Follow me on Twitter!

Monday, December 30, 2013

Patience and Spontaneity

-->
Almost without argument, one could say that the heart of improvisation is in spontaneity; by it's very definition, improv is merely theater that is performed without a script, therefore, to paraphrase Huey Lewis (and the News), the “Heart of improv is still unplanned.” That's just the name of the game, as soon as you start planning stuff, and honestly trying to achieve what you've planned, it's no longer improvised theater, it's just plain theater. Improv teachers go to great lengths to achieve spontaneity and true artistic inspiration (because this is what improv really boils down to – you can do anything you want, so you need to be free to do anything you want.) Most of what is done, especially to beginning improvisers, is in the name of speed: Story, Story (Die), Dirty Hand Randy, New Choice, etc. are probably some of the most truly improvised games (at least in the short form sphere) because they are intended to move so quickly that the player doesn't have time to plan. You either just let your brain run wild and with abandon, or you get left behind.

The problem with this is it is essentially a crutch we hand to people: just move quickly and it will be improvised. The problem here is that experienced players don't need that crutch anymore – they are capable of stepping on stage and acting without thinking or pre-planning, only they have been trained such that they will step on stage and run so quickly through even the most complicated transactions that they don't really improvise any more. Generally speaking, this kind of speed is okay in the slam, bam, thank you ma'am world that is shortform, where the emphasis is not on artistic exploration but on entertainment, and where that kind of energetic, fast-paced scene work thrives especially well in “games”. But as you move into long form (where you do a scene that may last three minutes still, but you may have to come back to, or make run an entire thirty minutes (I've seen it done, nonbelievers)) that no longer has the gimmicks (or referee or MC to bail you out) that kind of speed works to your detriment.

Longform requires more patient, discovery-based improv, and as my mother and I can attest, you just can't enjoy the sights when Dad is driving past them at 70 miles per hour (a condition which I now believe may be genetic – sorry passengers). Give a group of new-to-longform improvisers a scenario (any scenario really), and they will be done with it in a blink. Give the same scenario to experienced improvisers, and they will take their time exploring every single, tiny moment, and not just tediously waiting for the next big thing to happen, but really enjoying themselves in the pace of normal life. This is where really improvisation lies: moving slow enough that you can actually enjoy and discover things about your partner, scene objects, or environment. A shortform improviser flows from his head, while a longform improviser flows from everything.

I saw some improv last weekend that definitely fits this bill: no one would argue that these were energetic improvisers, capable of editing with abandon, and fast, too. In thirty minutes they probably did 20 independent scenes, but it wasn't entertaining. Sure, the dialog was improvised (at least I hope it was, scenework that bad had better not been written out ahead of time and approved) but it was just manic (well that and nobody was working together, but that's a subject for a different essay all together). My point is this: scenes don't have to fly by and ninety eleven miles an hour to be interesting or even improvised. The easiest way to get yourself out of a “pre-thinking” mode is to truly focus on only the last thing that was said. All improv really should be is a series of reactions to different stimulus, just true, honest reactions. And that's the whole point of using speed as a training tool in the first place. Quick thinking, and just react. And don't rush, or you'll miss all that pretty scenery.

Monday, December 9, 2013

National Treasure


 Back in 2004, I used to write movie reviews for the USM student newspaper, the "Student Printz". Because I occasionally feel lazy, and it seems a shame that all of five people ever read these, I've decided to repost them here, in the original versions that I emailed to my editor, Noel, all those years ago.
At some point, the “green-lighters” in Hollywood will have to figure out that having Jerry Bruckheimer as a producer is not a sure-fire way to make a good movie. For example, “Coyote Ugly” – mediocre, “Pearl Harbor” – mediocre, “Pirates of the Caribbean” – excellent, and “National Treasure” – mediocre. “National Treasure” is like a distilled “Raiders of the Lost Ark”, such that the entertainment is watered down and the history concentrated for effect. Obviously built on the well tried formula for a family movie, “National Treasure” succeeds only as far as this formula will go, which means a few laughs, some mindless chase scenes, and a long, drawn out history lesson.

The movie is about Benjamin Franklin Gates (Nicholas Cage), the current descendent of the family Gates, which for the last 180 years has been searching for a treasure that was buried by our forefathers during the American Revolution. The treasure was started during the time of the Egyptian Empire, and as time progressed, the treasure was captured by different groups and expanded upon until the Knights Templar discovered it. This order slowly smuggled it over to the New World, where the Free Masons hid it from the British until such a time that it could be given to the entire world. But Gate’s former partner, Ian Howe (Sean Bean), intends to take the treasure for himself. Gate’s only option is to try and beat Howe to the treasure with the help of his nerdy sidekick Riley Poole (Justin Bartha) and a National Archives curator, Dr. Abigail Chase (Diane Kruger).

Now, I will even go on record to say when I first saw the trailers for this movie, I was groaning at the thought of a pitiful quasi-“Indiana Jones” movie. Even though that’s pretty much all that was accomplished, I was surprised to find that “National Treasure” was not as god awful as I previously took it for. Granted, the movie should have been wrapped up in ninety minutes instead of 120+ and nearly every plot twist is either to match the formula for an action movie or to prevent making the movie a history channel special on early American History. Regardless, Sean Bean and Harvey Keitel (as an FBI agent) are excellent, even in this cut and dry script and the rapport between Gates and Riley is often the only entertaining dialogue on camera. And in what was probably a last minute script change, the final treasure changes from “believing in your dreams” to some actual gold. If they hadn’t changed this part of the script, the corny factor would have shot through the roof and made the movie unbearable.

Provided you don’t mind the formula of the action movie, chances are you’ll really enjoy “National Treasure”. Sure the entertainment is mindless and the plot just a yard short of ludicrous, but when did that ever stop a movie from being worth a watch? “National Treasure” is entertaining enough, and if you just sit back and relax, you just might learn something.