Austin Improv

KathyRose wrote: To each his own.

jesus christ lady, my fundamental point is that I don't know what a 'comedy acting' teacher has to offer that's different from a 'dramatic acting' teacher.

I don't even know what the hell your point is. I think you're just being contrary for the sake of it. whose philosophy specifically are you even defending?

For no other reason than to keep the dialog slightly more open, I'm going to throw out an example what I think Arthur is talking about. I think some people are finding his point a bit intangible.

Tommy Lee Jones was cast in Men In Black. At the time of filming, he had to trust Barry Sonnenfeld's word that his part would be funny. He seriously had his doubts. Barry reassured him he would be a fantastic comic foil.

Unltimately Tommy Lee Jones was hilarious. Very successful. But it all had to do with *context*. The film was written a particular way, filmed a particular way, and cut a particular way. All these things were out of Tommy's hands. He had no other duty but to play his character, and do his best being true to the character. (at no point did someone cue him to be funny "Ok Tommy, BE FUNNY NOW!")

I think this is the bit we all might be taking for granted. Arthur's not really saying this is the easiest thing in the world. Being true to your character takes every waking moment of performance. It should be your primary focus, even in a comedic role. Because if you aren't focusing on truth, and you're instead trying to pull sight gags and punchlines.... well.... everything goes out the window. Empathy in particular.

Watch Tommy Lee Jones pull off the same exact delivery in other movies, say "Man of the House" and it's SOOOO not funny. Surely, there's some truth in what Arthur is saying.

I worked on a film where they put alot of pressure on me to be funny. I hated it. They literally said "If Jesse does his job right, this will be hilarious." But it was a shit script (with unrealistic phrasings) and they wouldn't allow adlibbing. They just had this exact image of how I would say it in their heads. That's not how it works, I'm sorry.

Here. Here's me being encouraged to be funny. Real piece of shit:
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aA1lXKz_7yI.[/youtube]

If there's any funny parts (this makes me cringe to watch) it's because I ignored the "Hey man, just be funny" comments.

No amount of "try to be funny" can make a shit script suddenly funny. Not unless you adlib or improvise a character choice. And here we've come full circle.

Jastroch wrote:

KathyRose wrote: Shhhhhhh! Don't scare them away from the very best improv stuff...! I totally agree, "genre improv" - especially - requires an insane amount of preparation and study. I was just throwing in a word of caution to those newer improvisors who haven't discovered that yet.

Not to nitpick, but non genre improv takes tons of preparation, work, study, etc... as well.

Jastroch wrote:Here's what I've taken out of this discussion so far:

2) Improv is easy (unless you're doing parody).

Huh. This makes me pause.

Working within a genre and presenting a parody are two very different approaches. I just wanted to be clear, they're not the same thing.
An improv show utilizing genre could also integrate parody, but even if the show is a comedy, that does not mean it is a parody of the genre it is inspired by.

This has come up a few times in talking about genre-inspired shows and I think it's good to differentiate (reading through this thread just reminded me of it).

When people came to see The Andersons, I know some of them thought it was going to be a parody of those 1950s TV sit-coms, when in fact it is meant to be an honest and hopefully somewhat authentic re-staging of those old shows.
My brother expected to hear something along the lines of, "Gee, fuck, Luke, whatta we gonna do about Pop and his porn addiction?"
Ain't gonna happen.

There's nothing wrong with parody, not at all, but working in the style of another artistic work isn't parody unless ridiculed to exaggerated mimicry (which can be so damn funny, but oftentimes limiting, so my favorite thing to do is add parody sparingly to a genre-based show when appropriate).

I find a lot of humor in the undeniable truth of things over the exaggeration of defining characteristics. So the difference between these two approaches is quite large in my mind, but I can see how it could be confusing. Parody comes in handy quite a lot when it comes to comedic performance.

(And I'm just musing on the subject Jastroch, I don't necessarily think you don't already know this stuff, I know you know your comedy.)

