cramped for time. For that reason we knew that it was essential to us to maximize our time as much as possible. As my group furiously wrote away, spinning story after story for each family member until it was time to finally combine our scripts together. Upon reading the other group's material, I realized a blantat difference in our style and overall cohesiveness. Left with no other choice, my group and I had to essentially go back through their portions of the performance to re-write and re-work everything possible. The end product of our efforts, though, is different from that of the original idea that we set out with but still reminiscent at the same time. Our only hope is that once the piece goes to the hands of the cast, that they approach the piece with as much respect that we do.

As we were in the final stages of script completion, our teacher introduced us to yet another important concept in devising. Though she had previously mentioned that often times what you write and think often sounds completely different from what you imagined it to be. In performing a very impromptu run through of our script, we were able to consciously correct any errors that we found. A majority of the places of concern within the script were structurally based, meaning that they either had to do with illogical ordering or transitions. We were also once again forewarned about the possibility of having to whittle down our script even more to fit within the maximum eight minute time period. But could we really part with any of our characters?

A Light in the Attic

Earlier in the year we had all been introduced to the possibility of participation in DTASC. For IB students, DTASC is practically a lighted sign flashing "CAS hours, CAS hours". But of course there is more to the experience than simply catching up on CAS hours. From the beginning, the entire class had already informally agreed to submit some sort of entry together. Yet only today did we truly decide upon the children's adaptation category. Many of us didn't have a running idea to start with for this category because we had already all responded to our teacher's first suggestion, Shel Silverstein. The quirky and somewhat bizarre poems where exactly what we were looking for to set us apart from the rest of the entries. With Silverstein in mind, I once again began my involuntary idea process and by the time we left class, a firm and innovative creative plan was in place. As I had suggested a blend between the Grotowskian theory and the freeze frame concept, we were all able to agree upon a derivative branch off of it. The overall concept of our children's theater piece is that there is some sort of family photo taking place on stage when suddenly everything freezes as the the photographer pushes the button. The family members, within a supposed picture frame, are frozen as well when the photographer comes to life to illustrate for the audience the truth behind each family member. And from there, each person would be assigned one of Shel Silverstein's poems to creatively interpret which in the end we would all link as a whole. Once again theater has been able to bring us full circle in everything that we have learned.

Freeze!

Earlier this week we had the opportunity to participate in another sort of group activity. The exercise, deemed Comic Strip or Freeze Frame, is pretty self-explanatory from the title. Since we only had three people to work with within a group, it was at times difficult to create the necessary conditions for each "box". To make things a bit more challenging, we were also limited in props, and by limited I really mean weren't allowed to. With Alex and Lucy as my partners, I felt as though we had a charismatic group dynamic. There was definitely a great wealth of ideas, but I couldn't help myself in developing my own. I've recently realized that whenever some new task comes to be assigned, I automatically begin brainstorming and outlining all my ideas. By approaching tasks in this way, I've found a greater success in completion and efficiency. Typically when involved in group situations, individuals will either be too passive or complacent to really make a decision. Essentially one person always rises above the rests to make the executive decisions to keep the creative process moving along. As I sort of headed my group in this way, we decided to build upon my initial idea of a man walking his dog in the park during which he inadvertently meets a beautiful stranger. Eventually, the idea took a complete 360 turn, but was hilarious and faithful to the original idea nonetheless. Upon the completion of each performance, the class and our teacher simultaneously worked together to critique each of our performances. The major trend that seemed to detract from all our performances was a certain superfluity. In our performance in particular, our teacher mentioned that we had a "box" too many. She challenged us to reflect back on our scene and essentially whittle away anything unnecessary. The succinct and vital quality of each box would later lend itself to our realization that this is what will eventually take place as we begin to devise our own independent projects. I have the unfortunate premonition that this will be the hardest part for me considering my tendency towards prolixity and verboseness (as is already evident from this blog).

Malapropism

Somehow in discussing one of the assigned theorists, our class was able to digress all the way to the Richard Sheridan's The Rivals. Having no previous knowledge of the play or the playwright, our teacher was able to draw us in with nothing more than a synopsis. So, here I am, trying to squeeze in a little exploration in my blogs.

Well, let's get to know Mr. Sheridan a little better first. The Rivals, a comedy of manners, was Sheridan's first piece and actually failed distrastously on opening night. It turns out that a poor decision in casting had been the cause of the show's demise. Over time, The Rivals has become practically a standard in English literature. As I continue researching, there seems to be a certain theme of the comedies of manner throughout all of his pieces. Essentially, a comedy of manners functions to satirize the manners and affectations of a social class often through the use of stock characters. The concept of stock characters actually takes me back to my vocabulary presentation. In my research though, I found a much better explanation of stock characters with respect to context in history. The miles gloriosus which literally translates into "the boastful soldier" is a typical stock character of comedy during classical Rome. This character apparently derives from the alazon or "the braggart" of Aristophanes's comedies. Yet another connection forged between the distant realms of theater! Some other examples of stock characters would be the fop and the rake during the Restoration or more generally, an old person attempting to look young. As I trace this all the way back to Sheridan, I also learn that he was a great public speaker for the Whig party.

