The Differences Between Straight Acting & Improv Acting
- Thread starter benorbeen
- Start date
if any?
if any? are you kidding me?
besides the obvious script vs. no script, i think the major difference is improv requires more trust. improv is also based on reaction - you can't come into a scene with any preconceived jokes or "scripted" reactions to what a fellow actor will say. if your're not listening to their acomments, body language, etc., the scene will be garbage. and you'll probably lose the trust of your partner.
hey, i'm a newcomer to the improv world, but i know that if i stop paying attention for even a second, the audience will see it, and the scene will suffer.
if any? are you kidding me?
besides the obvious script vs. no script, i think the major difference is improv requires more trust. improv is also based on reaction - you can't come into a scene with any preconceived jokes or "scripted" reactions to what a fellow actor will say. if your're not listening to their acomments, body language, etc., the scene will be garbage. and you'll probably lose the trust of your partner.
hey, i'm a newcomer to the improv world, but i know that if i stop paying attention for even a second, the audience will see it, and the scene will suffer.
Re: if any?
Same goes for scripted work.
Good improv and good acting go hand in hand. Good improvisors are good actors. Some of them just don't know it.
Good actors are good improvisors. They listen and react on a moment to moment basis. The worst thing an actor can do is go into a scene with a completely preconceived notion of what is about to happen. (I.E., actors that breakdown every emotional moment in every scene in beats, etc..) Know your character, know how your character relates to other characters, find true honest choices in your life that relate to these characters and play the scene. Listen and react honestly.
The same can be said for improv.
I am probably in the minority here, but I see very little difference between improvisation and acting, other than the scene being written for you. A good actor is improvising every second on the stage, he might know the words he's going to say, but he doesn't exactly know how they're going to come out, or how he's going to react.
There are a lot of bad actors and a lot of bad improvisors who tend to overact, play characatures instead of characters, and forget to play the reality and truth in the scene. I'm finding that if I just slow down, relax, and forget about being funny, or (in the case of scripted work) forget about trying to figure out how I should feel, and just feel, the picture becomes much clearer and the job becomes easier.
Same goes for scripted work.
Good improv and good acting go hand in hand. Good improvisors are good actors. Some of them just don't know it.
Good actors are good improvisors. They listen and react on a moment to moment basis. The worst thing an actor can do is go into a scene with a completely preconceived notion of what is about to happen. (I.E., actors that breakdown every emotional moment in every scene in beats, etc..) Know your character, know how your character relates to other characters, find true honest choices in your life that relate to these characters and play the scene. Listen and react honestly.
The same can be said for improv.
I am probably in the minority here, but I see very little difference between improvisation and acting, other than the scene being written for you. A good actor is improvising every second on the stage, he might know the words he's going to say, but he doesn't exactly know how they're going to come out, or how he's going to react.
There are a lot of bad actors and a lot of bad improvisors who tend to overact, play characatures instead of characters, and forget to play the reality and truth in the scene. I'm finding that if I just slow down, relax, and forget about being funny, or (in the case of scripted work) forget about trying to figure out how I should feel, and just feel, the picture becomes much clearer and the job becomes easier.
Last edited:
I forgot one thing:
A big part of the problem with bad acting and bad improvisation stems from bad training. (more so in the acting world). There are so many truly bad teachers out there (especially at the college level) that it sometimes takes years to break the bad habits instilled in a lot of young actors.
With the exception of a few (less than 10) top notch BFA programs, a college degree in acting will do nothing for you except cause you years of headaches trying to deprogram all of the crap that was instilled in you.
A big part of the problem with bad acting and bad improvisation stems from bad training. (more so in the acting world). There are so many truly bad teachers out there (especially at the college level) that it sometimes takes years to break the bad habits instilled in a lot of young actors.
With the exception of a few (less than 10) top notch BFA programs, a college degree in acting will do nothing for you except cause you years of headaches trying to deprogram all of the crap that was instilled in you.
Acting...
I believe that in order to be a great improvisor, you must also be a great actor.
