Acting in Improv

[kbadr]

Phil, you ever seen Liebography? It was a public access tv show in NY. Parody of A&E's Biography that was pretty funny. They used to have a website with episodes for download, but I'm too lazy to find out what the URL is...

And if I was, I wouldn't wear it like a badge of honor. I'd correct it.

http://www.liebography.com/

[Roy Janik]

Phil, you ever seen Liebography? It was a public access tv show in NY. Parody of A&E's Biography that was pretty funny. They used to have a website with episodes for download, but I'm too lazy to find out what the URL is...

The fact that Bob took the effort to search for a thread where Kareem admitted to being lazy definitely is a strike against the theory that improvisers are lazy.

Shit. Have we destroyed this thread now?

In my own life, I'd be much more inclined to go with the maxim "programmers are lazy"... because, damn, I need to go to work right now.

[arthursimone]

Before I knew "improv" existed, I was learning acting through improv: Meisner exercises, Meyerhold exercises, Grotowsky exercises, meow blah meow. All of them were tools for getting the actor to shut down his rattling doubtful controlling mind and tap into real reaction and discover the in-the-moment truth of the character.

You know how we all say "show, don't tell"? Well, take it one step further and you have the "actor's" perspective: "feel, don't show."

Acting (not comedy improv) lessons might be defined in that bottom-up way, and if you believe it, yes, they are lessons worth taking....

And it's not just about crazy improvised emotion exercises, there's something very fundamental about having that script in your hand (head) and working it over and over again. Whether it's Shakespeare, Chekov, or Albee, when you have good writing, you can come as close to "the moment" as possible, completely subordinating your own will for that of the character. And that feels good. You've got to remember the lines and the blocking and pace yourself for the climax of the scene, but it's a blissful feeling doing that from the passenger's seat while looking at the beautiful scenery out the window.

Everyone should consider taking scripted scene study workshops if they want to see what it's like to take one step closer to shutting down the Will to Irony that dooms any performer. If you feel detached from your characters, too shy and self-aware, in your own head, etc., try it out. meow blah meow.

if there's any interest in a weekly scene study class in the future, I'd be down for teaching it after new year's...

[ratliff]

I'm lazy in the sense that I only work hard at things I like to do. I was raised to believe that to do things you liked you were going to have to do all sorts of things you didn't want to do. I've been testing the limits of this for a few years now.

I actually have a real point, which is that because there are so many ways to approach improv it's very easy to just work on those things we like and not develop those other skills that would really push us to the next level. To use the obvious example, this is a community full of really smart people, many of whom have little or no theater background, so in Austin we do a lot of what Booker calls treeprov, i.e., two people standing motionless with no character-informed change in their bodies. (I feel I can mention this because I'm Exhibit A, and after two years of studying this still get the same notes about getting out of my head and into my body, which I tend to use as a mobile podium for my talking head.)

So acting classes would help me to the extent that they could address this and other issues. I don't need an acting class to help me think on my feet or to feel comfortable in front of an audience, because those aren't my problems. But because I have to make a conscious effort to correct my weak spots, it might help me to devote some structured time to doing so. I hate to say this, but I've actually started wondering about the availability of mime classes. (Actually, Ben Schave's physicality class at OoB was awesome.)

And Kareem, I think the trope "Improvisers are lazy" is mostly said affectionately by improvisers to improvisers, as kind of a shorthand for "Yes, we acknowledge that we didn't learn a script and that some of our acting isn't quite up to Equity standards. It's a way to address our "shortcomings" in comparison with real actors quickly and then move on. It's probably not worth expending your sadness or rage on.

Though if you just NEEDED something to feel sad and angry about, go right ahead.

[ratliff]

if there's any interest in a weekly scene study class in the future, I'd be down for teaching it after new year's...

Arthur, please do this.

[beardedlamb]

here's something i wrote in april of 06 on the subject of improvisers being lazy. i don't still agree with all of it, but most of it, yes.

and let me preload by saying that there are defnite exceptions to the rule.

[York99]

here's something i wrote in april of 06 on the subject of improvisers being lazy. i don't still agree with all of it, but most of it, yes.

and let me preload by saying that there are defnite exceptions to the rule.

One point I don't agree with is the 1:1 ratio of rehearsal to performance in this respect: Improv is an artform where everyday living, feeling, interacting and observing are incredibly important parts of improving, etc. Sure, 1:1 for definition-style rehearsing is probably true. But a Shakespearian actor isn't helping his Hamlet much by talking to a homeless person or paying attention to current events and politics.

