ImprovDr.com

Featured

Welcome to ImprovDr.com

Hello! Let me take a moment to introduce myself and welcome you to ImprovDr.com. I’m David, and I’ve been an improvisational practitioner for over 30 years now. I’ve spent the bulk of my professional and academic life writing about, dreaming about, and figuring out different ways to use improv in my teaching, directing, and on the stage as a performer.

Take a look around the website to learn a little more about me and my various experiences and projects. I’ve called my blog “The Short and the Long of it” as I’m one of those improvisers who likes to play on both sides on the fence, and as many do, believes that skills learnt in one style truly make you stronger in the other: are there still (m)any folks out there who don’t agree that these are really two parts of the same thing despite any posturing to the contrary?

A little about my journey: I was introduced to improvisation through Theatresports in my home nation of New Zealand during the late 1980s, and those lessons have deeply shaped my view and approach to the craft. (Shout out to Logan Park High School and Stripy Socks where the passion began – more on that in another post!) During the early 90s I came to the United States to study theatre and was a financially poor but artistically enriched student at Roosevelt University in Chicago. While I played with Comedysportz and later studied at the Players Workshop of the Second City, I now kick myself looking back on those days that I didn’t have the time and money to fully take advantage of all the amazing things that were happening at that special time in that dynamic place.

And then, as I often joke, I followed the Mississippi river (loosely) to Western Illinois University in Macomb for my MFA and then to Louisiana State University in Baton Rouge for my PhD. Because, of course, nothing makes more sense that someone committed to improv leaving Chicago in the mid-1990s… These new locations, needless-to-say, had much less access to improv, and so like many have done before me and will continue to do so now, I made as many opportunities as I could, creating shows and organizing troupes as there wasn’t anything ready-made, all the while reading up on anything I could get my hands on to further expand my own horizons.

In 2003, my doctorate fresh in hand, I relocated to the Orlando area in Florida to accept a teaching position at Rollins College, where the improv continued and I had the good fortune to quickly connect with Sak Comedy Lab. This venue has been my professional improv home for about 20 years now minus a hiatus of 18 months or so when I was in the company of Walt Disney World’s now sadly defunct Comedy Warehouse. In the early 2000s there was little in the way of long-form in the area, and I’ve been doing my part to push that envelope whenever and wherever I can: on my home campus of Rollins, at Sak Comedy Lab, and in other Florida venues when they’ve let me onto their stages! This website includes some images and descriptions of the fruits (fresh or otherwise) of these improvisational long-form labors, and you’ll also see that I’ve never strayed far from being an active short-form player at the same time.

So, that’s the short and the long of it (this was probably more on the long side than I intended, but if you become a frequent visitor you’ll quickly learn that I love words and am as verbose on the page as I am on the stage despite my best efforts to the contrary!) I’m going to strive to make weekly posts about games or techniques that I’m currently working with or musing on, and I also welcome you to pose any questions or conundrums that you might have in regards to this art-form that consumes so many of us so wonderfully and so completely. Maybe I’ll have a few thoughts that can help you unlock something in a new way.

Cheers, David Charles.
improvdr.com
Join my Facebook group here to be the first to know when a new game entry drops.
All website and blog material (c) 2020-2023

Looking for the ImprovDr “Game Library”? Then go here.

Or looking for the ImprovDr “A to Z of Improv”? Then go here.

If you want to learn more about my improv path, you can listen to the RebelRebel podcast here.

Read my recent co-authored article in the Journal of Dramatic Theory and Criticism here.

And you can see some love for my blog from Feedspot here.

Game Library: “Actor’s Nightmare”

This short-form game explores the terror-inducing scenario that haunts the dreams of most script-based performers, namely showing up to opening night without any of your lines memorized.

The Basics

There are many variants of this scenic conceit that tweak where the primary tortuous focus resides. In this iteration, one player volunteers to assume the nightmarish position, and a teammate is then provided with a suitable play script or curated excerpt. The scene plays out as if the actor with text in hand has actually learned their lines and simply reads their dialogue in the order it appears. Their scriptless counterpart, however, must now gracefully make their way through the scene while generating responses and offers that fully embrace the established given circumstances.

Example

For copyright purposes, I’m using a public domain text here to create my example, but generally, more contemporary plays work best.

Player A: (reading, as Juliet) “What man art thou that, thus bescreened in night,
So stumblest on my counsel?”

Player B: (improvising) “I did not mean to disturb your slumber or cause offense. I thought my presence would be welcome.”

Player A: (reading) “My ears have yet not drunk a hundred words
Of thy tongue’s uttering, yet I know the sound.
Art thou not Romeo, and a Montague?”

Player B: (improvising, but now with at least a sense of the base material) “I am glad I left so memorable an impression…”

Player A: (reading) “How cam’st thou hither, tell me, and wherefore?
The orchard walls are high and hard to climb,
And the place death, considering who thou art,
If any of my kinsmen find thee here.”

Player B: “I thank you for your warning. You are right – this is no place for me…”

The Focus

Hold onto the premise that it’s an opening night so that the clueless player must boldly forge ahead, enabling the show to go on. Commenting on the craziness or the actor’s glaring lack of preparation will “name the game” and lower the otherwise delightfully high stakes.

Traps and Tips

1.) For the setup. You can certainly add an additional modest ask-for to add further difficulty, but the specifics of the script itself usually provide ample joyful obstacles, especially if the unmemorized player is not provided the play title or any framing information beforehand. (It can add delight to give the audience some of this information while the hotseat improviser is out of the auditorium, especially if you’re playing to a crowd that isn’t particularly versed in the scripted canon). If you play in a venue committed to always using audience launching points, providing a spectator the opportunity to select one of a number of plays from a fanned deck and perhaps asking them for a page to start on can have a similar inclusive effect. If you opt for the latter option, I suggest avoiding large cast works as the scene will struggle if the onbook improviser isn’t a significant character or only has sporadic dialogue amongst a sea of other voices.

2.) For the “regular” actor. When starting the scene, choose and voice dialogue (at least primarily) from one character. This is more likely to give you a strong objective, perspective, and thread to hold onto as your teammate squirms to join the scenic ride. It’s helpful to appear as if you’re relentlessly following the exact beats of the written scene – this playfully holds your scene partner’s toes to the fire a little. That being said, it’s also in the spirit of the game to gently edit on the fly, omitting unhelpful pronouns, non sequiturs, or missing characters. Be wary of rushing through the scene – it’s important that you leave enough room for the nightmare actor to make significant choices. Also, don’t forget that the scene would likely have lovely, polished staging as well and that your metatheatrical goal is to fool the paying audience into believing nothing is wrong!