It seems to me that you can get away with poor acting far easier in the improv world than in the scripted theater world... which is too bad. If you stick an amazing actor on an improv stage, you're bound to see a great performance.
Hum.
On that note, can anyone recommend a decent acting class in the Chicago area?
I believe that in order to be a great improvisor, you must also be a great actor.
It seems to me that you can get away with poor acting far easier in the improv world than in the scripted theater world... which is too bad. If you stick an amazing actor on an improv stage, you're bound to see a great performance.
Hum.
On that note, can anyone recommend a decent acting class in the Chicago area?
Youngcat
I agree with you that acting and improvisation go hand in hand. I guess I think of improvisation as a type of acting. Scripted work has beats, and edits and games within the scene that the actors create based on the text. The best actors I work with are spontaneous even though they know what they are going to say. AND, I trust that spontinaity - they use it to make their scene partner look good.
I am not sure, though, that I think good improvisors are good actors (in scripted work) and vice versa is always a true statement. I think that is like saying a good journalist could write a good children's book. There are different types of actors, writers, artists who can do different types of acting, writing and art.
-Amy
I agree with you that acting and improvisation go hand in hand. I guess I think of improvisation as a type of acting. Scripted work has beats, and edits and games within the scene that the actors create based on the text. The best actors I work with are spontaneous even though they know what they are going to say. AND, I trust that spontinaity - they use it to make their scene partner look good.
I am not sure, though, that I think good improvisors are good actors (in scripted work) and vice versa is always a true statement. I think that is like saying a good journalist could write a good children's book. There are different types of actors, writers, artists who can do different types of acting, writing and art.
-Amy
Cosmo,
When I say good improvisers are good actors, I mean in terms of presenting a valid character and truth on stage the way a good actor does in scripted material. I am not suggesting that they could pick up a script and be comfortable with that medium (though I believe at least 90% of them most likely could do that quite easily).
The other thing is, an audience doesn't seperate improvisers and actors into different categories. creating a stage picture, vocalizing, understanding when you are upstaging, etc.. are as important to improv as yes and...
Joe
When I say good improvisers are good actors, I mean in terms of presenting a valid character and truth on stage the way a good actor does in scripted material. I am not suggesting that they could pick up a script and be comfortable with that medium (though I believe at least 90% of them most likely could do that quite easily).
The other thing is, an audience doesn't seperate improvisers and actors into different categories. creating a stage picture, vocalizing, understanding when you are upstaging, etc.. are as important to improv as yes and...
Joe
First of all, Youngcat, I respectfully disagree with you about a liberal arts Theatre Degree. Although it is a relatively useless degree, right up there with Philosophy when it comes to real world application, I also believe that there are a great many programs out there that allow you access to a myriad of teachings and methods and technique's, and also allow you the laboratory to experiment and fail and try again until you find something that works for you. One thing that Improv and Acting share is that the greatest teacher is failure. Does that make for a great actor? No. But by the same token it does not garuntee a bad one and doesn't necessarily require deprogramming.
I guess it is all in the experience. I am of course refferring to a non-conservatory liberal arts undergraduate degree, just to clarify.
As for the differences, in my opinion there are many. I have often thought of Improv and Acting as different circles that intersect and in turn share space. They are different, but they share a significant amount.
One of the differences for me is rehearsal. If I get close to the mark while rehearsing a scripted dramatic show, with the help of a good director and some homework, I can come back tomorrow and get even closer, until I finally discover that moment. The exacting specificity of the words and the actions frees me to lose myself to an extent and just be within the confines of the character that has been created. I am working on a character, and in a larger sense a show in rehearsal for straight theatre. In improv, I am working on my choices, my reactions, my initiations, and in some respect, myself.
After doing nothing but Improv for over a year, I went back straight theatre for a production of Mister Roberts. After about a week of rehearsal, my director gave me a note that went something like "Brian, when you enter, stay to the right side and don't ever go to the left, and when you get to Roberts, stand there and do not take a step until you exit." It was wonderful, so specific, and it worked and solved the problem the scene was having. It was a small specific director's note that I could tuck away. It wasn't a 'coach' telling me that next time I was in a similiar 'scenario' a better choice might be. . . . AAARGH! No, it was direct. That thing you did? Don't do it again.
