Best Acting Classes in Austin?

[Spots]

i'm curious on that point, Jesse, if they had imposed upon you "be serious" or "be dramatic" if you think the experience would have been easier, more difficult, the same, different?

As a matter of fact they did this too. "OK Jesse, this is the scene that's going to get you the Oscar. So really go for it." It's actually one of my pet peeves to talk about the film's reception while making it. I've come to see it as a red flag.

But "be serious" is a decent adjustment. It gives me alot of information about the director's interpretation of a line. In general I would discourage prescriptive adjustments to a film actor. "OK in this scene be happy. In this scene be thoughtful. In this scene be sad. In this scene be funny."

Prescription is hard to avoid but an adjustment I would like to hear goes something like this: "I think Dan is more thoughtful in this scene. Because the pain of losing his father keeps resurfacing but ultimately he knows it's important to keep his little brother on track."

The word thoughtful isn't pulling that much weight in the adjustment. Rather, the description is a HUGE gift and the word thoughtful can be replaced by any word of your choosing, really. Fuck it, make Dan guilty. As long as that description inspires the actor, he will get there in the end.

[bradisntclever]

I think most people on this forum are into improv enough to be irritated at the implication that it doesn't require work or preparation, especially when everyone I know in the Austin improv community truly does work extremely hard at it.

True enough, but everyone is getting really wound up about one or two implied thoughts in posts. Kathy didn't say that non-genre improv doesn't require work or preparation - she just said that lazy improvisers exist. It's true, some do exist. Lazy people exist everywhere, even in places you wouldn't expect to find them, like professional sports. I don't think many lazy improvisers stick around long enough to be well-known in our community. That tends to require a certain amount of effort and commitment. It's much easier to move on to "the next big hobby/interest".

That being said, there is a bit of a bone to pick with the thought of "some very good people just show up and goof off". Some very talented improvisers make the art look much more effortless than it actually is. You might see someone like Joplin "goofing around" on stage with a super wacky character, but if you talk to him after the show, you'll realize he was keeping track of about 100 different things (stage picture, names, relationships, specific lines/traits, shape of show, thematic elements, etc.) simultaneously. Some people are also far more "at ease" on stage.

On the whole preparation/studying thing: I think that ALL good improv requires a lot of preparation and studying - not just genre work. With genre work, a lot of the studying is just more evident and tangible to an outsider - you've got to start analyzing and dissecting Mamet, Shakespeare, episodes of The Munsters or whatever. For the record, I have seen some "lazy" genre shows, too. If you're promising a show that belongs in a certain style, you better damn well deliver that style.

Do whatever inspires you, whether it's the Harold, a montage, comic clump, shortform games, or improvised episodes of ALF. Don't let others' opinions of theoretical difficulty faze you.

[Rev. Jordan T. Maxwell]

I think perhaps we are getting hung up on semantics. I said that stage and film acting are "different" because the actor must make vocal and physical choices that are suited to the environment. No "perhaps" about it. But I would also gladly agree that whatever internal process you use to bring life to you character is the same (although it differs from actor to actor, depending on their training and experience). The "technical details" might comprise only 1% of an actor's skill, but he's of very little use without it.

In an analogous way, I say that comedic and dramatic acting are also "different," not in the internal process that brings life to the character, but rather in the character choices that the actor makes - for example, what they choose to reveal about the character's inner life.

precisely. i was attempting to proffer a unified theory of acting between what you and Arthur (and others in here as well) were opining.

Ah, yes - 'Comedy' and 'Tragedy' are classical descriptions of the story arc. But individual scenes in both, from one moment to another, have dramatic and comedic potential. Unfortunately, not everyone is naturally gifted with the skill to find the "funny potential." For many people, it has to be acquired either by experience or training. That's why you'd have a Comedy Acting class.

i guess i'm still not entirely certain what the specific difference is between a comedy acting class and just an acting class (that is if the teacher's worth a damn). it seems like the argument comes down to character choices and approach. so if the class comes down to training you in how to hone your "instincts" for such choices...well, those lessons and instincts would apply just as aptly to choices made in "tragic" or "dramatic" scenes, wouldn't they? in which case it would just be an acting class. in that sense, i guess i could see it...if you advertised it as approaching acting overall THROUGH the lens of comedy, that would seem more fulfilling and useful (or as the big training surprise at the end of the class, you pull back the curtain to reveal "all of these skills apply to your serious scenes as well!"). if it's just about "learn how to be funny!", it seems to have less merit. though that's me. if someone else wants to spend their money on it and pulls something from it, i shan't begrudge them that chance.

all the same, i don't see a whole lot of people offering Tragedy Acting classes.

I like bagels.

we don't have time for your politics!

i'm curious on that point, Jesse, if they had imposed upon you "be serious" or "be dramatic" if you think the experience would have been easier, more difficult, the same, different?

As a matter of fact they did this too. "OK Jesse, this is the scene that's going to get you the Oscar. So really go for it." It's actually one of my pet peeves to talk about the film's reception while making it. I've come to see it as a red flag.

But "be serious" is a decent adjustment. It gives me alot of information about the director's interpretation of a line. In general I would discourage prescriptive adjustments to a film actor. "OK in this scene be happy. In this scene be thoughtful. In this scene be sad. In this scene be funny."

Prescription is hard to avoid but an adjustment I would like to hear goes something like this: "I think Dan is more thoughtful in this scene. Because the pain of losing his father keeps resurfacing but ultimately he knows it's important to keep his little brother on track."