I'm sure that's off-topic, but I read that a while back and it made me think.

[Jeff]

I don't improvise because I'm too lazy to learn scripts. I improvise because I love it. That's all I will own.

You feel defensive about improv, and I feel defensive about acting. There's a lot more to acting than learning scripts.

When I read Tom saying "...funny and lazy," that made me laugh. When you read it, it made you feel sad and enraged. You and I are both people who love improv. So there's a strange incongruence.

Perhaps the very agreeable-with fact that you are not lazy (considering how prolific you are, and that you do your homework on the 30's and french farce, et al) makes you an exception to the rule, and maybe you wish for your exceptional diligence and devotion to be acknowledged rather than blown off by being categorized as somebody who performs a lazy art. That's certainly understandishable. And well-deserved. Everybody wants their hard work to get noticed, and I for one notice yours.

However, it is not necessary to study Shakespeare and french farce and Charles Dickens to hop up on stage and improvise something. In fact, if one has some kinda basic notion of crow and the yes-and, then presto, they can be on stage improvising. Even without knowing any of that stuff, kids play cops and robbers, cowboys and indians (or at least they used to), and that's obviously improv.

That's a very simplified perspective, of course, and it begs the question of what kind of quality you're getting on the stage from people who haven't practiced a lot of improv. Let's just keep the perspective simplified and say that you're getting shit quality.

So improvisers must practice a bunch and learn about their art in order to get better. I, for example, am usually unsatisfied with my improv, but I know in my heart and in my head that after I've been doing it a lot more, my satisfaction with my performance will increase. I've been acting for 23 years, and I'm almost never unsatisfied with my performance in a play. But I also work very hard when I'm in a play. I DON'T just learn the lines. I do homework on the background of my character, write down every major event that has led him to where he is now, etc. I also look at each line individually and determine what my character wants by saying it, and sometimes I'll figure out a couple of different wants from a line so I can use one or the other or both. Then there's that whole stage blocking and stage business and actions that I want to be dedicated to to really nail the personal/collective/director's vision of what each scene is accomplishing. THEN, when the lines are memorized and we're on stage rehearsing or performing, then the improv steps into the picture. Keeping the moments alive and real requires that the actors listen and react honestly, and you don't learn those things by memorizing lines.

I still agree with Tom that improv attracts funny and lazy people. I don't think that all improvisers are funny and lazy. Many are not lazy, and some are not funny. But lots of imps seem to think, "You mean I can just get up on stage and play games and have fun and I don't have to really learn a craft like acting or singing or musical instruments or memorize lines or anything, and people will just laugh and applaud? Cool!" Because there's an easiness factor that is attractive.

I was hoping that if I started writing on this topic, I would come to some kind of resolve or conclusion or thesis. I don't think I've done that.

Still, a scripted actor can work hard or be a lazy scripted actor. An improvisational actor can work hard or be a lazy improvisational actor. I just think that improv is more likely to attract the lazy actor than is scripted theatre. For the record, I love both of those arts equally, and I don't think one is any better than the other. Just, so far, I'm better at one than I am at the other. And yes, I see lots of improvisers who I think could benefit by taking an acting class. And some of them, I wish to Allah they would.

[kbadr]

I agree with everything you said, Jeff. And know that I wasn't trying to write off scripted acting as just "having to memorize a script." The not memorizing lines thing is just something I've heard mentioned with regards to improv.

My point is this. There are lazy actors, yes. They are bad actors. I don't think accepting the notion that "improvisers are lazy" is going to do us or the art any good. You want to get good (at anything)? Bust your ass. I think we agree on that, so why is it acceptable or laughable to write off an entire category of artists as lazy? That's the part that is sad to me.

I'm not sitting on my high horse, proclaiming that I'm perfect. I just don't want laziness to be accepted and shrugged off.

[York99]

so why is it acceptable or laughable to write off an entire category of artists as lazy?

The proof is in the pudding. Just look at how much you wrote compared to how much Jeff wrote. Man, are you la..........

[kaci_beeler]

And Kareem, I think the trope "Improvisers are lazy" is mostly said affectionately by improvisers to improvisers, as kind of a shorthand for "Yes, we acknowledge that we didn't learn a script and that some of our acting isn't quite up to Equity standards. It's a way to address our "shortcomings" in comparison with real actors quickly and then move on. It's probably not worth expending your sadness or rage on.

Though if you just NEEDED something to feel sad and angry about, go right ahead.

I understand Kareem's indignation about that statement, I don't think he is unnecessarily raging. Maybe it is a more affectionate phrase but it also sounds condescending.

