Aristotle in his lectures on dramatic form, The Poetics tells us that Plot (the most essential component of theatre (he calls it Poetry) is “the imitation of the action—for by plot I here mean the arrangement of the incidents… [it is] and imitation, not of men, but of action and of life, and life consists of action.”
So the first thing we need to talk about is the arrangement of the action in your story. What happens in most human videos that I have seen is that there is a deficiency in one of these areas: exposition, conflict, climax, or resolution. Each of these is specifically ordered because that is what will garner the greatest effect on your audience.
This is not to say that you cannot structure your Human Videos in another way. By all means, experiment, test out your theories, but I will guarantee you that eventually you will end up back at this structure because it is time-tested and proved. It just works.
Exposition is the part of the story that sets up the action. One problem that a lot of Human videos have is the lack of set up. The audience is flung too quickly into the action of the story with little in the way of explanation. This can lead to the audience giving up on the story before it has even really begun. Use the instrumental time in your song not just for “cool moves” but for clarification. If you have ever taken a journalism class, they will tell you that the first paragraph should convey to you the answers to the “5 W’s”: Who, what, when, where, why. Some would add the one “H”: How. I would not include this in your exposition, however, It is what the rest of the plot is for. By the time you reach your Conflict, you should already know who the players in this game are. One good example from an old human video is “The Champion.” In the action you must clearly lay out who is God and who is the Devil. That particular song does it in the lyrics, but that isn’t necessary for good exposition. You can convey as much from one action, look, or gesture as you can with lines of dialogue. Use that, and do not rely on the words to do all the work for you.
Conflict is a pretty simple word and a simple concept. Disagreement, clash, discord, divergence: all of these are descriptive of what makes up a good plot. When I taught Theatre 101 I would tell my students again and again: “Plot is conflict, conflict is plot.” That is all well and good, but what does it really mean? To put it simply, “conflict” in theatre is two opposing forces vying for the same thing. One is the protagonist (or the hero) and the other is the antagonist (or the “anti-hero”). One then, is the one you root for, the other is the one you do not. This must be made clear. If your audience does not know who is who, how can they know what message you are trying to send? The conflict should put a question into the mind of the audience, “Who is going to win?” “What is going to happen?” At each plot point, turning point, or what ever you wish to call it, they should ask the central question. (examples of central questions: “Will the boy get the girl?” “Will the boy become a man?” “Will the girl get her brother back?” Every conflict should be so simple it can be distilled into one question in this way.
Climax is the point in your plot line at which the conflict comes to its highest point. This is the point when it looks like the protagonist will most certainly loose, and loose horribly. Your audience must fear that all hope is most certainly lost, and in this way, victory will be all the more satisfying.
Resolution or denouement is where the central question is finally answered. This is when your audience finds what is called “catharsis.” It is the satisfying feeling you get when you have seen a story through to its completion.
There you have it a storyline in a few simple components. When your plot has each one of these very important elements, your human video will shine.
Human Video
Human Video
Sunday, October 30, 2005
Bringing Order to your Human Video
It is my hope that this blog will be a resource for those who wish to improve not only their rankings in Fine Arts, but also the over-all quality of their Human videos. To that end, I would like to write a series of posts that deal with just that. In searching for a way to communicate part of the creative process (which, in itself is not a static thing, but is different for every group and/or individual) I looked to some of my textbooks from school (they do come in handy sometimes).
My Script writing class seemed to be the place to start, especially since most problems I have seen deal with poorly organized scripts. “Making a Good Script Great” by Linda Seger gave me a basic structure: “A script could be divided into five major components: the storylines, the characters, the underlying idea, the images, and the dialogue.” This gives us a jumping off point so, are you ready?
Are you ready to radically transform your conception of the creative process in writing and choreographing Human Videos?
Then, let’s get to it!
Human Video
Human Video
My Script writing class seemed to be the place to start, especially since most problems I have seen deal with poorly organized scripts. “Making a Good Script Great” by Linda Seger gave me a basic structure: “A script could be divided into five major components: the storylines, the characters, the underlying idea, the images, and the dialogue.” This gives us a jumping off point so, are you ready?
Are you ready to radically transform your conception of the creative process in writing and choreographing Human Videos?
Then, let’s get to it!
Human Video
Human Video
Thursday, October 13, 2005
Human Video is Dance.
It is a popular trend in the Assemblies of God to refer to Human Video as "choreographed movement" and by labeling it that, it somehow becomes not dance.
This phrase is just one of the key exhibits the case arguing for ignorance of those people who propagate such foolishness.
The case against "dance" by those distinguished forbearers of our faith has always been one of confusion for me. Where did this idea come from that dance itself was somehow bad? What is it intrinsically about moving ones body that is so offensive? Nothing. Seductive dance is not profitable for our aims as Christians and therefore ought to be abstained from, but so should seductive talk, and we do not abstain from talking at all.
This antiquated idea ought to be done away with, but that is a subject for another post.
Today I will show you how Human Video falls into the theatrical category of Dance. In order to do that, I will need to define both Human Video and Dance.
The Oxford English Dictionary says that Dance is:
The only encyclopedia (to my knowledge) that contains a definition of Human Video is wikipedia, and even thought it is chiefly written by me I will use it as I believe it is a succinct but thorough definition:
Physical movement, rhythmical movements;Turnings of limbs, movement of body, form of expression, presented in a social, spiritual or performance setting.
I don't believe that a long explaination of my views would be nessisary or benificial. It is clear form these definistions that Human Video * I S * Dance.
Human Video
Human Video
This phrase is just one of the key exhibits the case arguing for ignorance of those people who propagate such foolishness.
The case against "dance" by those distinguished forbearers of our faith has always been one of confusion for me. Where did this idea come from that dance itself was somehow bad? What is it intrinsically about moving ones body that is so offensive? Nothing. Seductive dance is not profitable for our aims as Christians and therefore ought to be abstained from, but so should seductive talk, and we do not abstain from talking at all.
This antiquated idea ought to be done away with, but that is a subject for another post.
Today I will show you how Human Video falls into the theatrical category of Dance. In order to do that, I will need to define both Human Video and Dance.
Dance (from Old French dance, further history unknown) generally refers to human movement either used as a form of expression (see also body language) or presented in a social, spiritual or performance setting.
Definitions of what constitutes dance are dependent on social, cultural, aesthetic artistic and moral constraints and range from functional movement (such as Folk dance) to codified, virtuoso techniques such as ballet. In sports, gymnastics, figure skating and synchronized swimming there are dance disciplines while Martial arts 'Kata' are often compared to dances.
The Oxford English Dictionary says that Dance is:
1. A rhythmical skipping and stepping, with regular turnings and movements of the limbs and body, usually to the accompaniment of music; either as an expression of joy, exultation, and the like, or as an amusement or entertainment; the action or an act or round of dancing.
2. a. A definite succession or arrangement of steps and rhythmical movements constituting one particular form or method of dancing.
The only encyclopedia (to my knowledge) that contains a definition of Human Video is wikipedia, and even thought it is chiefly written by me I will use it as I believe it is a succinct but thorough definition:
A human video is a form of theatre combining music, American Sign Language, Modern Dance and drama. A human video consists of a song (usually by a popular singer or group) played over loudspeakers while actors use rhythmic physical movement (gestures and other movements of the limbs and body) to communicate joy, exultation, sadness, anger, and often the passion of Jesus of Nazareth to a given audience. Their movements should demonstrate both a story and the theme of the song being played. The story can be either implicit in the words of the song or a story written independently of the original artist's meaning.
Physical movement, rhythmical movements;Turnings of limbs, movement of body, form of expression, presented in a social, spiritual or performance setting.
I don't believe that a long explaination of my views would be nessisary or benificial. It is clear form these definistions that Human Video * I S * Dance.
Human Video
Human Video
Monday, October 10, 2005
Physical Energy =/= Expending Energy
One of the most important things I have learned about acting from performing, from classes, from talking with other theatre professionals, from judging Human Video competitions, is that expending physical energy is not the same as having physical energy.
In fact, most of the time, expending energy in thrashing or bouncing around, and fighting is actually antithetical to having physical energy. This idea might seem a little confusing at first, but if we look to physical science, we can easily see how it applies to acting (especially in a Human Video).
Here is a child's science experiment I found through Google that describes the difference between "kinetic" and "potential" energy:
This Week's Experiment - #216 Pendulum Perils
This week's experiment requires a lot of faith in the laws of science. When it is done at science centers, it usually involves a bowling ball rushing towards your face, but we will use a less dramatic version. You will need:
string
an apple that still has the stem on it
a high place to tie the string. I used a shower curtain rod.
Tie the string to the stem of the apple. You can use something besides an apple, as long as it is round and easy to tie the string to. If you use something that is not round, it may smack you in the nose, so I suggest looking for an apple.
Tie the other end of the string to the rod that holds your shower curtain. You want to measure the string so that if you sit in the bathtub, facing towards the curtain rod (sideways in the tub), you can pull the apple over so that it touches your forehead.
