ordinary reactions to extraordinary situations

kbadr · Post by **kbadr** » May 15th, 2007, 4:58 pm

Miggy wrote:intriguing. What do ordinary people in ordinary situations or extraordinary people in extraordinary situations get categorized as?

Ordinary people in ordinary situations: independent film that bores you to tears

Extraordinary people in extraordinary situations: fantasy movie.

York99 · Post by **York99** » May 15th, 2007, 5:49 pm

kaci_beeler wrote:Comedy - extraordinary people in ordinary situations
(emphasis on character)

Farce - What happens to ordinary people in extraordinary situations
(emphasis on plot)

[these are theatrical definitions]

How could the definition of comedy be so immeasurably narrow, incomplete, and well, nondefinitive? It's one half of the masks of theatre.

What's the source there, Kaci? I'm not calling you out, I'm calling out the writer of that. What's their definition of tragedy? "Bad?"

ratliff · Post by **ratliff** » May 15th, 2007, 6:30 pm

As someone who has practiced the dismissive, unexcited reply for comedic purposes most of my life, I can say that while it's funny, it's limited. For one thing, it doesn't get any funnier; once you've set it up you can't modulate it without destroying the joke. More relevant to improv, it really shits on people who are trying to get emotionally involved with the scene, whether they're onstage or in the audience. I agree with Justin that there's no hard and fast rule, but because this is such a default position for me I feel like I need to actively avoid it for a long time before I can creatively use it.

I was in a death scene in class the other day, and the note we got was that we needed to commit emotionally to the scene. The second I heard that, I knew it was right on, because it would have made the scene both funnier AND more moving. That's a two-for-one bargain I would like to take more advantage of.

bilbo · Post by **bilbo** » May 15th, 2007, 7:30 pm

i have wanted to read or hear this topic of discussion through austin improv.

i have grown more and more stagnant in my work and i believe it is because i have one hell of a time emotionally connecting, either with myself or with others. through scene work.

bring on the tears, fuckers!

someone needs to take me on emotionally. let some real shit come out. but be warned. be earnestly warned.

York99 · Post by **York99** » May 15th, 2007, 8:31 pm

[quote="ratliff"]there's no hard and fast rule,

I was in a death scene in class the other day, and the note we got was that we needed to commit emotionally to the scene. The second I heard that, I knew it was right on, because it would have made the scene both funnier AND more moving. [quote]

I was also in the workshop with Miles Stroth that Jastroch mentioned in the Math in Improv topic. Although I wouldn't subscribe to everything he said across the board in everything, there was a whole lot good there. Some new, some just reassuring me of my own approach.

One thing he mentioned is that there is an improv "rule" that requires the performer to always act and react honestly. Another "rule" says not to argue. These two situations are often in conflict with each other and the latter should win most of the time because arguements are boring, etc. Therefor, the former, can't be a "rule" or even a guidline without first remembering that you are a performer on a stage making comedy for paying customers.

Most of the time you can be as honest, truthful and emotionally involved as you need to, but not at the expense of the show (whatever that means to you). Everyday life would be boring to watch and that's the most honest of all. We're performers and, if we want to stay that way, we have to put on good shows (whatever that means to you).

kaci_beeler · Post by **kaci_beeler** » May 15th, 2007, 9:54 pm

York99 wrote:
kaci_beeler wrote:Comedy - extraordinary people in ordinary situations
(emphasis on character)

Farce - What happens to ordinary people in extraordinary situations
(emphasis on plot)

[these are theatrical definitions]
How could the definition of comedy be so immeasurably narrow, incomplete, and well, nondefinitive? It's one half of the masks of theatre.

What's the source there, Kaci? I'm not calling you out, I'm calling out the writer of that. What's their definition of tragedy? "Bad?"

I knew one of you would want to argue and whine with my proffered knowledge.
It's from Dr. Brooks Barr of St. Edward's University, professor of my Theatre History II course.

It comes from a chart (of sorts) that defines tragedy, melodrama, comedy, and farce as separate genres, from theatre in the 1800s.

Tragedy also emphasizes character, while Melodrama emphasizes plot.
In tragedy, choice determines character, in melodrama, character determine's choice - therefore one's character in melodrama is fixed.

These definitions are part of our roots (as comedians). There was a lot of early debate and theory thrown out about what an audience wants, what is tragedy/comedy, what a character should strive for, etc in theatre history archives. People debated things very similar to what we debate on our very boards, except they did it in papers and manifestos.

DollarBill · Post by **DollarBill** » May 16th, 2007, 1:54 am

I would say that apathetic reaction to a gun being pulled on you is actually quite extraordinary. Not many ordinary people react that way in real life. And actually it could say a lot about your character (depressed, thug who is around guns a lot, blind).

For now, I'm sticking to my "never do anything too much" rule.

York99 · Post by **York99** » May 16th, 2007, 3:03 am

kaci_beeler wrote: I knew one of you would want to argue and whine with my proffered knowledge.

Maybe you knew that because you also knew what an absurd statement it is. To DEFINE comedy as "ordinary people in extraordinary situations" is not only an oversimplification, it also rules out having a non-comedy that fits those same extremely loose guidelines and, conversely, a comedy that does not fit those same guidelines.

examples:
"The Shawshank Redemption"
Ordinary guy in extraordinary situation. Not a comedy.

