

Why theatre was the most important class I ever took. - bpick
http://www.brendanpickering.com/2010/03/15/why-theatre-was-the-most-important-class-i-ever-took/

======
wallflower
If you enjoyed the post, here are my lessons from improv class from a long
time ago:

"People who are charming aren't afraid of failure" - Keith Johnstone

It's ok to fail, even if there is an audience paying to see you.

If you are doing an action like hula-hooping, don't talk about what you are
doing.

If you are doing an action, do it with some energy. e.g. lame digging vs
spirited digging a hole and throwing dirt over your shoulder.

Have a strong opinion! Don't be wishy washy.

Have a (secret) strong opinion. Don't tell the audience what it is - don't say
what it is - let them try to guess it.

Lesson #1 - Stick with your offer.

On the suggestion 'purple', I went onstage as Barney and then dropped the
suggestion. It would have been more effective if I was fully committed to my
offer. How does this apply to pickup? Keep a strong frame.

Lesson #2 - Don't teach.

In the weird love scene with the chainsaw sculpturing, I was telling her to go
over to here - the tree was here, etc. Instead, I should have been telling the
audience and her how I _felt_ about what she was doing. Lesson here - don't
talk about what you're doing, talk about how it feels to be interacting/doing.
This is basically what the statement of intent is based on.

Lesson #3 - Have a secret.

Maybe not as elaborate as Steve Job's marking-his-territory one but have a
mystery - you don't have to tell the audience - they won't ever guess but
they'll wonder.

Lesson #4 - Use freebies.

Simple humor. Beep! Beep! Funny and gets a laugh. Simple.

Lesson #5

If you don't know what the other person is doing, decide what they're doing.

Once you make it verbal/out there, the other person should agree.

Lesson #6 - Be in the moment.

The audience doesn't know when you play a game if you know what you're doing
but if you look like you know what you're doing - they'll be engrossed.

------
cubix
_Have you noticed the difference between when you are feigning anger compared
to when you are actually angry?_

I've been meditating on this for a couple of minutes and I can't recall a time
where I was pretending to be angry when I wasn't. Occasionally, I'm guilty of
pretending not to be angry when I definitely am. Anger isn't the most socially
acceptable emotion, anyway. What would be the motive for feigning it?

~~~
sobriquet
I see his point more as acting angry because social norms say you're supposed
to, rather than you're actually feeling angry. It takes a lot for me to get
truly angry, but I think I've acted out in anger before to fit in with
expectations or get something I wanted.

For example, if a friend accidentally dents my car out of carelessness, I may
blow up at him to convince him that he should be more careful. I'm likely not
all that concerned about the dent, but just brushing it aside as no big deal
doesn't do much good for either of us (or the next person he hits).

~~~
whimsy
Surely the more expedient and effective reaction is to address it immediately,
but calmly - inform the person of your grievance and implore them to alter
their behavior, but do so without the anger, as that can damage your
relationship.

Or is the facade of anger better?

~~~
philwelch
No, people respond to displays of anger. And if the other person's convinced
you were in the right, it might not even damage the relationship in the long
run.

------
nazgulnarsil
learning about acting really is low hanging fruit for introverts interested in
self-improvement.

~~~
jackchristopher
One acting concept I found fundamental important to learn was how status
transactions work: <http://greenlightwiki.com/improv/Status>

~~~
stretchwithme
yeah, status is very interesting. understanding how it works is real power. we
actually tell each other where we think we rank and lower-status-thinking
people usually submit first

------
unignorant
Excellent point. Perhaps slightly tangential, but my advisor recently
mentioned (and I agree with him) that one's presentation (spoken and written)
often serves as the ultimate means of differentiation between a "good" idea
and a "bad" one.

In an academic context (CS), this means that grants/papers/proposals often
succeed more on the merits of the presenter (or writer) than the inherent
value within an idea itself. After all, much of CS research is incremental
improvements to existing work. Such papers may need a nice spin.

So perhaps undergrad CS majors (or at least, those who are grad school bound)
should eschew higher level electives for a class in theatre or rhetoric...

------
TheAmazingIdiot
I et a really strong sense of Tantra in reading this article. Tantra talks
about how thinking is an enemy that will paralyze you, and that feeling and
accepting your emotions will allow you to become complete.

Example: pure anger can be seen by a child, and is a beautiful thing. Pure
love is also a rarity, but most cherished. Half-attempted "emotions" like
thinking they're pretty but not knowing it is just incomplete.

