Storytelling is an important aspect of the project we are going to do on Balinese Shadow puppetry. In class, we were introduced to this concept through activities such as phone-booth, spoon-river and spitfire. Something that I have learnt from this is that it is important to animate the story with gestures, actions and voice as well. This makes the story more interesting (even if the story is bizarre itself), and it also makes the story easier to understand.
Some of these activities reminded me of the category in the Speech contest, “Storytelling.” I have seen my friends participate in this category and they always animate their voices, and also include actions. With voices, when there is a different character speaking, they change their voice by making it either harsher or gentler, higher or deeper. They also make the story more interesting by speaking how the character would feel. If they are happy, they would speak in a gentle and amiable voice. If they are angry, they would speak in a harsh, loud and deep voice. If they are panicking, they would speak in a fast paced, desperate voice.
Our task, later on, was to present a Wayang story. As a group, we chose the Mahabharata story. Briefly this story was about two “groups” that wanted the city of elephants. One group, called the Pandavas, were sons of the gods, and the other group, called the Dhartarashtras, were incarnations of devils. They had a bet to see who would get the city of elephants. The Dhartarashtras won this bet and the Pandavas were exiled for 12 years. After this period, they were allowed to go back to the city of elephants. However, the Dhartarashtras refused to give the city of elephants to the Pandavas. The Pandavas were enraged with this because they held their side of the promise, so they went to war with the Dhartarashtras. Fortunately, the Pandavas won, however they were not happy because for victory, they had to sacrifice many precious lives. So, the 5 Pandavas went on a journey to heaven. One by one, they died, until one last Pandava remained. This Pandava was followed by a dog, and once he was at the gate of heaven, the voice said that the dog must not enter heaven. The Pandava refused to leave it because he has followed him the whole journey. Then, the voice said that the Dhartarashtras were in heaven and the rest of the Pandavas were in hell. The remaining Pandava said that he would join his brothers in hell, and thus he passed the test. The dog had turned out to be his father, the god, and the Pandavas were actually in heaven, and the Dhartarashtras were in hell.
To start off, we decided to make the city of elephants a person. With minimal dialogue, we tried to show this story to the audience.
Scene 1: The Pandavas and the Dhartarashtras meet at the Elephant, and they bow. Then, the dice is rolled, the Pandavas and the Dhartarashtras place their bets. The Dhartarashtras win, and the Pandavas are exiled. There is a tableau here.
Scene 2: The 12 years are over, and the Pandavas go back to the Elephant. The Dhartarashtras grabs the elephant and there is a “tug-o-war” between the Pandavas and the Dhartarashtras.
Scene 3: The Pandavas and the Dhartarashtras go to the sides and come back in. This is the war scene. With percussion in the background getting faster, the war progresses. Then the last beat was the last attack, and the Dhartarashtras are beaten.
Scene 4: The Pandavas meets up, and go on a journey. One by one they die until the last one remains, with the dog.
Scene 5: The Last Pandava talks to the voice of god (which comes from the dog). When the Pandava passes the test, the rest of his brothers will “rise” and join him. The brothers opens the gate (the curtain) to heaven. Tableau to end the presentation.
Using almost no dialogue helps make the performance more powerful. Also, the scene where there is dialogue stands out because there is a contrast imposed. The tableaus also help make the performance more effective because it allows the audience to analyze what is occurring on stage.
Tuesday, January 27, 2009
Wednesday, January 7, 2009
Schweyk in the Second World War
On the 6th of December of 2008, I went to watch "Schweyk in the Second World War" in the Ebisu Echo Theater. This play was written by Bertholt Brecht. This production was directed by Chris Parham and presented by the Tokyo International Players.
This entry is what I thought of the play.
To start off, I thought that the Lighting and the Special effects were well used. For example, when Schweyk was heading towards Stalingrad, and he hears the bombings, the lighting and the sound effects were effective, with simply flashing spotlights around the stage, but not on the floor, but on the walls.
I also liked the idea of the two levels. This became very effective towards the end, where Hitler was running around the stage, not knowing where to go. With Hitler running around on the lower level, and Schweyk pointing a gun at Hitler from the upper level makes it seem that Schweyk had Hitler in the palm of his hand.
However, I thought the acting was around average. There were some good actors such as the actors who played Schweyk (Ed Gilmartin) and Baloun (Walter Roberts). There were others who over-acted and also, under-acted. This inconsistency tipped the balance of acting which made it seem like it was around average level.