The word thoughtful isn't pulling that much weight in the adjustment. Rather, the description is a HUGE gift and the word thoughtful can be replaced by any word of your choosing, really. Fuck it, make Dan guilty. As long as that description inspires the actor, he will get there in the end.

yeah, i much prefer a director who talks to me in terms of process instead of final product. except for the running gag with my friend Bradley who wrote and directed my first two movies, along the lines of "well, this'll make a GREAT story on the DVD commentary. see you at Cannes!"

I think most people on this forum are into improv enough to be irritated at the implication that it doesn't require work or preparation, especially when everyone I know in the Austin improv community truly does work extremely hard at it.

True enough, but everyone is getting really wound up about one or two implied thoughts in posts. Kathy didn't say that non-genre improv doesn't require work or preparation - she just said that lazy improvisers exist. It's true, some do exist. Lazy people exist everywhere, even in places you wouldn't expect to find them, like professional sports. I don't think many lazy improvisers stick around long enough to be well-known in our community. That tends to require a certain amount of effort and commitment. It's much easier to move on to "the next big hobby/interest".

That being said, there is a bit of a bone to pick with the thought of "some very good people just show up and goof off". Some very talented improvisers make the art look much more effortless than it actually is. You might see someone like Joplin "goofing around" on stage with a super wacky character, but if you talk to him after the show, you'll realize he was keeping track of about 100 different things (stage picture, names, relationships, specific lines/traits, shape of show, thematic elements, etc.) simultaneously. Some people are also far more "at ease" on stage.

On the whole preparation/studying thing: I think that ALL good improv requires a lot of preparation and studying - not just genre work. With genre work, a lot of the studying is just more evident and tangible to an outsider - you've got to start analyzing and dissecting Mamet, Shakespeare, episodes of The Munsters or whatever. For the record, I have seen some "lazy" genre shows, too. If you're promising a show that belongs in a certain style, you better damn well deliver that style.

Do whatever inspires you, whether it's the Harold, a montage, comic clump, shortform games, or improvised episodes of ALF. Don't let others' opinions of theoretical difficulty faze you.

i think the "offense" taken was not with the comment that some improvisors are lazy, but the corresponding implication that improvisors are lazy while REAL actors aren't. which has the double slap effect of being false (there are PLENTY of lazy actors doing scripted work) while also furthering the notion that improvisors AREN'T "real" actors.

that said...how soon do you think we can get an ALF improv show up and running?

[KathyRose]

I think most people on this forum are into improv enough to be irritated at the implication that it doesn't require work or preparation, especially when everyone I know in the Austin improv community truly does work extremely hard at it.

True enough, but everyone is getting really wound up about one or two implied thoughts in posts. Kathy didn't say that non-genre improv doesn't require work or preparation - she just said that lazy improvisers exist. It's true, some do exist. Lazy people exist everywhere, even in places you wouldn't expect to find them, like professional sports. I don't think many lazy improvisers stick around long enough to be well-known in our community. That tends to require a certain amount of effort and commitment. It's much easier to move on to "the next big hobby/interest".

Thank you, Brad. I think that's right. I was keying off what Tom Booker tells all his 101 students, that improv attracts lazy people (and that it's the perfect thing for them). Add to that, the goofing-off photos in street attire that new troupes seem to favor, and it's easy to get the impression that this isn't a "serious" pursuit. Doesn't mean it's true, and it's obviously not true for the troupes that present themselves in a professional manner.

[Jastroch]

Add to that, the goofing-off photos in street attire that new troupes seem to favor, and it's easy to get the impression that this isn't a "serious" pursuit. Doesn't mean it's true, and it's obviously not true for the troupes that present themselves in a professional manner.

That might be what you meant, but that's definitely not how you were presenting yourself.

[Jeff]

Add to that, the goofing-off photos in street attire that new troupes seem to favor, and it's easy to get the impression that this isn't a "serious" pursuit. Doesn't mean it's true, and it's obviously not true for the troupes that present themselves in a professional manner.

That might be what you meant, but that's definitely not how you were presenting yourself.

I don't mean to derail this conversation, but I feel the need to say that not everybody who comes across to others differently than how they mean to forgets to wash their hands after using the bathroom. I'm one of the most misunderstood people I know, and I always wash my hands at least a little bit after doing my business, even if it's just number one. I've seen perfectly clear and understood people walk right out of a smelly public stall and straight to the dinner table without so much as a glance at the sink.

[Curtis + computer]

I don't mean to derail this conversation, but I feel the need to say that not everybody who comes across to others differently than how they mean to forgets to wash their hands after using the bathroom. I'm one of the most misunderstood people I know, and I always wash my hands at least a little bit after doing my business, even if it's just number one. I've seen perfectly clear and understood people walk right out of a smelly public stall and straight to the dinner table without so much as a glance at the sink.

IT IS ACCOMPLISHED!

[LuBu McJohnson]

Actually, I think the only thing that has been implied here is that Steve Donovan doesn't work hard.

WRONG!

Steve Donovan is a good guy and a good worker, and will do well in any class he wants to take. Go Steve Donovan.

Also, that probably hasn't been implied, but good stuff is good to say.

[KathyRose]

I have nothing further to say.

[bradisntclever]

I have nothing further to say.

CONTROVERSY!

[Rev. Jordan T. Maxwell]

I will not post this.

[BreveBronovan]

I had no idea by posting this question and then going away for a week that I'd come back to all this. That being said I've found the above very interesting, and there were some good suggestions for classes, so thank you AIC. Maybe next time I'll ask a little more inflammatory question and see if it ignites a full on street brawl.