My First Long-Form: Insta-Musical Just Add Water

If you’ve seen me improvise recently you’ll already likely know that I have a particular interest and passion for musical improvisation. It feels like I’ve constantly been playing with one format or another, often riffing on similar inspirations or striving to solve similar tensions or challenges. I’m currently performing in a format I devised and directed at SAK Comedy Lab called Lights Up: The Improvised Rock Opera, which in many ways builds off prior attempts. (That’s the image above as I don’t have any photos of the show I’m about to discuss.) The first such effort, however, was a rather modest affair during my undergraduate days at Roosevelt University in Chicago. It also happened to be my first real attempt at conceiving, rehearsing and directing a long-form improv show.

As noted in prior blog entries, my initial improv training in New Zealand was in the Theatresports model which was almost exclusively short-form during my time with the company, although I recall that there was always a willingness to let scenes and games have the time they needed and I can remember at least one instance when a musical game ultimately ended up feeling like a small one-act with multiple beats and songs. Although long-form was certainly happening in Chicago, particularly the Harold, my heavy campus rehearsal schedule and commitments as a scholarship holder didn’t allow me to see any, and my performance work with Comedysportz was very much focused on short-form games, as were the two community shows I directed and hosted for Night Players. I had some nontraditional long-form training at Astors’ Beechwood one summer in a living history experience and an Estate-centered murder mystery, but that was about it. I don’t think that I realized how much I didn’t know at the time, thank goodness, and so the possibility of building an improv musical from the ground up didn’t strike as much fear in me as perhaps was warranted.

Roosevelt had a pretty intensive production schedule, but the department was generally pretty amenable to students mounting works if they could find a pocket of time that didn’t conflict with other shows. A friend and talented director, Ed Basden, had done wonders with this model early in my time there, and so I pitched and managed to secure a slot in April 1995, right before my graduation, for a four-performance run of Insta-Musical: Just Add Water in the O’Malley Theatre.

The Basic Premise: A company of ten improvisers craft an original character-driven story based on audience suggestions, utilizing a stock of pre-set song structures to help guide the energy and action.

Brian Zaker designed this poster and program cover. I can’t believe I still have it!

Looking back, the givens of this production were unique and show the level of “can-do” that the whole company took to the project in spite of our inexperience in this genre. (I was directing a long-form and I hadn’t even been in one or possibly even really seen one!) For starters, we were an improvised musical, but we didn’t have a dedicated musician. Instead we had a smart keyboard (by 1995 standards) several chord progression sheets that I had laboriously constructed in my dorm room with my limited musical knowledge, and luckily a few company members with reasonable piano skills that rotated into the role as they could. A workable solution – just – but certainly not even close to ideal. I also remember that one of our company members, Melanie Esplin, was simultaneously cast in Fefu and Her Friends that was running in tandem with our improv show, so we had an agreement that her character needed to die or leave the world of the play each performance in time for her to make her other call.

It’s perhaps a good thing that I don’t remember a lot from this first effort. I know that we had audiences, but I can’t imagine it was particularly well attended especially considering the size of the venue and the time of year. An element that I do recall, however, is my fascination with song structure and that a desire to maximize musical variety in the show was built into the improv form. Our rehearsal and development process included studying various crafted song structures pulled from my prior observations, imagination, and admittedly limited experience at that point as a musical theatre performer. One frame that still stands out in my memory was a concept I called a “Work Song” which I plan to write about later this week if you want to take a peek inside the structure. This, alongside more expected variations of solos and duets, sought to provide a variety of musical moments for the show.


The Cast:

David Charles
C. Allen Colwell
Melanie Esplin
Kate Garassino
Tanner Lagasca
Laura McNaughton
Ryan Pfeiffer
Amy Marie Sima
A. J. Wester
Susan Wingerter

According to the rather faded program I found, we also had an opening song that I co-wrote with Amy Marie Sima. I think we used it, in part, to cover an initial brainstorming and casting session that occurred immediately after we obtained our audience suggestions as I have a recollection of huddling around a sheet of paper with appropriate blanks on it for actors’ names. I’ve no idea what this opening song sounded like or said, but I imagine there was at least one target rhyme with “just add water!” This was my first effort at what has become an obsession with starting long-form shows with something innately more polished and theatrical than standing on a bare stage and just getting an audience suggestion. Some efforts have landed better than others.

Lessons

Projects that have followed have certainly continued this trend of pursuing musical variety and breaking the larger dramatic arc down into discrete musical numbers with specific structural components. As a deviser, my strong preference is for music-driven musicals, where songs carry a lot of the weight of the story-telling and action, and it’s easy for songs to all default into slow ballads if there aren’t strategies in place to nudge the company to the contrary. In addition to this production serving as my first foray into long-form improv, I believe it was also Roosevelt’s first such offering (unquestionably its first improv musical at the very least) and this would also become a trend in my future work: often I am pitching projects to companies where this kind of work is something completely new to the producers and their audiences.