That is exactly what you are going to do. Lean your head back against the wall, so that it does not move forward or backwards. Pull the apple towards you until it touches your forehead. Now comes the part where you have to trust me. Release the apple, letting it swing away from you. That wasn't so bad, now was it. But wait! Now it is swinging back towards you! Will it smack you in the face?
No, as long as you do not move your head, the apple will not hit you. Why not? As the apple moves away from you, it is picking up speed. It is converting potential energy, from its height, into kinetic energy, the energy of motion. Once it passes the lowest point, the opposite begins to happen. It is now moving against gravity, and some of its kinetic energy is converted into potential energy. Once all of the kinetic energy has been converted, it stops and starts to move downwards again.
In a perfect system, this would keep happening over and over, with no energy lost. In reality, there is resistance from the air, friction with the string, all sorts of things to drain away some of the energy. This means that each swing will not go quite as high as the one before it. Because we know that our apple on a string system is not perfectly frictionless, we know that the apple will not make it back up high enough to hit your face. Just be sure not to move, and use a small apple, just in case.
When the apple is moving through real time and space, it is expending it's energy; it is using up any potential energy it has. The problem with that is that as the energy is used up, the store is burned through. When there is only so much of the energy, there is less and less of it after each swing. When this energy is "drained away" there is nothing left, and "each swing will not go quite as high as the one before it."
It is the same way in acting, especially in a Human Video.
In a perfect world, without friction, you could expend as much energy as possible and it would all still have an effect on your audience. The problem is, we don't live in a perfect frictionless environment. When you keep "swinging" you loose what potential energy you have built up.
The key then, rather than expending a lot of energy is wasted gestures and fighting, in thrashing around wildly, in bouncing needlessly, is to conserve your energy.
What I mean by this is not "don't expend any energy" but rather I mean conserve it. Use it in the most important places. Take a good look at your storyline. What is the "Central Question" of your story? What is the most important idea? Use your physical energy to emphasize that point.
Neither does this "conservation" mean that you should have "dead spots" in your physical action. During the interim, between your important points, think of ways to build up potential energy. This can be done in a variety of ways:
Re-emphasize the Central Question/Idea
Make the conflict more urgent
*Almost* expend the energy and then pull back from doing it
These are just a few examples.
Try it out and see how much more effective the "physical energy" is in your Human Video.
Human Video
Human Video
In fact, most of the time, expending energy in thrashing or bouncing around, and fighting is actually antithetical to having physical energy. This idea might seem a little confusing at first, but if we look to physical science, we can easily see how it applies to acting (especially in a Human Video).
Here is a child's science experiment I found through Google that describes the difference between "kinetic" and "potential" energy:
This Week's Experiment - #216 Pendulum Perils
This week's experiment requires a lot of faith in the laws of science. When it is done at science centers, it usually involves a bowling ball rushing towards your face, but we will use a less dramatic version. You will need:
string
an apple that still has the stem on it
a high place to tie the string. I used a shower curtain rod.
Tie the string to the stem of the apple. You can use something besides an apple, as long as it is round and easy to tie the string to. If you use something that is not round, it may smack you in the nose, so I suggest looking for an apple.
Tie the other end of the string to the rod that holds your shower curtain. You want to measure the string so that if you sit in the bathtub, facing towards the curtain rod (sideways in the tub), you can pull the apple over so that it touches your forehead.
That is exactly what you are going to do. Lean your head back against the wall, so that it does not move forward or backwards. Pull the apple towards you until it touches your forehead. Now comes the part where you have to trust me. Release the apple, letting it swing away from you. That wasn't so bad, now was it. But wait! Now it is swinging back towards you! Will it smack you in the face?
No, as long as you do not move your head, the apple will not hit you. Why not? As the apple moves away from you, it is picking up speed. It is converting potential energy, from its height, into kinetic energy, the energy of motion. Once it passes the lowest point, the opposite begins to happen. It is now moving against gravity, and some of its kinetic energy is converted into potential energy. Once all of the kinetic energy has been converted, it stops and starts to move downwards again.
In a perfect system, this would keep happening over and over, with no energy lost. In reality, there is resistance from the air, friction with the string, all sorts of things to drain away some of the energy. This means that each swing will not go quite as high as the one before it. Because we know that our apple on a string system is not perfectly frictionless, we know that the apple will not make it back up high enough to hit your face. Just be sure not to move, and use a small apple, just in case.
When the apple is moving through real time and space, it is expending it's energy; it is using up any potential energy it has. The problem with that is that as the energy is used up, the store is burned through. When there is only so much of the energy, there is less and less of it after each swing. When this energy is "drained away" there is nothing left, and "each swing will not go quite as high as the one before it."
It is the same way in acting, especially in a Human Video.
In a perfect world, without friction, you could expend as much energy as possible and it would all still have an effect on your audience. The problem is, we don't live in a perfect frictionless environment. When you keep "swinging" you loose what potential energy you have built up.
The key then, rather than expending a lot of energy is wasted gestures and fighting, in thrashing around wildly, in bouncing needlessly, is to conserve your energy.
What I mean by this is not "don't expend any energy" but rather I mean conserve it. Use it in the most important places. Take a good look at your storyline. What is the "Central Question" of your story? What is the most important idea? Use your physical energy to emphasize that point.
Neither does this "conservation" mean that you should have "dead spots" in your physical action. During the interim, between your important points, think of ways to build up potential energy. This can be done in a variety of ways:
Re-emphasize the Central Question/Idea
Make the conflict more urgent
*Almost* expend the energy and then pull back from doing it
These are just a few examples.
Try it out and see how much more effective the "physical energy" is in your Human Video.
Human Video
Human Video
Monday, September 12, 2005
Ignoring Bad “Fashion Trends” in Human Video
I’m sure everyone out there remembers a bad fashion trend. They happen often. They were a virtual epidemic in the 80’s. Can you remember bad fashion trends like Bermuda shorts, leisure suits, big bangs, crimped hair and super-tall platform shoes? We look back on them now and think “how could they have ever been in style, or in some cases, “How is it possible that they could come back IN style!?!?!?”
The kinds of fashion trends I want to talk about are not about the clothes you wear or the way you wear your hair. They, like everything I blog about here, are bad fashion trends in Human Video.
Just because someone does something, even someone who is an “expert” or who has won national merit award, doesn’t mean that you should mimic them. In most cases the copied items are poor examples of what ought to be done. Just as in our faith we must measure everything up against scripture, in theatre (for that is what Human Video is) we must measure everything up to the time-tested principles of dramatics that can be found when you really look for it.
There are three kinds I will focus on today: trends in moves, trends in storylines, and trends in subject matter.
First I suppose I should explain what I mean by “moves.” Because Human Video is a conglomeration of a variety of different art forms, it has yet to develop a cohesive jargon all it’s own. What one person calls “moves” might be entirely different than what someone else considers “moves.” Generally movement and placement in theatre are referred to as either “choreography” or “blocking.” Most of the time, these two areas are well covered in Human Videos. The movements I am talking about now have less to do with those, and more to do with “meaningful gestures.” When we think of gestures, what are the first things to come to mind? Perhaps waving to say “hello,” or shaking a fist to show anger. These kinds of gestures have meaning. The problem is that there are a lot of extraneous or unneeded movements that become “bad fashion trends.” Sometimes in Christian circles, we begin to have a sort of slang. Likely most of us have used slang in front of our parents and noticed the slightly glazed expression that creeps over their faces. When we use “slang” gestures in Human Video, those who aren’t “in the know” can’t understand the message that we are sending. |+ \/\/0|_|[]_|) 8 the 54)v(3 |pH | 70[]_|) j00 70 ph33r |\/|y tekniq, n00b!!! t0 u|\|d3r$+@|\|D jOo |\/|u5+ be lEET. 1f J00 4r3 NO+ lEe+ jOO C@|\|N0T 5p3A|< 0r ReAd +|-|I5.
The second area that is subject to “bad fashion trends” is storylines. What I have seen happen often is that one group will find a “storyline” from the Bible, and then other groups copy the idea ad infinitum. Writing stories is fairly simple. There are four elements to a story that must be present: exposition, conflict, climax, and resolution. All four must be present in order to have a complete and understandable storyline. When any of those are missing, the story becomes less effective than it could be. Some stories need only to be clarified in the minds of the writers and performers. Often by the addition of a few simple clarifying movements or facial expressions, a once “muddy” storyline becomes clear.
The final trend I want to address is related to storylines. It is subject matter. It seems that the range of most human videos is so small it is cliché. “Smoking: Bad. Sex: Bad. Drugs: Bad. Drinking: Bad. Purging: Bad. Cutting: Bad.” Surely these are not the only issues facing people today. Rather than sticking to the same subject matter over and over again, we should be going back to the Bible, back to our own experience, and asking God to give us unique and inspired ideas. Try keeping a journal. Write in it for at least a week. Jot down news articles that attract your attention, situations that happen in your circle of friends, and things that happen in your school. “Write what you know,” is advice often given to writers, and it is the advice I give to you to combat this particular “fashion trend.”
