Confesiones - Ana Correa

One of my favourite scenes, when she interprets the
 teacher from 'Sin titulo- tecnica mixta'

Description:
Last week, we went to watch "Confesiones" by Ana Correa. They play took place in 'la casa Yuyachkani', house of the theatre group where Ana belongs to. It was a one-person play, in which the actress shared with the audience the connection between the characters and the actors.





Analisis:
At first, when we were welcomed by her in a festive costume, it didn't give me a hint of what the play was going to be about. But as it progressed, I started noticing that she was narrating her life experiences while changing into different costumes and interpreting different characters.
The scenary was divided into two main spaces, one was a square marked by tape and the other one was outside of it. I could easily tell there were two levels of reality marked by the spaces: inside the square, where she interpreted her characters; and outside of it, where she shared words with the audience as herself. By watching this, I learned how could we take advantage of the physical space to as well create different levels of reality, with something as simple as tape which created another dimension where she transformed into her characters. It made me wonder, to which point are level of reality believable.
In addition, as she was adressing directly to the audience she was simultaneously chaging her costumes. This might not have been the smartest move for the play, since the audience might have gotten distracted while she changed her costumes and did not paid as much attention to what she was saying.
Moreover, she mentioned acting as a life process. As a personal process. This here, made me reflect by considering that the most relevant material an actor has, is their body. That's it. If theatre could be something specifically, I would call it the art of people. Therefore, the material of theatre is the person. As an actor grows developing characters, they also grow as a person; it is a life process. In fact a never-ending procedure to actors. They grow, they feed on characters as characters do the same on them.
As well, while she talked to the audience, she mentioned acting as a process that allows you to explore yourself, to be able to connect with your characters, to force you to empathise with them. In a way I believe it makes you get to know yourself better because you act charaters different from you; which do things you would or wouldn't do, that make you feel identified or not. It makes you build an identity by comparing yourself to your character's actions, decisions, ways of thinking, etc.
As characters are a part of you as an actor, you bring them to life, you enrich them. But they also enrich you. That is an important point Ana made in the play. She made clear that it is a two-way street. That you are not the only one that gives something to the character but that it rewards you as well. That you learn from it, that it makes you grow and undertand its attitudes and reasons to be.
While Ana was talking to the audience, she revealed she was inspired by different poeple she met and used them as models to create her characters, in other words, use them as archetypes. She took traits of different people and I believe this allowed her to explore limits of herself and ask to which point could she use these traits to build a new character. Should she combine them? Should she use them separately?
On another view of the play, I appreaciated how there was a sudden change in the moods within actress and characters and between characters one another. The first change made me think about how chameleonic actors are. She made clear for the audience to notice how different the moods where when she was adressing directly to us and when she was acting her character out. From a more direct, honest way to a more fantastic, different-reality way. I say honest way because I could easily see that she was there without any mask, metaphorically. She was there to share her experiences and to make us realize the long process there is to create a character. Honest, even to the point that she talked about the desk. The desk which broke during the scene, this proves she was there not to cover mistakes, not to lie; to be truthful, just to show herself, her real colors. Right there, I saw a connection that she was willing to make with the audience; not only by talking to them like she did the whole play, but by sharing with a naked, honest attitude. That really worked, because it had the audience's attetion most of the time. While, the change of moods of the characters was different. I could see that some of her characters were really unlike to each other. Some were energetic, some slow, some dynamic, some sad and many other contrasts. In my opinion, this gives variety in the plays. It shows different faces of the actress and different traits of the characters. Let's say it gives a wider range of choices  for the audience to choose their favourite character.
I would like to highlight the importance of her changing costumes infront of the public. As she had one costume on top of the other, and she started taking them off one by one; it made me think as if she was an onion. Peeling herself layer by layer, not only physically but everytime she took one costume off she also revealed more parts of her life experiences. I believe that maybe, as she was stripping (literally) it might have meant going back to the basics (symbolical); because as I mentioned before an actor's material is their body. For example, when she represented the Ashaninka woman, she didn't just showed her breasts because, she was using her body to show what she wanted to say about women: that she was showing her breasts to feed her children.

Connections:
I could find a couple of connections between this play and other things I know.
The first one would be my own experience as an actress. I would agree with many things Ana said like that you grow with the characters you interpret. I have grown so much as an actress by interpreting different roles. I could say that my characters in 'Down to Earth', 'Miyuki y los tres demonios' and 'Shadow Queendom' have all been very different but subtancial. They made me reflect on what are my own characteristics, what would I do or not do, how do I think, in what do I believe. That it is a life process, that you can't detach of what you are doing when acting, it involves ALL of you. Your willingness, your effort, your life.
The second connection I found was with German Expressionism. This is because one of its themes is the need to create a new man, it has emotional trascendence and it identifies society. When Ana explained how she created a new character, she mentioned the creation of a new being. Of a new creature that was unique, which could be helped or inspired by different life experiences. For example in German Expressionism the aim is not to look happy but to BE happy and express it in your character. As well, there were some moving scenes, even she cracked her voice while talking about terrorism which I believe had emotional trascendence in the audience. As well, while talking about terrorism and a strict teacher I think she connected again with the audience and identified society.

Reflections:
What have I learnt? Well, I found this one-person play really entertaining. I enjoyed how she explained the character and its reason to be before interpreting it. I think that made the play more understandable. It taught me a new convention about theatre. I knew one-person plays existed, but not this kind. I mean it was interesting to see how she was in a connection with the audience and suddenly she was in another world separated by tape. Every time I watch a Yuyachkani play I always challenge myself to think about the deeper meaning it has, to question its purspose. Their plays are so different to those you would normaly watch.
Anyway, I noticed some bumps on the play. For example, as I already mentioned the changing of costumes while she was speaking. Was it really effective? I believe it made the audience feel a more familiar atmosphere but it made us pay attention to the changing of costumes rather than to what she was saying.
As well, the volume she had while adressing to the audience. I know it was supposed to be more personal, but she was not adressing to few people but to a big audience and sometimes I couldn't hear her. This made me reflect on my personal volume while I'm on stage. Does people feel the way I did when I couldn't hear her?
In addition, I think some of the scenes where a little too long. I am concious that that theatre is not only aiming for entertainment but it is a really nice part the audience enjoy. For example, the part of the candles started to be a little boring after being too long. I started thinking that in my opinion theatre should not make people yawn or get bored in any way.
Ana closed with an intriguing phrase "to grow as an actress is to grow as a person". Why would she close with such a phrase? Maybe because it was what she wanted the audience to remember, what she wanted to highlight, to sum everything in the play to that phrase. Acting is a process that changes you, no matter who you are, where you are from, in what do you believe; it always does.
Lastly, there is a question that has been haunting me since I watched it. Yuyachkani is the most recalled theatre group in Peru, all talented actors capable of great thing, as I have seen their other plays.
So, what made Miguel Rubio choose Ana Correa to star in 'Confesiones' instead of any other actors in the group?