Spots wrote:I get why we're running with the fact that he's a director. And why we are making parallels with other directors.
But to be fair. We are more closely talking about the duties of an acting coach. Spielberg, Lucas, & Coppola do not hold seminars about the general craft of acting. They wouldn't. They direct actors toward a finished product, one project at a time.
it is important to note, though, how much acting and performance theory comes from non-actors (or people who don't primarily identify as actors). i think it's also interesting how unique this is to acting...you don't see a lot of people who are only actors writing manifestos on directing, or costume designers teaching playwriting classes.
Spots wrote:
I also find it fascinating. I guess he has less of an emphasis on performance & more of an emphasis on what makes comedy work?
Rev. Jordan T. Maxwell wrote:it's also interesting how unique this is to acting...you don't see a lot of people who are only actors writing manifestos on directing, or costume designers teaching playwriting classes. ;)
Precisely! We share a unique craft when it comes to theory versus practice. I've worn alot of shirts in my day, I can see what components make a decent shirt -- down to the details of the thread & stitching. But I would never train a seamstress step-by-step instructions for how to properly sew one.
Perhaps this is unique to acting because our product is so intangible. Performance cannot simply be quantified & approval is so highly valued we accept notes based on theory. In actual practice, perhaps no two people share the same feelings or experience. But I would argue that having a perspective from within the craft gives you something worth sharing. This is what I find so fascinating.
Keith's talent seems to be knowing what he likes, and he's spent his life figuring out how to get other people to do it. He's an acting/comedy coach, a story/comedy theoretician and a grumpy old man and a genius.
I think his perspective is limited by not being a performer himself, and it's enriched by his outsider status -- which is moot because the sum of it all is an entire branch of modern improv theory and practice. More damning than the fact that he doesn't improvise is the fact that these days he doesn't really watch much improv either. Which is probably why his ideas don't really change that rapidly any more. But I can live with it because his ideas are still pretty fantastic and he's old, so what are you going to do?
It's not surprising that she goes under a lot of people's radar because that's exactly how she intended. I'm starting to understand the Chicago vs. Johnstone thing more clearly the more I read up on Spolin. "Spolinian style" improv goes directly against her beliefs.
Rev. Jordan T. Maxwell wrote:it's also interesting how unique this is to acting...you don't see a lot of people who are only actors writing manifestos on directing, or costume designers teaching playwriting classes.
Precisely! We share a unique craft when it comes to theory versus practice. I've worn alot of shirts in my day, I can see what components make a decent shirt -- down to the details of the thread & stitching. But I would never train a seamstress step-by-step instructions for how to properly sew one.
Perhaps this is unique to acting because our product is so intangible. Performance cannot simply be quantified & approval is so highly valued we accept notes based on theory. In actual practice, perhaps no two people share the same feelings or experience. But I would argue that having a perspective from within the craft gives you something worth sharing. This is what I find so fascinating.
true, but i think the outsider's perspective (so long as they're acquainted with the craft...i would rather hear Johnstone or Mamet discuss acting than Ira Lowenstein, CPA) is valid and worth sharing and studying as well. yes, no two people share the same feelings or experience...which is why one should never limit one's craft to studying or adopting one philosophy or style. which is why i'm not a big fan of purists or fundamentalists of any stripe.
some terrible performers are amazing teachers. some amazing performers are terrible teachers. some non-performers are the cornerstone of a good section of the improv world. that's probably not a mistake.
i don't know enough about johnstone to tell you what his theories are, but looking at his history, he started as a theatre director at the royal court in london. the royal court is a sweet ass theatre, like for real. also, there are things that as a non-performer he is privy to that a performer/director wouldn't be, because they're still on the inside. that space that performers don't have access to is valuable (and it's also rare to find someone who understands that space and can articulate it, especially better than your friend who came to see your show).
also, i know he does mask work, which is insane and awesome, what tiny bit i've done of it.
that said, ain't no one got that kinda coin, keef! (jaykay, mash all your classes together, and it's probably about as expensive, you just spend it all at once).
what? who cares, improv is dumb. whattttt (it's not).
