Manifesto- Chapter 1: Intro

 This post might just be the most important post that I have ever posted or will ever post. It is my theatrical manifesto. Deadlines are flowing out (like endless rain into a paper cup) yet I don't think I can suppress this much longer. Having now fully decided that my professional career will be related to theatre, I feel a deep need to write the manifesto of my beliefs.
 The first point is concerning what those of adult age are probably thinking about this so far. Writing a theatrical manifesto at seventeen? Well, that is precisely the point. I am fully aware that I have not had the theatrical or even life experience to have a solid empirically-based declaration of what my theatre should be like. But... so what? After a subtle reminder, I came to the conclusion that most of the highly praised and influential theatre practitioners and actors in the world have one thing in common: truth. To limit this to theatre is foolish, for all art forms are ways to seek truth through different means. Another foolish thing to do would be to define how this truth is to be found or even what this truth actually is. Is the Method the ultimate path for the pursuit of truthfulness in a part? Of course not. Stock characterization? Brechtian method? Meisnerian method? No, no, no.
 For along time I thought I was getting the wrong answers when I was really asking the wrong questions. Truth? What could be more truthful, more immaculately uncorrupted than the theatrical opinions of a seventeen year old? Still untouched by the pretentious curse that comes with this trade, not yet smudged by the gaudiness of the bright lights of the West Wend and Broadway. No. The importance of this post is related to the fact that it is being written by me, for me. For and directly to future me. The version of myself that will be tempted by the old traditional Shakespeare and the anarchic anti-establishement no-method method that will surely mutate into some strange form in the future. Sebas, do whatever you want to do. You and I are aware of what we think is right and what we think is important. Seventeen, twenty-three, fifty-four... God knows what we'll be doing then. For now, my RI is calling. Catch you later.

Brecht and his techniques

Dramatic Theatre	Epic Theatre
Plot	Narrative
Implicates the spectator in a stage situation	Turns the spectator into an observer
Wears down his capacity for action	Arouses his capacity for action
Provides him with sensations	Forces him to take decisions
Experience	Picture of the world
The spectator is involved in something	He is made to face something
Suggestion	Argument
Instinctive feelings are preserved	Brought to the point of recognition
The spectator is in the thick of it, shares the experience	The spectator stands outside, studies
The human being is taken for granted	The human being is the object of the enquiry
He is unalterable	He is alterable and able to alter
Eyes on the finish	Eyes on the course
One scene makes another	Each scene for itself
Growth	Montage
Linear development	In curves
Evolutionary determinism	Jumps
Man as a fixed point	Man as a process
Thought determines being	Social being determines thought
Feeling	Reason

 Verfrumdungseffekt/Alienation Technique

  This technique is based on making ordinary events epic and detaching the audience emotionally from the play. Brecht developed this in the 1920’s and 30’s because he thought that emotional attachment to a play made it difficult to see its real message. In a conventional play the production was made for the audience to feel what the characters were feeling, focusing on emotion rather than social criticism. He disliked “escapism” and thought people should be faced with real-world issues, keeping always emotional distance from the characters. The best example of this is in his play Mother Courage and Her Children in which no sympathy is created for the mother, and instead makes the audience question the actions of the characters and the performance they’ve seen. "Art is not a mirror held up to reality but a hammer with which to shape it." This sense of strangeness is also achieved through the use of placards, which reveal the events of each scene, juxtaposition, actors changing characters and costume on stage, the use of narration, simple props and scenery and using happy melodies with heavy lyrics.

Didacticism and Breaking the Forth Wall

 Brecht believed that theatrical pieces should have a moral lesson behind them. His plays were used to teach both the audience and the actors about certain aspects of society, politics or economy. Communist in his beliefs, Brecht criticism usually focused on how society was unequal and how the upper classes were evil. “The Forth Wall” is a term used to define an imaginary wall separating the audience from the stage. In realistic productions, actors do not “break” this wall by looking and acknowledging the audience, simulating therefore real events. The audience therefore is physically separated from the action, but more emotionally involved because of its story and because there is a sense that the action is happening far away. Brecht believed however that the audience should be faced with moral dilemmas on the spot and with this grip them to the narrative, despite it possibly involve a break in character. This is also used to make the audience feel apart of the action and not merely observing; being faced with moral decisions in a pro-active way.