Oh God I already regret posting that piece of shit. Let me post something I'm fairly proud of. Please, humor me.

Here my character is trying to be funny (annoying) but because the focus is on our relationship it works.
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B85y4NbzTG4[/youtube]

Here's one where (finally) nobody is coaching me to be funny:
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b6SYD2-o8Js[/youtube]

The situation creates the funny.

arthursimone wrote:

KathyRose wrote: To each his own.

jesus christ lady, my fundamental point is that I don't know what a 'comedy acting' teacher has to offer that's different from a 'dramatic acting' teacher.

I don't even know what the hell your point is. I think you're just being contrary for the sake of it. whose philosophy specifically are you even defending?

you're not supposed to know, Arthur. your opinion is uninformed, remember?

unrelated note, how does it feel to be voted Best Actor in Austin?

....................

my love of snark aside, i want to stand on top of Kaci's post and wave a huge flag so that all can see and take note, because i've often thought the same thing. i love playing with genre. i rarely enjoy doing parody. the example i always give (because i'm too lazy to think of a better one) is that i enjoy Spaceballs well enough, but i'd much rather play in Galaxy Quest.

arthursimone wrote:my fundamental point is that I don't know what a 'comedy acting' teacher has to offer that's different from a 'dramatic acting' teacher.

I don't even know what the hell your point is. I think you're just being contrary for the sake of it. whose philosophy specifically are you even defending?

The initial post was a question about a specific Comedy Acting class being offered by MJ Vandivier at the State Theatre. It's a new class in their curriculum that MJ has wanted to teach for years, and I'd talked with her about it while I was taking her Accents & Dialects class. (I was curious myself about what the class would cover.) Before I posted a reply, I also reviewed the course description via the link provided in the initial post. In my reply I said that it would probably be too basic for anyone with improv training, and I then went on to suggest other beginning acting classes instead.

You then launched into a full frontal attack against the entire concept of a comedy acting class. I was just defending the actual existence of one. If nothing else, it looked like a worthwhile offering for new acting students who did not have an interest in doing drama. And I would hope that the difference between a comedy acting teacher and a dramatic acting teacher is experience in the genre.

Maybe if it had been a class in Commedia dell-arte or High comedy or French farce or Screwball comedy or Slapstick (et cetera), it would have seemed more different from a "regular" acting class. Exactly how this "beginning comedy acting class" differs from a "regular" beginning acting class, I couldn't say without having attended it, but I can imagine how it could be different. Apparently, you weren't willing to do so. I just couldn't understand why you were so adamant on raining on someone else's parade.

Maybe the fundamental issue is this: I happen to think that comedy and drama are subtly different acting (and directing and teaching) skills, as much as acting for film & stage are subtly different acting skills.

Case in point:
I think that Jesse Spots' performance could have been a lot funnier in the "real piece of shit" that he posted. All the blame does not lie with the script. His discomfort and resentment (as an actor) with being in the scene was palpable. The director, however, had no chance of making it better by saying "be funnier." That's where experience with comedy acting would have helped.

Most respectfully,
Kathy

kaci_beeler wrote:Huh. This makes me pause.

I completely agree KC. I was being a Troll for the sake being rude and dismissive.

KathyRose wrote:You then launched into a full frontal attack against the entire concept of a comedy acting class.

Just to interject: Arthur was offering an opinion, not doing a "full frontal attack." Perhaps you misunderstood his tone.

KathyRose wrote: Case in point:
I think that Jesse Spots' performance could have been a lot funnier in the "real piece of shit" that he posted. All the blame does not lie with the script. His discomfort and resentment (as an actor) with being in the scene was palpable. The director, however, had no chance of making it better by saying "be funnier." That's where experience with comedy acting would have helped.

And the fact that I had days to prepare for 15 pages of lines. But yes, experience would have helped. Preparation would have helped. I think it was workable. But my adjustments were as I said. "OK, bring the funny" rather than offer insight towards understanding the character's POV at that moment (which is what I needed).