"Mork and Mindy"
Extraordinary guy in ordinary situation. Comedy.

"Revenge of the Nerds"
Extraordinary nerds in an extraordinary situation. Comedy.

It's your move, Beeler.

PS: We all knew who you meant by "one of you." Well played.

kaci_beeler · Post by **kaci_beeler** » May 16th, 2007, 3:33 am

I also said "theatrical definition" at the end of my first post.

The point of the definition was how it was different than "farce", not that it was a whole definition within itself. It did not say "tragedies are not this", or "this is the entire meaning of comedy".
If you looked at my reply post you would see a similar definition/explanation for the differences that separate melodrama and tragedy.

If you want to know more pick up Living Theatre: A History, by Edwin Wilson and Alvin Goldfarb. I can't type out whole chapters to satisfy your craving for extreme detail and elaboration.

To take your examples and use Brooks Barr's categorization based on ideas of the differences between comedy, farce, tragedy, and melodrama:

"The Shawshank Redemption"
Ordinary guy in extraordinary situation. Not a comedy.
Yes, and: Melodrama

"Mork and Mindy"
Extraordinary guy in ordinary situation. Comedy.
Right: Comedy

"Revenge of the Nerds"
Extraordinary nerds in an extraordinary situation. Comedy.
Comedy is not specific enough for what I'm trying to get at: This is a combination of Melodrama and Comedy, probably known as Situational Comedy or a Comedy of Manners.

I'm talking about theatrical roots as they pertain to how we view modern theatre.
I mean, we could be talking about the nuances and influences of comedy/farce/tragedy/melodrama that show up in, say...French neoclassical theatre, The Restoration drama, English theatre from 1600s-1800s, Middle-Class tragedy, Ballad Opera, Comic Opera, Sentimental Comedy, Realism, Antirealism, Naturalism, Commedia Dell'Arte, Romanticism, The Well-Made Play, Symbolism, Expressionism, Futurism, Dada, Surrealism, Theatre of Cruelty...
or are we could be talking about "what's in the realm of general knowledge"

TexasImprovMassacre · Post by **TexasImprovMassacre** » May 16th, 2007, 3:45 am

kaci_beeler wrote:
"The Shawshank Redemption"
Ordinary guy in extraordinary situation. Not a comedy.
Yes, and: Melodrama

that wasn't a comedy?

shando · Post by **shando** » May 16th, 2007, 6:56 am

DollarBill wrote:I would say that apathetic reaction to a gun being pulled on you is actually quite extraordinary. Not many ordinary people react that way in real life. And actually it could say a lot about your character (depressed, thug who is around guns a lot, blind).

For now, I'm sticking to my "never do anything too much" rule.

You know, I agree. But I think that lots of times the choice to not be affected by stuff isn't so much a choice as it it is just not being in the moment. That's what I was getting at.

Brian Boyko · Post by **Brian Boyko** » May 16th, 2007, 8:10 am

I know this sounds weird, but I think that may be part of the zeitgeist of our times.

I'll explain more about this theory but I'll get to work.

kbadr · Post by **kbadr** » May 16th, 2007, 10:10 am

DollarBill wrote:I would say that apathetic reaction to a gun being pulled on you is actually quite extraordinary. Not many ordinary people react that way in real life. And actually it could say a lot about your character (depressed, thug who is around guns a lot, blind).

Not many people react that way in real life, but I'd say at least half the time a gun is pulled on stage, it is met with total apathy. It's (generally) not a conscious decision, done to further a scene. It's the action of an improviser who, on some level, is scared and does not want to give control to the other player. I hate playing on stage with someone who will not give someone else control when a scene calls for it. It's just a scene (or at worst, a show). Let go already!

shando · Post by **shando** » May 16th, 2007, 10:20 am

kbadr wrote:
DollarBill wrote:I would say that apathetic reaction to a gun being pulled on you is actually quite extraordinary. Not many ordinary people react that way in real life. And actually it could say a lot about your character (depressed, thug who is around guns a lot, blind).
Not many people react that way in real life, but I'd say at least half the time a gun is pulled on stage, it is met with total apathy. It's (generally) not a conscious decision, done to further a scene. It's the action of an improviser who, on some level, is scared and does not want to give control to the other player. I hate playing on stage with someone who will not give someone else control when a scene calls for it. It's just a scene (or at worst, a show). Let go already!

Better said than my riff on this. I second Kareem.

Brian Boyko · Post by **Brian Boyko** » May 16th, 2007, 10:50 am

I also think that because we are living in absurd times, it is perfectly reasonable to expect a reasonable reaction to an absurd situation.

Or, in other words, who actually believes the bomb squad when they tell you that they found a 'suspicious package?' Who really believes that the security at the airport is actually useful. But we've all been accustomed to playing the game, making sure we don't react. We all hear atrocities that we're dulled by them. "What, Americans viciously murdered Iraqis at point-blank range at Haditha? Well, that's unfortunate, oh well, back to watching Lost."

We've become dulled to the absurd, therefore we don't react to the absurd.