3.) For the “nightmare” actor. There are competing wisdoms on this point, but I prefer allowing the onbook character to make the first verbatim choice. They have no ability to sway the scene to a different premise, and the designed torture should flow towards the actor experiencing the nightmare (even though, in reality, everyone should be working to set them up for success). Measured but bold choices are the order of the day. Scour your partner’s lines for clues and context, and bravely play in and heighten this world. Yes, make your own big choices as well (both verbal and physical), but be aware that bulldozing, overloading, and needless originality might puncture the dramatic arc. Again, I’d return to the central conceit that the unmemorized actor’s real goal is to stealthily hide their ineptitude and get the scene safely back to harbor rather than explode the play wide open with fanciful but disconnected flights of fancy. In the example above, Juliet’s use of “Romeo” will hopefully provide their partner with a huge clue as to the premise. It’s fun for Player B to then playfully exploit their recollections of the base material.

4.) For the “supporting” players. I’ve deliberately framed this exercise as essentially a duo scene as I’ve found this tighter dynamic tends to serve the game and story building well. If there are too many “scripted” players populating the stage, it’s easy for the featured player to willingly or accidentally become lost in the fray. Multiple players improvising original dialogue against the foundational text can also muddy the focus and challenge. However, it’s helpful to gently provide side support and environmental choices that frame the given circumstances and offstage players should always be at the ready to assume that unexpectedly named or needed character just as you would in any other improv scene. Just remain vigilant that the dialogue doesn’t stray too far from the reader’s trajectory (as the nightmare actor will already be creating this tension). Similarly, asking the onbook character questions or making specific demands of them won’t likely maintain the scenic flow as they must remain anchored to their script. But, to use the example above, a nurse loitering in the wings reacting to the improvising Romeo’s dialogue could certainly add to the fun.

In Performance

Any time you spend sorting or preparing a handful of helpfully balanced scenes will reap dividends when you bring this game to the stage. Many plays just aren’t designed for this level of disruptive interactivity. Also be aware that some authors will suit some venues better than others – Mamet, for example, with his proclivity for profanity (and unexamined misogyny) won’t set you up for success at your sponsored middle school gig.

New to the InprovDr Game Library? You can find the ever-expanding index here.

Cheers, David Charles.
www.improvdr.com
Join my Facebook group here.
Photo Credit: Leesa Brown
© 2023 David Charles/ImprovDr

Game Library Expansion Pack I

Game Library: “Camera, Narrator, Actor, Actor”

The narrative quality of this game adapts particularly well to an online or Zoomprov setting. As a screenwriting brainstorming session, Camera, Narrator, Actor, Actor also explores a compelling style of storytelling in an accessible and riveting manner.

The Basics

Four players are each assigned one of the titular functions: the camera (visual elements), narrator (expositional and subtextual ingredients), and the two actors (voicing the dialogue for all the needed characters.) When played live, players tend to stand in this order from stage right to left. In a virtual situation, all four improvisers can be featured on the screen at once or their presence can be sculpted by an able technician. In both situations, a caller nominates which of the three functions currently takes focus to develop the story arc – the actors are considered one dynamic and work together when they are cued. The caller moves between these various storytelling devices as the team constructs a detailed and original screenplay.

Example

The proffered title is “The Painful Lie.” Players line up as the camera (A), narrator (B) and actors (C and D). The caller discretely positions themselves downstage of the action. If played in a virtual setting and your technological parameters allow, the caller or their surrogate can turn on or off the pertinent players’ screens when they have been activated. The caller’s voice begins the narrative…

Caller: “Camera.”

Player A: “An establishing shot of a rustic high country farmhouse. The morning sun can be seen reaching over the distant horizon as fields of wheat slowly pulse in the gentle breeze. Close up on a calloused hand slowly passing through the crops. The lens slowly opens to reveal a sun-bleached farmer assessing their crop.”

Caller: “Actors.”

Player C: (booming as the farmer) “Gerard! Get out of that bed!”

Caller: “Camera.”

Player A: “Cut to the interior of the farmhouse and Gerard’s shuttered bedroom. The camera pans over an assortment of noticeably non-rural posters and postcards on the wall: images of big cities, crowded beaches, and exotic destinations. Slowly the camera focuses on the occupant of the bed…”

Caller: “Narrator.”

Player B: “Gerard’s wary hand reaches out into the darkness, searching for some imagined alarm clock. But then the reality sets in – he’s not in his college dorm room anymore. With belabored effort he swings one leg after the other out of his childhood bed. His bare feet, repulsed by the cool wooden floorboards, slowly approach his window.”

Caller: “Actors.”

Player D lets out a guttural cry. It’s much too early for this.

Caller: “Camera.”

Player A: “The camera looks over Gerard’s shoulder as he opens the bedroom curtains, and the morning light invades the room. We see what he sees as the camera sweeps through the window, onto the farmhouse lawn, and then over the fields of wheat where we can see the farmer impatiently waiting…”

The Focus

Enjoy the varied ways each contributor can shape and forward the action.

Traps and Tips

1.) For the camera… Use what you know. If you have some film making jargon at your disposal, it adds finesse to sprinkle it through your offers (although always be mindful that it doesn’t alienate your audience). This function largely serves as an exemplar scene painter providing the details of the physical world. The more descriptive your images, the better. This format provides a rare opportunity to lavishly develop nuanced locations and characterizations. Take full advantage of this reality and don’t rush over shots that can richly establish mood and style.

Camera: “Cut to a panning shot that follows the disheveled son clumsily running into the field…”

2.) For the narrator… While the camera concentrates on what can be seen, and the actors on what can be heard, the narrator assumes the responsibility of filing in all the other gaps. In a screenplay or script this artist’s contribution would typically occur in the unvoiced parentheticals or italics. Consider adding expositional and background information: what do we need to know about this character, prop, or setting? This can also take the form of articulating character subtext and motivations.

Narrator: “The farmer had never fully understood their son…”

3.) For the actors… A lot of contextualizing material should be flowing from the other narrative positions so make sure you are particularly diligent when it comes to listening and accepting. Make your character voices and energies distinct and memorable as the actors may need to take on multiple roles as the story progresses (although you should “keep” any role you originate). Dialogue usually has to carry the majority of a scene which is no longer the case here, so seek well-performed conciseness. Player D’s grunt serves as an example of a simple but emotionally supported choice that probably adds more than a lengthier and clumsier verbal meandering.

Actor: “I was starting to think that bed ate you…!”

4.) For the caller… Follow the story. As the camera (and to a lesser degree, the narrator) provides the unique voice, I tend to favor this element, at least initially. It’s also helpful to start with the camera just so you’re setting the mood and rules of the game clearly. Once the characters are well-established, it’s likely that the calls will start to lean into this component, although strive not to leave any facet unfeatured for too long. While all positions can serve the story in multiple ways, balance advancing and extending needs by endeavoring to pitch the focus accordingly. Lastly, although shivving often infuses most called games, you’ll get much more gripping stories if you primarily function as an ally and dramaturgical “first listener” actively asking yourself “what would best help their story now?”

Caller: “Camera…”

In Performance

I’ve also played this format without the caller which necessitates more organic and generous give and take between the players. I prefer the game as described, however, as it generally benefits from a kind outside eye serving as the screenplay’s editor (or hands-on producer, perhaps!)