Many actors had multiple roles, but when they change characters, they almost never change their acting. Such as their way of speaking, walking, standing, sitting etc. For example, when some SS officers reappear but as men who want to avoid the war, or another character, I always have to ask myself, “Is this the SS officer coming on? Or is this another person?” I have to ask these questions to myself because the actors failed to show me that they were truly a different character. However, I thought the use of masks were good because I did not recognize those characters with others, such as Hitler. This helped me to differentiate the characters.
Another flaw was the multi-accents. Some actors had American accents, some had German accents, and there were others as well. This breaks the atmosphere as this is not an international event. This is set in the 2nd World War in Czechoslovakia. Along with this, there was the issue of pronunciation. Some said Schweyk, “Shvaik” and some said “Shwaik.” This should be corrected because the pronunciation is important in acting.
There were many things I would change, especially the little details I have noticed. When Kopecka was singing her first song, she seemed to have this habit of waving her hands up and down. This became tiresome to watch as this action kept being repeated. Also, when Schweyk was making his way towards Stalingrad, there was sign that said “Stalingrad 50km.” In the next scenes, this sign was not removed. Schweyk, in the previous scenes, had said that he would be getting to Stalingrad soon. However, the sign in the background indicated that he remained at the same place, suggesting that he hasn't moved.
Despite the flaws I have identified, I understand that this is a Brecht production, and Brecht would not have wanted the audience to become emotionally attached to the actors and that this was a play for the audience to think and not just to watch.
Overall, I did not like this production, and with this feeling, the director may have succeeded in what Brecht wanted. Since I disliked it, I was able to look into it without having emotional influences.
This entry is what I thought of the play.
To start off, I thought that the Lighting and the Special effects were well used. For example, when Schweyk was heading towards Stalingrad, and he hears the bombings, the lighting and the sound effects were effective, with simply flashing spotlights around the stage, but not on the floor, but on the walls.
I also liked the idea of the two levels. This became very effective towards the end, where Hitler was running around the stage, not knowing where to go. With Hitler running around on the lower level, and Schweyk pointing a gun at Hitler from the upper level makes it seem that Schweyk had Hitler in the palm of his hand.
However, I thought the acting was around average. There were some good actors such as the actors who played Schweyk (Ed Gilmartin) and Baloun (Walter Roberts). There were others who over-acted and also, under-acted. This inconsistency tipped the balance of acting which made it seem like it was around average level.
Many actors had multiple roles, but when they change characters, they almost never change their acting. Such as their way of speaking, walking, standing, sitting etc. For example, when some SS officers reappear but as men who want to avoid the war, or another character, I always have to ask myself, “Is this the SS officer coming on? Or is this another person?” I have to ask these questions to myself because the actors failed to show me that they were truly a different character. However, I thought the use of masks were good because I did not recognize those characters with others, such as Hitler. This helped me to differentiate the characters.
Another flaw was the multi-accents. Some actors had American accents, some had German accents, and there were others as well. This breaks the atmosphere as this is not an international event. This is set in the 2nd World War in Czechoslovakia. Along with this, there was the issue of pronunciation. Some said Schweyk, “Shvaik” and some said “Shwaik.” This should be corrected because the pronunciation is important in acting.
There were many things I would change, especially the little details I have noticed. When Kopecka was singing her first song, she seemed to have this habit of waving her hands up and down. This became tiresome to watch as this action kept being repeated. Also, when Schweyk was making his way towards Stalingrad, there was sign that said “Stalingrad 50km.” In the next scenes, this sign was not removed. Schweyk, in the previous scenes, had said that he would be getting to Stalingrad soon. However, the sign in the background indicated that he remained at the same place, suggesting that he hasn't moved.
Despite the flaws I have identified, I understand that this is a Brecht production, and Brecht would not have wanted the audience to become emotionally attached to the actors and that this was a play for the audience to think and not just to watch.
Overall, I did not like this production, and with this feeling, the director may have succeeded in what Brecht wanted. Since I disliked it, I was able to look into it without having emotional influences.
Monday, January 5, 2009
Balinese puppet theatre
In Indonesia, theatre has developed the tradition of puppetry through centuries. the most impressive and well prepared presentations are performed in Java however Bali also has its own unique and special features.
As you can see in the picture above, the detail in the puppets are amazing. There is so much detail that you can even see through the hair. The presentations does not consist of only puppets but also, background details are in as well.
