ordinary reactions to extraordinary situations

[York99]

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".

American Heritage Dictionary - Cite This Source de·fine (dĭ-fīn')
To state the precise meaning of (a word or sense of a word, for example).

When I see "definition" I think that it should define. Call me mad.
I guess "theatrical definition" means "here's something that might help you out a little bit... like a rule of thumb. Now please excuse me, I must powder my wig and tickle my houseboy."

[ratliff]

I'm with York on this one. If whoever's positing this doesn't mean it to be a comprehensive definition, don't use the word "is." Use "can be" or "is often" or something.

But you should take anything I say with a grain of salt, because I have a rod up my ass about the academy's approach to art. And religion. And everything else I've learned about since flunking out.

[kbadr]

I can't believe we're nit-picking the use of "is" and "definition."
Does/did anyone actually believe that Kaci has these definitions in her head and repeats them to herself nightly, and before each show, hoping to mold her improv into one of 2 categories?

An over-abundance of semantic arguments. The internet's true gift to the world.

Go find a scab to pick at or something.

[Roy Janik]

I'm fascinated by these historical definitions, and by what little Kaci has told about what she's learned in her theatre history classes.

There's a wealth of hundreds of years of information, thought and discussion about theatre and art that I am woefully ignorant of. I'd love to do an in-depth study of some of this stuff and use it to come up with new formats and approaches to improv.

[ratliff]

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.

Yes . . . and . . .

A few of the posts on this thread have made the excellent point that it depends on the context, and I think that's particularly true in this instance. Labeling an enormous swath of human experience "absurd" may be accurate, but as you just pointed out, in this culture we're more accustomed to some absurdities than we are to others.

You can make an abstract, intellectual argument that a naked crazy guy painted red crawling down the middle of Congress Ave. licking the yellow line and playing "Feels So Good" from a fluegelhorn jammed up his ass is no more inherently absurd than what's happening in Iraq, and I'll agree with you. But speaking for myself, I'm still going to react more -- even if it's only internally -- to the guy in the street, because I haven't gotten used to him yet.

I think placing all absurdities under one big tent is kind of an intellectual copout. I don't believe in pandering, but I do believe in communication, and so I feel like I need to be as sensitive as possible to the nuances of meaning that are conveyed by the differences between, say, a scene about Paris Hilton, a scene about the naked guy on Congress, and a scene about Iraq. Are they all absurd horror shows? Absolutely. Are they therefore completely equal and interchangeable? Not hardly.

[ratliff]

I can't believe we're nit-picking the use of "is" and "definition."
Does/did anyone actually believe that Kaci has these definitions in her head and repeats them to herself nightly, and before each show, hoping to mold her improv into one of 2 categories?

I didn't think she took them seriously until she started defending them against perfectly reasonable objections.

I have learned more about what I want to do onstage from watching Beeler and her troupes play than I would have in twenty classes about the history of theater. That's my story and I'm sticking to it.

[arthursimone]

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

I'm going to tag along with Boyko for a second and agree that comedy has changed to fit the times and dear lord almighty how times have changed!

The information age ruins everything!

There's lots of pain and suffering on the planet and we're drowning in it daily; "escape, reminisce, daydream, fantasize," the little shoulderbirds cry! Part of what comedy has become is ordinary reaction to the extraordinary. It mirrors our modern world that disconnects in order to stay sane.

Artists are the class that makes a living out of feeling- we want to be involved in political & cultural change, we nurture hope, we want like hell for people to get off their self-absorbed little asses and make a difference, so perhaps that's why we want to keep more traditional concepts of comedy and drama alive.

But that doesn't really change the fact that modern audiences get a kick out of seeing 'themselves' mirrored by ho-hum reactions to whirlwind events. "Just had a baby in the prom bathroom? No big whoop." "Klaus, we've got to kill 10,000 jews today, got any chewing gum?"

Perhaps a good question to ask is whether portraying and mocking the modern condition rattles people out of their complicity and stupor. Does the I'm-right-and-this-is-the-news perspective of Daily Show 'journalists' give real journalists a wake-up call? Could an improv show make the world a better place in a roundabout way?

Is there a difference between a knee-slapper joke and a kick-in-the-pants joke?

Is this discussion dissecting the frog too much? croak!

[ratliff]

Audiences also get a kick of being flattered that they're cool and ironic and above it all. I think the kick in the pants comes if you can engage them in a scene to the extent that they realize they're not. The detached antihero was a great corrective to the zeitgeist of the postwar era, but enough already. I'd rather make a fool of myself and change one person's view of the world than be witty and detached and send a whole theater of people out the door thinking they're superior to everyone else. Not that I have any control over that.

[York99]

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

I'm going to tag along with Boyko for a second and

This discussion is a lot funnier when you misread "zeitgeist" as "poltergeist" and continue Arthur's and Ratliff's post the whole way through without realizing your mistake.

[DollarBill]

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.

Yeah, duh. You guys are so stupid all the time. That's why I also said (but you left out) "never do anything too much". Duh. Dan O'Connor called me on being too trivial once (and he was right), but I do think that one can make the conscious decision to be apathetic if their character calls for it. I also think that Kareem and Shannon are really stupid.

[York99]

Dan O'Connor called me on being too trivial once (and he was right),

This is really funny when you misread Dan O'Connor as Dan Connor, John Goodman's character from Rosanne.

[kbadr]

This is really funny when you misread Dan O'Connor as Dan Connor, John Goodman's character from Rosanne.

This is really funny when you misread "This is really funny when you misread Dan O'Connor as Dan Connor, John Goodman's character from Rosanne." as something that's funny.

HOO HA

[York99]

This is really funny when you misread Dan O'Connor as Dan Connor, John Goodman's character from Rosanne.

This is really funny when you misread "This is really funny when you misread Dan O'Connor as Dan Connor, John Goodman's character from Rosanne." as something that's funny.

HOO HA

Ouch Kareem. Be careful where you point all that truth.

[Brian Boyko]

Could an improv show make the world a better place in a roundabout way?

"The best satire of the 20th century was the Weimar cabaret, and they managed to stop Hitler in his tracks" -- Peter Cook

[shando]

I also think that Kareem and Shannon are really stupid.

This is funny if you misread Kareem annd Shannon for Bill Stern and the horse he road in on.