Cheers, David Charles.
www.improvdr.com
Join my Facebook group here.
© 2023 David Charles/ImprovDr

Connected Concept: Zoomprov

“Z” is for “Zoomprov”

“Most [Chicago players] agreed that real improvisation was incompatible with television. Television would never capture the spontaneity, audiences wouldn’t feel the connection, and network executives would never take the chance”
Amy E. Seham. Whose Improv Is It Anyway: Beyond Second City. Jackson, Mississippi: U of Mississippi P, 2001. p.221

Definition

It’s fitting that I conclude this “A” to “Z” of improv where this journey started for me. This project began in response to unexpectedly finding myself isolated from my improv community during the lost years that were 2020 and 2021. Like so many others, I turned to writing and technology to fill this spontaneous void. My in-progress spring university classes – all performance or improv-based – suddenly had to convert to online formats. I also faced a sabbatical where one after another exciting improv project vanished into the COVID ether. Like countless other artists around the world, I toyed with creating workshops and shows online: enter zoomprov.

As I write this final entry, I’m unsure if online improv will remain a permanent part of the live improv landscape or when (if?) life fully returns to normal if such experiments will retreat to the shadows and become a forgotten footnote in the ever-evolving history of our artform. Most of us encountered steep and unforgiving learning curves when it came to housing the spirit of improvisation on our computer screens. I think it would be fair to say that while a few companies have found some success, the resulting work both is and isn’t improv as we knew it prior to these odd times. In most instances, the performances are devoid of any live laughter or perceivable audience reactions save those seen fleetingly in a chat box. There is also something equally exciting and off-putting in the knowledge that most pieces are being viewed live while also being recorded for future observers. And then there is the reality that often players are now boxed into a talking heads dynamic unless they have the technical means and bandwidth to set up a home studio of sorts. (Am I allowed to voice I won’t miss any of these particular realities?)

In my own experiments the issue of focus quickly emerged as a critical new challenge. Communicative pitfalls, such as over-talking, under-energizing, and middle-of-the-road waffling, became magnified in the online realm. The thoughts that follow are offered with this particular lens in mind as lessons from zoom also reinforce and polish best practices for live embodied improv too. And so, I close this three-year series with…

Zip, Zap, Zoom: Focus and Online Improv

1.) Keep it small. At first when I was faced with the sea change that was 2020, I aimed to keep my syllabus and structures as planned. But I quickly found that the more students or improvisers that we used in a scene, the more likely communication missteps undermined the integrity and flow of the action. When I simplified nearly all of my scenic work into pairs (sometimes with a third waiting with “camera off” in the proverbial wings in case they were needed), the process and results became noticeably stronger. In this way, actors can also set their scene partner as their exclusive focus on the screen and have a fighting chance to make a more honest and fruitful connection. If you are playing in a larger group, turning off your camera as your character leaves is an obvious but helpful choice as well to minimize visual clutter as well.

2.) Don’t ramble. A move online, for many of us, made us rely too heavily on our verbal gifts as improvisers: on the screen it’s easy for our bodies to become disengaged and for our words to lose specificity and agency. If we are cognizant that our words must carry the majority of our meaning and offers, then we must be economical and deliberate with those words. We should use each word with care, and make sure that we are providing clear and dramatic final punctuation. As our partner awaits behind their monitor, it doesn’t forebode success if they are constantly unsure if we have, in fact, finished our sentences… or if… we’re still contemplating… how we might finish… our sentence. You get the (online) picture.

3.) Use old-fashioned gives. My introductory improv classes always include a unit on giving and taking focus as, I note, without a playwright or director in the traditional sense of those terms, we are responsible for always knowing where the focus should be on stage at any given moment. Especially if you’re in a larger group, throwing the focus carelessly into the air will typically create either a prolonged awkward silence or a cascade of overlapping dialogue as your teammates try to figure out who was organically next in the scene. Use character names often (or familial equivalents such as honey, son…) to mark the next likely speaker especially as the scene is being established. Clearly shift your focus and the target of your emotion on the screen to designate your focus throw and explore tonal shifts to provide clues to your partners: most of us don’t talk to our parent with the same energy or voice that we talk to our significant other, and we can mine these distinctions to help share focus around.

4.) Scenic painting can help. If you can find simple ways to refer to your environment, and the people in it, you can set each other up for clear entrances and initial dialogue exchanges. If we’ve been sitting at that restaurant table waiting to be served for what feels like an eternity, observing the carefree waiter who seems to be avoiding us, when we note that “I’ve finally caught their eye” and “they’re coming over,” we have set this improviser up for a clear focus transition. If you don’t have the technology or skill to make clever green-screen background changes or add ambient sounds, heightened scene painting strikes me as a must in general as it allows for more fully fleshed out worlds to play within.

5.) Err on the side of interruption. This may be a personal preference, but the dead air between speech acts in zoom-based improv is one of the features that makes it most uncomfortable for me as an observer. If we’re using some of the strategies above, we then need to jump into scenes with abandon thereby risking cutting off our partner(s). If someone interrupts you, embrace that they clearly thought you were wrapping up (or that you should have been wrapping up). If, as a group, this becomes too caustic or combative, check in afterwards and adjust the aggressiveness of your takes accordingly. Connected to this strategy is making sure that your scenes have an energy that would justify such a strong approach to focus gives and takes. Deadpan or under-energized characters are equally as problematic on the screen as they are on the stage.

6.) Use the technology. For good or evil, if you’re improvising online then that is your reality with all its inherent promise and complications. If your audio cuts out, that needs to be justified. If you didn’t catch what someone said, you need to honor that and ask them to repeat it or make an assumption. If you’re a professional at changing backgrounds or have someone who is adept at wrangling different improvisers and screens onto a common online stage, then make sure that person is deeply thanked and use those dynamics to the best of your abilities. Again, perhaps a personal preference, just note that meta scenes about characters using zoom have largely been played out so look for content elsewhere. And if your performance is so dependent upon perfect technology showing up then the battle to fearlessly play and improvise may have already been lost.

Final Thought

This entry is based on one of my first blog posts and it’s interesting to rework these ideas three years after I first tackled this issue. I’m particularly struck by the fact that most of this advice clearly transcends the site of the virtual stage. Uncluttered scenes, deliberately concise dialogue, and clear gives are all important skills to hone and have served as worthy entry subjects in their own rights. And perhaps this is the biggest take away of all from the online years that many might view as at least partially lost: improvisation finds a way even in the most trying times and becomes enriched when we’re open to viewing old techniques from a new perspective.

Related Entries: Focus, Give, Sharing Focus, Stage Picture, Take, Talking Heads Antonyms: Split Focus, Waffling Synonyms: Online Improv

Cheers, David Charles.
www.improvdr.com
Join my Facebook group here.
© 2023 David Charles/ImprovDr

Connected Game: Camera, Narrator, Actor, Actor

Game Library: “You Look…”

Improvisation can imply inventiveness, but while this performed mode of creativity facilitates discovery, players should not overlook what they naturally bring to the event. Great work and characterization can begin by simply being You and recognizing the truths that others are embodying as well. If you’ve done any Meisner work, You Look… evokes some of his practices.