There are three types of puppets in indonesian puppetry.
There is the Wayang Kulit which is normally made out of leather. Wayang Kulit generally show the Indonesian version of Hindu epics.
There is the Wayang Golek which is rod puppets (which are not shadow puppets.). They are used to perform hindu cycles and also Islamic arabian adventure cycle.
Lastly, there is the Wayang Klitick which is flat wooden puppets which performs the adventures of Javanese Majapahit Empire heroes.
For our Balinese theatre project, we are looking at Wayang Kulit. The Wayang Kulit is traditionally Javanese/Thai shadow puppets in which the puppets show the stories of the Ramayana. These performances generally last hours and sometimes even the whole night. These presentations are normally performed on special ocassions such as weddings, public holidays, religious festivals, birth celebrations and circumcisions.
In the performance, the dalang has the most to do. He manipulates the puppets, sings, signalizes (by tapping) to the orchestra and he also speaks for the characters. The dalang, in other words, is the puppeteer.
Puppets
There is a puppet range that refers to the details. It goes from Alus (extremely refined) to Kasar (rough and crude).
The picture above is a noble character and this can be noticed by the shape of their heads and how they are made. The good characters generally have their heads sloping forwards with their neck bent and thin. Their noses are pointed and they have a very graceful body.
The picture above shows a bad character. They generally have big bulging eyes with big swollen noses and thick lips and curved bodies. This character is a greedy character. We know this through the color of their skin.
The colors of the skin of the characters have meanings. For example:
White/Gold - youth and beauty.
Black - wisdom and tranquility
Red - Cruelty and greed. It can also mean cowardliness and coarseness.
I did some extra research on wayang kulit and I have come across a book that had a section on wayang kulit puppets and I thought it was helpful. (the reference to this book is: Sedyawati,Edi.1998.Performing Arts.Singapore.Archipelago Press [Parts of a WAYANG KULIT puppet, page 53])
This, to me, seemed interesting because it tells us what terms the balinese use for this puppetry. Especially the second picture, it tells us how the characters show emotion through their eyes.
This seems like an interesting topic to me, and I intend to do further research, even after posting this entry.
As you can see in the picture above, the detail in the puppets are amazing. There is so much detail that you can even see through the hair. The presentations does not consist of only puppets but also, background details are in as well.
There are three types of puppets in indonesian puppetry.
There is the Wayang Kulit which is normally made out of leather. Wayang Kulit generally show the Indonesian version of Hindu epics.
There is the Wayang Golek which is rod puppets (which are not shadow puppets.). They are used to perform hindu cycles and also Islamic arabian adventure cycle.
Lastly, there is the Wayang Klitick which is flat wooden puppets which performs the adventures of Javanese Majapahit Empire heroes.
For our Balinese theatre project, we are looking at Wayang Kulit. The Wayang Kulit is traditionally Javanese/Thai shadow puppets in which the puppets show the stories of the Ramayana. These performances generally last hours and sometimes even the whole night. These presentations are normally performed on special ocassions such as weddings, public holidays, religious festivals, birth celebrations and circumcisions.
In the performance, the dalang has the most to do. He manipulates the puppets, sings, signalizes (by tapping) to the orchestra and he also speaks for the characters. The dalang, in other words, is the puppeteer.
Puppets
There is a puppet range that refers to the details. It goes from Alus (extremely refined) to Kasar (rough and crude).
The picture above is a noble character and this can be noticed by the shape of their heads and how they are made. The good characters generally have their heads sloping forwards with their neck bent and thin. Their noses are pointed and they have a very graceful body.
The picture above shows a bad character. They generally have big bulging eyes with big swollen noses and thick lips and curved bodies. This character is a greedy character. We know this through the color of their skin.
The colors of the skin of the characters have meanings. For example:
White/Gold - youth and beauty.
Black - wisdom and tranquility
Red - Cruelty and greed. It can also mean cowardliness and coarseness.
I did some extra research on wayang kulit and I have come across a book that had a section on wayang kulit puppets and I thought it was helpful. (the reference to this book is: Sedyawati,Edi.1998.Performing Arts.Singapore.Archipelago Press [Parts of a WAYANG KULIT puppet, page 53])
This, to me, seemed interesting because it tells us what terms the balinese use for this puppetry. Especially the second picture, it tells us how the characters show emotion through their eyes.
This seems like an interesting topic to me, and I intend to do further research, even after posting this entry.
