Acting in Improv

[York99]

Increasingly I'm realizing how often good acting pushes a show to the next level for me. I'm distressed by this observation, because I'm not sure I can rise to the implied challenge it represents for my own improv, but it's getting harder for me to ignore.

I'm curious about peoples' thoughts on this. I've wavered back and forth on this idea, depending on who I talk to about it and my increasing experience.

In ColdTowne, Arthur is the only one of us with formal stage training. Often times on stage that training comes out and it's really really impressive. On the other hand, I know a lot of really great improvisers who have no formal acting training.

I talked to Tom Booker about it once. He said that he didn't consider himself a good actor, but that he did consider himself a good performer. There's a big difference there that I can definitely appreciate.

I think that as long as someone doesn't let formal training get in the way of their improv acting/performing (whatever that might mean) then it seems to me that formal training would definitely be a plus.

I don't see too many ways that it could be a minus, but then again, people like Arthur and Shannon might be great improvisers in spite of their formal acting training rather than because of it.

[note: these are all thoughts and not assertions, so please don't get offended if I've said anything offensive]

[kristin]

It was really challenging in New York doing acting classes and improv classes/performing at the same time. The acting was focused on being very in the moment, just like improv, but also being very, very real, and not necessarily enjoyable to watch.

It's something I still struggle with, turning off the "pure" acting/responding in order to push ahead the scene, etc.

[kbadr]

I'm torn on the idea of taking formal acting classes BUT I definitely want to be a better actor. I have been readjusting my thoughts on improvisation for a while, and I'm determined to treat it as theatre because it is. Theatre requires acting.

We are actors who improvise. Razowsky beats that into everyone's mind. (And I don't believe he's ever had formal training)

Honestly, I think the real thing that's needed is commitment. Complete and utter removal of what Roy accurately described as the veneer-of-irony. Remove the "hey, look at me! I'm a crazy improviser saying crazy things!" attitude and tone of voice. Commit to everything. Fuck around and be playful but do it with strong intent and make it look like you are taking the work seriously.

I've seen and heard too many performances that have that wink to the audience in the delivery of lines.

If you're in the moment and locked into a committed character (or committed to being locked into character), I think acting while improvising is easy. The responses you give will be completely truthful and honest, and will be delivered as such.

[ratliff]

It was really challenging in New York doing acting classes and improv classes/performing at the same time. The acting was focused on being very in the moment, just like improv, but also being very, very real, and not necessarily enjoyable to watch.

It's something I still struggle with, turning off the "pure" acting/responding in order to push ahead the scene, etc.

Why are you pushing?

Funny, this thread already ties back to the UCB show. If you've decided that every scene is about finding the game, then you have a goal you need to advance. But if you haven't imposed that structure, what are you pushing toward?

I think my fellow performers get frustrated with me sometimes because I seem to be willfully avoiding the funny, but I'm not, really. I'm just trying to emotionally connect to the scene and my partner and that's still really hard for me.

More than one really good teacher has told me that the emotional connection is more important than the funny line, and I believe it. So I keep digging away at it even (possibly) at the expense of actual entertainment value.

I really do believe that if I get good at emotionally connecting, the funny parts will be even funnier. I know for a fact that if I just go for the superficial funny line I'll never get to the emotional connection. What I don't know is whether I'll ever get to that emotionally connected place on a consistent basis, hence my interest in (and terror of) acting. I guess there's only one way to find out.

Kristin, are there approaches or schools of acting that you found more congenial to improv? Or is it always a completely different animal?

[Jeff]

Kristin, are there approaches or schools of acting that you found more congenial to improv? Or is it always a completely different animal?

Sorry, I'm not Kristin, but... I've mentioned this name a gazillion times: Sanford Meisner. That approach. The Meisner one. It's the exact acting equivalent of improv, or at least Johnstonian improv.

[LisaJackson]

The acting was focused on being very in the moment, just like improv, but also being very, very real, and not necessarily enjoyable to watch.

Why was it not enjoyable to watch?

[kristin]

The acting stuff I did was a Meisner program, and though there's a lot of similar grounding I don't feel the same as Jeff about just how similar it was. (Though I only did the first year of the full two-year program, so maybe it gets more alike later.) This is all just based on my personal experience learning both at the same time in this particular program.

Why are you pushing?

Funny, this thread already ties back to the UCB show. If you've decided that every scene is about finding the game, then you have a goal you need to advance. But if you haven't imposed that structure, what are you pushing toward?

and

Why was it not enjoyable to watch?

The problems were beyond game-based or story-based or anything like that. One of the key differences is the whole idea of "yes and" in improv. The acting training only takes you as far as "yes".

To literally translate for emphasis.

P1: Wanna go to the movies?
P2: Yes.
P1: Wanna watch Bigfoot?
P2: Sure.
P1: Wanna pay for it?
P2: Yep.

