|
Wolfgang Pauli posted:I'll get that question out of the way then: how the christ do you learn improv? Because it certainly isn't that Spolin book. There are a few books that are viewed as the "Bibles of Improv" out there--Spolin's being one of them. My personal favourite is Mick Napier's "Improvise," but, really, books only do so much. If you're not in a place with a great improv school or two (Chicago or New York), your best bet is to get a couple of people together and just keep doing scenes. Set a timer and start a new scene every two or three minutes--making completely new choices each time. Essentially, you want to be doing this: 1. Make a strong choice immediately at the beginning of a scene. Decide you're a perverted pirate, and stammering teacher, a retarded CEO, it doesn't matter, but do it immediately. Don't wait to see what the other guy is doing. 2. Commit to your choice. Don't change it halfway through. Don't suddenly say, "Yes, so that's what a pervert would say." Stick to your decisions: your accent, your body mannerisms, your emotional point of view, your needs and wants, your flaws, your and so on. 3. Don't negate what your scene partner is doing. React to it in the character you've created and committed to. This way, if your partner is lovely and is being a selfish improviser, you're protected because you've made an awesome decision at the top of the scene. Really, though, you're best off seeking out someone who knows what they're talking about, because otherwise you'll eventually start to improvise scenes where you or your partner(s) try to dictate every beat. I'm sure you've seen those scenes. Guy 1: I'm so glad you could come to my wedding! Guy 2: It's not a wedding and I hate you! Guy 1: But you're the best man at my wedding! Guy 2: Don't talk to your dad like that!
|
#
¿
Jun 9, 2009 17:07
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 15, 2024 14:26 |
|
|
MerylNZ posted:But if you walk on as a demented pirate and your partner endows you as a dentist, then you got to change I would just play a demented pirate who happened to be a dentist if that happened, and then I'd never work with that partner again because they're a poo poo head. It happens a LOT in auditions, though. Not just for fledgling improv troupes, either - Second City auditions and things like that. You get people trying to tell their partner what they are/what they're after, and that's that, everyone on stage is hosed. I have a friend who lost out on a decent part because the other actor decided that he (as in my friend) was a paedophile. A thread about audition horror stories might be fairly interesting, actually.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 21, 2010 15:46
|
|
|
You just switch your energy a little. Take on the fact that you're a dentist, or whatever, but don't drop the choice you've made. It's a compromise, but it can lead to some funny scenes. If you make a choice stepping forward, like "Ok, I'm going to limp and have a lisp, and be really angry," and your partner made a reference to you being a doctor, you would be a doctor, but you would be an angry doctor with a speech impediment. If you decide you're going to be a mean mother in law, you would still be a mean mother in law, you'd just be a doctor, too. And so on. I've heard it said that the scene doesn't really start until the second line, which is something to think about.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 22, 2010 01:21
|
|
|
El Tortuga posted:Also, I guess I should say that it has guys kissing, so I guess if you're that put off by that stuff then you should stay away. You're posting in a thread about theatre, so I wouldn't worry. I've also had a hard time watching productions on film, because they feel different. Laughs are quieter, that guy with the cough is louder, the lights are suddenly too bright, someone isn't projecting enough even though you could hear them from the back of the room... I'll check out your link once Flash decides to work again. antiloquax fucked around with this message at 15:20 on Jun 15, 2010 |
|
#
¿
Jun 15, 2010 15:18
|
|
|
Geekboy posted:Finished my first show as a director this last weekend and am trying not to come down too fast off the bubble. We did Little Shop of Horrors (a bit ambitious for a first timer, I know) and while we did fantastic I'm not sure if we made money yet or not. Since it's community theater, the real goal is just to pay for your next show but it would be nice to not be a drain on our limited funds with this one. Congratulations. Do you hate actors yet? I consider just breaking even a success with most productions, but I hope you get enough to sustain your next show. Are you working as part of a theatre company, or would you be working with different people in your future ventures? You know, one of the weird things about directing is that everyone seems to have an opinion they want to give you. It's always funny when they're conflicting opinions given at the same time. I've actually started putting a disclaimer on playbills saying that, if anyone wants to tell me what they would have done better, they need to buy me a beer first.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 11, 2010 06:46
|
|
|
beer_attack posted:I believe you mean, "break a leg." Telling your snooty cast "good luck" before opening night is one of the best things ever. Only if they're snooty, though. Here's something I've been noticing a lot recently: Why are "serious" actors generally better at comedy than improv/comedy actors? When I first started putting up shows in Chicago, four out of six cast members were improvisers. Now I try to avoid them as much as possible unless they're actors who just happen to enjoy improv. They're complacent, don't show up on time, and take forever to learn lines. They're also a lot more likely to make loving stupid calls on stage because they "just had to."* But why? Aren't they supposed to be the comedy experts? * In one instance, when some pretty cool people in the community were in the audience, a cast member decided to play his character retarded, which was mildly offensive and pretty much killed the audience reaction for most of the show.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 13, 2010 01:30
