top of your intelligence

sara farr · Post by **sara farr** » May 1st, 2007, 3:37 pm

Here's some of what I've learned from KJ...

Sketches

...I gave my favorite drawing to Rebecca Stockley. Here's a photo of it...

Be Changed

Jastroch · Post by **Jastroch** » May 1st, 2007, 3:50 pm

shando wrote:C'mon Jastroch, you know we love you. How many emoticons do I have to hit you with for you to know that. All of them?

I forgot my smiley. This dude don't care.

But you're still a troll!

York99 · Post by **York99** » May 1st, 2007, 5:49 pm

sara_anm8r wrote:Here's some of what I've learned from KJ...

Sketches

...I gave my favorite drawing to Rebecca Stockley. Here's a photo of it...

Be Changed

That was completely surprising, outside my circle of expectation... yet delightful.

sara farr · Post by **sara farr** » May 1st, 2007, 6:46 pm

BTW, my sketches did have an image that was relevant to this discussion of "playing to the height of your intelligence". Did you see my note about KJ describing "gags" as...

"...a laugh you get for attacking the scene."

If you deliver a response in a way that fits the scene yet is funny, then it's not a gag, right?

[side note: The "gerbil" game is supposed to train you how to control when you get an audience laugh -- and make it work for you. But I've forgotten how it goes. I need to get better at this. Can anyone who knows the gerbil game give me a refresher? Andy? Gene? James? Mike? Jason? Marc? Nadine? Anyone?]

But playing to the height of your intelligence means that just because you're playing a rural farmer doesn't mean that he is stupid. He's probably smart. He's probably a lot more complicated than the stereotype. Is he a good farmer? Then he's probably smart about the things that have to do with his livelihood. Is he a bad farmer? Then he could be smart about other things. Ballet, for instance. Maybe he wishes he could have been a ballerina, but instead has had to deal with the drudgery of farm living. Or maybe he is a good farmer that sees farming through the filter of dance -- farming as a kind of silent, beautiful dance with nature.

That'd be fun, and funny, too, because it would have a truth to it. Truth in comedy. That's what I'm trying to say, people!!!

Marc Majcher · Post by **Marc Majcher** » May 1st, 2007, 10:34 pm

sara_anm8r wrote: [side note: The "gerbil" game is supposed to train you how to control when you get an audience laugh -- and make it work for you. But I've forgotten how it goes. I need to get better at this. Can anyone who knows the gerbil game give me a refresher? Andy? Gene? James? Mike? Jason? Marc? Nadine? Anyone?]

This one?

Jastroch · Post by **Jastroch** » May 1st, 2007, 11:21 pm

What exactly does that exercise teach? Other than how to fail at playing "serious scene?"

I'm serious. I understand why people think "gaggy" is bad. And I happen to agree with that sentiment in the context of my post above.

But why try to tell a "gaggy" story without getting a laugh? I get where people think this is coming from, but to me all it's teaching you to do is to not be funny on purpose. This isn't about controlling where the funny is. It's about supresssing funny that' you've put there on purpose! How does this teach you to not resort to gags for laughs?

I'm SERIOUS! PLEASE HELP ME! I DON'T UNDERSTAND! EXPLAIN THIS TO ME. PLEASE! AND WHY ON EARTH WOULD I DO THIS IN FRONT OF AN AUDIENCE!? HEEEELPPPPP!!!!

/troll

shando · Post by **shando** » May 1st, 2007, 11:41 pm

Jastroch wrote:What exactly does that exercise teach? Other than how to fail at playing "serious scene?"

I'm serious. I understand why people think "gaggy" is bad. And I happen to agree with that sentiment in the context of my post above.

But why try to tell a "gaggy" story without getting a laugh? I get where people think this is coming from, but to me all it's teaching you to do is to not be funny on purpose. This isn't about controlling where the funny is. It's about supresssing funny that' you've put there on purpose! How does this teach you to not resort to gags for laughs?

I'm SERIOUS! PLEASE HELP ME! I DON'T UNDERSTAND! EXPLAIN THIS TO ME. PLEASE! AND WHY ON EARTH WOULD I DO THIS IN FRONT OF AN AUDIENCE!? HEEEELPPPPP!!!!

