The Differences Between Straight Acting & Improv Acting

[Ben Perry]

Best v. Best

I believe the very best scripted acting and the very best improvised acting might be indistinguishable. A sloppy actor and a sloppy improviser (of which I've been both) can get away with different things. When it's not top-notch is when I start seeing differences.

It depends on what you consider ideal. There are many actors who believe the pinnacle of great acting is giving an identical performance, night after night. The Redgraves (and brits in general) are like this. Incredible actors, all, but if you watch them night after night you'll never see a change. Not to diminish what they do, but I'd rather struggle and find something new. Duco, you mentioned things going wrong. When I'm working on Chekhov or Shakespeare, my best moments are when everything gets fucked up. Someone loses a line, something breaks (or fails to), the lights flicker, whatever. In those moments, I'm the most alive.

Amidei, you mentioned rehersal process. Yes, and the best directors I've worked with treat rehersal as one long exploration, and the performances as a continuation of that. Not that I don't love being told "stand here now" and my favorite, just last night, "Don't suck."

Mullaney was talking in another thread about how improv can encorporate things like costume, music, staging, lighting, effects, fights, sets, and other trappings of staged plays. I really like that. I think scripted acting and improv acting are headed towards the same thing, whatever that is.

 

[Amidei]

I have two favorite directors notes.

One was during a show at the ERC, an adaptation of Albert Camus The Stranger. Early in the process I mentioned to my director that I was toying with the idea of shaving my head. From that moment on, I received one note over and over, and only one. "Shave your head." Didn't matter what I did onstage, all I got was "Shave your head." I waited until first day of tech to do it.

My favorite note was during a Seanachi show. "Brian, get your head in the game. Act better." And I'll be damned if it didn't work.

 

[Amidei]

Oh yeah, almost forgot.
Mr. Perry, if an actor delivers the exact same performance night after night, regardless of the other actors or the situation, is that a great actor? Is that a subtle artist, in tune to the rythym of the play and the players (and the audience, for that matter) or is it a rigid recital of words and movement? I would go for the latter, myself.

Improv made me a much better listener. I now listen to every word, and react not to the words so much as the way they are said. The words in a scripted show do not change, but the mood and intent certianly does. Improv greatly improved my ability to live in the world of the play each and every night, through truly listening to what was being said and reacting honestly. If there is a 'Chicago' school of acting, it is infused with a healthy dose of improv. I would go so far as to say that Improv and violence would be the tenents of the 'Chicago' school. From the roots of the old Organic, The Remains, early Steppenwolf we get John Malkovich, Gary Sinise, Laurie Metcalf, William Peterson, Gary Cole, Joe Mangtenga(?), Dennis Farina, Dennis Franz, and of course, David Mamet. Superstars? No, but all very fine actors who are always present, and right behind their eyes is always some measure of unpredictability, something slightly whacked, and possibly dangerous.

Ok, it's really hot and I have to go to work.

 

[Jimmy D]

Improv, violence, weed.