Some of the simpler but greater lessons of this experience, at least for me, were to just dive in and do it. In general this has been at the core of my devising philosophy: if I know I can easily achieve the desired result, why bother?! I surrounded myself with a company that was game for the experiment and that trusted me enough to lead the expedition.

When I’m able, I’ll include cast lists as I’ve done in the column above, as it’s nice to remember all of the people connected by these improv escapades. If any cast members are reading this, I’d be fascinated to hear some of your memories and what you took away from the project as my memories are now rather faint! Feel free to drop a line here or email me.

Cheers, David Charles.
www.improvdr.com
Join my Facebook group here.
Photo Credit: Charlotte Brown
© 2020 David Charles/ImprovDr

Game Library: “Raise the Stakes”

The third commandment and the concept of shining suggested this exercise designed to help unify our goal as a team. It’s time to Raise the Stakes.

The Basics

One player is identified as the protagonist of the scene and provided with a specific goal or “want” to achieve, such as preparing a surprise dinner. Other players take turns entering to provide proportionate and building offers that raise the stakes (import) or increase the urgency of the scene.

Example

Player A is cooking a surprise dinner for their significant other (“Z”) who has been out of town for several months.

Player B enters and announces that Z’s plane landed an hour earlier than scheduled.

Player C enters and informs “A” that there are rolling power outages in the area.

Player D enters as “A” and “Z’s” child afraid of the dark and in need of help with the welcome back art project…

The Focus

In many ways if the ensemble is unified in their focus, player “A” has the easiest job as protagonist as they must merely respond honestly to each new offer while simultaneously striving to complete the task at hand. Player “A” should remain as the clear subject of the game and it’s important that we do not lose sight of their journey and emotional truth.

Traps and Tips

1.) Give the protagonist space to react and respond. Especially as the exercise builds, it can be easy to overwhelm the protagonist with multiple offers landing simultaneously or voluminous paragraphs of information. Therefore, it’s critical to allow each choice to land and change the protagonist before adding and layering on new elements. Keep in mind, the audience is experiencing the scene from this character’s point of view, so they need space to make reactions clear.

2.) Pace and build the complications. Invariably someone will have a great idea that drastically bends the curve of absurdity. In the above example, if character “Z” were to arrive as the first offer, it’s foreseeable that there would no longer be much room to increase the stakes and urgency. Focus on small and logical steps, ideally that build on games and premises already in play. Part of the fun and challenge of this exercise is making sure that your move leaves room for those that follow to build as well.

3.) Keep your eye on the prize. It’s certainly a viable tactic to give the protagonist tasks that will pull them away from their greater objective, but if this foundational need becomes completely eclipsed, the driving force of the scene might become lost. If you are the protagonist, make sure distractions aren’t too successful. If this begins to happen, double down on the importance of your primary goal.

4.) Embrace the environment and physicality. As the game escalates, it can be easy to forget established staging elements. Pay particular attention to the placement of doors and major set pieces. Mimed props can become great ways to lean even further into the game. What if “D” from above wanders off with the box of uncooked pasta for their art project that “A” was just about to put into the pot…?

5.) Don’t overstay your welcome in the scene. While introduced characters could remain onstage or return later in the exercise, be wary of overwhelming the stage picture. The protagonist is more likely to have to compete for attention if they have multiple other characters onstage with them for the majority of the scene. Remember, the goal is to explore strategies for enabling them to go on a clear journey and “shine.

In Performance

This is certainly a viable dynamic to infuse in your short- or long-form scenic work and can help craft a rising action or push a central character to a moment of crisis or epiphany. As is the case with most games, give each small step its time in the sun and avoid jumping to the climax.

Cheers, David Charles.
www.improvdr.com
Join my Facebook group here.
Photo Credit: Tony Firriolo
© 2020 David Charles/ImprovDr

Connected Concept: Commandment #3

Commandment #3

The third commandment states:

Thou shalt not shine above thy teammates

To thoughtlessly Shine will cast a shadow over your teammates, but there are moments when playing to strength will serve you and the scene.

The Nuances of Shining

This is just a taste of this entry/concept. Go here for more information.

Cheers, David Charles.
www.improvdr.com
Join my Facebook group here.
Photo Credit: Tony Firriolo
© 2020 David Charles/ImprovDr

Connected Game: Raise the Stakes

Game Library: “All Together Now”

This is the second entry in my series describing improv games, exercises, or strategies that I’ve been thinking about lately. Today, the spotlight is on a fun set of warm-up drills that explore the second commandment concept of focus. I know the sequence as All Together Now.

The Basics

There are three stages or phases of this exercise that I tend to stagger over subsequent classes.

Phase One: Players spread out through the available space. Each player is instructed to come up with a unique and sustainable sound – it can be vocal, percussive, or a combination of both, but it shouldn’t be something that will cause discomfort if they continue it for a sustained duration of time (slapping their chest, for example, might become regrettable). Once the ensemble has had a chance to hear all the sounds – and quickly change any that might be too similar to prior choices – everyone closes their eyes. The group then makes a soundscape. When any one player begins their pre-established sound, all players should join as quickly as possible. When any player randomly chooses to stop, similarly, other players must do so as soon as they notice that an element is now missing.