Brechtian theatre
After watching "Schweyk in the 2nd World War," we had a few sessions on Brechtian theatre.
On our first session, we made a list of all the things that we noticed, other than the acting and the special effects.
1) Simple set
2) 2 levels
3) Black and Red being the dominant colours
4) No curtain
5) Areas for scenes
6) Band visible
7) Cyclorama: It is a screen for projections that is normally in the back wall.
8) Masks
9) Addresses the audience
10) photos/images
11) episode/episodic
12) music
After creating the list above, we discussed whether our past productions were brechtian or not.
Tina!
1) yes
2) no - there were more than 2 levels
3) no
4) yes
5) no - it was almost always in the main area
6) no - there was no band
7) yes
8) yes - I wore them for the secretary scene
9) yes - there were the players who talks to the audience directly
10) yes
11) yes - for example, the "hell's idol" scene could stand on its own.
12) yes
Perfection
1) yes
2) no - there was only one
3) no
4) yes
5) no - not really. there were scenes which were not in the main area, but in the sides as well.
6) no - there was no band
7) no
8) no
9) yes - the soliloquy Jennie gives in the end is practically talking to the audience
10) no
11) no
12) yes
We found that Tina! seemed more Brechtian than Perfection.
We also discussed about Presentational and Representational theatre.
Presentational: Actor speaks to audience
Representational: Actor speaks to actor
...and with this, we found that Brechtian theatre was mostly presentational.
In the next session, we were given a task. The task was to create a scene with the use of poem "Showing has to be shown". Specifically, we had to use the lines
"Make watching simpler, always to ensure the best
View of every episode - that too you should make visible."
I was paired with Sofia. We discussed on how we can "show that we are showing jealousy." Remembering the Brecht play, we thought of ways that the performance was presentational, and one that stood out was the usage of signs for the audience to read. So we decided to make the scene simple. Sofia would go on with almost no expression and hold up a sign saying "I'm Rich" and then I would go up and hold up a sign saying "I'm Jealous." The scene is concise, simple and clear.
In these sessions, I've learnt that Brecht (his full name is Eugen Berthhold Brecht) didn't want to make plays for the people to enjoy when watching, but to think when they are watching. He has this theory that the audience must not be emotional during a performance, otherwise that emotion takes over.
On our first session, we made a list of all the things that we noticed, other than the acting and the special effects.
1) Simple set
2) 2 levels
3) Black and Red being the dominant colours
4) No curtain
5) Areas for scenes
6) Band visible
7) Cyclorama: It is a screen for projections that is normally in the back wall.
8) Masks
9) Addresses the audience
10) photos/images
11) episode/episodic
12) music
After creating the list above, we discussed whether our past productions were brechtian or not.
Tina!
1) yes
2) no - there were more than 2 levels
3) no
4) yes
5) no - it was almost always in the main area
6) no - there was no band
7) yes
8) yes - I wore them for the secretary scene
9) yes - there were the players who talks to the audience directly
10) yes
11) yes - for example, the "hell's idol" scene could stand on its own.
12) yes
Perfection
1) yes
2) no - there was only one
3) no
4) yes
5) no - not really. there were scenes which were not in the main area, but in the sides as well.
6) no - there was no band
7) no
8) no
9) yes - the soliloquy Jennie gives in the end is practically talking to the audience
10) no
11) no
12) yes
We found that Tina! seemed more Brechtian than Perfection.
We also discussed about Presentational and Representational theatre.
Presentational: Actor speaks to audience
Representational: Actor speaks to actor
...and with this, we found that Brechtian theatre was mostly presentational.
In the next session, we were given a task. The task was to create a scene with the use of poem "Showing has to be shown". Specifically, we had to use the lines
"Make watching simpler, always to ensure the best
View of every episode - that too you should make visible."
I was paired with Sofia. We discussed on how we can "show that we are showing jealousy." Remembering the Brecht play, we thought of ways that the performance was presentational, and one that stood out was the usage of signs for the audience to read. So we decided to make the scene simple. Sofia would go on with almost no expression and hold up a sign saying "I'm Rich" and then I would go up and hold up a sign saying "I'm Jealous." The scene is concise, simple and clear.
In these sessions, I've learnt that Brecht (his full name is Eugen Berthhold Brecht) didn't want to make plays for the people to enjoy when watching, but to think when they are watching. He has this theory that the audience must not be emotional during a performance, otherwise that emotion takes over.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)