The Basics

I like the feel of mulling through the space between each round. This keeps everyone’s energy up and helps maintain a sense of presence.

Round One

As players are randomly walking through the space they strive to make strong and sincere eye contact with others in their immediate orbit. At a caller or instructor’s signal, improvisers quickly pair up with their closest neighbor. Players are given twenty or thirty seconds to more deeply observe and assess each other’s energy or mood. When the caller announces, “Share,” one player then the other offers a simple reflection on the emotional truth they are receiving. Let this sit for a moment, and then repeat the process several times so that players work with different random partners.

Player A: “You look… like you have the weight of the world on your shoulders. ‘

Player B: “You look… well-rested and alert, and a little mischievous.”

Round Two

The mulling continues with players actively seeking a greater awareness of the energies present in the space. On the caller’s request players form new pairs and take another moment to read each other. One participant from each group raises their hand and becomes Player A with the other serving as Player B. Based on their observation, Player A now assigns a relationship or role to their partner. Player B then provides the first line of a scene that accepts this character endowment and reflects the current emotional state of Player A. A series of one-line scenes follows with players wandering and shuffling scene partners between each new exchange. (Consider repeating the dynamic until everyone has been an A and a B at least once.)

Player A: “You look… like you’re my over-protective older sibling.”

Player B: (beginning a scene) “I can tell you’re still a little mad with me. I had to tell Dad – I was worried about you…”

Round Three

More mulling, observing, and partnering with players self-assigning themselves as A and B. While players should still carefully assess each other prior to the launch, the exercise now becomes more scenic. Player A delivers a first line of dialogue that endows the relationship based on B’s climate; B completes the process by providing dialogue that provides a “what” determined by A’s perceived energy. Players needn’t explicitly say “You look…,” but this tone should continue. Scenes can then be given room to develop, or the process can be become public with random pairs exploring this grounded form of initiating in front of the whole group.

Player A: “Okay, roomie, I know you’re frustrated that I didn’t get to the dishes last night. I’m sorry…”

Player B: “You say you’re sorry and yet you can’t even get through your own apology with a straight face.”

The Focus

In a nutshell, the focus is your partner and what they are truly feeling.

Traps and Tips

1.) Seek a truth. Take a second to really soak up what your partner is feeling in this particular moment. There’s no substitution for this honest moment of connection that is a full-bodied version of active listening. Concentrate on what’s lurking – probably subconsciously – under the surface. Don’t worry about being “right” – often our emotions are complex and may resist a simple summary. It is crucial, however, that you are earnest in your assessment. You’ll also want to avoid commenting on someone’s appearance rather than their demeanor. “You look… beautiful,” for example is less helpful than “You look… ready to take on the world.” The former choice is also a little creepy.

2.) Empty your pockets. As the exercise takes on a more scenic quality it can prove tempting to enter the experience with a loosely formed idea already in your pocket: “I’d really like my next scene to be about a dating couple…” I’m an advocate for generally hitting the stage with the seed of something ready to go, especially if it’s a simple energizing choice such as an activity, point of view, or physical essence. In this situation, however, planting such seeds will invariably prevent you from being receptive to the choice that is already organically growing. So, empty your pockets as best you can. The same holds true when you are being observed: don’t try to mask your present state of mind with something “more interesting.”

3.) Keep checking in. As described, this exercise might feel purely like a grounded way to launch a relationship and scene. It certainly is this, but it’s also a great strategy to deploy throughout the dramatic arc too. You’ll want to pay extra attention to your partner in that first exchange: both A and B should resolutely make their first choice a statement about their scene partner’s aura. But as the resulting narratives develop, it’s good form to maintain this heightened awareness. If you find yourself inadvertently disconnecting, by all means utilize another “You look…” This exercise can also promote a more vulnerable style of play that might feel unsettling to some less accustomed to working in this way, so also be sure to allow time to check in with your ensemble afterwards.

In Performance

I’m hard pressed to imagine a performance situation where acknowledging the actual feelings on stage – your own, your partners’, and perhaps even the audience’s – won’t elevate the honesty, connection, and depth of the work.

Cheers, David Charles.
www.improvdr.com
Join my Facebook group here.
Photo Credit: Tony Firriolo
© 2023 David Charles/ImprovDr

Connected Concept: You

“Y” is for “You”

“When we are in action, we open ourselves to more possibilities. Because others are interacting with us in ways that we have not planned, our feelings, thoughts, and how we would handle a situation emerge spontaneously and honestly.”
Patricia Sternberg and Antonina Garcia. Sociodrama: Who’s In Your Shoes? 2^nd Edition. Westport, Connecticut: Praeger, 2000. p.19

Definition

Compared to most other performance traditions, there are few immovable barriers preventing entry into the art of improv. This doesn’t mean you can walk into that ensemble you admire or onto the biggest stage in your community without considerable effort – and even then, it may not happen at all – but the tools of improv are widely available to everyone, and the form itself welcomes amateurs and neophytes like few others. If you have an open space, a fellow player, and an idea or two, you can improvise: if someone else is willing to watch, then you have the semblance of an improv show. The systems supporting improv companies and governance, on the other hand, can reflect biases and toxicity, and we must be ever vigilant as a community that the core tenants of the craft are being upheld both on and off the stage. But if you see yourself finding joy or increasing your creativity through the tools of improv, it is highly likely that there can be a place for You (you just might have to make the first move in making it happen).

There is a You in Improv

1.) You are enough. We are all works in progress and it’s healthy to have a sense of perspective about where you are in your own growth and journey. That being said, it’s equally important to celebrate that you are where you are today. Using every performance to “prove” your worth (to yourself or others) will likely just put you unhelpfully in your head. Rather, use each new performance or workshop opportunity as a chance to connect, learn, and grow. If you remain open, in the moment, and receptive to feedback and discovery, the “you” of today won’t be the same “you” of tomorrow. But also remember that doesn’t mean that you can’t enjoy where you are currently in this time and place and with these specific collaborators. Don’t become so lost in the pursuit of greatness that you can’t see what’s already great right now.

2.) Your experiences are important. Your experiences, struggles, and dreams belong on the stages you populate. These facets of your life are what make you unique and interesting in addition to making your “obvious” different than everyone else’s “obvious.” If you’re working in an environment that doesn’t actively invite and value your truths, that is something that needs to be addressed; spending your stage time obfuscating or hiding your hard-earned stories robs everyone of opportunities to develop empathy and understanding. The fluidity of improv allows previously unheard voices to stand proudly front and center and it would be a shame to throw away this power, especially if you haven’t typically seen yourself honestly represented in mainstream art. Or if you belong to the well-represented majority, remember to model allyship by elevating others through stepping aside freely and often.

