Does anyone else do this?

[Andrew]

So, in the last day of 202, we talked about our strengths and weaknesses. In what ended up sounding a lot like group therapy, I divulged that I like to do characters, rather than play straight, because it's easier for me to hide than feel exposed. On Porter's suggestion, I've decided to really try to work on just playing me, if for nothing else to broaden the situations in which I'm able to play. In reading a recent interview with Amy Sedaris (Strangers with Candy, Second City, and sister of writer David Sedaris), she confessed that she does the same thing:

Amy Sedaris: "I'm personally just more comfortable when I'm hiding behind something. Real actors will always throw it in your face, like, "You're just hiding!" and I'm like, "Yeah, that's exactly what I'm doing. So what?" If I want a mole on my face the size of a steering wheel, then that'll give me what I want. What's wrong with that? I can't act like Jennifer Jason Leigh or something. That's why I like to go see her movies, or movies from people like that, because I'm just amazed by it. When people try to make me do that, it's embarrassing. You do that at home when you're by yourself. You cry. You don't want to do it in front of all these people. So if I have to do anything like that, it's easier for me to hide behind something, just to know it's there, because then I feel different. I don't feel like myself."

Does anyone else do this as well? If so (or not) what's the best way to break this comfort zone? Is it really necessary to do, or is it ok to keep hiding?

[Kit's Alter Ego]

DISCLAIMER: I'm an acter, which is apparently a snooty group who looks down on people who can't act like themselves. Therefore, if the following gets uppity at any point, hold your finger over the offending sentence and read the nonoffensive parts. And afterwards, wipe off your monitor; other people don't want to read around your greasy fingerprints.


As always, the easy answer comes in two parts:
1) There are no hard and fast rules in improv (except when you take improv classes), and therefore you can do whatever you want

but

2) Improv is all about versatility and being able to play it all.

\\------------\\

Basically, not playing yourself puts a big restriction on yourself; it's like saying, "I will not go there." Any restriction limits your improvisation, just as any allowance broadens your range and comfort zone.

Being embarrassed or afraid of what others will think if you put yourself out there is silly; playing yourself is just playing another character...only it's more familiar and easier to get into at a moment's notice. Amy Sedaris seems to be saying that her emotions and personal idiosyncrasies are hers alone and not something she wants to put out there for people to laugh at or pity. Yet, people like who you are off the stage; why shouldn't they like You on it? After all, 80% of the scenes an improviser does are going to be situations that have never and will never happen to her/him. So, "playing yourself" is usually more along the lines of "playing a character who happens to act like you do." If the audience sneers at a reaction you take in scene, it's not a sneer directed at you; it's directed at a character's choice based on a set of contrived circumstances...

Okay, I'm getting too heady here; I'll back off a step.

When I "play myself," I don't think of it as "me;" I think of it as a neutral character choice. It's like saying, "This scene doesn't require flamboyance or nastiness or famous fairy-tale personalities; it just needs a guy with a mind and a body that can trigger and respond to stimuli."

(I love how when I 'back off a step,' I switch to describing personal inclinations...and continue using S.A.T. words.)

What I'm trying to get at here is that some scenes don't need help; they need support. They need natural reactions to whatever happens to be going on, and the most natural reactions are the ones you have.

(This raises the side issue of personal reactions like "Shut the f*ck up" or "No, I'm not going to come with you," but that's yet another example of how playing yourself is really playing a neutral character and slipping on a personal template that can be reshaped to fit standard improvisational conventions.)

--Kit

PS: Okay, yeah, that's why I gave the easy answer first.

PPS: Reminder: Wipe your oily prints off the monitor.

[EthanK]

When I was writing sketch I'd often write sketches where I knew I'd be playing myself (labeled "Ethan"). Since the crowd knew the performers well, it was easy to write sketches that were about the show itself, like writers meetings, rehearsals, stresses before shows and everything like that. And never once did I write myself a character that was an actual "character" with traits different than mine. I always played myself. It's comfortable.