When someone pours most of their free time and all of their energy into something, week after week, day after day, they don't want to be told that they are "lazy". That their craft is made up of "lazy people". That people come to learn and perform their craft because it is easier than "real" acting, and there is no time-consuming script learning involved.

Sure, to some people on these boards, but maybe more who are not, it is just a hobby, a side-project. Maybe even something just to help them in another area of their life. Are those people Improvisers? Or are they just people who improvise on occasion? They are not attending rehearsals several times a week, they are not performing several shows a weekend. Are they constantly challenging themselves in their prov? Are trying to see all the improv they can, write about it, read about it, study from others? Study story structure to improve their story telling? Study history to beef up their background knowledge? Looking for new ways to draw in an audience? New ways to turn what the public thinks about improv upside down on it's head?
Is it fair for the two types of people who do improv to be compared to one another? That is what I see happening in this generalizing statement, "Improvisers are lazy".

I don't like to call myself an actor because I feel that there is negative connotation around that word (poor, huge ego, overly-dramatic, are some of the words I feel hover around the term "actor"), but I wouldn't say either that I'm not one. We're still acting up on that stage, sure sometimes it's as talking heads and that's "bad acting" and maybe that makes some of us "bad actors" on occasion. But we're still actors.
Throw that phrase off of yourself if you don't want that responsibility, that commitment to having to act, and act well. But the audience is still going to expect it, they're going to judge you somewhere down the line if your acting is bad and all you have is wit. Can that sustain someone in their "improv career"? I should think not. I should hope not.
If you're too lazy in general to really do that, to act, or to care about that, then maybe you're not what we should be calling an improviser. Maybe you're a person who improvises.
Or maybe you're an Improviser and those others are Actors who Improvise. But still, I think they are separate.
And lumping the two under the Lazy Umbrella is unfair, insulting, and worthy of a complaint or two.

[DollarBill]

I haven't read a lot of the recent posts on this thread, but if it's still about acting in improv:

I was thinkin' about it, and I think the reason that Knuckleball Now is so powerful right in its current configuration is that they have Micheal Joplin AND Lee Eddy in the same group. That's a lot of acting chops. And it really polishes up the show. It's like a cake that tastes great, AND is also perfectly decorated. Or like a car that's fast, AND that has a nice paint job. Or like a puppy that's cute, AND it can say "I wuv you."

[Jeff]

Improv is an art form that attracts funny, lazy people.

I don't think accepting the notion that "improvisers are lazy" is going to do us or the art any good.

That is what I see happening in this generalizing statement, "Improvisers are lazy".

I just wanted to clarify real quick that this aspect of the thread began with Tom's statement above, and that he never said "improvisers are lazy." I agree with Kareem and Kaci that the message that "improvisers are lazy" is potentially damaging and kind of insulting. But Tom's phrasing leaves open the possibility that improv also attracts brilliant, studious, hard-working, talented people as well. I just think it's worthwhile to recognize that what Tom said and the phrase "improvisers are lazy" are two very different messages.

[kbadr]

Can we re-open AIC nominations? I think PGraph just got a lock on "Most Arrogant/Pretentious"

[The Institution Theater]

Dear Friends,

I certainly didn't mean to enrage anyone or make them feel sad or happy or whatever. All I did was offer my opinion. If you need a hug because of what I wrote, please come up and ask for one the next time that we see each other and I will gladly give you one.

What I meant when I wrote that Improvisers are funny lazy people was: That in my experience as a teacher I have noticed that people that are attracted to improv are funny, lazy people. What I mean by this is that we are usually people who want to be comedy writers but don't want to take the time, effort and energy to sit down and write. So we take the "lazy" way out and improvise. In my opinion, we convince ourselves that we are writing. We're just doing it on our feet instead of sitting at a keyboard. (And we are writing as we improvise.) Furthermore, in my opinion, we also use improv as a way to protect ourselves against criticism. If a scene sucks we can just say, "What do you expect? We just made it up on the spot." But if a something that we've written sucks, we have to defend it or learn from the criticism.

Also, when I say that Improvisers are funny, lazy people what I'm trying to emphasis is that people that are attracted to improv are already funny. They don't have to try and be funny. They already are funny.

I did not intend to imply that Improvisers are against doing yard work, painting houses, or rebuilding an engine to a '68 VW Bug. I am sure that anyone reading this posting is capable of doing any or all of those things.

That's just my opinion. I could be mistaken. I've made mistakes before. That's why I've been married twice.