Being Your Own Audience

by savannahkopp

The Free Play chapter talked about not changing your art to appeal to people, not trying to make things more commercial or accessible or anything different from what you intend it to me. This dedication to your own artistic vision, an integrity based on preserving your initial intent and not “selling out” or dumbing down your art, is certainly valuable advice. But think of the art that you look at or watch or read or listen to that is just awful or highfalutin or inaccessible–the strange experimental music or the stream-of-consciousness-never-been-edited-written-on-a-roll-of-toilet-paper novel. For these obscure pieces of art, is all that matters that the person who made them is satisfied with what they made? Do we as viewers/readers/critics then have no say in the quality? I understand that most art has certain audiences and that not everything is meant (nor should it be) to appeal to wide groups of people. But I disagree with the chapter’s assertion that changing to appeal to an audience should be avoided at all costs. Preserve your original artistic intent, of course, but if you want to make an impact, or be received, at least consider your hypothetical audience–people who are probably like you in their artistic taste. I’m not saying create FOR an audience, but consider your audience–especially for other types of art, which go through revisions, perhaps in the first draft you write for yourself only, and after that, you find out what you’re trying to say and express it more clearly. Clarity is vitally important, in my opinion–maybe you have a great idea or passion but if no one can understand what you’re saying or showing, you may as well not have said it or showed it at all. Maybe I’m making this more simplistic than it is, but the point of my post is not that you should accommodate a theoretical audience, but that you should think of it, eventually, if it will help you find and achieve your purpose. Preserve your initial spark, but find a way to share it–because art is interaction. It goes on longer than it takes you to create it–and the power is that each person has their own experience with your art–so make it possible for them to experience it!

 

Leading my game AGAIN!

by savannahkopp

I led my game in another context this weekend!

A lot of my friends from home came to Stanford this weekend to see my play, and they stayed the night. It included five of my friends who I did ballet with before college, and three school friends I’ve been friends with since elementary school, and one of my friend’s younger brothers.

We were all cramped in my room hanging out on Saturday evening, and I asked them to play the game. I explained it and got out the cards. Two at a time my friends acted out the occupations on the cards. We never went into speaking mode, although I explained that part of the game, too. Instead, when people didn’t get it or guessed wrongly, the actors just kept acting and trying something differently to communicate the idea. I thought this worked really well. I’ve noticed in class, too, that players interpret and play games whatever way seems most natural to them, even if it’s a little different than the instructions. That’s what happened with my friends, too–speaking didn’t seem as natural to them than just miming.

My favorite moment was when two of my friends picked the Teacher card, and they both sat there pretending to read books until one of them realized that they shouldn’t both be students and stood up and pretending to write on a chalkboard. This was a great example of adapting your view of what improv scene you’re making to fit with your partner’s plan. She went into it being a student, but then realized that that didn’t work to get the message across.

I had fun playing this game with my friends and they enjoyed it, too. I think it was a good time to play it because I had two groups of friends there who were not friends with each other.

Not thinking too much

by savannahkopp

I thought the reading was very interesting, and my favorite line was:

“mad thoughts are those which other people find unacceptable, and train us not to talk about, but which we go to the theatre to see expressed”

It’s a really unique way to view art, as expressing what can’t be expressed ordinarily under the guise or through the lens of art.

When Johnstone talks about how there’s a difference between reaching for an object, knowing what your reaching for VERSUS reaching for an object without knowing what you’re reaching for until you get it, this is something we encounter in Improv class every week. He draws a distinction between TYPES of spontaneity–whether it lies in the thoughts or the actions. He deconstructs that little moment when you begin a scene–it feels as though you’re thinking and acting at the same time, but he says that if you look more closely, one is leading the other. And he thinks that acting first is more spontaneous. But when you act first, you then have to readjust your actions to fit what you decided to do mid action–like in class when Saif reminds us to consider the physical layout of the scene we’ve made–this seems like an example of a spontaneous scene that still has to be adjusted because thought and action don’t always go together naturally.

When he talks about how suddenly people think many thoughts and suppress the first one, and how the first one is the truly original one–this makes me wonder about when the first thought you have is the best and when it isn’t. I think in improv using the first thought is great, but what about in other forms of art? I think writing and painting and many other forms of artwork require that the artist functions between the hyper conscious and the conscious, both recognizing the ‘first thoughts’ but CHOOSING the best thoughts–and this of course requires experimentation. But I personally don’t like to read what people write without revising or reconsidering–if it’s worth sharing with other people, I think people should spend time on their art. Again, I’m not talking about improv, just seeing where the line is for other art.