Phase Two: Players scatter through the rehearsal hall and start moving at a reasonably fast pace. When any one player decides to stop moving, the whole ensemble stops and freezes. The group remains still until another player randomly decides to return to movement, at which point the rest of the ensemble must restart their pacing as quickly as possible. For an additional twist, players can be instructed to mirror the movement quality initiated by the first person to unfreeze, so one moment, the group might be pacing, then skipping, then moving in zero gravity…

Phase Three: Combining the two games above, players determine and share different sounds that they can sustain. Once the library of sounds has been shared, players are instructed to move through the space. If anyone drops their sound out of the mix, other players must do the same. Similarly, if anyone stops moving, the rest of the ensemble must also come to stasis. Silence and/or stillness continue until a random player elects to return sound and/or movement to the mix.

The Focus

This warm-up sequence helpfully explores deep listening, awareness of the group (and changes therein), as well as the concept of proprioception – our body’s awareness of its relationship to other bodies moving through the space. Dancers often have a highly developed sense of this skill as it allows them to assume formations without actively and manually checking their spacing from other dancers. While challenging, especially the third iteration, these exercises can also provide a fitting illustration of how much we can receive and process when we are truly focused on the group.

Traps and Tips

1.) Keep your eye on the prize. These exercises can certainly be a little silly and playful, which is certainly a value in and of itself, but if the group becomes unfocused, the benefit of the exercise will quickly become lost. In most cases, these operate well as quicker warm-ups.

2.) Move with purpose. Versions two and three become less challenging and dynamic if participants are not moving through the space with dynamism and abandon. Unless you are working in a large space, I wouldn’t advise running, but there should be a sense of urgency. Also, be wary of just walking in predictable patterns or circles.

3.) Concentrate on the gap between first and last. In simple terms, the goal is to reduce the amount of time between when the first person stops moving (or making their sound) and the last person stops after they have recognized the change in the group. When the exercise is working well, this difference can be surprisingly and invigoratingly small.

4.) Encourage unpredictable tempos. It can be a bit of a “cheat” if you fall into a steady rhythm of stops and starts. If you are playing with your ensemble, you can throw a spanner in the works if this is happening by making a sudden adjustment yourself. Otherwise, you might need to offer this encouragement as a side-coaching moment.

5.) Don’t rush to the third iteration. Especially if you’re working with an ensemble that is just getting to know each other, the third phase can be surprisingly challenging and might be a little disheartening. I’d recommend revisiting the first two versions for a while if you suspect the combination might overwhelm your group.

In Performance

This can be a great quick warm-up for rehearsals and before performances once the group has been introduced to the concept, especially the second movement-only version. Similarly, if you’re exploring a piece that requires a large ensemble to work closely together onstage, All Together Now provides a highly effective way of exploring unison movement and tempos.

Cheers, David Charles.
www.improvdr.com
Join my Facebook group here.
Photo Credit: Tony Firriolo
© 2020 David Charles/ImprovDr

Connected Concept: Commandment #2

Commandment #2

The second commandment reads:

Thou shalt always retain focus

To retain Focus is to cultivate an awareness of who and what the scene is about.

Thinking About Focus

This is just a taste of this entry/concept. Go here for more information.

Cheers, David Charles.
www.improvdr.com
Join my Facebook group here.
Photo Credit: Scott Cook
© 2020 David Charles/ImprovDr

Connected Game: All Together Now

Game Library: “Reiterate/Repeat”

This is an expanding series describing improv games, exercises or strategies that I’ve been thinking about lately. As I’m working my way through the “Ten Commandments” of Theatresports, I’m pairing helpful games with the current principle or rule in a shorter and pithier blog entry.

Today, the spotlight is on an elegant little exercise that explores the first commandment concept of blocking (negating) and accepting (yielding). Let’s explore Reiterate/Repeat.

The Basics

Generally but not exclusively played in pairs, players create a scene where each subsequent line of dialogue must first reiterate or repeat the essence of your fellow player’s prior line of dialogue before adding new material.

Example

Player A: “It’s a beautiful day for a picnic.”

Player B: “It is a beautiful day for a picnic. I just happen to have the perfect picnic blanket!”

Player A: “The perfect picnic blanket?! You won’t believe that I have a basket already packed!”

Player B: “Already packed?! Then jump on my bicycle and let’s go…”

The Focus

As you play it quickly becomes clear that the reiteration is a literal equivalent of the improv “yes…” with the new information serving as the “and…” As an added bonus, the game truly promotes active listening as you cannot repeat something that you weren’t paying attention to, and similarly encourages small and inherent steps as your addition should build clearly off the prior idea.