|
|
|
OSheaman posted:But don't let all the poo poo distract you from improv actors as a group. They're incredible people to work with if they know what they're doing. Oh, I know. I've worked with some very good improv actors and I've been blown away by their performances and professionalism. I think I'm just venting. One too many good opportunities ruined by douchebags, or something like that. I think that the two groups that usually work the best are the people who are over twenty five and have kind of just gone "gently caress it" and don't care about impressing Del Close anymore (and people still want to impress him) and then there's the classically trained actors who think "Hey, this will really help my performing." Improv is a great tool for acting and generating material if used properly. It just isn't a lot of the time. The major problem is probably the echo-chamber environment that the two main schools create. You watch your friend's show, they watch yours, nobody in the audience is an actual member of the public, so the positive feedback you receive is skewed, and you're more confident than you should be. Maybe I should start a "Let's bitch about the Chicago improv scene" thread.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 14, 2010 02:59
|
|
|
That sounds pretty awesome, have fun with that. I think I've worked out the improv/acting thing. A lot of people come to an improv hub to study improv not to actually study improv but to use it to do what they want to do (be John Belushi), whereas actors are doing what they want to do, to an extent. Obviously I don't want to generalize too much, but if you're doing something you're only using as a stepping stone, you're not going to be an attentive performer. So yeah, the bad improviser comment from earlier was probably accurate. And completely unrelated again, but I've just started the audition process for a play I've written and while I hold good auditions, the lead up is always a little annoying: At least three people are going to want the whole script; five are going to ask when we're shooting the movie (I don't make movies); I usually get a couple of parents wanting me to use their five year olds. Oh, and quite a few questions about things that were in the fifty word casting call.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 18, 2010 15:22
|
|
|
OSheaman posted:people are going to want that leg up over their fellow auditionees. See, that's a reason I can get behind. I guess I've become cynical and jaded over the past couple of years (I'm guessing it shows).
|
|
#
¿
Nov 18, 2010 21:41
|
|
|
Break a leg. What agency?
|
|
#
¿
Nov 30, 2010 16:46
|
|
|
OSheaman posted:Gray Talent. Would be a good get if I can swing it. I think I'm auditioning a few of their clients on the 12th. Looks like a good agency, especially compared to some of the others in Chicago.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 30, 2010 21:47
|
|
|
Yesterday I read a casting call to a play with a very similar premise to one I've been working on for six months. It opens the week before mine goes up and was written by an Emmy winning former Second City cast member. It's just a coincidence, right? And the fact that I'm less well known and am going up a week later isn't going to make me look like I've stolen their idea, right? To clarify, my play revolves around people like Oprah visiting Richard Daley during his last days as mayor while theirs sees people like Richard Daley visiting Oprah during her last days as a TV host.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 1, 2010 16:09
|
|
|
OSheaman posted:That said, sketch comedy is full of basically similar ideas. When the Rod Blagojevich thing happened I must have seen 15 different revues in town built around the story, most of which probably had the exact same jokes. I wouldn't worry too much about it. Ours is at Gorilla Tango, theirs is at The Annoyance. I'm pretty confident it's just a freakish coincidence. You're right, too: this is probably an idea that's going to get used by other groups too and is one of the risks of relying on pop culture to generate ideas (and also one of the reasons I generally tend to avoid using it). To combat that, I'm rewriting the script a little to make it a lot more off the wall and unpredictable.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 1, 2010 17:37
|
|
|
OSheaman posted:I don't know many people who see something at Gorilla Tango on a whim or "just passing by" I've had some weird people show up to shows there in the past, which isn't really a good thing and can lead to heckling or walk outs if people don't get what they expect. We do typically get a good turn out for shows there, but that's a result of developing an audience for two years. This is probably the last show I'll do at Gorilla Tango for a variety of reasons, one of which was just mentioned. But, yeah, I think this could be a positive if handled as a positive. And I'm with you on that rule, Golden Bee. I can't tell you how many times I've had to cut sketches and jokes because of South Park or Conan. It encourages you to try harder.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 1, 2010 22:03
|
|
|
I have one this Thursday at 9:30PM (Gorilla Tango). And next Thursday. And then a bunch of shows in March. We just discovered that Gorilla Tango is right next to a bar that does karaoke on Thursdays and serves $2 beers, which makes me like the location a lot more.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 7, 2010 15:12
|
|
|