The root of all of these problems seems to come from one very small problem. Imitation. It may be the sincerest form of flattery, but we are not in the business of flattery. Rather than engage in imitative behavior, we ought to be engaging in innovative behavior. To innovate, we need to be sure of our roots. We need to understand the principles of theatre.
Things like characterization, blocking, choreography ought to be studied to the best of our ability. In 1Timothy, Paul encourages us to “study to show ourselves approved unto God,” and that is as true of studying theatre as anything else. Be knowledgeable about your craft so that you will be able to shine for Jesus, instead of being an embarrassment.
Human Video
The kinds of fashion trends I want to talk about are not about the clothes you wear or the way you wear your hair. They, like everything I blog about here, are bad fashion trends in Human Video.
Just because someone does something, even someone who is an “expert” or who has won national merit award, doesn’t mean that you should mimic them. In most cases the copied items are poor examples of what ought to be done. Just as in our faith we must measure everything up against scripture, in theatre (for that is what Human Video is) we must measure everything up to the time-tested principles of dramatics that can be found when you really look for it.
There are three kinds I will focus on today: trends in moves, trends in storylines, and trends in subject matter.
First I suppose I should explain what I mean by “moves.” Because Human Video is a conglomeration of a variety of different art forms, it has yet to develop a cohesive jargon all it’s own. What one person calls “moves” might be entirely different than what someone else considers “moves.” Generally movement and placement in theatre are referred to as either “choreography” or “blocking.” Most of the time, these two areas are well covered in Human Videos. The movements I am talking about now have less to do with those, and more to do with “meaningful gestures.” When we think of gestures, what are the first things to come to mind? Perhaps waving to say “hello,” or shaking a fist to show anger. These kinds of gestures have meaning. The problem is that there are a lot of extraneous or unneeded movements that become “bad fashion trends.” Sometimes in Christian circles, we begin to have a sort of slang. Likely most of us have used slang in front of our parents and noticed the slightly glazed expression that creeps over their faces. When we use “slang” gestures in Human Video, those who aren’t “in the know” can’t understand the message that we are sending. |+ \/\/0|_|[]_|) 8 the 54)v(3 |pH | 70[]_|) j00 70 ph33r |\/|y tekniq, n00b!!! t0 u|\|d3r$+@|\|D jOo |\/|u5+ be lEET. 1f J00 4r3 NO+ lEe+ jOO C@|\|N0T 5p3A|< 0r ReAd +|-|I5.
The second area that is subject to “bad fashion trends” is storylines. What I have seen happen often is that one group will find a “storyline” from the Bible, and then other groups copy the idea ad infinitum. Writing stories is fairly simple. There are four elements to a story that must be present: exposition, conflict, climax, and resolution. All four must be present in order to have a complete and understandable storyline. When any of those are missing, the story becomes less effective than it could be. Some stories need only to be clarified in the minds of the writers and performers. Often by the addition of a few simple clarifying movements or facial expressions, a once “muddy” storyline becomes clear.
The final trend I want to address is related to storylines. It is subject matter. It seems that the range of most human videos is so small it is cliché. “Smoking: Bad. Sex: Bad. Drugs: Bad. Drinking: Bad. Purging: Bad. Cutting: Bad.” Surely these are not the only issues facing people today. Rather than sticking to the same subject matter over and over again, we should be going back to the Bible, back to our own experience, and asking God to give us unique and inspired ideas. Try keeping a journal. Write in it for at least a week. Jot down news articles that attract your attention, situations that happen in your circle of friends, and things that happen in your school. “Write what you know,” is advice often given to writers, and it is the advice I give to you to combat this particular “fashion trend.”
The root of all of these problems seems to come from one very small problem. Imitation. It may be the sincerest form of flattery, but we are not in the business of flattery. Rather than engage in imitative behavior, we ought to be engaging in innovative behavior. To innovate, we need to be sure of our roots. We need to understand the principles of theatre.
Things like characterization, blocking, choreography ought to be studied to the best of our ability. In 1Timothy, Paul encourages us to “study to show ourselves approved unto God,” and that is as true of studying theatre as anything else. Be knowledgeable about your craft so that you will be able to shine for Jesus, instead of being an embarrassment.
Human Video
Thursday, August 25, 2005
Valuing those who adjudicate.
I was helping a friend organize a lesson plan about "valuing people" today.
I looked through and read great portions of C.S. Lewis, I painstakingly copied them down, and then I thought of things that made me feel personally valued by others.
Then something else occurred to me. How I feel de-valued by others. One of the best examples of this I could think of was being de-valued in my work as a Human Video adjudicator.
I have put a lot of work into being someone worthy of being a National-level drama adjudicator. I have judged in not one but three National competitions. Not only that, but I have judged spoken drama, mime, dance, and a variety of other performing arts categories. I have everything necessary for a Master's degree in Theatre (I am finishing my thesis). I have years of drama ministry experience. I have started drama programs, run drama workshops; I have been on touring drama teams, been in plays, worked behind the scenes, and performed in a multiplicity of venues.
Without being conceited or trying to make others feel inferior, I want to state that adjudicators are chosen for a reason. It is for precisely this reason that it irritates me when those who are adjudicated (not necessarily by me, but in general) complain about the evaluations of their performances.
I have often heard artists, parents, and even pastors complain that a judge is biased. I would dearly like to say: "Of course. Aren't we all to some degree or another?" Why are judges expected to suddenly transcend their humanity and attain the divine? That is not their purpose. They are there because they are human; in fact I would say that Judges have to be biased." Their purpose is to show you an opinion that you have not thought of before. Take their comments, not as "gospel truth" but as a starting point for a learning process. Do not take them personally but thoughtfully and prayerfully consider them.
This is not to say that I think we ought to prefer one group over another for bigoted, superficial and/or narrow-minded reasons. On the contrary, they should be open to new and exciting ideas. It is fallacious, however to assume that a judge ought not to be biased. They should be biased: toward the truth. If there is no easy line between black and white, all the more reason they should adhere to the standards that are time-tested and well-worn (as in theatre). Some comments come from preference, but that preference (9 times out of 10) is born out of their education. If their comments seem to you dogmatic, that is because they (in part) are and must be. The opinion of an adjudicator should be well-informed by their education and experience. This pre-disposes them to dislike things that they have seen done poorly repeatedly.
What does this mean for the performer, participant, or artist? It means that you must make sure if you do something, you do it right. Inform yourself of dramatic theory and practice as much as you possibly can. Give yourself every opportunity to succeed. If you, then find yourself at a loss with adjudicators comments, you at least have a base to start from. Take the comments to your High School drama teacher and ask what they mean. Seek out a professional who can guide you. And, (I mean this with all kindness and with great sincerity) lashing out in anger does nothing for your ignorance.
It is far more beneficial to look past the initial reaction (of assuming that the judges are obtuse and categorically wrong) and look to the possibility that they just might be right. When we are too close to a thing, it is often our misfortune not to see it. "Can't see the forest for the trees," is a phrase that springs immediately to mind. A lot of what we sometimes consider "universal" and "obvious" can turn out to be a lot harder to interpret than we might think.
When I put a great deal of work into something, it would be easy for me to say to a critic, " You are wrong! I will do it my own way!" But where does that get me if I am working toward a goal, and the "critic" is an expert in my field? I have been told personally by my academic advisor that the things I have turned in are unacceptable, but at no time have I de-valued him by saying that he is wrong. He is an "expert." It is his job to know what does and does not belong in a Graduate Thesis. My insisting he is wrong is not only not helping my ignorance, but it is harmful to my progress. I can never learn if my heart is unwilling to accept correction.
Or, for another example; the meaning of your piece is lost on a judge. Does this mean that you still deserve full marks? Why should it? The goal of theatre at the most fundamental level is communication. A sender sends a message, the receiver receives it and sends feedback. If the sender sends a confusing message, should they dishonestly send incorrect feedback? NO! This only encourages the unwanted behavior.
Sadly, that kind of misinterpretation happens in theatre all the time. It is an art form that is based for the most part on audience interpretation. The only way of circumventing that kind of "misreading of the text," is to take a look at what it was specifically about the performance that lead to the misinterpretation and try to thwart that kind of interpretation during the next performance.
What happens in the judging process can sometimes be a much keener test of storytelling ability because it allows us to see if the message we are sending is really getting across to those who are not familiar with our message. It is a sterile environment in which to test our abilities. Apart from well-meaning fellow church members- does my performance pass the test?
I know it is frustrating to read adjudicators comments. I was a Fine Arts Participant myself. I was involved in a number of competitions, not all of them with the same affiliations I was finally able to be an adjudicator myself, I looked back to those comments. What did I find? I have found that nearly everyone of the judges comments that I didn't agree with (that seemed obtuse at the time) were entirely correct. After I gained a greater understanding of theatre, and how it works in the secular as well as the church setting, I finally understood what they meant.
We have, as adjudicators (especially in Human Video) so little time and space for proper instruction. It is the hope of every adjudicator I know that you will not simply read and disregard the comments that we make, but research them. Do as the Berean Christians did and test them to see if, indeed, they are true.
I have never met one single adjudicator who's goal it was to hurt those they are adjudicating. We do it for this reason: to educate, to inspire, to raise the performer's awareness. We desire earnestly to, "tell the truth, in love."