From the lengthy and complex plot though, I really only find an interest in Mrs. Malaprop, at least for the moment. It is actually from this character that the word malapropism is derived. Malapropism is generally attributed to the public reaction that was in response to Mrs. Malaprop. Within the play, Mrs. Malaprop frequently mispeaks to increase the comic effect. It's interesting how an archetype or theme from theater can in a sense transcend its borders to makes it ways into mainstream thought and action.

Bond, Edward Bond.

I think around last Friday the class was officially introduced to the concept of web reviews. It's all just been a bit overwhelming, what with poring over the IB syllabus for what has seemed like days. Still, though, it's oddly intriguing and encouraging to hear about all these sort of out-of-the-box tasks we will be doing later on. Despite the caution and apprehension with which I approach the entire program, I'm definitely excited. Digression, digression, anyways now back to the topic of web reviews. To metaphorically kill two birds with one stone, my teacher assigned a practice web review in conjunction with exploring some new areas of theater. As we were prompted to glance over a general timeline of theater history, I was drawn to the label Edward Bond.

Now that I've actually done the research on Bond, I don't even remember what intrigued me in the first place. Born in 1934, Bond was an English dramatist whose early work was considered quite controversial (even by the standards of today). He often presented to audiences an honest image of the innate savagery and conditions of mankind, usually representative of lower-class British life. So grim a picture did he paint for audiences that for a time his work was completely banned. To illustrate the extremity of Bond's work it was noted in a website that during his play, Saved, bored children brutally stoned a baby to death. Now I'm all for the mavericks out there who have something differnent to say than what society has regurgitated, but I'm not exactly sure if I respond to Bond's style of theater. With an obviously darker concept in mind, Bond obviously strove to bring to the public's attention the truth. In specifically that sense, I respond to Bond's work.

While researching Bond I was able to somewhat forge a connection between him and what's happening today. Through newspapers and word of mouth, news of the musical Spring Awakening spread among some of my more fervent theater friends. Now this musical just so happened to be a translation that Bond complteted in 1974. Though Bond did not personally devise the piece by himself, word has it that the context of the play is just right up his alley. Perhaps now I'll be able to experience Bond's work, inadvertently in a way, because a production of it will be running sometime in May nearby.

To end this lengthy blog, I only feel as though it would only be right to conclude with some of Bond's own words..."Art is the close scrutiny of reality and therefore I put on the stage only those things that I know happen in our society."

Survival of the Fittest

During the summer, I was fortunate enough to be offered an internship at a recently established art gallery in Los Angeles. While I was there, I was in a way exposed to a different side of expression. As a theater student, I often forget that there are actually other forms of expression out there, and so this was a great learning experience. The most important aspect of my position there as an intern was to essentially prepare for the artist exhibitions every month. Towards the end of my internship, right around the middle of August, we began prepping for the next artist.

Yesterday I actually attended the artist's reception at the gallery to lend the owner some help. As I was sitting there, manning the desk while the event went on, a revelation came to me by the most unusual way. Laid out by me were the article clippings, statements, and basically biographical information of the artist that typically accompanied any show, when a couple suddenly came by to peruse over the material. Now I know you're not suppose to eavesdrop on other people's conversations, but they were practically standing right next to me. Anyways, though, I heard the man make a comment that seemed quite prosaic to me. As he read over Pipo's background and impetus for creating his work, the man conversationally asked the women with him, "Did you know that the artist was a refugee of the Vietnam War?". To me the question seemed particularly redundant because it seemed as though practically everyone I knew was a refugee. It wasn't until that moment that I realized how foreign it was for others to meet an actual refugee of a war. The entire scene just got me thinking about the rich history that was thus intertwined with the lives of my parents and family as many of them were displaced persons of the Vietnam War.

As I pondered over the myriad of stories my mother had told me as a child, it seemed impossible to connect the person she had become today to the scared, young girl in the far off country of Vietnam. Everything that she had told me about her life, the war, the hardship, and the long journey it took for her and her family to reach American began to take on a new light. The more I thought about it, the more I realized that I wanted to further investigate the possibility of turning my mother's life story into some sort of production. At this point I'm not really sure where this idea will take me, but I do know that I would really like to pursue it and possibly turn it into the inspiration for my independent project. Personally, this project would be a great honor for me to be able to pay homage to the culture and people that have raised me.

Gro--What?

