Austin Improv

Cody, Obviously, we disagree a little, but not too much.
I still think that you're discounting the importance of the material a bit much... I think that you've probably seen bad performances of great material and didn't realize the performance was that bad because the material was that great. (and I know the opposite is true as well for me).

as far as the material dictating how things are said and the performance adding the subtleties, I think maybe we don't see "Material" as the same.
In a screenplay or whatever... you can have this written:
David: Do you want to buy my lemonades?
Rick: Oh BOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOY do I ever! I am just SOOOOOOOOOO excited to buy your crummy lemonade!

Obviously Rick is being sarcastic... the material will often even leave a little note to the actor (which the actor hates) saying "sarcastically".
That's the material dictating how the line is delivered... it's up to the performer to decide how over the top or subtle they want to convey the sarcasm, but the material states that the response to the question is sarcastic.

NOW... the performer could decide that it's better to not make it sarcastic... to make the person actually genuinely excited. BUT in that case, they are changing the material. Intentional or not. So the differences between sarcastic and not sarcastic in that scenario speak to the material.

Justin, you slag...I agree that it has gotten nitpicky. I was mostly doing so in an attempt to illustrate my point. I realize that the vast majority of material is going to fall into a grey middle lukewarm area in which neither side is completely horrible. The situations i'm talking about are ones where the side that's lacking are lacking in a very extreme wa. With regards to something like that matrix, ha...I don't personally think Keanu was horrible. Also, you have to account for everyone else's performance in the movie. I know its not black and white, but I was trying to paint specific examples that illustrate my point. Maybe that's nitpicky, but I'm trying to illuminate my reasoning.

I also agree that a lot of it is subjective to personal taste. Did you say that or did lance? I'll just go ahead and attribute that one to you...you slag...

I'm willing to bet though that in your example of a dull show that ends well that the performance of the ending was at least sold in a believable way. I can imagine situations in which this would be the case but those situations, at least in my mind, are a little less completely horrible on one side. I'm sorry if that again seems nitpicky.

Also, i'm not saying that just because the performance was good that its going to completely save something from being classified as sucking. I'm just saying that in my opinion that I prefer a good performance of shitty material to a shitty performance of good material because I thought that's what we were discussing. If the performance is ok but the material sucks its likely that your opinion will be that "well, there were some decently compelling moments but the ending sucked". I think that's a fair assessment, and I don't argue it wouldn't be true. Still, that's not really what i'm talking about though.


lance,
I agree that we only slightly disagree. The point is a very slim one, but its rooted in something as subjective as a personal preference. So, I'm not trying to argue that I think you're wrong...although, I realize I sound pretty defensive. I just wanted to clarify my reasoning.

I've certainly seen bad performances of great material and by all means it does help. I don't mean to discount the importance of good material. Its just that my personal preference if I were forced to pick between two absolutes would still be on the performance side of things.

gahhh, as far as those little notes in a script like "sarcastically"...I kind of hate those. They go against my acting training (as well as my writing training which always told me not to put those in). If you play within them you do still have the option of deciding how dry or wet to deliver the sarcasm. but, I'm of the school of thought that the actor does bring their own choices to it. And yes, in some ways (like the one you described) they do change the material and make it their own. You can still genuinely tell someone you want to buy their lemonade and not buy it even though you seem like you really want to. That's part of the power an actor has to bring their own thing to the table and why performances can range so much...If the ultimate goal though is to be mean to a lemonade vendor I believe it could still be done by tricking them into thinking you're going to buy it and not buying it. Technically, yes, I guess that does change the material away from the writer's intent of how it should have been delivered, but to the same end. So, maybe we don't agree on this point either, but this is the way in which I think a good actor can elevate material based on the choices they make and the tactics they decide to play while still honoring what the script is telling them they as a character want.

bah, I think we agree too much to continue this conversation... BORINGGGG!

Way to ruin another thread, Justin.

I ghost write all of lance's posts