Youtube views are some of the weirdest things on the internet, so I wouldn't worry. They may not have gone through yet and sometimes they don't count them at all.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 9, 2010 17:45
|
|
|
It's not a strange question or even a particularly uncommon one. I know a few people doing this, but they have absolutely no emotional range as actors and while they can be funny improvisers, they're usually playing themselves. Most famous improvisers or people to come out of improv were good actors first. Eventually you're going to go against someone who's funny but can also cry and show varying ranges of anger and all the stuff that directors like. Not saying you can't do that, but if all I have to go on is your resume, I'm going to think it. Acting classes are a big plus, just be sure to find a course that works for you.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 9, 2010 20:10
|
|
|
Gray Ghost posted:Thanks for that. I got a lot of good marks in a Meisner class (only 4 three-hour sessions, so I don't count it as formal training), so I thought I might be able to build on it over time. Yeah, that's the way to do it. Apparently Deniro still takes classes occasionally. Probably would have meant more a decade ago, but there you go. With acting you kind of just want to avoid one of two mindsets. There's the guys who are in their forties still going from program to program because they're "not ready yet," and there's the guys who think "Well, I just booked that industrial, so I don't need to work on anything ever again." As long as you're honest about your progress you'll be fine.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 11, 2010 02:25
|
|
|
I held some auditions this weekend, and I found that the best thing to ask is "Why are you at this audition?" You get a really good feel of what people are wanting from the project, and it's a good way to weed out people who either have really high expectations ("I only want to work with the biggest names.") or just wanting to boost their resume. Also, the show I'm currently doing is really falling victim to its opening twenty minutes. They're really not funny enough to be in a show people are paying to see and by the time the funny forty minutes come along the laughter's been stifled. A complete lack of energy from half the cast probably isn't helping, either.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 13, 2010 15:13
|
|
|
Geekboy posted:I imagine this has you wanting to tear your (or maybe their) hair out. I've done it myself, so I can't complain too much. I love the differences high energy performances bring, though, so maybe I'll give them all E before the next show.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 13, 2010 23:19
|
|
|
Named Ashamed posted:You have to approach that character like he is: A real person. Seconding this (thirding?). The sarcastic approach is a director trying to protect him/herself from either being seen to agree with the character or endorse that point of view. At least that's the impression I get. Maybe it just made them uncomfortable. At any rate, you owe it to yourself and the actor to make the monologue as real as possible. You can add subtexts or allude to some sort of character flaw, but make sure it's organic. If you're concerned about it, and if you have any control over the running order, I'd sandwich it between two of the stronger, shorter, light-hearted monologues.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 14, 2010 15:37
|
|
|
El Tortuga posted:consists of blocking that is just everyone standing in clumps onstage as they sing, with no filling action or blocking during musical breaks, so everyone is just standing there waiting to sing. That sounds terrible. Here's hoping you can change all that. It's not limited to musical numbers, either. I've seen plenty of plays or sketch revues where every scene is 2-3 people sitting or standing semi-circle center stage, talking at the audience. They don't even mix up where they stand, either, it's just them standing there, right in the middle of the stage, talking, for an hour, interrupted only by light changes.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 20, 2010 03:03
|
|
|
OSheaman posted:because I had a blast reading it and now I want to put it up in Chicago somehow. We could get the entire Creative Convention Chicago Contingent in on it. I'm good for $50 and a file cabinet full of headshots. I completely rewrote the Richard Daley play so it's now a ridiculous faux action movie, we bagged a pretty spiffy cast of people, and I'm actually designing the stage for the first time in two years. I'm a little excited about seeing how it comes together. I've pretty much decided that next year is time for me to go big or go home.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 31, 2010 00:37
|
|
|
Golden Bee posted:You can email me adam.mandark@gmail dot com because I've revised it according to Shea's suggestions. I still feel the character we were discussing is a bit...thin, but I'm definitely working on it. I'd love to look at it, e-mail sent.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 4, 2011 15:35
|
|
|
Pious Pete posted:I'm more or less trying to get a feel for the "black comedy" genre and why its effective. The use having an audience experience both laughter and discomfort in the same sitting. I'm also particularly interested in the use of gruesome images on the stage, especially in comedies. Getting a gasp or a groan followed by laughter is one of the best feelings I think you can have as a writer. Can't really explain why, and it can be hard to do, but it's very rewarding if you can hit the sweet spot. Absolute hell if you miss, though. Last page in this thread has got me thinking that I might try to actually get a tech person to work on my show. It's the first thing I've done since I started to produce that I'm not directing, but I'm still prop manager, stage manager, light board worker, costume designer, writer, producer, promoter, and graphic artist, which is a lot more work than any one person should do. I've been toying with the idea of starting up a co-op theatre where everyone gets paid and classes are reasonably priced (or free). Not sure how that would work in a place like Chicago, but I do feel that a non-profit venue that actually lets other people put up their work could work. I've become a little disenfranchised about most of the sketch/improv theatres in town, and could probably ramble about them at length if I wanted to.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 6, 2011 19:52
