The Scripted Theater

I recently did a scripted theater show, which is a switch, because I have previously not done a single scripted show since I played Kenickie in my junior high school's version of “Grease” (called, wait for it: “Greasy”). Let's face it: scripted theater folk look down on us improvisers, seeing what we do as some sort of gimmicky party trick, mostly because the rapid proliferation of a myriad of poorly done short form shows have flooded the market – Sturgeon's Law at work. Improvisers on the other hand, look at the snooty “actors” (with the last syllable rhyming with “bore”) with a pretentious slant. I've probably met an equal number of actors who think of improv as just one of many tools in their belts as I have improvisers who see the artform as being substantially different as scripted acting, both of which are equal to the number who just think of improv as a type of acting. But are they really that similar?

The first thing I've noticed, is that scripted folk work way harder, and way more than the improv folk. I started rehearsals late in the game (England!), mostly as a favor to a friend in the show, and rehearsed three times back to back in my first week, three hours a piece. I even missed a practice that week because of my other group, and the group had already done two previous weeks of practice, three days each, three hours per. One of the people I've met practices every night of the week for one of three different projects (I know, because I've asked her out, and she foolishly accepted, save for finding a single night that she's free). Conversely, every group I've ever been in has rehearsed one night a week, usually for two hours. My group in college tried in vain every semester to get even one additional practice, and found that we didn't have one single other day of the week we were all available. My group right now tried a second practice for about two months on a Saturday, which worked great until everybody kept trying to miss practice so that they could do other things with their Saturdays. I'm playing a gay wedding planner in this show, and it is a workout being that flamboyant for three hours. I only now realize how lazy I am as a performer, as are most of my comrades – we show up to practice and we're not feeling well, or even just a little out of it, and we can stumble through some scenes and it not be a train-wreck. This scripted work requires 100% all the time. (Although the lesson here is that improv probably requires 100% all the time too, we just manage to get away with it.) Who would have thought something pre-planned would require such in-the-momentitude.

The second, is ego. Or rather, the lack of group mind that we improvisers pride ourselves so much on. The idea of “the most important person on the stage is the other guy”, of treating all mistakes as intentional, etc, don't really exist in a traditional theater troupe. Everyone kind of works together, because that's required (and to be fair, most of the folks are pretty cool), there are a few standout divas that really set the standard (the same statement could probably be made for some improvisers as well). But more importantl is the egalitarian nature of problem solving, discovery, and creativity that we have in an improv group that doesn't really exist in the traditional group. The other thing I noted was a wary, leering nature that I seemed to be receiving from the cast, all up until I delivered my lines for the first time – apparently I did well, because I earned accolades from fellow cast members, but I certainly had to earn their respect by showing “what I could do”. I would argue that most improv groups I have been a part of, I have been more warmly welcomed before “proving” myself.

Now back to the central issue – are acting and improvising related enough to be considered father-daughter pairs, or are they more like third or forth cousins? There is definitely some overlap, and the two crafts can lend some useful things to each other, but at the same time, I think there's enough differences for them to both be considered two separate entities (don't worry, they're still both in the family of “performance art”). I've been improvising for seven years, and I wouldn't come close to trying to convince other people that I could act because I've done the other thing (to be fair, I do O.K., but not great). I also wouldn't say that any of the folks in my acting group could walk in to an improv scene and kill it right off the bat. It's not a good thing or a bad thing – it just is. They both require different skills. One of the guys in the group asked me what I've done before this, and I said that I've never done scripted work, just improv, and mostly longform. He stopped me before I could go any further, stating that he was a theater major and knew all about it already. I personally think I know some things after specializing in improv that a theater major wouldn't know, but then again, I'm not an actor.