Traps and Tips

1.) Don’t abandon the language game too early. Encourage players to really embrace the central dynamic as the excitement of the scene can quickly result in no longer using and reaping the benefit of the given frame. This has the added advantage of slowing overeager players down a little, enabling them to pay closer attention to the details of the scene as they unfold.

2.) You can take liberties with the repeats. Reiterations and repeats need not be cumulative (you don’t need to paraphrase all prior choices), nor do they have to be literal. You can shift emphasis, change pronouns, and abridge as feels appropriate. In fact, I’d say taking such liberties is half the fun of the game.

3.) Repetitions shouldn’t become “filler.” Avoid the trap of repeating the prior line in a non-emotive manner: it helps for you to have a clear point of view and energy rather than using the repetition as a stalling device while you come up with what you’d like to add. Give it a nuanced subtext and full emotional weight.

4.) Push to the action. This is good advice for all scenes and exercises, but the verbal focus and nature of this game makes it particularly prone to becoming a talking heads dynamic. Make sure you’re not just talking about things but that they actually transpire as well.

5.) Explore different tempos and heats. These can have a shorter shelf life as scenes, especially if players really allow the energy to build between each offer. Challenge players to explore a more gradual build or assume a more “kitchen sink” premise to prolong the game and its benefits.

In Performance

This is probably not an approach you’ll use frequently within an improv evening although it can be a great way to kick-start a scene or get onto the same page with another improviser with whom you may not be initially gelling. Style scenes with elevated speech, on the other hand, can often really benefit from this dynamic: it has a nice Shakespearean feel, in particular, and can encourage fun word play and connections.

This is the first contribution to the ImprovDr Game Library where you can access a wealth of exercises, warm-ups and performance frames. Explore the library here or head over to the search engine here.

Cheers, David Charles.
www.improvdr.com
Join my Facebook group here.
Photo Credit: Tony Firriolo
© 2020 David Charles/ImprovDr

Connected Concept: Commandment #1

Commandment #1

The first Theatresports Commandment is:

Thou shalt not block

Blocking refers to the energy of unhelpfully avoiding others’ ideas and choices onstage.

Complicating the Strategy

This is just a taste of this entry/concept. Go here for more information.

Cheers, David Charles.
www.improvdr.com
Join my Facebook group here.
Photo Credit: Tony Firriolo
© 2020 David Charles/ImprovDr

Connected Game: Reiterate/Repeat

Six Great Times to Ask a Question

There are a lot of improv “rules” floating around, typically designed to assist the novice improviser as they take their first steps on the stage. Some practitioners express an overt skepticism to such rules in general, noting that they don’t necessarily lead towards more successful improv but instead more in-you-head-improv. Overall, when taken with a grain of salt, I believe that such guidelines are more helpful than hurtful, offering up players some best practices to increase the likelihood that everyone is working together in a helpful fashion and in a similar direction. I think that there is also something to be said for the fact that most experienced improvisers can rattle off these inherited norms which provides some semblance of a foundational philosophy uniting improvisers when we get together for festival jams and all-plays. In the 1980’s, when I was first introduced to improvisation, Theatresports in New Zealand even formalized many of these nuggets of wisdom in its “Ten Commandments” that I still have in a dog-eared manual from my high school days.

One such rule (though interestingly not a commandment – I just checked) is the notion of “Don’t ask questions” in your scenic work. The rationale generally observes that this habit puts all the generative work on your scene partner, while the questioner essentially steals away the momentum and spark of the scene. As with most less-than-helpful improv habits, asking questions tends to emerge from fear: fear of not quite understanding what your partner was intending; fear of not coming up with the perfect addition to the scene; fear of being vulnerable or looking out of control for a moment.

I have frequently seen this type of fear-induced improv onstage and in the rehearsal hall. It usually takes the form of lackluster dialogue such as “What is that?” or “How are you?” or “What are you doing?” often at the top of a scene when little has been established. I imagine these moments are familiar to us all. And, generally, such moments don’t add energy or interest and do punt the ball back to the other player without any resonating potential or detail. While I agree that this type of question asking doesn’t typically lead to joyful scenic work, I would offer that the improv community doesn’t often talk about when questions in our scene work are helpful or perhaps even critical for our creative success. Yes, I agree that mundane questions generally lead nowhere, and furthermore that assumptions are typically more dynamic, but not all questions are created equal nor used in the same energy-draining way.

