How would you describe the rehearsal process you used with the three actors you worked

with for the production of Ya Basta! and how effective was this method? First of all, I think it all stems from my understanding of theater. I do not think of the result as a success of the show, that success does not interest me. If we measure success by the number of tickets sold, or by the amount of applause at the end of the presentation, that success is not important to me. Being successful is to establish real contact with the actors, which is the first step to communicate with spectators. That's the way primitive people used the theater as an exchange of stories, legends and beliefs. The other success comes in addition. In my theater words have a secondary place, therefore the most important thing in the process is to implement another type of communication that goes beyond language. The test with the actors of this project included a previous workshop. Where our only way of communication was the body. Human bodies have more similarities than languages. What seemed like the first hurdle, became our first advantage

Nothing guarantees success in theater. Nothing should ensure that success. Know how to play chess does not guarantee winning every game. You can only know the rules of the game. And one of those rules is to watch what is going on, be attend of changes however small the changes are.

The actors and I learned to be attentive to what was happening between us. Each play represents different challenges for me. I try not to apply everything that i know, but to learn from each project.

For example, in the first session I asked the actors to walk through the rehearsal room, everyone reading each role, and within a few minutes they began to play with each other in a physically way, making relationships that had nothing have to do with the text. And before I make any correction, I began to observe. Now I can tell that that day were invented many things remained until the end of the play. They were surprised when I told them they were already doing theater.

This never happened to me before. But whenever I always have a premise, the principle of creative freedom. I encourage the freedom for creation. But even that does not guarantee any success. Not all actors are sensitive to freedom. I think I was fortunate to have these three wonderful actors.

In the part that had to be more precise, was in the transmission of our aesthetics, I mean, corresponding to the elements of a theater that consists of a non-European aesthetics. How would you describe your work with the three actors who had no experience, training or knowledge of the pre colonial Mexican theatre you centre your work around?

This was the part of the process that took more time and concentration. First I want to

clarify that the techniques are not pre-Columbian. But in fact they contain some principles. It's a sort of applied anthropology to performing dances and indian festivals performing currently in Mexico. So that does not represent something of the past, but a living culture. Then both cultures are from their survivals. Then these two cultures meet from their survivals Before start sharing "techniques" I remember I started introducing myself. I said my name Kuauhtlitotiani, Eagle that Dance. We formed a circle and set fire with a small piece of copal. Each of us made a pray and put copal in the fire. I do Not only brought with me special ways of doing theater, but also a different way of life. My way of saying "Hello" was my way to start. Raising awareness is one of the tasks of the theater, and therefore I started the same way with my colleagues from Germany. I put into practice not only the elements of stagecraft, but forms of relationships of everyday life but also the ceremonial life of my culture. One of these practices was "el crculo". Early in the process, there was certain resistances. That is normal. The resistances did not come from an apathy for the project, but by the difficulty of adopting a different body code. This code has certain principles that break the stereotypes of the actor. But nothing was particularly difficult with these actors

How did your understanding of the play change through the work with the German actors? This happens whenever. The text is not sacred, and theatrical text, just its real interpretation in the act of performance. But of course, the interpretation of this text, beyond its translation was made from the understanding of a culture that is not mine. That fact unfolded the reason behind the piece. The actors met on the set of theatrical rehearsal, the real associations that have characters beyond ideologies of the author. As a director I have never tried to defend the text, the text is for me a pretext to put the bodies in actions of circumstance. I, as a director, I'm the first spectator and before you want to hear a text, I want to see theater. The play is on stage, the text is already in our backpacks. From that perspective, the play did not change anything. claimed its true dimension. If this same text will be staged in Mexico, there would charge another dimension, too true. true because it corresponds to its context. I have no fear that the play change. I hope it does as part of his nature. How do you think the performance was affected by the translation into another language? Translation is not something that harms the result. On the contrary, it is one of the benefits of intercultural work. Otherwisenot would be intercultural. It is the beauty of this type of work, finding a result. This finding is more valuable to get an expected result. Most people look for predict the results, in art this is not possible. At least in my work is not desirable. Does not mean that the result is fortuitous. On the contrary deeply creative. How important was the cross cultural learning and exchange that took place

throughout the rehearsal process to the final performance? The theater can not change social systems. Never a play has transformed society. However, the theater achieves small but significant changes in the subjects. Again, I think about the changes that occurred primarily in participants, before considering the effects for an audience. If the process could affect positively, then the result multiplied its effect on the viewer. And that we have evidence. Cornelius told me a true story of someone who saw one of our rehearsals and was a change. She made a decision and called her daughter to get her. Cornelius himself said, "Just for that, it was worth the work" and II agree with him Was the final product different to what you had envisioned for the performance, and if so, in what way? The success of religions is the fear that strike mainly the fear of freedom. The only thing planned is that it did not intend the result Why did you think creating this performance would be effective in the context of a German theatre and were your expectations met?

In principle, because the origin of Idea emerges in Germany and because in the process the actors were creatively free, and in that sense, put their ingredients, that means. ingredients Germany. I had to watch that. I was there. And now, long after the premiere, I think the proposal was lucky. We had the best ingredients, including an actor who questioned much skepticism itself was a great help. A director is not German, not famous, not recognized in his own country, it was natural. But also a dramatist who began his first project in this theater company, an assistant who also started in the company, a young and talented designer. We practice dances of my culture. The result is always deep in people who participate, and brilliant on stage. They are two different qualities, but always go together. The result exceeded, as always, my expectations. So do theater, because I realize personal misery and richness of working together