When I'm performing improv I tend to slide into other characters more often. I'll play myself if I feel the scene needs a me in it rather than a 1950's whitebread dad or a whitetrash trucker named Denver. But going back to the sketches, if I was given the time to prepare I'd always find myself in that comfort zone. Getting on-stage and having to come up with something fast puts me in a defensive mode and one of those defenses is to work with a character. And I don't mean defensive in a bad way, so don't get critical, I mean defensive like volleying a tennis ball back and forth rather than bouncing it on your racquet; with sketch you plan who and what you're doing and the outcome is known to you, much like bouncing the ball.

I like playing characters though. If what you say isn't always the best you get an extra point here and there for at least saying it well.

[J_Scronce]

Becoming another character hides nothing about yourself.

That character is a part of you, no matter how different from you it is. You are only revealing a different aspect of yourself.

When you are on stage, you are naked. No lies can cover that.

[KatyJack]

im with sizzle. it is impossible for an actor to play anybody but himself. it may be him in a situation he's never experienced, or in a relationship he's never been in, but its still him.

i think you'll find that if you play someone who is obviously you (that is, who you are to audience members or even other improvisers) and you make a bold, "embarassing" choice, half of the people in the audience wont be able to tell. the other half of the people will respect the hell out of you. snooty actors will congratulate you on exposing yourself so unabashedly.

and on the off chance that people do make fun of you, just lie and say it is your impression of your middle school gym teacher.

[PT]

I believe that in being a good actor/improvisor you should (for starts) do whats best for you. For example when first taking 101 and 202, you play nohing but characters to get through a scene, and that's awesome. Yet as time goes by what you did learn was to broaden your horizons and play yourself. This is a lot like learning in general. There is nothing wrong with playing just yourself or just some wierd character, we got to see how you look and acted on stage anyways.

When I first started Improvising, I used to always play an Italian guy, or Mafia guy. It was wierd, I couldn't get out of it! I always began a scene with, "Yo Donny!". I hated it, but it made me feel comfortable. Then soon, I realized to play myself, and 9 times out of 10 I wasn't myself.

Andrew, Kit, or whoever, when ever you play yourself, your not really playing yourself. Although your think you are! Awe heck, I don't know if what I said made any sense, but I'm crazy anyways, and crazy is always a great character!
http://www.afunworld.com/shared/20040127/19/cy_001.jpg

[Gutenburg]

Good question, or was it a statement? Whatever. Personally, I think that choosing to play "yourself" in a scene is a lazy choice. <<GASP>> Oh, yeah. That's right. I said it was lazy. I agree with J_Scronce, though. Playing a character hides nothing about yourself. When I say character, I don't refer to whacky accents masquerading as characters. Just because you affect a silly voice has no bearing on your person. It just means you have a silly voice.
Equally as silly...is being "yourself." What do you mean yourself? As in you? Kit playing Kit in a scene? Why? Unless the scene deals with you specifically, make a choice. Jennifer Jason Leigh never plays Jennifer Jason Leigh. She is always a character. Natural and realistic, maybe. But those are styles of the artform.
Always let the scene dictate what character you are in it. The scene is what matters. Not your hilarious Russian, alchoholic character. And it always kills me when I see a great scene except one improviser chose to cover their own @$$ by being "crazy," and it fits nowhere within the scene. And if your going to be crazy, you'd better at least no what disease you have. You're never "just crazy."

[Andrew]

Hmm...great thoughts everyone. I particularly find the idea of letting the scene dictate the character very helpful - at least for me it's a good hueristic to work from. When I say that, I guess I mean never really conceptualized it that way. I sort of went in with saying, "wow, a pirate would be really funny here" rather than thinking, "This scene really needs a pirate." I guess it might just be a question of semantics, but I found it useful nonetheless.

I suppose the key insight isn't in just "playing yourself" but rather playing a not-so-wacky character that you're more likely to bump into in real life. If anyone went to see the show at Duke on Saturday, they may have noticed, as I did, that very few silly characters were used and the performance was terriffic.

I guess characters have their place, but sillyness for the sake of being silly can be a cheap way to get a laugh.