|
|
|
Geekboy posted:
Chicago's comedy scene is as diverse as it is because of so many people saying "gently caress you, man, I am funnier than you." It just goes with the territory, I suppose. All those egos. And do what you think is best with the casting. You can't spend time worrying about what other groups think because they'll find some other reason to hate you next week. Anything less that full-blown professional productions are about doing the best you can with the best that's available. If you're the best that's available, then so be it. I do sketch revues about once every three months and inevitably end up writing at least 70% of every show I'm involved in because A) even if I get 50 responses from other writers, only seven of them will be good (most will be rehashes of South Park episodes), B) of that seven, only four will contribute, C) of those contributors, two will contribute two scenes that are about seven pages long each (seven pages and two jokes), one will contribute about a minute's worth of bits, and the other will not finish any of the five sketches they bring up at the first meeting, D) none of the cast want to write anything. So, you know, playbill comes out and my name is all over the scenes, and some people think I'm just some kind of egotist, but the truth is I write as little as I can get away with and still have a viable hour long show. It's not ego or arrogance; it's doing what needs to be done to get a production on its feet.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 11, 2011 06:28
|
|
|
I agree with Goldenbee. Also, if you don't need two male leads, don't have two male leads. If you need two, and you're the only alternative, I wouldn't give it a second thought.
antiloquax fucked around with this message at 17:32 on Jan 11, 2011 |
|
#
¿
Jan 11, 2011 15:21
|
|
|
It really depends on the place and the deal. If it was the case of "Hey, do some jobs for 40 hours this month and you can use our sexy big stage with an 80+ audience on an off night for a four week run," I would be all over that. If it was more "Look, work for us for free five days a week for a year, and we let you stand on a crate under a spotlight next Tuesday at midnight" I would probably say no. Sadly, I think the second situation is more likely to happen at certain theatres.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 14, 2011 18:36
|
|
|
One of my big pet peeves is people not returning phone calls or e-mails until it's too late to do anything about it. I've lost out on a few projects because, by the time I realized it was too late to get the people I wanted, it was too late to get anybody. I'm getting quite good at guerrilla productions, though. Nothing quite like putting something up on a month's notice with a fifty dollar budget, some cardboard, and a roll of aluminum foil.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 25, 2011 15:18
|
|
|
OSheaman posted:My only gripe is with people who come in with an ironclad idea of their character and refuse to let rehearsal or direction shape that image at all. I directed a show where one of the actors thought his character should be retarded. I told him that it was a bad move for the feel of the show and borderline offensive, and he went along with that until the show went up. He then went back to playing a mentally ill character. Pretty annoying. The worst kind of actor, I think, is the hipster sketch-improv actor who doesn't want to convey any emotion in any character at all, ever. They pretty much play themselves all the time (I've been down that road myself), but don't realize that they aren't really all that interesting. It's kind of like wrestlers who only want to play unstoppable killing machines who don't get hurt. As far as adding nuances to your character method style, I think there's benefits to it so long as you make everything look natural. If it doesn't look natural, all I can hear when I watch performers is "Look at me acting, I'm acting, look at me purposefully rubbing my fingers together, how awesome at acting am I? I'm such a good actor." Or, "I am Debra Messing."
|
|
#
¿
Jan 27, 2011 16:44
|
|
|
You can have some fun by forcing him into serious scenes every time you improvise with him. Don't play for laughs, and make sure your characters are as grounded and depressing as possible. When I used to improvise like that, my breakthrough was being forced to be an apologetic, abusive father. It tapped into a well of emotions I didn't know was there, and it's been useful ever since.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 27, 2011 17:39
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 15, 2024 14:26 |
|
|
My Richard Daley play seems to be taking off already. I've done a few interviews and it sounds like we have a good chance of getting the real life versions of some of the characters to show up. I'm thinking it might be a good opportunity to invite larger theaters in the city to check it out to see if they'd want to put it up in April. Most of the things I wrote last year were pretty malicious or bordering on snobby, so maybe I should focus on putting up completely ridiculous low-budget action movie-turned-plays this year. It's certainly more fun.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 13, 2011 17:48
|
|