I also like having a director, a stage manager, a props person, a costume designer, a lighting designer, a fight coordinator, a fight captian, etc. I like the idea of collaborating with a wide variety of artists as you move towards a final product, as opposed to a team of performers. But maybe that is just me.
And to wrap it up, I love the product. In straight theatre, you plan on putting up a final product, a show (hopefully) that you are proud of and that is worth the price of admission. You have made your mistakes and taken your chances in rehearsal and now your have gleaned the best from the process and are ready to unleash it on the waiting public. During The The Two Towers, a year and a half ago, we had good shows and we had bad, but we were so prepared that the difference between the two was almost imperceivable to anyone who wasn't involved in the process. Consistancy.
Oh yeah, one last difference, then I will stop. I have never seen believable stage combat in Improv. I have rarely seen violence work on an Improv stage, whereas I find it thoroughly engaging and riveting when done well in straight theatre.
I guess it is all in the experience. I am of course refferring to a non-conservatory liberal arts undergraduate degree, just to clarify.
As for the differences, in my opinion there are many. I have often thought of Improv and Acting as different circles that intersect and in turn share space. They are different, but they share a significant amount.
One of the differences for me is rehearsal. If I get close to the mark while rehearsing a scripted dramatic show, with the help of a good director and some homework, I can come back tomorrow and get even closer, until I finally discover that moment. The exacting specificity of the words and the actions frees me to lose myself to an extent and just be within the confines of the character that has been created. I am working on a character, and in a larger sense a show in rehearsal for straight theatre. In improv, I am working on my choices, my reactions, my initiations, and in some respect, myself.
After doing nothing but Improv for over a year, I went back straight theatre for a production of Mister Roberts. After about a week of rehearsal, my director gave me a note that went something like "Brian, when you enter, stay to the right side and don't ever go to the left, and when you get to Roberts, stand there and do not take a step until you exit." It was wonderful, so specific, and it worked and solved the problem the scene was having. It was a small specific director's note that I could tuck away. It wasn't a 'coach' telling me that next time I was in a similiar 'scenario' a better choice might be. . . . AAARGH! No, it was direct. That thing you did? Don't do it again.
I also like having a director, a stage manager, a props person, a costume designer, a lighting designer, a fight coordinator, a fight captian, etc. I like the idea of collaborating with a wide variety of artists as you move towards a final product, as opposed to a team of performers. But maybe that is just me.
And to wrap it up, I love the product. In straight theatre, you plan on putting up a final product, a show (hopefully) that you are proud of and that is worth the price of admission. You have made your mistakes and taken your chances in rehearsal and now your have gleaned the best from the process and are ready to unleash it on the waiting public. During The The Two Towers, a year and a half ago, we had good shows and we had bad, but we were so prepared that the difference between the two was almost imperceivable to anyone who wasn't involved in the process. Consistancy.
Oh yeah, one last difference, then I will stop. I have never seen believable stage combat in Improv. I have rarely seen violence work on an Improv stage, whereas I find it thoroughly engaging and riveting when done well in straight theatre.
I agree
Youngcat,
I agree with your explanation of good actors being good improvisors in terms of stage presence and creating a character. And, I think we are saying the same thing about "creating a stage picture, vocalizing, understanding when you are upstaging, etc." and that that is important to an audience in both improv and scripted shows. What I meant about an audience seperating theater into types is more about tastes - some people hate improv but love Shakespeare or love Shakespeare but hate performance art. Similarly, I beleive people are good at different types of theater, or at least better at some types than others.
I guess we are pretty much saying the same thing so we should probably get married.
As for the liberal arts thing, I think it is like with any liberal arts undergrad degree, you get out of it what you put into it. But, what do I know? I was drunk and giving hand jobs through most of college, anyway.