And this is why I should have held my tongue about improv not requiring preparation way back towards the beginning. This is all my fault.

In all honesty I don't think any real divisions have been made here, Roy. I wouldn't sweat it.


Every now & then my only curiosity is this: if I was new to Austin improv and I lurked the forums every once and a while would I now feel more encouraged to post a thread and start a discussion?

Don't feel bad, Roy. If it weren't you, it would have been someone else. I think most people on this forum are into improv enough to be irritated at the implication that it doesn't require work or preparation, especially when everyone I know in the Austin improv community truly does work extremely hard at it.

KathyRose wrote:Maybe the fundamental issue is this: I happen to think that comedy and drama are subtly different acting (and directing and teaching) skills, as much as acting for film & stage are subtly different acting skills.

(whyamidoingthis?whyamidoingthis?whyamidoingthis?somebodystopme...)

i heard Kevin Spacey say once that for him there was no difference between film and stage acting, and i tend to agree with him (admittedly, my film acting experience is far more limited than my stage experience). the external mechanisms, perhaps...projection, being a bit broader with expression and gesture if you're playing to a larger house...but the internal processes and essence of the performance are the same, in my experience. and, again in my experience, this is much the same in the difference between comedic and tragic acting (which is the true dichotomy, since good drama should encompass both). perhaps any differences SEEM more paramount earlier on, when the actor is more concerned with emotional manipulation (make the audience laugh/make the audience cry) than emotional truth (which takes care of the manipulation part on its own in a far more successful and less cynical way). and perhaps here is where i might offer compromise...that to a BEGINNING actor, a BEGINNING comedy class might be beneficial to understand those differences in order to more fully understand further down the road how illusory and insignificant those differences are. we have to walk before we run, and we have to run before we fly. so i don't think it's necessary to begrudge a new actor learning a few crutches and shortcuts. we each beat our own paths.

but your mileage may vary. i have an older truck...:p

KathyRose wrote:That's where experience with comedy acting would have helped.

i think, to Arthur's point, that's where experience with acting in general would have helped. the more you do, the better you get, the more you learn the tools to play the moment, comedic or "dramatic" (to use the vernacular shorthand). and inevitably you find that while they may lead you to different choices, the tools themselves are much the same. i remember as a young actor in high school approaching both kinds of roles in a similarly superficial and emotionally manipulative way. as i progressed and learned, i started refining my approach to drama as more grounded and real. but my comedy, especially in improv, was still very manipulative (always asking for the laugh, as it were). when i got to college, i started to transfer some more of those dramatic techniques over to my comedy and found it made me more comfortable and got bigger laughs, and my focus started to shift more towards comedy...and in turn i started transferring lessons and techniques i learned about comedy towards my dramatic acting. the more i did of both, the less there was of "both" and the more there was just "acting." likewise, my improv and scripted acting have ebbed and flowed into each other over the years to the point that, from a performance approach perspective, there's very little to distinguish them from each other for me anymore. and of course all of these things have in their time informed into my writing as well...but that was never very good to begin with, so the less said there the better.

i'm curious on that point, Jesse, if they had imposed upon you "be serious" or "be dramatic" if you think the experience would have been easier, more difficult, the same, different? i suspect in that situation, a young actor with shitty direction and a shitty script, isn't going to have an easier time with a funny OR dramatic moment, regardless of if he's taken a beginner's class in either.

Roy Janik wrote:And this is why I should have held my tongue about improv not requiring preparation way back towards the beginning. This is all my fault.

Failure bow! seriously, no need to apologize. friction or not, i'm really enjoying this conversation and what it's making me think about. i hang around so many improv-specific actors these days and discuss improv with them so often (and discussions with actor friends in L.A. always tended more towards the business side of things than technique) that it's nice to talk about acting and performance in a broader sense with people who, even if they disagree and even if it's gotten heated in spots (not Spots. :p), clearly know what the fuck they're talking about.