[MindOnMySleeve]

personally, when im doing straight theatre (not improv), im a big believer in method acting. i build a character in certain steps and use certain techniques to refine his/(her sometimes) feelings. a big part of this for me is asking myself questions to bring myslef into the character... how would i feel, what would i do if i were in the same situation, what would i think of this person, etc, and then use the answers to paint the character over myself. in improv, i find myself accidently slipping into a similar method (basically asking those questions really really quickly).....

....i guess what im trying to say is that whenever i get even slightly into a scene (playing something besides a characture), im always playing myself. my own personal reactions are always a part of my characters decision making - this is especially applicable with the limited time you get to make the decisions in the first place. so for me at least, i view improv as putting other characters over myself... tweaking my own thoughts and actions to fit my new persona.

[CohenFridge]

You are always yourself...in different given circumstances.

For example...I have never been in the navy...but Daniel Kaffee in A Few Good Men has...so I need to think...what I would be like in the Navy and why the hell I would go there and so forth.

I have no problem playing myself in improv, because I always try to play myself in acting. My favorite performance ever in a play...was a farce called Life is Briefs...where I feel like I gave my most truthful "Bryan-like" performance despite being a 40ish dad who liked to take his pants down for "emphasis."

Quote coming later when I am in my room and near my acting stuffs.

Bryan

[Richard White]

I've always been intrigued by the Acting v. Improv debate, which has been referenced in this thread, and is really at the core of character work, not character affectation. Usually when people think of character work, they just imagine using a "pirate" accent, or doing a funny walk across the stage, when in reality, that is just giving yourself a quick way into a scene. And many times, inexperienced improvisors use these accents and walks because they have no idea what else to do and hope a more experienced performer will endow them or work their affectation into a scene.

But I think what many people forget about improv and acting, and I bastardize this from Sandy Meisner, is that you must "live truthfully under imaginary circumstances." How many audience members and/or improvisors know redneck pirates, or people who walk while their arms swing wildly above their head while hopping on one foot? OK, I'm probably the only one who has that uncle. Anyway, if the point of scene work is to create reality, wouldn't that reality be better fashioned by using what is considered a normal persona or character, which is much more kin to us then those other examples, and putting that "real" character into an imaginary circumstances? The point can then be argued that it is only natural that the audience will respond moreso by seeing "themselves" on stage in an odd situation. However, we all know the joys of seeing real people in weird and funky situations, i.e. The Haunted Mansion. So if everyone is playing a "real" person, how do these situations occur?

I think the point is that it's not necessary for everyone to be real person onstage, which is more like their natural person, but to know when to have a wild and crazy character, and when to play it closer to the improv vest. If you watch most older and more experienced improvisors, from DSI to UCB to IO, you'll see that usually, they will play normal people and craft the scene to be awkward for those people to exist in. That's good scene work, and good improv.

[CoreyBrown]

Suggestions for you to try. While on the side or back or where ever you are, make an honest 100% choice to play, the scene you are about to be in next, as real as you can play it. Making choices and putting emotional investment in those choices open a world of ideas up for you.

Take the TJ monkey show for instance. Porter was playing a female character, but it was still Porter making the choices up there. Letting his emotions effect the way that character reacts, even up to the point where he was so sad and weak he could not open a window. But the major point about that is he was emotionally invested in it.

Emotions are what make us human. Allowing yourself to be on the stage with your emotions is what makes it real. Slap on a funny voice, walk funny, it doesn't matter because that is not the real part. And if your doing that then most likely you are in your head trying to figure out HOW that character would react, when in reality you already know how they would react because ITS YOU.

Being you onstage makes it easier to open your emotional floodgate. Then when you get to that point, add something small to your character. How you stand, how you walk, just something. Just keep your true emotions there.

[Gutenburg]

Ohhhh. Both Meisner and Stanislavsky have made contributions to this thread! Exciting. Good posts all. Corey was right on about emotions. If there is one thing that my Theatre degree has given me (and believe me, there is probably only one thing that my Theatre degree has given me) it is that I learned that investing emotionally in a scene is the only truth you can bring to a character.
No one will EVER be anyone but themselves. As sad as it is, I will never be a pirate. But I can bring my emotions, experiences, and shortcomings to any character I play. That's joy of theatre in general. Different people bring different things to the same roles. I love it!