3.) Your feelings are valid. As improv is, by design, essentially a staged rehearsal that is always looking to evolve and deepen, there will undoubtedly be moments where the results don’t live up to our expectations or ideals. When stumbling occurs (or, for that matter, “success” that is tone deaf or exclusive in nature) your feelings are valid. Whenever you can, speak your truth on stage or during post-show reflections. Give the ensemble the benefit of your perspective and wisdom; allow the audience to see a subject from a hitherto unconsidered angle. Your voice has a vibrancy and place as improv is only greater than the sum of its parts when all of its parts are empowered to participate fully and openly. Don’t let the machine consume you in the name of groupmind or unquestioning acceptance.

4.) Your journey is your own. Not everyone who finds improvisation is looking for the same thing, and that’s more than okay. You are on your own journey, and you don’t have to be on the same path as others nor do you need to compare your progression or goals to find validation. Savor every step as you climb. Soak up the view on your way up (and down) the improv mountain! It’s certainly helpful to ally yourself with a company or fellow players that share some facet or your vision, but you should use the tools of improv to construct your own individualized edifice. Enjoy the process of finding out about your own artistry and expression, train where and with whom you want that speaks to your soul, surround yourself with those who will support and challenge you. Authenticity is a much more valuable currency in improv than misguided efforts to do what you think some hypothetical (or perhaps real) improv council wants from you.

Final Thought

One of the awkward truths of many Western-style improv theatres is that their education wings are revenue drivers in a way that is less common for our scripted kin who rely more heavily on subscribers, donors, and fundraising to keep the doors open. A potential side effect of this training-dependent model is that companies can peddle dreams a little: look at these photos of some of our famous alums on our walls – you can be like them if you study here long enough. And maybe you can be if the stars align. In my traditional acting classroom, we talk a lot about playable objectives. “To be famous,” by most standards, would be considered a problematic “want” as it is passive, vague, and doesn’t invite clear actionable steps. While I hope such a fate awaits over the horizon, in the spirit of improv, don’t lose sight of the lessons of this current moment and these particular players. If you spend too much time looking to an unknown future, you’ll miss out on the amazing now that makes improv such a vibrant and enriching art. Give your fellow improvisers the unabashed creative presence that is the incomparable you.

Related Entries: Commandment #1, Commandment #9, Consent, Ensemble, Groupmind, Inclusiveness, Looking Good Antonyms: Over-Originality Synonyms: Obvious

Cheers, David Charles.
www.improvdr.com
Join my Facebook group here.
© 2023 David Charles/ImprovDr

Connected Game: You Look…

Game Library: “Pick-Up Lines”

Certainly a bawdier option that may not be in keeping with your performance parameters (I don’t play this with my campus troupe, for example), Pick Up Lines provides an opportunity to stretch your punchline and wordplay skills in a tongue-in-check line game with X-rated tendencies.

The Basics

I’ve experienced this format as an all-play, warm-up, or team game in competitive formats such as Gorilla Theatre. Typically, an audience volunteer is brought to the stage and seated as the recipient of the cascade of pick-up lines. A facilitator (often the host or director in the case of Gorilla Theatre) elicits a series of different ask-fors such as occupations or objects. One at a time, players enter the field and approach the seated audience member providing an original pun or flirtatious quip inspired by the audience prompt. The audience member then gives the attempt a thumbs up to indicate success or a thumbs down for efforts deemed less than enticing. If the game is being used as a decider, these results are then tallied by the host. The dynamic continues until a winner is announced, a particular well-crafted pun lands with finesse, or a time limit is reached. We’ll usually accompany the whole affair with a suitably raucous song from the booth such as “Shots” with the levels pulled down as each player gives their pick-up line. (We use a carefully edited version that primarily features the chorus to avoid the rather explicit language, so be warned!)

Example

With an audience member in place the music starts after the facilitator acquires “high school janitor” as the suggestion. One at a time players dance in from the wings…

Player A: “So… do you come to this hallway often?”

Player B: “I’ve been watching you from over there and you’ve just swept me off my feet!”

Player C: “My life is just a complete mess without you!”

Player D: “I know you might be out of my league, but for you I’d clean up my act.”

The audience volunteer gives a thumbs up or thumbs down accordingly and the process continues…

The Focus

I would offer that this game is as much about charm and delivery as it is about crafting and executing clever or naughty puns. I’ve seen rather pedestrian dialogue land with thunderous reactions because it was thoughtfully and playfully delivered, and amazingly dexterous word play fumble into an abyss of silence because it was hurriedly or clumsily executed. Of course, the ideal is to achieve both expert performance and content, but if puns aren’t your thing, joyful success can still await.

Traps and Tips

1.) Select your audience member carefully. This is a mistake that companies generally only make once, but the game immediately takes on an “ick” factor if your audience volunteer is too young (or appears too young). This discomfort is amplified further if you have a cast of primarily more senior performers or if a young woman audience volunteer is surrounded by a sea of improvising men. The audience involvement is rather minimal with the thumbs up or thumbs down, but if they are at all uncomfortable it will quickly deflate the playfulness and likely make the rest of the audience uncomfortable as well. As is always the case when you bring a volunteer onstage, you’ll want to prioritize their comfort and joy above all else, so exercise mindfulness when selecting someone to serve as the focus of the game.

2.) Double entendre generally sells. This is likely a personal stylistic preference, but I’ve found that explicit vulgarity tends to puncture the game and poisons the well for the improvisers to follow. Even if you’re operating in venues with very tolerant language and content parameters, I think the game is generally lessened when players resort to overt crassness or obscenity especially as the first line of attack. There is a lot to be said for leaning into what isn’t literally said and skirting on the margins of ribald play. Subtle hues tend to become eclipsed and ineffective when they have to immediately share the stage with more overt language. Again, your venue might enjoy these raucous tones but there is also an important value in working out other improvisational muscles and gently building to more obvious and colorful offers.

3.) Active facilitation helps. It’s extremely helpful if you have a host or director available to deploy them robustly in this game. It can feel overwhelming as a player if you can’t quickly formulate an angle for the proffered idea while you’re waiting in the wings: having an ally looking for these signals who can quickly pause the action and elicit a new inspiration can make all the difference. In addition to keeping track of the score if you’re using the game as a decider, a facilitator can also cajole the seated audience volunteer and keep them safe, as well as sort through the ask-fors to find suitable inspirations: mundane occupations and objects tend to open up more fun than offers that are already a little salacious or spicy. It’s often a bad sign when the ask-for itself is met with boisterous laughter…

4.) Throw yourself into the fray. When we played this in Gorilla Theatre we only tended to have three improvisers available in the actor bank. This creates quite the challenge as there isn’t really anywhere to hide and you need to be ready to enter at a moment’s notice. It’s helpful to remember that it’s a given that not all punchlines will be winners; in some cases, your effort’s major contribution is actually buying time for a fellow teammate to construct their stronger idea. Don’t under-estimate the value of charm and playfulness, look for the greater recurring games and gimmicks, and celebrate the glorious disasters along with the sublime successes. There is also an innate performance value in the simple staging of the game – dancing to the music, approaching the volunteer, physically interacting with them… (I particularly enjoy giving my characters different mimed drinks to hold!) Yes, the game is unavoidably about the “jokes” to some degree, but it’s also a palpable reminder that great performers do much more than just tell good jokes. There are some shows where I can’t seem to muster a clever witticism to save my life, but I can still add value to the game as a whole and facilitate or frame the success of my teammates.