-Amy
Youngcat,
I agree with your explanation of good actors being good improvisors in terms of stage presence and creating a character. And, I think we are saying the same thing about "creating a stage picture, vocalizing, understanding when you are upstaging, etc." and that that is important to an audience in both improv and scripted shows. What I meant about an audience seperating theater into types is more about tastes - some people hate improv but love Shakespeare or love Shakespeare but hate performance art. Similarly, I beleive people are good at different types of theater, or at least better at some types than others.
I guess we are pretty much saying the same thing so we should probably get married.
As for the liberal arts thing, I think it is like with any liberal arts undergrad degree, you get out of it what you put into it. But, what do I know? I was drunk and giving hand jobs through most of college, anyway.
-Amy
I agree that scripted acting requires just as much in-the-moment focus and listening as improv does.
The difference, as I see it, is that much of the acting training I've been exposed to involves people arguing with one another and generating extreme states of conflict, which can be brilliant in a painstakingly written scene but is boring as hell when improvised on stage.
The difference, as I see it, is that much of the acting training I've been exposed to involves people arguing with one another and generating extreme states of conflict, which can be brilliant in a painstakingly written scene but is boring as hell when improvised on stage.
All points made above are briliant and very well put. Accualy I am amaised though, the very diferent ways each medium goes about thier way to tell their story or idea, yet always use each other to build thier strength.
For instance, If any of you have ever been in a strait production, espicaly if it has a run longer than three days, you know that some can and will happen that was completly unexpect and unreherced. Weather it be a glass breaking, or a finiky prop; There is always something that comes up that catches the actors off guard and is the litmis test to show how good the company realy is. If no one notices the flub, there was none there to begin with.
As for Improv, if all of us were doing 100% pure improv we would never have rehersial. We would just fo to the show, do our little dity, and come back the next week to do it once more. But we all know that cannot be done if you want a truly great group. You must at least reherarce with eachother, get to know one another, and have a bit of loose fiber for what you are going to do, maybe even enlist a teacher to help "direct" you. Structure, repitition, refining. This is what makes good theater and good improv as well.
Its like comparing apples to oranges, forgetting the cle'shea.
But then again, that's just been my observations and I havent even had any formal longform training except form what Ive seen on these boards.
For instance, If any of you have ever been in a strait production, espicaly if it has a run longer than three days, you know that some can and will happen that was completly unexpect and unreherced. Weather it be a glass breaking, or a finiky prop; There is always something that comes up that catches the actors off guard and is the litmis test to show how good the company realy is. If no one notices the flub, there was none there to begin with.
As for Improv, if all of us were doing 100% pure improv we would never have rehersial. We would just fo to the show, do our little dity, and come back the next week to do it once more. But we all know that cannot be done if you want a truly great group. You must at least reherarce with eachother, get to know one another, and have a bit of loose fiber for what you are going to do, maybe even enlist a teacher to help "direct" you. Structure, repitition, refining. This is what makes good theater and good improv as well.
Its like comparing apples to oranges, forgetting the cle'shea.
But then again, that's just been my observations and I havent even had any formal longform training except form what Ive seen on these boards.
Philosophy degree
Gotta disagree with Amidei. As the proud owner of a double threat English/Philosophy degree, I have to say that lots of employers value people who have a proven record of logical thought. If nothing else philosophy is a bootcamp in logic. That training prepares you for lots of fields, especially technology-based ones like Web design and system maintenance.
Of course, if all you did in class was say, "Hey, Ayn Rand's cool," it's worth the paper it's written on.
I'm a big believer in the liberal arts degree, if only because I have one. I'm not as sold on the value of the specialized arts degree outside of a conservatory, if only because I don't have one and all the MFAs I saw in state colleges were all talk and no walk.
Gotta disagree with Amidei. As the proud owner of a double threat English/Philosophy degree, I have to say that lots of employers value people who have a proven record of logical thought. If nothing else philosophy is a bootcamp in logic. That training prepares you for lots of fields, especially technology-based ones like Web design and system maintenance.
Of course, if all you did in class was say, "Hey, Ayn Rand's cool," it's worth the paper it's written on.