Now we're all hilarious people of course, perhaps P2 keeps agreeing to more outlandish requests or we discover P2 is on the phone agreeing to something else or a robot or whatever, I'm speaking in generalities here. In general, the above is not interesting for the audience or very good to your fellow players.

In improv we're trained to add more, to keep things advancing.

Now in reality the Meisner "scene" would be more like.
P1: Wanna go to the movies?
P2: Wow, you're asking me to the movies, I'd love to go.
P1: I'm happy you're so excited.
P2: You sound surprised I'm happy?
P1: I thought you'd say no.

Or whatever.

Now that probably leads to some kind of engaging scene too, but it's still a different focus than even an uber-realistic emotional well-acted improv scene.

I feel like improv takes more history into account, more "story" within the scene (regardless of whether you're doing narrative or not), more conscious moving forward of action or relationship.

So in summary, in my personal experience, the acting stuff is great for getting you "in the moment" but an improv focus ensures you do something with that moment.

[kbadr]

So in summary, in my personal experience, the acting stuff is great for getting you "in the moment" but an improv focus ensures you do something with that moment.

Nicely put, though I would argue that in scripted acting, if the moment doesn't seem to be heading somewhere or revealing some important character trait, the writer should have cut it before it got to the hands of the actors.

[ratliff]

What Kareem said.

Also, I think the word "story" is a trap. I've seen a lot of good scenes ruined by improvisers panicking and adding a lot of detailed backstory or creating a conflict. The irony is that it's often a pretty sweet scene in which nothing is happening, but it goes south the second the players try to "fix" it.

A coach I will not name said that one way to think about the difference between Chicago and SF improv is that Chicago is comfortable with scenes in which "nothing happens." Hence Bassprov, which is highly entertaining (to me, anyway), even though there's no story, no change in the characters or their relationships, and very limited physical action.

[acrouch]

Also, I think the word "story" is a trap. I've seen a lot of good scenes ruined by improvisers panicking and adding a lot of detailed backstory or creating a conflict. The irony is that it's often a pretty sweet scene in which nothing is happening, but it goes south the second the players try to "fix" it.

I would say "trying to do something" is the trap, not story or the concept of characters being changed. I've seen a lot of good scenes ruined by an unnecessary game, but that doesn't make the term "finding the game" a trap.

[ratliff]

Also, I think the word "story" is a trap. I've seen a lot of good scenes ruined by improvisers panicking and adding a lot of detailed backstory or creating a conflict. The irony is that it's often a pretty sweet scene in which nothing is happening, but it goes south the second the players try to "fix" it.

I would say "trying to do something" is the trap, not story or the concept of characters being changed. I've seen a lot of good scenes ruined by an unnecessary game, but that doesn't make the term "finding the game" a trap.

I should have put more qualifiers on that. Obviously, making something happen isn't a trap if you're doing narrative, and finding the game isn't a trap if you've decided that's what kind of improv you're doing.

[Aden]

Theatrical training and improv seems to be a good thing. I absolutely love watching Arthur perform, and I feel that my own training has helped me a great deal in my own performance. Particularly the musical theater background that I am able to draw from.

It also seems that training lends itself to professionalism, which is another good thing. I like for the shows I see to have a bit of polish to them, it's that much more exciting when someone breaks character or the fourth wall or just looks like they're having fun.

I don't however believe that acting lessons = good improv. It's just another tool folks can use to polish and hone their skills.

[DollarBill]

Everything is useful. Learn it all. Practice.

[The Institution Theater]

I don't see how "real" acting lessons could hurt your improv. In my opinion, improvising is acting. You just don't have a script. Improvising is very, very similar to the Miesner Technique. (

For those of you who don't know, the Miesner Technique uses excercises like sitting in a chair facing your scene partner and you repeat the same line back and forth adding emotion based on what you see (or "hear" as in "listening" to your partner in an improvised scene.) your partner do. The line can change but it must change organically. If you are in a Miesner class, you may be doing this excercise for weeks at a time.

What the Miesner Technique teaches you is to listen and react based on emotion. To me, that is what improv is. Improv is not about being funny. It just happens to be an art form that attracts funny, lazy people. What we are looking for in an improvised scene is the "truth" of the scene. (Just like "real" acting.)

To me, on of the great things about Improv is that we get to create our own truths. And then we react to the gifts given to us by our partner(s) and react based on an emotion that is organic to the scene while maintaining the truth of the scene. And the scene will be funny as long as we don't try (or force - be "untrue" to the scene.) to be funny because, as I said earlier, Improv is an art form that attracts funny, lazy people.

As far as whether taking an acting class will help your improv, the answer is "yes". So will taking a cooking class or a sword fighting class or a meditation class. Anything that gives you any sort of experience from which you can draw upon when you are on stage will be helpful to your improvisation. Although an acting class my may you feel more comfortable on stage than a cooking class. Both classes have value.

[Jeff]

I think Tom Booker is one of my favorite people. What can I do for Tom Booker?