For a while now I've been researching the work of Jerzy Grotowski for a theorist report to be presented in class. In investigating Grtowski's background, I learned that many early influences played an integral role in the development of his theory. Growing up in Rzeszow, Poland, during the reign of the Nazi regime, Grotowski's family was forced to split up as World War II began. Upon his separation from his father, Grtowski was consequently fostered under the religious care of his uncle. This eventually contributed to Grotowski's spiritual quest in theater, often seen as a confrontation between man and mythology. Although research has mentioned that Grotowski was strongly influenced by Stanislavsky (but really what theorist hasn't), I was not able to form a connection between the two. Perhaps it is in the way that they both stressed the importance of the total act and technique in an actor's performance. By developing his troupe of actors through rehearsals and additional psychoanalysis sessions, Grotowski trained and produced some of the best technical actors of the time.

The total act was only one facet of Grotowski's entire theory though. Much of what he attempted to accomplish in theater was in response to the extravagant and lavish styling of directors at the time. As a director himself, Grotowski often staged productions as minimally as possible. Performances were rarely utilized, and in their stead actors were conditioned to rely upon their own bodies to function as tools. This Grotowskian theory was essentially embodied in a production of 13 Reasons Not To Be in a Play which was performed at my school as the independent project of an IB student. What made the performance really stand out from any others was the fact that actors functioned both as themselves and as props whenever the time became necessary. Another facet of this poor theater concept was that props could transform and come to symbolize many different things. Interpretation was left to the audience and actors when it came time to performance.

From researching and witnessing Grotowski's theory at work, I have really come to appreciate his entire mindset. As a performer of the theater myself, I believe that many of Grotowski's beliefs could be practiced today in helping people to better connect with their characters, physically and mentally. Especially as student actors, we often do not have the capacity to analyze and understand the characters we portray. Just spending a fifth of the time that Grotowski did with his actors in developing their technique would be infinitely beneficial to actors today. Most of all, I'm really just in awe of the individual and modern thinking that Grotowski possessed during the 1930's and 1940's. Simply looking at his work would lead a person to believe that Grotowski is still with us today in this time of innovation and creativity.

Oh Eddy

Today in class we began exploring Greek tragedy and what it's all about. Within the topic Ms. Karr assigned for us to read Odepius the King within the next week or so. Luckily for me, I was somewhat familiar with the work of Sophocles considering that I read Antigone in my English class last year. Odepius the King, though a different title than any of other Sophocles' plays, has practically the same plot as Odepius Rex. It was very similar to what I had read in sophomore year with the exception of the very specific stage and metrical directions.

We briefly glanced at some of the history involved in Greek theater. In that time, we focused on the works of the forefathers of Greek theater. In Ms. Karr's elaboration of each playwright, many of us were in a way, not fully entrigued. Personally, I've always felt that Greek theater is a bit too monolithic in its appearance. It can be intimidating for people who have not yet experienced it, and can even come across as dull. I realize that it is a topic that obviously takes a certain degree of understanding and appreciation; however, by the looks of kids today, it's highly unlikely that any will truly respond to it. Still, my teacher managed to spark my interest in one of Aristophanes's Lysistrata. As Aristophanes's most popular play, sex, or lack thereof, becomes a powerful bargaining chip of reconciliation. As war ravages across the might city-states of ancient Greece, a band of women, led by Lysistrata of Athens, make a pact to deny their husbands all sexual favors until they lay aside their weapons. When the men refuse to give in, a battle of the sexes as old as time begins. Since I've only recently borrowed the book, I have only been able to look over a couple of pages. Hopefully the time-relevant allusions won't slow me down.

Hey Y'all

So yesterday I left you off with the big cliff hangar regarding my vocabulary presentation...ooohhh. But seriously, when I look back on everyone's performances, I feel as thought I really did go all out. You may have guessed already, but tableaux was obviously the focus of my presentation. I decided that the tableaux I was going to recreate had to being something obviously recognizable. Definitely no obscure artists or modern art! So in the end I went with...Grant Wood's American Gothic. Now not everyone may be able to recall this painting just from its title because its a bit arcane compared to the content of its painting. So for all those who are still unaware, let me jog your memory. Within the painting, there are these two sort of homely figures. One is a supposed farmer holding a rake while his wife poses by his side. Still don't know what I'm talking about? Well then, here's the actual painting (I didn't fully realize that they would place the picture at the start of the blog, so much for the suspense).

With the tableaux as my piece de resistance, I was able to work around it with words like stage manager, left stage, and such. Still, I felt as though it wasn't enough just to have other students stand in place of the portrait. For that reason, I provided similar clothing and even a rake to match my own tableaux with Wood's painting. In my own interpretation of American Gothic, the farmer and his wife were definitely a lot more light-hearted than their counterparts. Still, I feel as though the purpose of the exercise was conveyed quite successfully. Now who can top a man with a rake?