It is not an issue of un-biblically favoring one over another, but rather the very biblical issue of correction.
Prov 1:20-33
Wisdom calls aloud in the street. She utters her voice in the public squares. She calls at the head of noisy places. At the entrance of the city gates, she utters her words: "How long, you simple ones, will you love simplicity? How long will mockers delight themselves in mockery, And fools hate knowledge? Turn at my reproof. Behold, I will pour out my spirit on you. I will make known my words to you. Because I have called, and you have refused; I have stretched out my hand, and no one has paid attention; But you have ignored all my counsel, And wanted none of my reproof; I also will laugh at your disaster. I will mock when calamity overtakes you; When calamity overtakes you like a storm, When your disaster comes on like a whirlwind; When distress and anguish come on you. Then will they call on me, but I will not answer. They will seek me diligently, but they will not find me; Because they hated knowledge, And didn't choose the fear of God. They wanted none of my counsel. They despised all my reproof. Therefore they will eat of the fruit of their own way, And be filled with their own schemes. For the backsliding of the simple will kill them. The careless ease of fools will destroy them. But whoever listens to me will dwell securely, And will be at ease, without fear of harm." And notice the similarity with Hebrews and Revelation
Hebrews 12:6 For whom the Lord loves, he chastens, And scourges every son whom he receives."
Revelation 3:19 As many as I love, I reprove and chasten. Be zealous therefore, and repent.
While I do not suggest that rebuking and critiquing are fundamentally the same thing, I do think there is a great deal of overlap in the definition.
It is my dream that young people get not simply a few hastily scribbled comments, but actual time with qualified ministry professionals to enhance their craft. Unfortunately, many smaller districts do not have the resources or the connections to provide such training on their own. I know of only a few who travel around doing specific Fine Arts training, and it is something that I would very much like to do myself. I am much more satisfied helping people on a personal level than leaving just a few words to them, squeezed into a tiny box. To instead get to spend hours with them teaching them the theory behind the comments would be infinitely more rewarding.
I looked through and read great portions of C.S. Lewis, I painstakingly copied them down, and then I thought of things that made me feel personally valued by others.
Then something else occurred to me. How I feel de-valued by others. One of the best examples of this I could think of was being de-valued in my work as a Human Video adjudicator.
I have put a lot of work into being someone worthy of being a National-level drama adjudicator. I have judged in not one but three National competitions. Not only that, but I have judged spoken drama, mime, dance, and a variety of other performing arts categories. I have everything necessary for a Master's degree in Theatre (I am finishing my thesis). I have years of drama ministry experience. I have started drama programs, run drama workshops; I have been on touring drama teams, been in plays, worked behind the scenes, and performed in a multiplicity of venues.
Without being conceited or trying to make others feel inferior, I want to state that adjudicators are chosen for a reason. It is for precisely this reason that it irritates me when those who are adjudicated (not necessarily by me, but in general) complain about the evaluations of their performances.
I have often heard artists, parents, and even pastors complain that a judge is biased. I would dearly like to say: "Of course. Aren't we all to some degree or another?" Why are judges expected to suddenly transcend their humanity and attain the divine? That is not their purpose. They are there because they are human; in fact I would say that Judges have to be biased." Their purpose is to show you an opinion that you have not thought of before. Take their comments, not as "gospel truth" but as a starting point for a learning process. Do not take them personally but thoughtfully and prayerfully consider them.
This is not to say that I think we ought to prefer one group over another for bigoted, superficial and/or narrow-minded reasons. On the contrary, they should be open to new and exciting ideas. It is fallacious, however to assume that a judge ought not to be biased. They should be biased: toward the truth. If there is no easy line between black and white, all the more reason they should adhere to the standards that are time-tested and well-worn (as in theatre). Some comments come from preference, but that preference (9 times out of 10) is born out of their education. If their comments seem to you dogmatic, that is because they (in part) are and must be. The opinion of an adjudicator should be well-informed by their education and experience. This pre-disposes them to dislike things that they have seen done poorly repeatedly.
What does this mean for the performer, participant, or artist? It means that you must make sure if you do something, you do it right. Inform yourself of dramatic theory and practice as much as you possibly can. Give yourself every opportunity to succeed. If you, then find yourself at a loss with adjudicators comments, you at least have a base to start from. Take the comments to your High School drama teacher and ask what they mean. Seek out a professional who can guide you. And, (I mean this with all kindness and with great sincerity) lashing out in anger does nothing for your ignorance.
It is far more beneficial to look past the initial reaction (of assuming that the judges are obtuse and categorically wrong) and look to the possibility that they just might be right. When we are too close to a thing, it is often our misfortune not to see it. "Can't see the forest for the trees," is a phrase that springs immediately to mind. A lot of what we sometimes consider "universal" and "obvious" can turn out to be a lot harder to interpret than we might think.
When I put a great deal of work into something, it would be easy for me to say to a critic, " You are wrong! I will do it my own way!" But where does that get me if I am working toward a goal, and the "critic" is an expert in my field? I have been told personally by my academic advisor that the things I have turned in are unacceptable, but at no time have I de-valued him by saying that he is wrong. He is an "expert." It is his job to know what does and does not belong in a Graduate Thesis. My insisting he is wrong is not only not helping my ignorance, but it is harmful to my progress. I can never learn if my heart is unwilling to accept correction.
Or, for another example; the meaning of your piece is lost on a judge. Does this mean that you still deserve full marks? Why should it? The goal of theatre at the most fundamental level is communication. A sender sends a message, the receiver receives it and sends feedback. If the sender sends a confusing message, should they dishonestly send incorrect feedback? NO! This only encourages the unwanted behavior.
Sadly, that kind of misinterpretation happens in theatre all the time. It is an art form that is based for the most part on audience interpretation. The only way of circumventing that kind of "misreading of the text," is to take a look at what it was specifically about the performance that lead to the misinterpretation and try to thwart that kind of interpretation during the next performance.
What happens in the judging process can sometimes be a much keener test of storytelling ability because it allows us to see if the message we are sending is really getting across to those who are not familiar with our message. It is a sterile environment in which to test our abilities. Apart from well-meaning fellow church members- does my performance pass the test?
I know it is frustrating to read adjudicators comments. I was a Fine Arts Participant myself. I was involved in a number of competitions, not all of them with the same affiliations I was finally able to be an adjudicator myself, I looked back to those comments. What did I find? I have found that nearly everyone of the judges comments that I didn't agree with (that seemed obtuse at the time) were entirely correct. After I gained a greater understanding of theatre, and how it works in the secular as well as the church setting, I finally understood what they meant.
We have, as adjudicators (especially in Human Video) so little time and space for proper instruction. It is the hope of every adjudicator I know that you will not simply read and disregard the comments that we make, but research them. Do as the Berean Christians did and test them to see if, indeed, they are true.
I have never met one single adjudicator who's goal it was to hurt those they are adjudicating. We do it for this reason: to educate, to inspire, to raise the performer's awareness. We desire earnestly to, "tell the truth, in love."
It is not an issue of un-biblically favoring one over another, but rather the very biblical issue of correction.
Prov 1:20-33
Wisdom calls aloud in the street. She utters her voice in the public squares. She calls at the head of noisy places. At the entrance of the city gates, she utters her words: "How long, you simple ones, will you love simplicity? How long will mockers delight themselves in mockery, And fools hate knowledge? Turn at my reproof. Behold, I will pour out my spirit on you. I will make known my words to you. Because I have called, and you have refused; I have stretched out my hand, and no one has paid attention; But you have ignored all my counsel, And wanted none of my reproof; I also will laugh at your disaster. I will mock when calamity overtakes you; When calamity overtakes you like a storm, When your disaster comes on like a whirlwind; When distress and anguish come on you. Then will they call on me, but I will not answer. They will seek me diligently, but they will not find me; Because they hated knowledge, And didn't choose the fear of God. They wanted none of my counsel. They despised all my reproof. Therefore they will eat of the fruit of their own way, And be filled with their own schemes. For the backsliding of the simple will kill them. The careless ease of fools will destroy them. But whoever listens to me will dwell securely, And will be at ease, without fear of harm." And notice the similarity with Hebrews and Revelation
Hebrews 12:6 For whom the Lord loves, he chastens, And scourges every son whom he receives."
Revelation 3:19 As many as I love, I reprove and chasten. Be zealous therefore, and repent.
While I do not suggest that rebuking and critiquing are fundamentally the same thing, I do think there is a great deal of overlap in the definition.
It is my dream that young people get not simply a few hastily scribbled comments, but actual time with qualified ministry professionals to enhance their craft. Unfortunately, many smaller districts do not have the resources or the connections to provide such training on their own. I know of only a few who travel around doing specific Fine Arts training, and it is something that I would very much like to do myself. I am much more satisfied helping people on a personal level than leaving just a few words to them, squeezed into a tiny box. To instead get to spend hours with them teaching them the theory behind the comments would be infinitely more rewarding.