In Performance

Again, this game won’t be everyone’s cup of tea, especially if you’re improvising in a more sincere or service-oriented modality, but in late night entertainment-based venues it undeniably has an appeal and provides a helpful opportunity to develop and polish our joke techniques in a form that thrives on these energies. It also is a great offering to break up more scene-based games or to give a boost of energy to take you to intermission or the curtain.

With special thanks to fellow Gorilla company members Jenni McIntire and Charlie Downs for helping me craft the “fit for publication” examples!

Cheers, David Charles.
www.improvdr.com
Join my Facebook group here.
© 2023 David Charles/ImprovDr

Connected Concept: X-Rated

“X” is for “X-Rated”

Writing of the Dorian Mime: “Probably its performances were crude, parodic and improvised. The masked performers were not possessed by the god; their burlesque provided a balancing, humanising version of the sacred events”
Anthony Frost and Ralph Yarrow, Improvisation in Drama. New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1989. p.6

Definition

Ever since humankind stumbled across improvisational performance, the resulting work has often gravitated towards bawdier hues and more populist content than much of the extant scripted canon which prefers the tragic acts of nobility struggling to find their place in the world while appeasing the angry gods. There are unquestionably examples of august and serious improv, just as there are early examples of written buffoonery, but many spontaneous traditions – old and new alike – find humor and community through staging our most basic bodily functions, uncensored impulses, and carnal desires.

As I went looking for a suitable improv “X,” the topic of ratings, content, and the carnivalesque spirit unsurprisingly came to mind. I’ve performed in a wide variety of venues, from makeshift barprov stages where the audience has had a few drinks, to custom-built Equity entertainment spaces where the audience has had a few drinks, to family-friendly traditional theatres where at least some of the audience has had a few drinks (or perhaps wishes they had…) The Bacchic spirit remains alive and well in many modern improvisational houses! Venues approach content parameters in different ways, and these often change or loosen as the evening gets longer and the audience gets more raucous. I won’t deny enjoying pushing the limits s little in my own work, although this entry will likely reveal my preference for a specific breed and approach to mature, saucy, or X-Rated material.

I’ve found that when improvisers pursue primarily racy content, there is often a direct inverse correlation to the quality of work onstage. And, in a nutshell, that explains my general hesitancy for just completely letting loose: I value storytelling, connection, and patient inquisitiveness, all qualities that usually get trampled underfoot when the audience expects X-rated material. At best, overtly naughty or obscene scene work can quickly become a crutch rather than an embellishment; and, at worst, it may alienate and offend your audience, fellow company members, or both. If you’re attracted to content on the wild side, it’s worth weighing the pros and cons of such an approach to make sure your scene work is supporting your greater goals and mission. I’ve definitely seen some incredibly joyful raucous improv that would have made the ancient Dorians proud, but without exception it displayed thoughtfulness.

Example

Player A: “Can I please have an occupation to inspire our next scene?”

The audience yells out a predictable array of inappropriate spoilers much to their own amusement…

X-amining Your X-Rated Tendencies

1.) Adult content is a one-way street. My biggest concern with working in a casually X-rated way stems from my experiences in the classroom. In an effort to feel edgy or relevant, students often mistake profanity or gratuitous ribaldness for quality as it tends to get that immediate audience reaction that most of us seek on some level. This perception subsequently encourages quantity: “If you thought that was funny, wait initially you get a load of this!” I’ve found that players who are hardwired to play and train in such a no-holds-barred manner really struggle when faced with other more family-oriented performance environments or scenic work that demands a more subtle set of skills. The same does not hold true moving in the opposite direction. Most improvisers accustomed to exploring more measured material find it’s a much simpler matter to add some saltiness to the improv recipe than it is to remove it after-the-fact if that’s all you’re accustomed to tasting. Hence my preference as a teacher to cook in a low sodium improv kitchen (even if I routinely play in venues likely to spike your blood pressure).

2.) Saturation can dull the effect. One of my major gigs for the last several decades has been teaching improv on university campuses, so this next advice should be taken with that frame in mind. In some instances, this performance work publicly represents my home institution and may include parents, donors, and administrators in the audience. It’s important to me that our content doesn’t become saccharine or preachy and so I’ve never had a list of unsuitable words (although some, I trust, don’t need to be put on a troupe list in order to be deemed off limits). My attitude has always been that strong language should be earned – the character is in such an extreme state of emotional stress or upheaval that the absence of some well-chosen words could feel trite. This frame has worked well, reserving colorful language, in particular, for just a handful of intense moments per show if it’s used at all (and it often isn’t). Once you’ve let the lid off your content – whatever that may mean for you – it can create an unhelpful expectation for the audience that everything that follows will be on that same frequency. This is particularly problematic if your style of play values variety and softer moments alongside more comic or silly play. It’s easy for the stage to quickly feel unwelcoming to simpler truths once that crazy and foul-mouthed uncle character has come to town.

3.) Specific ambiguity applies to explicit ambiguity. Specific ambiguity refers to the powerful skill of making strong choices that are meaningful and connected while simultaneously retaining a level of mystery or the potential for several different readings. When it comes to X-rated material, utilizing this same approach resembles the techniques of innuendo and double entendre where racy ideas are presented with a wink rather than a sledgehammer. Disney and Pixar movies expertly take this high road, weaving in a handful of adult comments or situations that will appeal to older moviegoers while simultaneously flying over the heads of the intended market. In addition to keeping your space family-friendly when that’s an issue, choices that may feel crass or outright jarring can take on more playful hues when offered with a light touch. This cheeky style of wordplay and inference also reminds me of Shakespeare whose plays include some pretty filthy material but do so in such a clever way that it appealed to the widest contemporaneous demographic possible, literally spanning the full range from royalty to groundlings.

4.) Shocking choices still have consequences. If you opt to improvise under a banner of “anything goes” this does not make you immune to the intended or unintended consequences of your art. When I improvised on Disney property, one of the only unbreakable rules was that no harm to a child could occur in our sets (the other was that we couldn’t improvise illicit drug use on stage). Even though we were in a club setting with adult beverages flowing freely (at theme park prices), this line in the sand made sense to me. X-rated improv can become synonymous with blindly offensive improv, but this needn’t be the case. If your primary goal is to shock or offend, you shouldn’t be surprised if this starts to exclude patrons, especially if such a stance is really just a veiled justification for saying the most stereotypical or reductive things (usually from a position of unexamined privilege) that you’d think twice about saying anywhere else. Such choices can similarly breach trust and joy within the ensemble itself, especially if certain categories of players find themselves routinely objectified, marginalized, or presented as the punchline.