/troll

Nah, dude, it's judo. Playing a "get offstage when there's laugh" game is a great way to teach youself how little and simple you can be to get a true laugh. You try to play the scene straight, but you learn how the simplest head tilt or voice inflection can make a scene funny. It's about learning if the circle of expectations is broad enough, you don't have to try that hard and it gets you out of your head. We ended the Battle of the Sexes with a laugh exit game and it was really fun--not the gerbil thing, but a group scene where if you got a laugh, you had to leave. Even if you're trying really hard not to get a laugh, the tension set up by the restriction pretty much ensures laughter with the simplest moves. Like I said, a lot of the KJ seems counterintuitive. Plus, learing how to play funny material straight is hella important--see my post about use of irony in a scene earlier in the thread. Plus, IT'S AN EXERCISE, YA TROLL.

shando · Post by **shando** » May 1st, 2007, 11:53 pm

And when I say this,

shando wrote:It's about learning if the circle of expectations is broad enough, you don't have to try that hard and it gets you out of your head.

what I mean is the set up, while silly, already contains the comedy. You do't have to do that much. That's a good skill to learn. I've seen plenty of shows where the improvisers are like chefs continuing to add ingredient after ingredient into the soup and ended up ruining it because they didn't realize that the soup was better when there were 6 ingredients rather than 85.

Jastroch · Post by **Jastroch** » May 1st, 2007, 11:55 pm

So, it's exactly like "serious scene." I guess I read Sarah wrong and jumped to a conclusion. I read "control when you get a laugh" and projected on to that statement that the goal of the exercise was to not get a laugh. And that the people leaving the stage had somehow "failed" at the exercise.

In hindsight, it seems rather obvious and I have done similar exercises myself. If only I had taken a moment to consider what was being said rather than automatically jumping on what was contrary or different than my training.

I guess I learned a valuable lesson about communicating on the boards. Asking questions and clarifying points of discussion produced a result. If only I had taken that approach in the first place rather than automatically jumping on what I disagreed with or didn't understand, I may have learned even more!

Now, if only there was SOME WAY to communicate that to other people so they could learn from my mistakes. Oh well...

/sarcasm

Jastroch · Post by **Jastroch** » May 2nd, 2007, 12:04 am

shando wrote:And when I say this,

shando wrote:It's about learning if the circle of expectations is broad enough, you don't have to try that hard and it gets you out of your head.
what I mean is the set up, while silly, already contains the comedy. You do't have to do that much. That's a good skill to learn. I've seen plenty of shows where the improvisers are like chefs continuing to add ingredient after ingredient into the soup and ended up ruining it because they didn't realize that the soup was better when there were 6 ingredients rather than 85.

I agree. The scene is usually there within the first three lines. Hell, with the initiation and the response. Inexperience and, more importantly, FEAR prevents us from seeing that and playing with what was already created. We don't think what we created in those first few moments is good enough or were afraid to commit to what we already created, so we invent invent invent invent in desperate search for what was already there, but we were too blind to see.

I think we may have slightly different ideas as to what those initial ingredients ARE and what it means to play with them. For my dollar, the MOST important ingredients we create are character and relationship and then game (derived from character and relationship). That's MY circle of expectation. As long as I'm honoring that, Moon Robots could open up a barber school and I'd be happy with the choice.

shando · Post by **shando** » May 2nd, 2007, 12:04 am

Jastroch wrote: Now, if only there was SOME WAY to communicate that to other people so they could learn from my mistakes. Oh well...

Name names, Jastroch, name names.

Also, I learned that "serious scene" is the name of an exercise that I had never played under that name, and was not just an ironic quotey euphimism. Also I learned that Jastroch and I are up way to late. What have the rest of you learned?

Jastroch · Post by **Jastroch** » May 2nd, 2007, 12:10 am

It's only midnight!

Names: Justin and Shannon!

Jastroch · Post by **Jastroch** » May 2nd, 2007, 12:12 am

Jastroch wrote: Moon Robots could open up a barber school and I'd be happy with the choice.

In fact, I will never be happy until Moon Robots open a barber school.

shando · Post by **shando** » May 2nd, 2007, 12:18 am

Jastroch wrote:It's only midnight!

Names: Justin and Shannon!

Well you got that half right. Also, "Shannon" and "Shannon responding to Justin" are two entirely characters. Perhaps they, too, will open a barber school.

acrouch · Post by **acrouch** » May 2nd, 2007, 3:14 am

I'd like a little off the top.