And so I offer six great times to ask a question:

1.) You didn’t understand your partner. I’ll start with perhaps the simplest scenario (and one that probably occurs with greater frequency for those of us teaching and playing online at the moment). If our partner has made a rich and grounded choice, and the acoustics, audience applause, internet connection, their accent or dialect, other onstage business, or perhaps even just our own inattentiveness, obscured this offer in such a way that we just didn’t receive it, I strongly believe a check in along the line of “What was that?” or “Would you mind repeating that?” is appropriate. A quick question strikes me as infinitely more helpful than making an ill-conceived assumption that might actually completely negate the intent or nuance of our partner’s choice. Sure, our response based on a misheard fragment might get a laugh, but especially in a long-form or narrative setting where we’re striving to more patiently build an arc, this will often be inferior to a more honest reaction stemming from what our partner was intending. We don’t hear each other at times in real life, so we can certainly have that happen to our characters onstage too. Here, I believe a question is an act of honoring our partner’s gift and making sure we are fully appreciating the intent behind it. As an improviser predominantly working in the United States who still very much has a New Zealand idiom, I’ve also included dialect and accent on my list of potential contributing factors as I’m aware that, despite my efforts to the contrary, I have been the source of miscommunications and I’d always rather have my fellow improviser (as their character rather than as the actor preferably) seek quick clarification so that the scene can then continue to dance forward.

2.) You immediately answer the question yourself. Though this perhaps isn’t a good reason to ask a question in the first place, it is a helpful strategy for those moments when a bland one slips out. If you inadvertently ask your partner, “What is that?” and then immediately follow up with “You found my missing engagement ring,” or “That is the answer sheet to our history test this afternoon,” or “We agreed that we weren’t going to bring home any more stray animals,” then you’ve quickly taken a dull choice and given it some added luster and specificity. If the initial dull question was primed with a strong emotion or point of view, then this works even better with the second choice adding content to the tension or dynamism of the first. Essentially you’re playing “yes, and…” with yourself at this point, noting that your “yes” wasn’t the most inspiring offer at first.

3.) You are playing a role that would usually ask questions. This is perhaps the most obvious exception in my mind, and while many would agree that we want to avoid transaction scenes and that questions are often at the core of these dynamics, some scenarios almost demand that we embrace our function at least initially as the questioner. A teacher calling in a student to a conference, a mechanic initially examining a car, a doctor giving a patient their annual exam — it is not unlikely that each of these scenes might take its first steps with some paradigmatic questions… “Did you get any help writing this paper?” or “Do you know where the clunking sound was coming from?” or “So what brings you into my office today?” I would suggest that we wouldn’t want the scene to typically consist only of one-sided open questions, but it is not unforeseeable nor unhelpful for this dynamic to emerge and help provide the platform or balance of our world. In this particular case it could also be a fun inversion to use questions but have them come from the unexpected character, so now the patient asks the doctor about their health issues. You could also apply the above strategy to up the heat so that “Did you get any help writing this paper?” is quickly followed by “Because I wrote one exactly like it when I was an undergrad.” Or, use the strategy below…

4.) You are asking a loaded question. In terms of question strategies, this is probably the approach I recommend most in my own classes. Acknowledging that questions will slip out and that we don’t want to get in our heads about it, I offer that it is the intensity of the question that is important. Most of us would agree that a “How are you?” is less likely to get creative juices going than “Have you been managing okay at home alone after your back surgery?” There is no reason that the question can’t in and of itself make nuanced assumptions about the world and relationship we are creating. The first question likely evolved from fear while the second clearly presents interesting opportunities for the partner and scene, especially if it is accompanied with a thoughtful physical action and perhaps justifies any previously established energies or circumstances.

A warning with loaded questions that is somewhat embedded in the surgery example above: improvisers should pay as much attention to how they are saying their question as to the details of the question itself or it can start to feel as if you are “cartooning” or announcing choices rather than giving them full emotional weight. In this way our inquiry about recovery could be showing great care for our partner, frustration that they keep calling for us to come around, or a more sinister hope that our plan to off our rival is finally working. Emotion and subtext here make all the difference. In short-form interview games where questions are central to the premise and structure, loaded questions are also an excellent way to give the interviewer a little more dynamism and weight as a character in their own right rather than merely a facilitator for the fun of the expert.

5.) You are using questions to heighten a game. Some scenes thrive on questions. The short-form game Questions Only or any of the multiple Expert variants serve as obvious examples, but there are many other situations where questions might add to the style or finesse of a scene. A cascade of questions can be thoroughly successful in a Shakespeare or period-specific scenario when they escalate and create tension or playfulness between characters. I can’t imagine Private Lies: Improvised Film Noir (pictured above) without a good dose of detective questions, for example, as that’s part of the gumshoe’s raison d’être. If a scene is exploring a more complex dynamic, such as in a mapping scene (where one scenario is played with the intensity and tropes of another) questions especially of a vaguer variety can help prolong the game and fun. If we’re playing a scene in which a parent has discovered a comic book but is mapping this moment with the energy of a parent discovering illicit drugs, a carefully pitched “What is this?” along with a suitable gesture will likely serve the scene well. Here the audience and players alike know the identity of the “this” so there’s nothing problematic about the choice. We often play a version of Old Job, New Job in our Gorilla Theatre show at SAK Comedy Lab which similarly deploys this mapping concept, and I could certainly happily watch a whole scene-full of questions coming from a doctor who used to be a mechanic: “Do you know where the clunking sound was coming from?”