Gestus

Brecht believed that an actor should present a character in a way that wasn't an impersonation, rather, a narration of the actions of the character. He did this because he wanted to constantly remind his audience that they were watching a play. He also believed that if the audience developed an emotional attachment to the characters, then they could not evaluate the social realities of the play. Stanislavski thought that if an actor believed he was a character, then the audience would believe this as well, and feel the emotions that the character was feeling. Brecht did not want this to happen; he wanted the audience to question, make comment and interpret what was on the stage. The Brechtian theatre does not show the human nature of an individual but reveals collective human relations. The story is the point of interest, not the characters. The story is the sequence of events that is the social experiment, allowing the interplay of social forces, from which the play's lesson emerges. If the audience does not maintain a distance between the characters and themselves then this cannot be achieved. Acting in Epic Theatre means that an actor is required to play characters believably without convincing either the audience or themselves that they are, indeed, the characters. There is an audible and visual distance between the actor and their character and the actors will often 'break the fourth wall' and address the audience, play multiple characters, and use exaggerated or repetitive actions to make their distance and social commentary known.

Gestus is a theatrical technique that helps define the emotion within a character and the context they are in. It is the combination of a gesture and a social meaning into one movement, stance or vocal display. It can be alienating and jar the audience, as it is an unusual and non realistic way of forcing them to see the "bigger picture" of a situation. It is sometimes referred to as the 'social gest', as it is an action that allows the audience to understand something specific about the social circumstances presented on stage.

Ceci n'est pas un post par les Parents Evening

Edward Gordon Craig

The illegitimate son of the architect Edward Godwin and actress Ellen Terry, Craig was born Edward Godwin on 16 January 1872 in Hertfordshire, England, and baptised at age 16 as Edward Henry Gordon. He took the surname Craig by deed poll at age 21.  Craig spent much of his childhood (from the age of 8 in 1889 to 1897) backstage at the Lyceum Theatre, where his mother was the leading lady to actor Sir Henry Irving. This close contact to Theatre was what led Craig to the world of theatre since he was surrounded by it most of his childhood.

 

Lighting

Edward Gordon Craig inspiration for lighting came from Hubert von Kerkomer. In on of his plays he witnessed the use of light gauzes and electric lighting, which was quite inovative since most people used sort of oil lamps for ilumination. Craig commented saying “the absence of footlights made the actors look less artificial. Side-lit gauzes placed in front of backcloths amazed audiences used to painted gauzes used in pantomine scenes”. He then decided that he would use gauzes and side-lights with different colours in his shows, and the rest of the lighting would come only from above the proscenium. Rejected footlights. concealed lights and movable spots were some other characteristics of his lighting legacy, the lighting needed to provide more than just ilumination. He was a visionary in this field because he believed that lighting needed to be a gateway to the imagination and a metaphorical symbolism to the play and not just a way to iluminate the actors and stage. 

He used these new lighting methods in the 1900’s production of Dido and Aeneas, especially the use of different colored lighting. He also used light to transform stage space, liberating the audience’s imagination. In transitions, he successfully achieved subtle shifts of light and vibrant sudden color combinations, which were used for deliberate clashes. The use of colored lighting was most successfully used in the final scene, in which a yellow light from above created a beautiful tragic ending to the play.

Stage

Slidding pannels was his most famous invention. According to W. B. Yeats, Craig told him that “That we shall have a means of staging everything that is not naturalistic, and that out of his invention may grow a completely new method for even our naturalistic plays.” These pannels stand on stage as they truly are. Opposing to naturalism, these pannels do not attempt to imitate natrure, nor are they painted with realistic or decorative designs to be taken in an evident and literal way. Once a friend of his told him that they were “a nice place” and since then he always used that expression in reference to his pannels. Rejecting realism, he disliked the expression “scene” because it looked artisticly false, while a place was real and could adapt to the actor’s movements. This invention of his consisted on a group of screens which stood up by themselves. The effects and different settings would be created by the actor’s position in relation to the pannel, and the different lighting that would incide on it.

He had a great passion for pupets, stating once that "There is only one actor – nay one man who has the soul of the dramatic poet, and who has ever served as the true and loyal interpreter of the poet," he proclaimed, and "this is the marionette.

In short, he wanted to exploit the theatreness of theatre. Using every single theatrical element ( space, scenery, lighting, costume) to better express the message of the text.

Realism and Naturalism in Theatre

Realism

Starting in the early 19th century, realism was an art movement that shifted from the unrealistic fairy-tale or fantastic situations and characters theater-goers normally found in romantic plays. The Theater Dictionary indicates that many people consider Henrik Ibsen the father of the modern realism for the three-dimensional characters he created and the situations in which he put them. People in the audience could relate to the activities occurring on stage and the individuals involved.

Naturalism

Charles Darwin's book "The Origin of Species" influenced the theatrical world through the naturalistic genre. Darwin theorized that the fittest of a species would survive and pass on its genetic material, which dramatists translated into a dramatic genre that focused on how genetics and social advancement affect individuals. The naturalistic focus in art and literature is to address subjects in a scientific manner, with the artist serving as a disinterested party who observes and studies it. Authors who attempted this daunting task include Emile Zola.