I'm a big believer in the liberal arts degree, if only because I have one. I'm not as sold on the value of the specialized arts degree outside of a conservatory, if only because I don't have one and all the MFAs I saw in state colleges were all talk and no walk.
Absynthe, my tongue was firmly planted in my cheek. Or was that someone elses cheek? Anyhow, I know folks who have undergad theatre degree's who are practicing law and medicine, and my brother Geoff just took his philosophy degree (earned at UC Santa Barbera of all places!) and quit his high paying long standing gig with Earnst and Young to get married and move to Italy. Not in that order.
So I agree with you. Unfortunately, it seems to me that college and university edamacation is increasingly more about learning a trade than about true education and awareness expansion.
So I agree with you. Unfortunately, it seems to me that college and university edamacation is increasingly more about learning a trade than about true education and awareness expansion.
The reason I ask the Original Question comes from some observations I don't know are "correct" or not, but they keep hitting me.
While I believe that conflict is the ingredient that makes for what we call Drama (and as I say in most cases that Drama involves this "straight acting" I'm talking about), not conflict but <i>Support</i> seems to be that critical defining ingredient of what we call Improv. Maybe that's just what a lot of people call "Good Improv."
While Drama involves a conflict between a protagonist and an antagonist, Improv may have that battle but the actors involved are almost "secretly" <i>working together</i> ... To throw the word "Brechtian" in, Improv scenes are almost Brechtian because to some degree (maybe) actors have to watch a bit removed as they steer their characters' actions in partner-supporting, scene-upholding directions in-the-moment ... <i>Verfremdungseffekt</i> not of the audience, but of the performers ...
In Drama, you'd for sure best be in-the-moment, but you have more comfort in settling into a character and just doing the character instead of figuring also out how to make this a great-scene-by-Improv-standards.
But then again, I supppose one may argue that you have the great-scene-by-Drama-standards to wrestle with.
Mainly, the Straight Acting and Improv Acting seem different to me because the former involves working toward Conflict, while the latter involves working to Support.
While I believe that conflict is the ingredient that makes for what we call Drama (and as I say in most cases that Drama involves this "straight acting" I'm talking about), not conflict but <i>Support</i> seems to be that critical defining ingredient of what we call Improv. Maybe that's just what a lot of people call "Good Improv."
While Drama involves a conflict between a protagonist and an antagonist, Improv may have that battle but the actors involved are almost "secretly" <i>working together</i> ... To throw the word "Brechtian" in, Improv scenes are almost Brechtian because to some degree (maybe) actors have to watch a bit removed as they steer their characters' actions in partner-supporting, scene-upholding directions in-the-moment ... <i>Verfremdungseffekt</i> not of the audience, but of the performers ...
In Drama, you'd for sure best be in-the-moment, but you have more comfort in settling into a character and just doing the character instead of figuring also out how to make this a great-scene-by-Improv-standards.
But then again, I supppose one may argue that you have the great-scene-by-Drama-standards to wrestle with.
Mainly, the Straight Acting and Improv Acting seem different to me because the former involves working toward Conflict, while the latter involves working to Support.
Shouldn't non-improvisational actors, like improvisers, be working together and supporting each other even when their characters are in conflict? And as you say, improv can have that battle between the characters, although the actors are supporting each other. The distinction you're making here seems to be not between the improviser and the "straight actor", but between the actor and the character in both improvised and scripted theatre.
This is what I wonder.
Of course, I'm just remembering the tried-and-truth lesson that both straight acting and impro acting share:
"Focus on the other person."
AKA Support?
Yeah, in my previous post, I'm actually wondering (maybe in the back of my mind) if the things I'm calling as differences are not actually differences but similarities. But I also just woke up too.
Of course, I'm just remembering the tried-and-truth lesson that both straight acting and impro acting share:
"Focus on the other person."
AKA Support?
Yeah, in my previous post, I'm actually wondering (maybe in the back of my mind) if the things I'm calling as differences are not actually differences but similarities. But I also just woke up too.