Spots wrote:Every now & then my only curiosity is this: if I was new to Austin improv and I lurked the forums every once and a while would I now feel more encouraged to post a thread and start a discussion?

hell, i've been involved in Austin improv for over a decade now and i still hesitate to start discussion threads in here...mostly because there's that small voice of doubt in my head that asks, "is this the moment they all realize you really have no idea what you're doing?"

for some reason, that voice doesn't come as much into play when responding to OTHER people's discussions.

the_reverend wrote:i heard Kevin Spacey say once that for him there was no difference between film and stage acting, and i tend to agree with him (admittedly, my film acting experience is far more limited than my stage experience). the external mechanisms, perhaps...projection, being a bit broader with expression and gesture if you're playing to a larger house...but the internal processes and essence of the performance are the same, in my experience. and, again in my experience, this is much the same in the difference between comedic and tragic acting

I think perhaps we are getting hung up on semantics. I said that stage and film acting are "different" because the actor must make vocal and physical choices that are suited to the environment. No "perhaps" about it. But I would also gladly agree that whatever internal process you use to bring life to you character is the same (although it differs from actor to actor, depending on their training and experience). The "technical details" might comprise only 1% of an actor's skill, but he's of very little use without it.

In an analogous way, I say that comedic and dramatic acting are also "different," not in the internal process that brings life to the character, but rather in the character choices that the actor makes - for example, what they choose to reveal about the character's inner life. Let me give an example.

In the play that I just performed in at City Theatre, "The Laramie Project: Ten Years Later," there were precious few opportunities for laughs. At the start of rehearsals, everyone was playing it in a style that I'd call "reverentially dramatic" (altogether too somberly) because these were the actual words uttered by real people, regarding a tragic circumstance. One of my roles was a Grandma who calls her granddaughter and says...

Grandma: You know what honey, I just wanted you to know that it doesn't matter to me if you're gay.
G-daughter: But Grandma, I'm straight.
Grandma: Well, but if you were...
G-daughter: Well, thank you, Grandma.

Choice #1: Grandma suspects that G-daughter is gay but hesitant to admit it, so G-ma invites her to discuss it (a la "It Gets Better"). G'ma's "Well" conveys a hesitance, "Maybe I shouldn't have said anything, but..."
Choice #2 (director's suggestion): add a backstory that Grandma is closeted gay and yearning to admit it herself. Adds urgency to the invitation to talk.
Choice #3 (after asking the director's permission to let some humor into the moment): Grandma has screwed her courage to the sticking place and delivers the first line with resolve. G-ma's "Well" reveals her enormous relief, which she immediately tries to recoup with a solicitous "but if you were..." Always got a big laugh and that's the way I played it.

arthursimone wrote:WHAT is funny in a role or scene is a realistic character and their recognizably absurd patterns of emotion and behavior. I think it's the essence of what's comedic in modern and contemporary live theater.

True dat. I maintain that in the example above, all 3 choices can be played "realistically." Yes, it's the "pattern of emotion and behavior" (acting choices) that determines the funny. I would therefore say that "comedy acting skill" is the ability (of either the actor or director) to see what, specifically creates "funny potential" in a line or scene. Even if the writer intends a line or scene to be funny, if the actor and director make the wrong character choices, it's not gonna fly.

Now, to come around full circle...

arthursimone wrote:I just don't get the concept of a Comedic Acting class. You act the character you're given and it just depends on the playwright or director whether it's a 'Comedy' or 'Tragedy.' It's not the character's choice which one they're in, so frankly it's the actor's job to play every character 100% real.

I personally find Chekov hilarious and Neil Simon distressing.
The acting's the same.

Ah, yes - 'Comedy' and 'Tragedy' are classical descriptions of the story arc. But individual scenes in both, from one moment to another, have dramatic and comedic potential. Unfortunately, not everyone is naturally gifted with the skill to find the "funny potential." For many people, it has to be acquired either by experience or training. That's why you'd have a Comedy Acting class.

I like bagels.