Last Friday we went to Yuyachkani and watch a play called Conciero olvido. I liked this play because it was a play where the actors expressed their emotions and feelings instead of having a structured story. In this play the actors showed, apart from the good acting, that they are very talented musicians and singers as well.
In the middle of the stage there were some chairs in a row. The actors were sitting there and each one of them had some instruments around them. The instruments used in this play were: drums, guitars, saxophones, a trombone, a trumpet and a violin. It was very exciting watching them because I really didn’t expect them to be very good singers or even good musicians. I was very surprised when the play finished.
Because this play was full of musical pieces, from my point of view, the acting focused on showing and transmitting to the audience the feelings and emotions that the characters were having.
One of the things that I liked the most was the effect they made when one of the characters died. While one actor was on the floor, the other drew his shape around his body with a white chalk. Then, the “dead character” stood and the others were talking to the drawing on the floor. It was amazing.
These are the reasons why I liked it but the truth is that I couldn’t understand the play very well. Although it had a lot of fantastic and innovative ideas, their stories are very strange and it is difficult for me to understand. It is the same with all these plays. The only play that I could understand from Yuyachkani was “Los Músicos Ambulantes”.
what does "understanding mean"? do you go to the theatre to "understand"? in that case, how should you "understand" something theatrical? i can't believe that at this stage i'm writing this...
ResponderEliminarroberto