6.) You are checking in with your scene partner. I’ve worked with many companies that deal with this issue in different ways but there are times on stage (stage violence, intimacy, or potentially triggering or sensitive material) when I would argue it is not only appropriate to ask a question, but it is critical that we do so. We’re improvising, and especially if you’re playing in a context where “mature” or “adult” themes might emerge, we need to keep the safety of our partners at front of mind. I think it’s important to note that I don’t really mean racy when I say “mature” or “adult”, although sadly I think that’s what a lot of improv inclines towards when it says it’s pushing the boundaries or is edgy. What I mean by these terms is that we’re dealing with material with sincerity and nuance in such a way that it might resonate deeply with our partners or audience. This is the type of edgy improv I’m personally most interested in. In these instances, a careful question can be an important way to check in with our scene partner, especially if this is someone we don’t know particularly well yet. If I ask, “Do you want to fight me?” in a heated exchange then my partner can have me take that action offstage if that is what they need to do. If I ask, “Would you mind if I kissed you?” then my partner can frame a response that can honor the energy of the scene while maintaining their personal boundaries: “I desperately want to kiss you, but let’s do it inside so the neighbors won’t see…” If I nudge into material that I can see is stirring my partner I can ask “Do you need me to leave now?” and then can honor their response while maintaining the integrity of the scene. I’ve found this to be a less commonly needed tool in troupes that have developed deep rapport and know a lot about each others’ comfort zones, but I think this is an important strategy to have in our pockets to maintain a safe and playful stage. It’s worth noting that this approach should also be applied to potentially racy material if the company hasn’t previously agreed upon performance parameters prior to the show.

A side note that, yes, with some mental wrangling many of the questions illustrated in the above examples could be wordsmithed into statements, but I’m not sure that is a good use of our energy and concentration as improvisers; and furthermore, modeling consent on the improv stage strikes me as an important result of not needlessly demonizing the act of asking a question in and of itself.

So these are my six notable exceptions to the “no questions” rule that many of us utilize in our classes and ensembles. All too often it strikes me that the “problem” is not so much that a question was asked, but rather the under-committed and non-specific way in which it was asked. Any questions? Have you found other situations in which questions are the best approach in your own scene work?

Cheers, David Charles.
www.improvdr.com
Join my Facebook group here.
Photo Credit: Tony Firriolo
© 2020 David Charles/ImprovDr

Politics and Improv

I’ve been struggling over the last week or so to find a voice that honors the important historic moment we find ourselves experiencing in the United States – a voice that serves appropriately as an ally without becoming performative, a tone that acknowledges my own privilege and need to grow while empowering and adding important volume to others, a way to express myself honestly as an artist without being blind to or distracting from the critical and timely struggle of the Black Lives Matter movement. I haven’t figured the balance out, and I offer this post with that context in mind, because there are moments when I think it’s important that we add our imperfect voice rather than remain silent or absent for fear of not being the most paradigmatic ally or having the best observation or the sagest wisdom.

I offer this first blog post back from my hiatus from the vantage point of a theatre historian, a lens that I admittedly don’t overtly utilize much in my current life as an improv practitioner, although I’d note my historical and critical musings have very much informed my practice and strategies. I’ve been thinking a lot lately about what the role of improv should/could be in the current political discourse and what responsibilities we might have as practitioners as we wield this tool. I’ve also been thinking a lot about Carlo Goldoni and Carlo Gozzi, two theatre makers working in eighteenth century Italy during a time of social unrest as the rising middle class sought to grasp power from an increasingly ineffective and unresponsive elite. If you haven’t heard of them before, I was in the same boat until I stumbled across them in my studies. That’s Gozzi smugly smiling at you in the image above.

Many improvisers tend to think of our craft as innately progressive or radical as it has a tendency to question, satirize or undermine institutions of power, and this has often been the case historically. The performer in general, and the improviser in particular, has been legislated and viewed with distrust by the hierarchies that control the means of production: this mistrust and control acknowledges the inherent and potentially subversive power in the act of performance. Religious figures were banned from commedia dell’arte stages across Europe for fear of the contempt or ridicule that might occur, the Mexican carpa and Boal’s Theatre of the Oppressed often served and represented voices that were otherwise disenfranchised or prevented from entering social discourse, and Keith Johnstone’s initial improv demonstrations literally defied England’s Lord Chamberlain’s role as theatrical censor for the Crown as there was, in fact, no script to view and control. In these, and many (most) other global traditions, the impetus to “punch up” and take aim at those in power is clear and connected to the very core of the improvisational performance instinct. If you take yourself or your institution too seriously, improv has the critical power to hold you up for closer inspection and to proverbially or literally knock you off your high horse.

There are a handful of examples where improv has appeared in a more conservative manner (conservative here meaning it displayed a clear interest in conserving current power systems and inequities.) Japan’s improv performative tradition of renga poetry became incredibly formalized and elite (although there were instances of a more accessible companion form), carnival traditions arguably serve as moments of temporarily suspending power systems only so that they can shortly return in full force without further question or challenge, and then there is the eighteenth century literary and theatrical feud between Gozzi and Goldoni.