5.) Just because you can say or do something, doesn’t mean you should. Just because you can say or do something, doesn’t mean you should.

Final Thought

As you would for any other improv production, it’s important to have clear expectations, boundaries, and mechanisms for redress when you’re committed to exploring the more adult facets of life and love. The traditions of Postmortems, Consent, and Speaking Your Truth strike me as particularly vital, as does providing your audience with a clear sense of what they’re in for and what is and isn’t acceptable. X-rated needn’t (shouldn’t) become camouflage for careless collaborative creation; work under this moniker can (should) still interrogate societal taboos and norms with equal doses of whimsy, irreverence, and insight. Punching down shouldn’t (shouldn’t) become the valued currency.

Related Entries: Consent, Gagging, Material, Postmortem, Punching Up, Speaking Your Truth Antonyms: Family-Friendly Synonyms: Boundaries, Content, Mature

Cheers, David Charles.
www.improvdr.com
Join my Facebook group here.
© 2023 David Charles/ImprovDr

Connected Game: Pick-Up Lines

Game Library: “Slow Motion War”

As a decider or warm-up, Slow Motion War provides a wonderful opportunity to enthusiastically embrace losing on stage.

The Basics

Players scatter around the workshop or stage space and suitably dynamic music is cued up, such as Mortal Kombat. Each player establishes one forearm as their “sword” which extends from the tip of their little finger down to their elbow. This edge has been “poisoned” so that if any player (including the owner) is even gently touched, they immediately begin to die in excruciating pain. When the music begins, players begin moving through the space in super slow motion, battling any other players they encounter. The only safe point of contact is each player’s own sword edge that can be used to parry an attack. Players who become poisoned must then die in super slow motion for the entire remainder of the game. The war continues until only one player remains atop a pile of squirming “not quite dead yet” bodies. If you’re using this as a decider, this player’s team is declared the winner (and teammates generally don’t attack each other).

Example

The music begins, and the battle commences…

The Focus

This game offers a chance to stretch your pantomimic and physicality muscles while also working on subtleties and accepting offers from your fellow players.

Traps and Tips

1.) Keep it slow. Establish a slow motion tempo and strive to make it consistent. Players can have a tendency to speed up in order to land or avoid a hit which isn’t really in keeping with the spirit of the game. When used as an exercise, it can prove helpful for the facilitator to monitor and reinforce the set speed as best they can, noting if players are routinely distorting the pace of play. I prefer to play the game at a super slow pace as this allows for a really exciting level of detail and whimsy.

2.) Accept the hit. The desire to win can prove quite strong for many and players may bend the rules to do so – suddenly shifting direction or quickly moving their sword arm to meet a hit. The game takes on a much more joyous tone when players willingly and playfully accept being hit by the arm swords when this fate is clearly projected and inevitable. Perhaps it’s human nature to avoid such moments to some degree, but the game suffers when players essentially “cheat” or pursue tactics that keep them out of harm’s way.

3.) Embrace the loss. And once you’re poisoned – which is in many ways the real goal of the game – fully embrace the loss. Luxuriate in your epic slow motion death scene. Keep your choices clean and specific. When the deaths are approximated or become wimpy, the overall experience suffers for both the players and any observing audience members. In many ways the real victors in the game are those who imagine and execute the most dynamic death scenes!

4.) Play the game. Tell the story. Yes, the competitive frame will certainly inform the action, but there are so many opportunities for fun characterizations, physical finesses, and narrative elements. Perhaps your fighter spends the whole battle meticulously preparing only to immediately die at the hands of a hidden rival, or you get ill at the sight of any violence, or you spend the scene protecting another only to be betrayed. Don’t underestimate the potential for playful story telling amidst (and through) the silly fighting.

In Performance

When you play to lose spectacularly, the battle becomes so much more enjoyable for everyone. If you’re sole purpose is to win, on the other hand, you probably will but without this amazing sense of selfless abandon. And at the end of the day, is that really winning?

Connected Concept: Winning

“W” is for “Winning”

“The greed for power, the hatred and dishonesty which have become associated with competitive games are not an inherent part of them but have found their way in them through a false sense of values. Prizes separate people, pit them against each other, discourage the less able and set the more able apart.”
Neva Leona Boyd quoted by Paul Simon, “Neva Leona Boyd, A Biographical Sketch.” Play and Game Theory in Group Work: A Collection of Papers. Neva Leona Boyd. Chicago: University of Illinois at Chicago Circle, 1971. 7-19. p. 9

Definition

How do we define winning on the improv stage? In the sporting arena, the answer is generally obvious: the team who leaves the playing field with the most points, tries, or touchdowns assumes the winner’s title and trophy. While some improvisational franchises assume a similarly competitive frame, in most cases, this is pure conceit designed to give the audience some additional buy-in. A team might be announced the winner, but this rarely (hopefully) has any real cachet or meaning. And yet a competitiveness can lurk in the not-so-distant background of many an improv event if players aren’t careful and, as Boyd notes, can serve as a doorway for anti-social and anti-collaborative play. So, I return to my opening question: how do we define Winning on the improv stage in a way that does not leave fellow players discouraged or discarded in the shadows? And are there new ways to frame this very issue of competitiveness that better serve the broad discipline that is improvisational theatre?

Example

The improv company takes a bow together…

Towards a Winning Formula

1.) Elevating the whole team. When improvisers become solipsistic or overly concerned with the success of a smaller team unit, the greater chemistry and commitment to unrestrained collaboration suffer. Engaging improv demands that all participants are rowing in the same direction in spite of any structural conceits that might imply the opposite. When we’re not working for the good of the whole, we’re likely hampering the play that follows. If a competitive edge makes an improviser second guess entering a scene that needs an assist (or, equally as troubling, makes those already in the scene question the intent behind a “rival’s” good faith contribution), then the company has lost a great deal already. Even (especially) in overtly team-based structures, there is something inspiring about watching players all truly rallying together to benefit the scene or show. The ensemble should really emerge as the only “team” of any consequence.

2.) Honoring your contract with the audience. I’ll admit openly that I’m about to espouse a product-centric assertion about a performance style renowned for its process-centric attitude, but an area where you can harness a winning temperament towards a fruitful end is when it’s applied to the greater goals of the performance event. What contracts have been made with your audience, and have these been attempted with every sharpened spontaneous tool in your tool belt? In service-focused modes, this may look like modeling and forging an open and inclusive environment where participation is welcomed but not coerced. For long-form pieces, this success might resemble collectively crafting a playful narrative that smartly uses the pertinent stylistic tropes and structural elements. For competitive short-form shows, “winning” might involve skillfully playing a wide variety of games with abandon while giving the impression that a heated competition is taking place. From such a vantage point, spectacularly recognizing and embracing an epic “loss” with a healthy sense of performed passion could fit the bill. This last example also honors the overly theatricalized performance at the core of professional wrestling entertainment that served as a key source of inspiration for Theatresports’ founder, Keith Johnstone.