Come See “The Ex-Trials”!

by savannahkopp

Hi guys! I wanted to announce that the play I wrote/am producing will be performed next weekend! Hope you want to come! –Savannah

THE EX-TRIALS

an original one act comedy by Savannah Kopp and directed by Laura Petree

featuring the talents of James Seifert, Nora Tjossem, Austin Caldwell, Abby Belani, Kelsey Dang, and Cong Dinh

Join the event on facebook: https://www.facebook.com/events/270183059718195/

When couples break up, you have to choose sides. But what if you’re all friends? Fed up with the strife Jack and Erika’s break-up has caused their friend group, Rebecca, Andy and Allie take the most reasonable course of action … They put Jack and Erika up on trial to decide, once and for all, who was right…

“The Ex-Trials” is a tale of custody arrangements for a stuffed elephant, tapped phone lines, sabotage and truth, and all the little things that people do to drive us crazy …

Bam! Favor Returned.

by savannahkopp

Johnstone’s excerpt brings up an interesting framework through which to look at conversation. My playwriting teacher at Stanford gave us the tip that every conversation in a play should involve a change in status of some sort. Another tip I’ve heard for writing is that characters have to surprise each other–the comparison to life is that usually, you ask someone a question and they answer it, and all is well. In theater and fiction, more often a character asks a question and the response is surprising–and this is what makes a story. This ‘surprise’ in conversation happens in real life too–but fiction is amplified real life, and it tries to take the most interesting possible routes, so it makes sense that it often features these surprising moments. Improv, I’d say, involves more of these surprising moments than regular conversation (even though you’re saying yes, and going with the flow that your partner establishes) because you’re creating the context itself with your partner. There’s more chance to be surprised when you have to quickly come up with a context as well as conversation.

It’s frightening to think of each conversation we have as involving a shift in status–I’m not saying it isn’t true, but this view propels the idea that everyone is truly self-serving and manipulative. I’d say that I agree with the status idea to an extent, but I wouldn’t assume that every comment everyone says is, even unconsciously, an attempt to make others feel higher or lower in status. Sometimes people are just talking, and sharing–so I’d cut everyone a break!

Johnstone’s discussion of status, especially as a tool in comedy, made me think of the following clip from The Office, where Andy Bernard and Dwight compete to be the most polite. Andy is so attached to his status as a polite guy that he can’t let a moment pass without returning a favor. He wants the upper hand; he doesn’t want to owe someone something. Enjoy the clip, it’s only a small part of the great scene, but I think it’s a good example of how competitions in status aren’t necessarily about putting others down but about keeping the status structure how you want it to be.

The Office Clip–Status

Improv’s Role in Scripted Television

by savannahkopp

I’ve been thinking about how improv plays a role in television and film–how actors sometimes elaborate on their lines, make up jokes on the spot, and explore their characters beyond the script. I remember hearing an interview with the writers/stars of The Office, and I believe they said that not much of the show is improvised. They said that the thing with improv is that it’s all about what’s funny in the moment, in that context, to the actors. The argument they made was that usually they were much funnier when they just said the lines. It’s as though ‘improv’ is all about the inside joke of being there, of knowing it’s off-book.

I think that improv is, by nature, a very collaborative process, so the humor or entertainment of it lies in the fact that it is improvised. On shows, we don’t know which lines are improvised and which are not, so in a sense, we lose out on the ‘inside joke’ quality of improv, and on the appreciation of the fact that the actors made jokes up on the spot. Of course, sometimes actors make up hilarious lines, and maybe they make their performances better by doing so. But I wonder if losing out on this collaborative process by excluding the viewer from knowing what is improvised versus memorized removes the humor of improv BEING improv. I wonder what an improv show would look like if we were told that it was scripted. Would it still be funny in the same ways?

Characters coming to life…

by savannahkopp

This blog is for last week, and it’s about something I told Lindsay, Kristen and Saif about this weekend. This quarter I’m producing a play that I wrote (“The Ex-Trials”, stay tuned–it’ll be performed March 2nd and 3rd on campus!). On Saturday, I had a phenomenal experience watching a rehearsal of my play. As a warm-up exercise, the director had all the actors improvise scenes together as their characters. The actors were very into it, making up humorous jokes and situations and conversations that were SO in keeping with their characters. They referenced different parts of the play in their improv, and built on character relationships and experiences. And I was able to watch the characters I had written come to life and have new conversations that I had not written… It was so amazing to see that my writing was quite literally coming alive; that the characters now, because of the actors, have a scope beyond the text of the play.