Wednesday, August 24, 2005
Everything Old is New Again
“… these rituals deploy action—movement, gesture and song—to achieve their objectives. These actions are thus, in an important sense, descriptive. In other words the design of the ritual is strictly practical and is choreographed intuitively… stamping dance steps [are] a frequent feature… Among the most striking examples of this process is the death, revival, and resurrection of a god or hero…” – A History of the Theatre~ Glynne Wickham
Was Wickham taking about Human video? The description seems so similar. Meaningful gestures, songs, the death and resurrection of Jesus; surely this is a description of Human Video?
“The plays often call for rapid motion or strong gesture: characters are said to kneel or beat the breast or throw themselves on the ground.” H.C. Baldry~ The Greek Tragic Theatre
As I am sure you realize by now, neither of these quotes is about Human Video. The first is about tribal and ritual dramas (which in some cases pre-date Greek theatre) and the second is about Greek theatre.
Why then do they sound SO much like a description of Human Video? Wasn’t Human video only “invented” about 15-20 years ago? Isn’t it a new form of drama? The simple straightforward answer is no. No one from our century “invented” Human Video. They may have popularized the name, and had friends suggest the addition of lip sync (letting someone else do the singing rather than doing it themselves as the ancients did), or by using a formal gestural language (ASL) to aid in the choice of meaningful gestures, but it is not, in any way new.
So what does this mean for human video artists? Does it mean that because our previous views of the “reality” of Human Video’s advent are felicitous that we, being disillusioned, should resign Human Video to the grave of illegitimate theatre? By no means! This should give us all the more hope. Human Video is not new, but we can make it new again. By studying its true origins; by studying it’s predecessors, we can revitalize it.
Greek theatre, tribal rituals, classic mime, American Sign languages, even modern music videos all have something to teach us about the proper performance of Human Video. To become a good Christian, you have to study not only Jesus’ words, but also the words of great Christians, Peter, Paul, Augustine, Origen, Martin Luther, William Dunbar, Oswald Chambers, C.S. Lewis, and Billy Ghramn all have something to say about the life of a Christian. We can study their words in conjunction with the Bible to enhance our Christian walk.
What does that have to do with Human Video? Everything! This means that instead of rigidly adhering to the words of one person, we can study the great masters of theatre to enrich our dramatic performances.
SO, go out! Study the old stuff. Everything Old is new again, don’tchaknow?
Was Wickham taking about Human video? The description seems so similar. Meaningful gestures, songs, the death and resurrection of Jesus; surely this is a description of Human Video?
“The plays often call for rapid motion or strong gesture: characters are said to kneel or beat the breast or throw themselves on the ground.” H.C. Baldry~ The Greek Tragic Theatre
As I am sure you realize by now, neither of these quotes is about Human Video. The first is about tribal and ritual dramas (which in some cases pre-date Greek theatre) and the second is about Greek theatre.
Why then do they sound SO much like a description of Human Video? Wasn’t Human video only “invented” about 15-20 years ago? Isn’t it a new form of drama? The simple straightforward answer is no. No one from our century “invented” Human Video. They may have popularized the name, and had friends suggest the addition of lip sync (letting someone else do the singing rather than doing it themselves as the ancients did), or by using a formal gestural language (ASL) to aid in the choice of meaningful gestures, but it is not, in any way new.
So what does this mean for human video artists? Does it mean that because our previous views of the “reality” of Human Video’s advent are felicitous that we, being disillusioned, should resign Human Video to the grave of illegitimate theatre? By no means! This should give us all the more hope. Human Video is not new, but we can make it new again. By studying its true origins; by studying it’s predecessors, we can revitalize it.
Greek theatre, tribal rituals, classic mime, American Sign languages, even modern music videos all have something to teach us about the proper performance of Human Video. To become a good Christian, you have to study not only Jesus’ words, but also the words of great Christians, Peter, Paul, Augustine, Origen, Martin Luther, William Dunbar, Oswald Chambers, C.S. Lewis, and Billy Ghramn all have something to say about the life of a Christian. We can study their words in conjunction with the Bible to enhance our Christian walk.
What does that have to do with Human Video? Everything! This means that instead of rigidly adhering to the words of one person, we can study the great masters of theatre to enrich our dramatic performances.
SO, go out! Study the old stuff. Everything Old is new again, don’tchaknow?
Blog Reading
I've been surfing the blogoshpere into the wee hours of the morning and I am surprised that I have actually been having a lot of fun.
I didn't expect to really feel "cheerful" today, but reading this particular post left me with that familiar happy "glow." I actually laughed out loud (quite heartily) when I read it. Hope it makes you laugh too. :D
http://dashboarddrummer.blogspot.com/2005/07/kodachrome.html
I didn't expect to really feel "cheerful" today, but reading this particular post left me with that familiar happy "glow." I actually laughed out loud (quite heartily) when I read it. Hope it makes you laugh too. :D
http://dashboarddrummer.blogspot.com/2005/07/kodachrome.html
Tuesday, August 23, 2005
Just Like Jim Carrey: How to Make a Human Video "pop"
When you start talking about Human videos, Jim Carrey’s name is probably not the first name to pop into your head, so why would I even mention him here? Because often when you are talking about something as abstract as acting, examples can help a great deal, and Jim Carrey has something that is sorely lacking in scores of the Human Videos that are being performed all over the nation.
So what does Jim Carrey have that these others don’t? He has commitment. Now, I don’t mean by this that young people all over the country lack dedication; that somehow they are shiftless bums. On the contrary, I have a great respect for them and their dedication to rehearsals, to their families, and to their youth ministries. What I think they lack is something having to do with acting.
Acting is not a new discipline. It is one of the world’s oldest, and historically least respected vocations. The Wikipedia article on acting has this to say:
“Acting is the work of an actor, a person in theatre, film, or any other storytelling medium who tells the story by portraying a character and, usually, speaking or singing the written text or play. From the Latin word agĕre meaning "to do", this is precisely what acting is. In acting, an actor suppresses or augments aspects of their personality in order to reveal the actions and motivations of the character for particular moments in time. The actor is said to be "assuming the role" of another, usually for the benefit of an audience, but also because it can bring one a sense of artistic satisfaction.
Actors are generally expected to possess a number of skills, including good vocal projection, clarity of speech, physical expressiveness, the ability to analyze and understand dramatic text, and the ability to emulate or generate emotional and physical conditions. Well-rounded actors are often also skilled in singing, dancing, imitating dialects and accents, improvisation, observation and emulation, mime, stage combat, and performing classical texts such as Shakespeare. Many actors train at length in special programs or colleges to develop these skills, which have a wide range of different artistic philosophies and processes.
Modern pioneers in the area of acting have included Konstantin Stanislavski, Lee Strasberg, Uta Hagen, Stella Adler, and Sanford Meisner.”
When, in the theatre world, we say that an actor lacks “commitment” it simply means that she has not put all of herself into her role. Most of the time that “commitment” in younger actors has to do with physicality. The physical expressiveness that we look for in actors is about giving a role your “all.” It is this “all” that I want to focus on.
If you will look at the things in this article that are "expected" of an actor you will see that it is more than just standing and waving your arms about randomly. Being an actor is like being anthelete. You must train your bodies to do with greater skill what they do naturally.
Go out and look at a Jim Carrey movie. (Bruce Almighty is my recommendation) Whenever Jim Carrey makes a movement, it is not just a movement. It is full of energy, it snaps, it is dynamic. In order to be worthy of merit, a human video artist must think of their movements and make sure that each one is deliberate. I can’t say it often enough, “ Everything that is done on the stage is done for a reason.”
When Jim Carrey, Johnny Depp, or Robin Williams approach a role, they each have their own methods. What we can tell from Carrey’s acting style (the product of his “method”) is that he has a great emphasis on physicality. The way he moves has a great deal to communicate about his character. Try turning off the sound and watching him act in a couple of different scenes. Can you tell, just by looking at him, the kind of person his character is? Can you tell how his character is feeling? Can you see how his body changes to reflect the changes that are going on inside the character?
You can see all of these things not because Jim Carrey is simply a “naturally” good actor (although he might be), but because he has spent time practicing those skills. If you were to watch interviews that Carrey has done, listened to him talk about acting, you will find out that he didn’t just magically know how to contort his face. He practiced. Years in front of the mirror, clowning around for his friends and family, and time spent in acting classes and on stage have helped him develop his physicality.
I tell you this because of one simple fact: Jim Carrey is not the only one who can develop talent. You can develop it in the same way. It will take commitment; both commitment to personal enrichment, and to your character roles specifically. If you will “commit” you will be an artist of merit.
So what does Jim Carrey have that these others don’t? He has commitment. Now, I don’t mean by this that young people all over the country lack dedication; that somehow they are shiftless bums. On the contrary, I have a great respect for them and their dedication to rehearsals, to their families, and to their youth ministries. What I think they lack is something having to do with acting.
Acting is not a new discipline. It is one of the world’s oldest, and historically least respected vocations. The Wikipedia article on acting has this to say:
“Acting is the work of an actor, a person in theatre, film, or any other storytelling medium who tells the story by portraying a character and, usually, speaking or singing the written text or play. From the Latin word agĕre meaning "to do", this is precisely what acting is. In acting, an actor suppresses or augments aspects of their personality in order to reveal the actions and motivations of the character for particular moments in time. The actor is said to be "assuming the role" of another, usually for the benefit of an audience, but also because it can bring one a sense of artistic satisfaction.