Similarities

Dramatists intend that naturalistic and realistic plays should depict events that could happen in real life, maybe even to members of the audience. Both genres focus on individuals and families, and generally relate to everyday situations. During the late 1800s and early 1900s, playwrights found ample subject matter for these genres as the sciences advanced and people struggled and fought against oppressive governing systems. These changes in society were frequently the subject of both naturalistic and realistic plays.

Differences

Naturalism approaches art in a more scientific, almost clinical, manner than realism. Both genres may have dealt with the emotional and family struggles of the characters; realistic plays often had characters to whom the audience could relate and sympathize. Naturalistic plays, which were difficult to create and rarely popular, approached every element with the detachment of a scientist, according to educators at Northern Virginia Community College. Realistic plays could show characters breaking free from difficult situations and allow the audience to empathize with their plight; Naturalistic works, on the other hand, sought only to study the situation, characters and other factors without interpretation.

Macbeth- Review

 Following the plot of the original Shakespearean story, Macbeth is a comedy interpreted by three actors using a ridiculously low amount of props and lighting. It was without a doubt, the best Portuguese play I have ever seen and I am still mesmerized by it. The performances were great, each one had to portray several characters, like Macbeth, Lady Macbeth, reporters, children… All of them done perfectly. Perhaps the most impressive characteristic of the play was the physicality. The actors used their bodies very precisely and skillfully, giving life and a lot of humor to the play. 

 The use of sound was great too, using almost always their voices to convey dark caves or cheerful dinners. One element they used quite a lot was a format that consisted on a journalist interviewing different characters of the classic play, so the story could be told more easily and creating humorous opportunities as well. Having almost no props, the creativity had to step up, and so it did. The battles for example, were reenacted using only two men fighting their microphone stands with knives and having full castle doors portrayed by two cables. The play had a very fast and intense energy throughout, and there was a single moment of boredom or stillness (unless it was used for comic effects), the transitions were perfectly smooth and synchronized, all of this making Macbeth one of the greatest plays these young eyes have ever witnessed. 

 Chapito was the company that made this play that was set up 30 years, and it works to integrate into the world young people through circus and theatre in a professional and formative way, giving them formation and the necessary skills to improve their creative ability and social formation. It was created to expand the value of social and cultural arts in Portugal, making it a national reference in terms of the performing arts.

The Woman in Black

 My experience in the production of “The Woman in Black” was quite rich and varied. Unable to help before, I could only be useful to the director the week before the play and during the actual performances. One a few technical rehearsals, I took a closer look at the lighting, helping out as much as I could. I realized straight away that it was trickier than I thought on many levels. First, the actual technology took me a while to get, having the control panel to actually be up and running with the necessary lights attached took away most of our time. Having done that, you only have to flip the switches and I found this later stage quite amazing even. On other part of this that I hadn’t seen before was the setting up of the lights, having someone on a scaffold adjusting so it had the right color and covers the right area of space. The actual play was quite tricky in terms of lighting, since there were quite a few blackouts and very particular parts of the stage had to illuminated at different times. On the days of the performance, I did front of house, where I was also able to help out on the details and last minute changes to the set and setting, stunned by all the stress. Doing front of house was quite amusing, talking to the audience both before and after the play was helpful on giving me some ideas of what worked and what didn’t and how I can fix that when I stage a play.

The play was about a man who saw the ghost of a woman (the woman in black) and the sight of said phantom resulted in the death of his son and wife. In order to fix his traumas, he asked an actor to act out his story so it could be told in an effective and slightly entertaining way so that he could live in peace. The stage was therefore very minimalistic, which is even mention on the script since the Arthur Kipps (the traumatized man) was afraid that simple objects could not portray real life structures and environments. Being a horror story, the lighting was very dim and never intense, giving a creepy feel to the story. On one of the scenes there was no electric lighting and the actor only used matches to light the stage, which I think worked really well. The performances were amazing, specially the actor playing Arthur Kipps, since he had to perform different characters with very specific personalities and accents. The pre-recorded sound was also very well used and perfectly timed, and was the prime contributor to some of the audience’s jumps and setting the space. The only thing I did not like in the play was the consistent blackouts that happened. I think that overusing that element made the pace very uneven and the play a bit less scary since the play completely stopped for a couple of seconds really often. Overall I was very impressed by the production, mainly because they managed to do a fantastic and scary performance with very little props, time and actors.

Just as a final note, I want to share a funny and slightly embarrassing incident that happened on the first night of the performance. It was a particularly cold night, and before the performance someone had forgotten to turn on the heaters on the hall, so it is needless to say the people were freezing. When people left during the break, a woman came up to me and said: “Can’t you turn on the heater? It’s freezing in there!” Attempting to make things better through a bit of humor, I stated that “it was all part of the play” making you shiver in every way. I waited for a sympathetic smile, but all I got was a serious face and a blunt: “Turn on the heaters, please”.