This isn’t the place to get bogged down with too much of the minutia of this historic moment but here are the broad strokes. Carlo Goldoni, also known as the Italian Moliere, was born as a member of the upper echelons of the Venetian “common people” and he had lost patience for the stale traditions of the “improvised” commedia dell-arte. At this time, so much of the craft and lazzi had become essentially set that the audience could almost speak the dialogue along with the supposedly improvising performers. (A quick note that mature commedia dell’arte always seemed to straddle the line between generating and recycling material.) Goldoni also had some issues with the immorality of these shows, and the lack of a true and nuanced representation of the emerging middle-class, to which he belonged. His solution was to breathe new life into these characters by incorporating them into an essentially written literary tradition where he could more deliberately take aim at the useless and out-of-touch aristocracy. Among his better known plays is The Fan which is a good example of how he elevated the middle class while taking some deserved knocks at those who had long since ceased to be of any real service to society.

In response to Goldoni’s efforts to use the commedia dell’arte characters and devices as a sharper satiric tool, Carlo Gozzi emerged as his theatrical rival. In simple terms, Gozzi embodied the very aristocratic leech that Goldoni had so successfully brought to the stage and critiqued. He was the embodiment of privilege, unearned status, and patriarchal oblivious excess. As Goldoni had done, Gozzi also deployed the commedia dell’arte masks, but in many cases he retained their bawdy impromptu nature, allowing particularly the lower class characters comedic freedom in his fiabes or fables, such as The Love of Three Oranges. These plays were sumptuous escapist affairs with little in the way of social commentary or satire: his scripted prologues often set the scene and actively invited his audiences to return to a dream-like and intellectually disengaged childhood wonder.

As practitioners, there are obviously a myriad of paths forward as we contemplate returning to the theatre boards post COVID, and yet this struggle between Goldoni and Gozzi has returned to me perhaps as an historical warning of sorts. Goldoni sought to breathe fresh air and social commentary into his commedia dell’arte inspired characters and plays, and consciously held up an archaic system of rule for ridicule. While you could make the case he greatly diminished improvisational freedom, he retained or perhaps re-inspired an approach to art that sought to give voice to the masses. Gozzi, on the other hand, retained the guise of improvisational freedom, but pursued an escapist tradition in an effort to sustain the status quo. He maintained an appearance of improvisation, but arguably, inverted its inherent promise or responsibility, deploying it as a means to appease and ultimately control the masses with frivolity and fantasy.

There are several lessons I take from this distant historical moment. Our art will always be framed, inspired and informed by the political landscape. As improvisers and artists, we can adopt an apparently non-political stance, as Gozzi did, but often our unwillingness or inability to face sociopolitical realities merely results in us upholding the status quo. Escaping into the theatre or our craft may strike us as necessary or appropriate — “everyone needs a break from what’s going on in the world” — but this also smacks of un-interrogated privilege as not everyone is able to or wants to put aside this moment of import. Is this really a moment to blow off collective steam in the theatre (a critique often leveled at Aristotle’s concept of catharsis) or rather a time to find new agency and ways of empowering voices and narratives that need a space now more than ever? As practitioners, do we want to allow our craft to become so stale and “set” that it no longer serves our constituents, as was the case with commedia dell’arte when Goldoni interceded to return agency and vibrancy to the craft? Or do we want to commit to use the unique tools of improv to respond honestly and powerfully in the moment, “punching up” while lending our hands, voices and stages to those most in need?

While I predictably know my own answers to my pedantic questions above, I will confess that I do not know exactly what this reactive and informed improv should look like in my own work. To use my campus troupe as an example, our short-form show is much less likely to be able to interrogate issues of racial injustice and inequality with appropriate depth than our long-form narrative work, although there are also problems here in terms of representation and finding ways to engage current affairs responsibly. As with many improv companies, we still have ample room for growth in terms of racial diversity and inclusion, although we have done better in terms of balancing sex in our casting and have a long history of strong female improvisers excelling in positions of leadership. In general, however, for many improv can still feel closed, inaccessible, or predominantly straight, white and male.

In some contexts, I’m thinking particularly of competitive-style short-form shows, bringing current political issues front and center into our content may feel jarring or inappropriate as it runs the risk of minimizing the issues at hand or, perhaps worse, might give the impression if done without care that we are poking fun at the very communities and tensions that so urgently require our attention. But even in our most joyful and lighthearted enterprises I believe we should honor that the world and stage can not merely be business as usual. I wonder if exploring creative partnerships, organizational sponsorships, pre- or post-show speakers or discussions, offering curated resources and the like could be a first move to frame our improv events in a way that acknowledges our greater responsibilities as artists. And perhaps we should not unduly focus all our attention on our onstage material but also interrogate how we are representing, supporting and building up our larger communities in general.

Regardless of the specific next steps we each take, however, I hope we can all agree that we shouldn’t be a Gozzi, an out-of-touch aristocrat crafting escapist fables designed to draw attention away from the fact that we are simultaneously perpetuating, masking and embodying the very problem we need to address as a society.