Actors are generally expected to possess a number of skills, including good vocal projection, clarity of speech, physical expressiveness, the ability to analyze and understand dramatic text, and the ability to emulate or generate emotional and physical conditions. Well-rounded actors are often also skilled in singing, dancing, imitating dialects and accents, improvisation, observation and emulation, mime, stage combat, and performing classical texts such as Shakespeare. Many actors train at length in special programs or colleges to develop these skills, which have a wide range of different artistic philosophies and processes.
Modern pioneers in the area of acting have included Konstantin Stanislavski, Lee Strasberg, Uta Hagen, Stella Adler, and Sanford Meisner.”
When, in the theatre world, we say that an actor lacks “commitment” it simply means that she has not put all of herself into her role. Most of the time that “commitment” in younger actors has to do with physicality. The physical expressiveness that we look for in actors is about giving a role your “all.” It is this “all” that I want to focus on.
If you will look at the things in this article that are "expected" of an actor you will see that it is more than just standing and waving your arms about randomly. Being an actor is like being anthelete. You must train your bodies to do with greater skill what they do naturally.
Go out and look at a Jim Carrey movie. (Bruce Almighty is my recommendation) Whenever Jim Carrey makes a movement, it is not just a movement. It is full of energy, it snaps, it is dynamic. In order to be worthy of merit, a human video artist must think of their movements and make sure that each one is deliberate. I can’t say it often enough, “ Everything that is done on the stage is done for a reason.”
When Jim Carrey, Johnny Depp, or Robin Williams approach a role, they each have their own methods. What we can tell from Carrey’s acting style (the product of his “method”) is that he has a great emphasis on physicality. The way he moves has a great deal to communicate about his character. Try turning off the sound and watching him act in a couple of different scenes. Can you tell, just by looking at him, the kind of person his character is? Can you tell how his character is feeling? Can you see how his body changes to reflect the changes that are going on inside the character?
You can see all of these things not because Jim Carrey is simply a “naturally” good actor (although he might be), but because he has spent time practicing those skills. If you were to watch interviews that Carrey has done, listened to him talk about acting, you will find out that he didn’t just magically know how to contort his face. He practiced. Years in front of the mirror, clowning around for his friends and family, and time spent in acting classes and on stage have helped him develop his physicality.
I tell you this because of one simple fact: Jim Carrey is not the only one who can develop talent. You can develop it in the same way. It will take commitment; both commitment to personal enrichment, and to your character roles specifically. If you will “commit” you will be an artist of merit.
Wednesday, August 10, 2005
But I wanna be an eye! Eyes are so COOL!
The task of the Christian Artist is to portray human life, not to illustrate a list of doctrines."
~Leland Ryken~
The Liberated Imagination: Thinking Christianly about the Arts (212)
I've spent a lot of time assessing the effectiveness of Human Videos. What strikes me immediately is how little most of them have to do with the human struggle at large. They have more to do with a physical representation of a number of loosely connected Biblical stories than with the everyday life of a human being. Notice I did not say a "Christian," but “Human Being.” Our goal as Christians is not to speak merely to those within the Church’s walls, but to bring the “good news” to all.
So what's wrong with dramatizing the bible literally? Nothing. It is a fine pursuit. There are those who should be engaged in it, but, as Ryken points out elsewhere in his book, " Art that deals with specifically religious subjects--Stories form the Bible, God, worship, Christian doctrines, prayer, the church calendar-- is only one kind of Christian art... The Christian faith has something to say about all of life, and Christian artists must subject all of life to the light of their faith," (210-emphasis mine).
The problem with trying to cram the entire Bible into one song for a Human Video is two-fold: firstly, it is most often confusingly and poorly done, and secondly, it confines the "Christian perspective" in the arts to a narrowly defined quarter; it limits creativity.
When I say that these dramas are “poorly done,” I mean that their ideas are not properly actualized. They might be fine if they were used as a kind of illustrated sermon, but that is not the same as "drama." Usually they begin with a very creative idea. Somewhere in the process, however, this very creative idea it gets lost, either in struggle to shove too much information in, or it gets lost in "Christianese."
When a group of people come together to discuss a set of beliefs or to share common experiences, they very quickly develop a vernacular or jargon. You can see examples of this everywhere at large gatherings of people: doctors, trekkies, 'scapers, browncoats, retailers; each group has their own particular vocabulary. Some are even adept at moving between two or more of these "worlds" freely.
In the Christian experience this jargon manifests itself not only in vocabulary but it also in stories and "verses" (or portions of scripture) that people are "supposed" to know. Some assume that everyone will know that when an audience sees someone kissing "Jesus," it means that that person is Judas, and that Judas is betraying Jesus.
While in Bible College a close friend helped me realize how imprudent these assumptions can be. He told me how out of place he felt when people would say during chapel," you know the story, I don't have to tell you." He hadn’t grown up in “the Church”, in fact, he had only become a Christian a few days before coming to Bible College. He didn't know the stories and felt quite alienated when he was expected to already have committed them to memory. His hurt feelings serve as a warning to me never to assume knowledge of any subject, especially Biblical ones.
Some people are aware of the alienating effects of “jargon” (or even these symbols used in Christian Theatre and Art) and have tried to combat they symptom rather than the disease. They add in scripture verses as voice over, to explain what they mean. Quoting other sources is not usually a convention of powerful drama. Rather than quote things directly, theatre convention would encourage us to make "allusions" to other works.
Quoting other works then, leads to a heavy-handed type of narrative. The “Christian artist” leaves nothing up to the imagination of the audience. For fear that they will be misinterpreted and misunderstood, they steal from the audience the ability to put the pieces together on their own. This is one of the great taboos in modern dramatic theory and criticism. Examples of the pervasive use of this kind of clumsy oafish commentary can be found in Christian fiction, songs, and plays. The Author, rather than letting the audience come to a conclusion on their own or “worry” about the outcome, they spell it out for them from the start.
What seems to be a superior way of dealing with this difficult problem is to begin breaking down the "Christianese" in order to study it. What does it really mean? How is it a universal concept? What part of life could be used as an illustration of this concept? By attacking the “disease” rather than the “symptoms,” you avoid creating a whole other set of symptoms and instead deal with the very heart of the problem.
The second area in which this “bibliocentric” (Bible focused) way of dealing with subject matter becomes problematic is when it limits the ability of Christians to comment on the broad spectrum of life. Ryken puts it this way, “ [doing] That would be tantamount to turning over to non-Christian artists the other great areas of human experience,” (210). This is also un-natural to the artist. Ask any artist and they will tell you that they want to crate art that comes from inside of them. A Christian’s life cannot be encapsulated merely in a Bible story. Corollaries will exist to be sure, parallels, parts that will be applicable; but there is more involved in the world now that was involved in the lives of people in the pre-Christian era, or even in the first Century. Things exist now that did not then.
The goal then, should be not merely repeating stories and scripture (which is a noble job to be sure, but really falls under the “job description” of preachers and teachers) but to assume the role of artists and envision the world “through the lens” of Biblical interpretation. That is, we are to imagine how the scripture applies to real life. We are to creatively generate art that brings an abstract concept (or list of doctrines) into the “real” world. I am speaking specifically about The Christian dramatist, but I think the goal is applicable to all Christian arts.
What does it mean to do as Jesus said and, “take up your cross daily,”? Rather than act out the carrying of heavy wooden beams, we are to illustrate what this figurative language means. Jesus gave us a perfect example in the way that he related to those around Him. Rather than give them a listing of the Ten Commandments over and over again, he told parables that illustrated a difficult concept. How do we love God? How do we honor Him? How do we “keep the Sabbath?” How do we honor our father and mother properly? Each one of the commandments from which these duties come is illustrated perfectly in the parables, which Jesus told.
This is, I think, one of the best things about God. He does not leave us to flounder around; He has given us all the tools we need. He not only gave us rules to follow in the Ten Commandments, but an example in Jesus. He not only gave us philosophies, but the ability to make them understandable. He has given us artists, with great minds capable of creating and an example (again Jesus) in artistically making those difficult concepts “come to life.”
I have heard that to Christian Doctors God is “The Great Healer,” to Christian lawyers “The Great Law Giver,” and to each vocation he is something different. To me, I can see how he is all of those things, but He is especially “The Great Artist, the great “Story-teller.” We, as Christian Artists must remember that we are who we are. The best imaginative picture the bible gives us for this concept is that of the “Body of Christ.”
To illustrate the differences of people within the church (and their necessity, their validation for being different) Paul likened the Church to a Body:
“For the body is not made up of one part, but many. If the foot should say, “Because I am not a hand, I do not belong to the body,” it does not for that reason cease to be part of the body.” And if the ear should say, “because I am not an eye, I do not belong to the body,” it would not for that reason cease to be part of the body. If the whole body were an eye, where would the sense of hearing be? If the whole body were an ear, where would the sense of smell be? But in fact God has arranged the parts in the body, every one of them, just as he wanted them to be. If they were all one part, where would the body be? As it is, there are many parts, but one body.”