3.) Privileging the process. And to balance the above product-centric considerations, did your ensemble “win” when it came to the process of creation? This will also look different from company to company depending on your stated or implied mission. Was your play marked by a sense of abandon, acceptance, and active listening? (Or, to paint a less rosy picture, blocking, bulldozing and bulletproof characters?) While there’s no guarantee that a joyful process will necessarily result in an equally successful product, experience would strongly suggest that attention to the former greatly increases the likelihood of generating work of any lasting value. An ensemble fraught with interpersonal tensions and unattended injuries will struggle and undermine any elevated artistic intention. If you have inadvertently created this very dynamic in your pursuit of excellence, you will often face a Pyrrhic victory at best. I’ve already written about making others look good on the improv stage here; this would be the much less discussed equivalent of making others feel good.

4.) Prioritizing personal and ensemble growth. Personally, I find this variant the most palatable form of competitiveness in improvisation; namely, can I do better than my prior self as opposed to others involved in the performance event? In this context, “winning” really becomes synonymous with personal growth (or company growth, for that matter, when this lens is applied to collective hurdles that the ensemble is working to overcome). Perhaps I’m focusing on getting more comfortable with accepting and enjoying change onstage and in my characters, or avoiding rushing to inorganic conflict that stalls the action, or I’m striving to bring CROW ingredients more efficiently and elegantly to my scene starts. The added beauty of relocating competitiveness in this fashion is that one player’s victory does not come at the expense of another nor preclude anyone else from enjoying similar highs. In fact, the opposite holds true as when we “beat” our own old habits or hindrances, we are probably simultaneously raising everyone’s improv game. In my own ensembles, I’ll often start a performance with players sharing a personal challenge to encourage this particular mindset.

Final Thought

True competitiveness encourages a style of play that promotes shining, upstaging, and one-upping. These dynamics can find a temporary home in deciders and tiebreakers where “winning” is part of the gimmick, but I’ve found in my own work that when such energies infect the evening as a whole, everyone ends up losing a little. When we’re too invested in our own ideas and contributions we will often miss the brilliance that resides in the work of others or the magical potentials that are unlocked when ideas combine and blossom in the hands of a joyfully collaborating ensemble.

Related Entries: Commandment #3, Commandment #10, Looking Good Antonyms: Ensemble Synonyms: Competitiveness, Shining

Connected Game: Slow Motion War

Game Library: “Yes Party”

Part demonstration, part exercise, Yes Party aptly models the destructive results of negativity and Wimping.

The Basics

It’s helpful to have a white board and markers (or similar) for this participatory brainstorming exercise. A facilitator leads the discussion, perhaps with a helper or two writing the offered suggestions on the whiteboard.

Round One

The facilitator invites the participants to offer up a theme for a party which is then written on the white board. Those in attendance are then asked for a reason why this party theme can’t happen or is a bad idea – a block or wimping “Yes, but…,” if you will. The theme is then crossed out. A series of new party ideas are then elicited with each receiving the same treatment. Continue in this fashion until there is a small collection of rejected themes.

Round Two

The facilitator now elicits one more possible party theme. This time, rather than seeking a reason to nix the idea, participants are now invited to brainstorm ways to realize and expand upon this particular party concept. What types of food might be served? Will there be decorations or costumes? Who might serve as the entertainment? These additions are recorded without judgement on the whiteboard around the theme in question.

Example

Facilitator: “What’s a fun theme for a party?”

Player: “A Halloween party.”

Halloween is written boldly on the white board.

Facilitator: “OK, what’s a reason for not having a Halloween party?”

Another Player: “It’s February.”

Halloween is crossed out on the white board.

Facilitator: “Fair enough. What’s another theme then?”

Another Player: “Pirates of the Caribbean.”

This new idea is recorded.

Facilitator: “Great! But what might be a reason we can’t do that?”

Another Player: “I don’t like pirates…”

Several more themes are obtained only to be rejected…

THEN

Facilitator: “Let’s try our planning session again. I need another possible theme…”

Player: “How about a villains theme?”

Facilitator: “I love it. So what would we need for such a party?”

Villains and the resulting additions are all recorded…

Player: “We could have black light to make it eerie.”

Another Player: “And a smoke machine…”

Another Player: “We’ll need a DJ with a customized playlist.”

Another Player: “And definitely themed costumes – everyone dressed up as their favorite villain…”

Facilitator: “Any refreshments…?”

The Focus

This experience typically culminates in an extremely provocative visual: one section of the board covered in crossed out suggestions and another full of uncensored potential. As this exercise is more often tailored for improv novices, my tips focus on proven ways to debrief the experience.

Traps and Tips

1.) How did each planning session feel? There are no guarantees in improv – and both models can certainly prove joyous for different reasons – but generally participants will feel thwarted by the first model and at least comparatively encouraged by the second. There can be a joy in creatively shooting down others’ ideas, but ultimately this leaves very little of value on the brainstorming white board.

2.) Were you equally as likely to contribute to both seasons? Often the first round will peter out on its own accord. Once the dynamic becomes crystal clear with no idea surviving the group gauntlet, there is little motivation for folks to offer up anything new. In the second iteration, while there can be momentary stalls as everyone contemplates what might be missing, the mood tends to quickly become playful and less guarded. Every idea, after all, gets written down without judgement.

3.) Which approach was more likely to result in a fun party? This is when the visual representations of the two rounds are worth a thousand words. Little survives the carnage of blocking and wimping on the first board, while the second likely displays a delightful array of brilliant and off-kilter ideas (many of which are probably brilliant in their unique off-kilter way too). By joyously embracing all ideas, players are now likely to find inspiration for exciting offers that might not have been immediately apparent.

4.) Is there a place for assessment in the second model too? On the improv stage when we’re dealing with fictitious characters and journeys there are rarely damaging real world consequences. If we were to actually hold our brainstormed party, there are some parameters that would need to be honored. There are probably budgetary limitations, and important interpersonal social contracts to uphold, such as making sure everyone feels welcome and included. This exercise doesn’t seek to deny these realities but rather reveals that when critique enters the creative equation too quickly it tends to serve a destructive rather than constructive role. Sometimes the most lauded idea is actually a response to an earlier “out of left field” notion.

In Performance

In life and art, it’s very easy to poke holes in the ideas of others and come up with wimping reasons that allow you to avoid action or momentum. Yes Party hopefully provides a glimpse into an alternative pathway where ideas – and the people behind them – are given some room to explore and muse without the pressure of always presenting polished finished product.

Cheers, David Charles.
www.improvdr.com
Join my Facebook group here.
Photo Credit: Tony Firriolo
© 2023 David Charles/ImprovDr

Connected Concept: Wimping