Don’t be a Gozzi.

Cheers, David Charles.
www.improvdr.com
Join my Facebook group here.
Here’s an interesting article about race and improv from American Theatre.
© 2020 David Charles/ImprovDr

My First Improv Steps in Stripy Socks

As I’m deeply missing playing on the improv stage and eagerly looking forward to the time that will happen again, I can’t help but think about my first steps into this spontaneous art-form that tends to keep its claws in you once it takes hold.

When I reminisce about my teenage years in Dunedin, New Zealand, the images can tend to feel a little Dickensian. I oftentimes describe my family as being “blue t-shirt” rather than “blue collar” as we couldn’t afford the collar to the shirt. My father was an Anglican minister (not a career path for wealth in NZ) and my mother was a solo parent on welfare due to some complicated medical issues. In New Zealand, being poor still meant you had access to a great education, housing, healthcare and a social safety net, and I came from a family that had really never valued “stuff” growing up, but I do recall some pretty bleak holidays and birthdays in terms of material elements – getting a toothbrush and facecloth for Christmas, sharing a tin of spaghetti and meatballs on my Mum’s bed that I had warmed as my birthday dinner, receiving food hampers from the Salvation Army on a pretty regular basis. Luckily, I certainly never wanted for love or a sense of value and belonging, and boy did we laugh, often at our seemingly grim plight.

We had bounced around geographically when my family was still together following my father’s various appointments in the Anglican church, but had settled in Dunedin as family lore goes so that me and my three siblings would have access to better schools and employment opportunities. My parents had divorced by the time I had made it to my high school years, and I followed my older brother and sister to Logan Park High School. I was “painfully shy” as a child, and I credit LPHS with a lot in terms of bringing me out of my shell, introducing me to theatre in general and improv in particular, and opening door after door for me which culminated in auditions for theatre programs in the United States with my high school thespian troupe. We had excellent teachers, a culture where student cliques often evaporated in our theatre auditorium, and as I found connections and friendships in my drama classes it also became easier to find a place in the sea of uniformed bodies.

During the late 1980s Theatresports was in an enviable position in New Zealand. With generous sponsorship from the United Building Society, the short-form franchise was branded as United Theatresports and funding included money to pay for local improvisers to train and mentor high school students taking their first steps. In my sixth form year (US junior) I fond myself in such a workshop with the formidable Stayci Taylor as our teacher, and the rest, as they say, is history. Suddenly I was in a space where all those weird things I liked to do, like make up original songs while walking down Pinehill Road to school, had a name and a value. I recall volunteering to try improvising a song in one of those early sessions, and much to everyone’s surprise, including my own and certainly Stayci’s, I sort of did. Needless to say, I was hooked.

I don’t completely recall how we banded together, but soon I was in a team with three fellow students: Jason, Sarla and Jane. If I am remembering correctly, when it came time to settle on a team name, one of the ladies (I think it was Jane) offered that she had a large collection of long stripy socks, and so these became our dress code and our title. Much like these socks, in all the best ways, we were a rag-tag collection of folks you’d probably never consciously put together on a team, but we were relentlessly playful, and my teammates were willing to put up with my type A tendencies that were already amply present, making jars of ask-fors pre-written on slips on paper so we could just quickly draw one to inspire our rehearsal scenes, and the like.

Yes, I still have those jars. Thirty years later. They are in my quarantined office at work or I’d provide photographic evidence.

Theatresports had a pretty limited set of stock games in those days at least for those in the high school league (in addition to a snappy anthem extolling our sponsor) and we certainly did better in some of those structures than others. Our penchant for songs, and the luck of the draw in our local competitions got us to the first high school national finals and a trip to the North Island where the fates of improv did not smile as brightly on us! We certainly lacked the polish of some of our northern countrymen and women. I don’t think they quite knew what to make of us and our costuming choices. We placed third.

I owe a lot to those early Theatresports instructors, Stacyi Taylor, Patrick Davies and Martin Phelan specifically, as they also quickly opened doors for me into Dunedin Theatresports and soon my first paid gigs as a performer. They also taught the craft in a beautifully nuanced way, privileging story and connection, and were kind but unflinching in their feedback. I am also deeply grateful that from the get-go I had strong female role-models in the craft. My high school drama teacher, Denise Walsh, certainly deserves mention here too, although she is worthy of an entry all of her own.

And so, as the blog title states, I literally made my first steps as an improviser in knee-high stripy socks on an improv team of the same name.

I leave you with this refrain etched into my brain that we all sang before each performance from those days: “A story or verse, you just can’t rehearse, The sort of a sport you improvise… It’s United Theatresports. It’s United Theatresports.” Let it be said, it’s also the only sort of a sport that I’ve been able to play with any modicum of success. What sport has improv saved you from?

Cheers, David Charles.
www.improvdr.com
© 2020 David Charles/ImprovDr