As Christian Dramatists, then, we ought not try to be preachers, or do the job of preachers. Voice-overs, narrative, narrow subject matter are not natural to the artist. As artists, we ought to do the job to which God has assigned us; the job which we love, the job which we were made for. If, after studying the conventions of drama and theatre, you do not love them, then it is possible that you are an ear trying to be an eye.
If you are not a dramatist, don’t be sad! Keep looking for your place in the body. Perhaps you are a preacher or a teacher. Whatever you are, when you find it you will enjoy being in that place!
~Leland Ryken~
The Liberated Imagination: Thinking Christianly about the Arts (212)
I've spent a lot of time assessing the effectiveness of Human Videos. What strikes me immediately is how little most of them have to do with the human struggle at large. They have more to do with a physical representation of a number of loosely connected Biblical stories than with the everyday life of a human being. Notice I did not say a "Christian," but “Human Being.” Our goal as Christians is not to speak merely to those within the Church’s walls, but to bring the “good news” to all.
So what's wrong with dramatizing the bible literally? Nothing. It is a fine pursuit. There are those who should be engaged in it, but, as Ryken points out elsewhere in his book, " Art that deals with specifically religious subjects--Stories form the Bible, God, worship, Christian doctrines, prayer, the church calendar-- is only one kind of Christian art... The Christian faith has something to say about all of life, and Christian artists must subject all of life to the light of their faith," (210-emphasis mine).
The problem with trying to cram the entire Bible into one song for a Human Video is two-fold: firstly, it is most often confusingly and poorly done, and secondly, it confines the "Christian perspective" in the arts to a narrowly defined quarter; it limits creativity.
When I say that these dramas are “poorly done,” I mean that their ideas are not properly actualized. They might be fine if they were used as a kind of illustrated sermon, but that is not the same as "drama." Usually they begin with a very creative idea. Somewhere in the process, however, this very creative idea it gets lost, either in struggle to shove too much information in, or it gets lost in "Christianese."
When a group of people come together to discuss a set of beliefs or to share common experiences, they very quickly develop a vernacular or jargon. You can see examples of this everywhere at large gatherings of people: doctors, trekkies, 'scapers, browncoats, retailers; each group has their own particular vocabulary. Some are even adept at moving between two or more of these "worlds" freely.
In the Christian experience this jargon manifests itself not only in vocabulary but it also in stories and "verses" (or portions of scripture) that people are "supposed" to know. Some assume that everyone will know that when an audience sees someone kissing "Jesus," it means that that person is Judas, and that Judas is betraying Jesus.
While in Bible College a close friend helped me realize how imprudent these assumptions can be. He told me how out of place he felt when people would say during chapel," you know the story, I don't have to tell you." He hadn’t grown up in “the Church”, in fact, he had only become a Christian a few days before coming to Bible College. He didn't know the stories and felt quite alienated when he was expected to already have committed them to memory. His hurt feelings serve as a warning to me never to assume knowledge of any subject, especially Biblical ones.
Some people are aware of the alienating effects of “jargon” (or even these symbols used in Christian Theatre and Art) and have tried to combat they symptom rather than the disease. They add in scripture verses as voice over, to explain what they mean. Quoting other sources is not usually a convention of powerful drama. Rather than quote things directly, theatre convention would encourage us to make "allusions" to other works.
Quoting other works then, leads to a heavy-handed type of narrative. The “Christian artist” leaves nothing up to the imagination of the audience. For fear that they will be misinterpreted and misunderstood, they steal from the audience the ability to put the pieces together on their own. This is one of the great taboos in modern dramatic theory and criticism. Examples of the pervasive use of this kind of clumsy oafish commentary can be found in Christian fiction, songs, and plays. The Author, rather than letting the audience come to a conclusion on their own or “worry” about the outcome, they spell it out for them from the start.
What seems to be a superior way of dealing with this difficult problem is to begin breaking down the "Christianese" in order to study it. What does it really mean? How is it a universal concept? What part of life could be used as an illustration of this concept? By attacking the “disease” rather than the “symptoms,” you avoid creating a whole other set of symptoms and instead deal with the very heart of the problem.
The second area in which this “bibliocentric” (Bible focused) way of dealing with subject matter becomes problematic is when it limits the ability of Christians to comment on the broad spectrum of life. Ryken puts it this way, “ [doing] That would be tantamount to turning over to non-Christian artists the other great areas of human experience,” (210). This is also un-natural to the artist. Ask any artist and they will tell you that they want to crate art that comes from inside of them. A Christian’s life cannot be encapsulated merely in a Bible story. Corollaries will exist to be sure, parallels, parts that will be applicable; but there is more involved in the world now that was involved in the lives of people in the pre-Christian era, or even in the first Century. Things exist now that did not then.
The goal then, should be not merely repeating stories and scripture (which is a noble job to be sure, but really falls under the “job description” of preachers and teachers) but to assume the role of artists and envision the world “through the lens” of Biblical interpretation. That is, we are to imagine how the scripture applies to real life. We are to creatively generate art that brings an abstract concept (or list of doctrines) into the “real” world. I am speaking specifically about The Christian dramatist, but I think the goal is applicable to all Christian arts.
What does it mean to do as Jesus said and, “take up your cross daily,”? Rather than act out the carrying of heavy wooden beams, we are to illustrate what this figurative language means. Jesus gave us a perfect example in the way that he related to those around Him. Rather than give them a listing of the Ten Commandments over and over again, he told parables that illustrated a difficult concept. How do we love God? How do we honor Him? How do we “keep the Sabbath?” How do we honor our father and mother properly? Each one of the commandments from which these duties come is illustrated perfectly in the parables, which Jesus told.
This is, I think, one of the best things about God. He does not leave us to flounder around; He has given us all the tools we need. He not only gave us rules to follow in the Ten Commandments, but an example in Jesus. He not only gave us philosophies, but the ability to make them understandable. He has given us artists, with great minds capable of creating and an example (again Jesus) in artistically making those difficult concepts “come to life.”
I have heard that to Christian Doctors God is “The Great Healer,” to Christian lawyers “The Great Law Giver,” and to each vocation he is something different. To me, I can see how he is all of those things, but He is especially “The Great Artist, the great “Story-teller.” We, as Christian Artists must remember that we are who we are. The best imaginative picture the bible gives us for this concept is that of the “Body of Christ.”
To illustrate the differences of people within the church (and their necessity, their validation for being different) Paul likened the Church to a Body:
“For the body is not made up of one part, but many. If the foot should say, “Because I am not a hand, I do not belong to the body,” it does not for that reason cease to be part of the body.” And if the ear should say, “because I am not an eye, I do not belong to the body,” it would not for that reason cease to be part of the body. If the whole body were an eye, where would the sense of hearing be? If the whole body were an ear, where would the sense of smell be? But in fact God has arranged the parts in the body, every one of them, just as he wanted them to be. If they were all one part, where would the body be? As it is, there are many parts, but one body.”
As Christian Dramatists, then, we ought not try to be preachers, or do the job of preachers. Voice-overs, narrative, narrow subject matter are not natural to the artist. As artists, we ought to do the job to which God has assigned us; the job which we love, the job which we were made for. If, after studying the conventions of drama and theatre, you do not love them, then it is possible that you are an ear trying to be an eye.
If you are not a dramatist, don’t be sad! Keep looking for your place in the body. Perhaps you are a preacher or a teacher. Whatever you are, when you find it you will enjoy being in that place!
Monday, August 08, 2005
When Voice-overs Attack
If you can't describe what you are doing as a process, you don't know what you're doing.
W. Edwards Deming
(1900 - 1993)
I have been thinking seriously about why I don't believe voice-overs are appropriate for inclusion in a Human video. This is what I came up with: "it makes for a weaker performance." I want to to be clear, so I will explain my answer.
The business of writing and performing a Human Video script is esscntially the same as writing and performing any other piece of theatre. In order to be effective, you have to pay attention to the rules and theories that govern the art form, even if you wish to subvert them; especially if you want to subvert them. You have to have a point of reference. Even the artists throughout the centuries who have raged and rebelled against the then "current" standards in theatre, had those standards as a beginning.
So, what is it exactly about voice overs that I dislike? I would like to begin by saying not all voice-overs are created equally. Some are actually good. Shocking, I know. They are good when they are used to set a mood or recall events which are socially significant.
Most of the time, however, voice-overs are used to clarify a poorly actualized storyline. In order for the audience to follow along and understand what is happening on the stage, they "need" these voice-overs. Why would this be weak? Does that help the audience figure out what's going on? How could that possibly be bad?It is weak because rather than balancing all nessissary elements, some are neglected.
Most often the element that is neglected is characterization the foundation of the modern acting process. When you are talking about the acting process in the western world, the most recognizeable name is Stanislavski. "Stanislavski developed his own unique system of training wherein actors would research the situation created by the script, break down the text according to their character's motivations and recall their own experiences, thereby causing actions and reactions according to these motivations. The actor would ideally make his motivations for acting identical to those of the character in the script. He could then replay these emotions and experiences in the role of the character in order to achieve a more genuine performance."
Capturing that kind of "genuine performance," should be the main goal of an actor. Everything I have ever learned about theatre reminds me "everything on the stage is done for a reason." Everything must support the plot. That is why Kate Reid said, "Acting is not being emotional, but being able to express emotion." Expressing an emotion is very different from merely emoting (I am speaking now of those who rely on violent actions to carry their lack for real characterization). Simply repeating one flat stereotypical emotion is not going to cut it. In the theatre we must walk the line between universally understandable and stereotyping. It would be very easy to paint all villians in the same way, with the same brush and same color, but this would be boring. How often did our mothers remind us of this when we were children? "If everyone were the same, life would be boring." The same is true for characters in any drama. Their differences, their complexities are what make them engaging. We must look at each character as a unique individual, just as we look at each person around us.
We must also remember that characterizations cannot be blown off simply because it is not as important as some "cool moves." The moves, characterization, song selection, and emotion all become subservient to the plot. In the pursuit of looking cool and flashy, some have lost the simplicity of telling a story. They have made it into a syrupy, bubble gum, watered down version of what it could be.
Think about it. Which is more appetizing: a meal made entirely of cotton candy, or a small meal of properly cooked steak, lightly steamed vegetables, and garlic mashed potatoes? Most anyone over the age of 10 would chose the well balanced meal, and I think anyone who has an ounce of common sense would see the difference between cotton-candy fluff, and a real and impactful dramatic presentation.
I may have lost my train of thought as I am very sleepy at the moment. Perhaps I will edit this when I am more rested.
I will leave you with this last thought about learning:
'I wish life was not so short,' he thought. 'Languages take such a time, and so do all the things one wants to know about.'
J. R. R. Tolkien
(1892 - 1973)
The Lost Road
Pretend I wrapped this up in a really interesting and profound way. ;)
W. Edwards Deming
(1900 - 1993)
I have been thinking seriously about why I don't believe voice-overs are appropriate for inclusion in a Human video. This is what I came up with: "it makes for a weaker performance." I want to to be clear, so I will explain my answer.
The business of writing and performing a Human Video script is esscntially the same as writing and performing any other piece of theatre. In order to be effective, you have to pay attention to the rules and theories that govern the art form, even if you wish to subvert them; especially if you want to subvert them. You have to have a point of reference. Even the artists throughout the centuries who have raged and rebelled against the then "current" standards in theatre, had those standards as a beginning.
So, what is it exactly about voice overs that I dislike? I would like to begin by saying not all voice-overs are created equally. Some are actually good. Shocking, I know. They are good when they are used to set a mood or recall events which are socially significant.
Most of the time, however, voice-overs are used to clarify a poorly actualized storyline. In order for the audience to follow along and understand what is happening on the stage, they "need" these voice-overs. Why would this be weak? Does that help the audience figure out what's going on? How could that possibly be bad?It is weak because rather than balancing all nessissary elements, some are neglected.
Most often the element that is neglected is characterization the foundation of the modern acting process. When you are talking about the acting process in the western world, the most recognizeable name is Stanislavski. "Stanislavski developed his own unique system of training wherein actors would research the situation created by the script, break down the text according to their character's motivations and recall their own experiences, thereby causing actions and reactions according to these motivations. The actor would ideally make his motivations for acting identical to those of the character in the script. He could then replay these emotions and experiences in the role of the character in order to achieve a more genuine performance."
Capturing that kind of "genuine performance," should be the main goal of an actor. Everything I have ever learned about theatre reminds me "everything on the stage is done for a reason." Everything must support the plot. That is why Kate Reid said, "Acting is not being emotional, but being able to express emotion." Expressing an emotion is very different from merely emoting (I am speaking now of those who rely on violent actions to carry their lack for real characterization). Simply repeating one flat stereotypical emotion is not going to cut it. In the theatre we must walk the line between universally understandable and stereotyping. It would be very easy to paint all villians in the same way, with the same brush and same color, but this would be boring. How often did our mothers remind us of this when we were children? "If everyone were the same, life would be boring." The same is true for characters in any drama. Their differences, their complexities are what make them engaging. We must look at each character as a unique individual, just as we look at each person around us.
We must also remember that characterizations cannot be blown off simply because it is not as important as some "cool moves." The moves, characterization, song selection, and emotion all become subservient to the plot. In the pursuit of looking cool and flashy, some have lost the simplicity of telling a story. They have made it into a syrupy, bubble gum, watered down version of what it could be.
Think about it. Which is more appetizing: a meal made entirely of cotton candy, or a small meal of properly cooked steak, lightly steamed vegetables, and garlic mashed potatoes? Most anyone over the age of 10 would chose the well balanced meal, and I think anyone who has an ounce of common sense would see the difference between cotton-candy fluff, and a real and impactful dramatic presentation.
I may have lost my train of thought as I am very sleepy at the moment. Perhaps I will edit this when I am more rested.
I will leave you with this last thought about learning:
'I wish life was not so short,' he thought. 'Languages take such a time, and so do all the things one wants to know about.'
J. R. R. Tolkien
(1892 - 1973)
The Lost Road
Pretend I wrapped this up in a really interesting and profound way. ;)
Back to the Basics
The man who doesn't read good books has no advantage over the man who can't read them.
Mark Twain
(1835 - 1910)
Today I spent a great deal of time explaining to a man the need for the study of theatre. It was irritating to say the least that I had to explain it at all.
We were in a lively discussion of Human Video.
He accused me of wanting to bring Human video back by not being pleased at the use of voice-overs and "splices" in their performance. It was nearly impossible to get it through to him that voice overs (and indeed most narration whether in movies, or T.V., or in Human Video) is lazy dramatics.
It occurred to me after this conversation that many people just aren't aware of what makes theatre or drama powerful. They lack knowledge of fundamentals not because the tools are not available, but because they do not believe that they need them. It is, they think, their perogative. They have seen hundreds of Human videos performed, they ought to know what makes a good one. The reason they are wrong is that merely seeing a thing doesn't make one an expert (nor does performing a piece, for that matter). If your eye is not attuned to what it is seeing, then how can it know the difference between good and bad? It is as if someone who sees only in black and white is painting a mural.
In order to see the difference between a good and bad human video, one must study the fundamentals of theatre. Knowing why things are done on the stage can only help and not hinder a person in search of a merit winning piece.
That begs the question, "What are the fundamentals?"
Acting, Directing, Design, and Theory. The problem with this is that many people do not want to take the time to study dramatic theory or the fundamentals properly. They want a McDonald's kind of theatre. "Just give me the answers, I don't want to find them on my own."
This attitude seems to me to also be behind the insidious attachment to narration and voice over, "Just tell me what you mean, I don't want to have to figure it out." or more appropriately, " I'll just tell them what they should think, they won't stick with me to figure it out."
It makes the road ahead seem long and challenging, but the end of my conversation gave me a glimmer of hope. "I'm starting to see where you could be right." he said.
It's a small victory, I know, but a significant one. If I can keep reaching people with this message of the necessity of actually applying themselves to the learning process, then I can consider my life spent in a worthy service.
Mark Twain
(1835 - 1910)
Today I spent a great deal of time explaining to a man the need for the study of theatre. It was irritating to say the least that I had to explain it at all.
We were in a lively discussion of Human Video.
He accused me of wanting to bring Human video back by not being pleased at the use of voice-overs and "splices" in their performance. It was nearly impossible to get it through to him that voice overs (and indeed most narration whether in movies, or T.V., or in Human Video) is lazy dramatics.
It occurred to me after this conversation that many people just aren't aware of what makes theatre or drama powerful. They lack knowledge of fundamentals not because the tools are not available, but because they do not believe that they need them. It is, they think, their perogative. They have seen hundreds of Human videos performed, they ought to know what makes a good one. The reason they are wrong is that merely seeing a thing doesn't make one an expert (nor does performing a piece, for that matter). If your eye is not attuned to what it is seeing, then how can it know the difference between good and bad? It is as if someone who sees only in black and white is painting a mural.
In order to see the difference between a good and bad human video, one must study the fundamentals of theatre. Knowing why things are done on the stage can only help and not hinder a person in search of a merit winning piece.
That begs the question, "What are the fundamentals?"
Acting, Directing, Design, and Theory. The problem with this is that many people do not want to take the time to study dramatic theory or the fundamentals properly. They want a McDonald's kind of theatre. "Just give me the answers, I don't want to find them on my own."
This attitude seems to me to also be behind the insidious attachment to narration and voice over, "Just tell me what you mean, I don't want to have to figure it out." or more appropriately, " I'll just tell them what they should think, they won't stick with me to figure it out."
It makes the road ahead seem long and challenging, but the end of my conversation gave me a glimmer of hope. "I'm starting to see where you could be right." he said.
It's a small victory, I know, but a significant one. If I can keep reaching people with this message of the necessity of actually applying themselves to the learning process, then I can consider my life spent in a worthy service.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)