No title available
PR's Tumblrdome
Discoholic 🪩
pixel skylines
★
2025 on Tumblr: Trends That Defined the Year
Aqua Utopia｜海の底で記憶を紡ぐ
will byers stan first human second
No title available
JVL
Claire Keane
hello vonnie
wallacepolsom
🪼
taylor price
Stranger Things
No title available
Kaledo Art
Lint Roller? I Barely Know Her
AnasAbdin
seen from Germany
seen from Singapore
seen from Germany
seen from Canada
seen from United Kingdom
seen from Malaysia
seen from Spain
seen from Poland
seen from United States
seen from Canada
seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from India
seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from Germany
seen from Kenya
seen from United States
seen from United Kingdom
seen from United States
@exploringimprov
Check out the new improvised podcast my friends and I are doing- Rotary! Available wherever you get your podcasts! Apple Podcasts: https://apple.co/3dRwfgh Spotify: https://spoti.fi/3mmfvkB Google Podcasts: https://bit.ly/3kqieZo Amazon Music: https://amzn.to/34nNTVV Stitcher: https://bit.ly/3kk3WcS https://anchor.fm/rotary http://facebook.com/rotarypod https://anchor.fm/rotary
A Harold is like a thunderstorm
The opening is a weather report warning that a thunderstorm is coming, and what to expect.
The first beat is like clouds rolling in, and some light rain.
The first group game is the first sudden crack of thunder and lightning.
The second beats are constant rain, and occasional thunder and lightning.
The second group game is a ton of thunder and lightning and torrential downpour.
The third beats are like a tornado that blends everything together.
Episode 4: Kimberly Alu
In this episode of Exploring Improv, I speak with Kimberly Alu. Kimberly is an improviser and teacher in New York City. She is active at the People's Improv Theater (PIT) where she is an instructor and performer. She also performs improv at the Armory, and is one of the founders of Socially Distant Improv on Instagram. This is in addition to an impressive list of screen and stage credits.
Kimberly and I talk about leading with empathy and vulnerability, finding comedy in the relationship, handling big characters, online improv, and more.
Be sure to subscribe the Exploring improv, and check me out Relentless Comedy on Facebook.
Listen to this episode on...
Spotify
Apple Podcasts
Stitcher
Pocketcasts
Episode 3: Bill Arnett
In this episode of Exploring Improv, I speak with Bill Arnett. Bill is an internationally renowned teacher, former head of the iO Chicago Training Center, founder of the Chicago Improv Studio, and author of the book The Complete Improviser.
Bill and I talk about being aware of improv styles, playing realistically, how "who, what, and where" is not enough, the future of improv, and much more.
Please subscribe the Exploring improv, and check me out on Twitter @ironblimp. Also be sure to like Relentless Comedy on Facebook.
Listen to this episode on...
Spotify
Apple Podcasts
Stitcher
Pocketcasts
Episode 2: Bobby McCosky
In this episode of Exploring Improv, host Andy Barrett speaks with Bobby McCosky. Bobby is an improviser in Kansas City Missouri, and the branch manager of The Improv Shop Kansas City. He is a former ensemble member of the KC Improv Company, where he was also a teacher and director of their training center. He's also the author of the improv blog "yeslabrynth" on Tumblr.
Bobby and I talk about styles of improv, online coaching, group mind, The Improv Shop KC, when to ask questions in scenes, how to leave a team, and much more.
Please subscribe the Exploring improv, and check me out on Twitter @ironblimp. Also be sure to like Relentless Comedy on Facebook.
Listen to this episode on...
Spotify
Apple Podcasts
Stitcher
Pocketcasts
Episode 1: Brian James O’Connell
In the very first episode of Exploring Improv, I speak with the renowned and multi-talented Brian James O'Connell (aka "BOC"). BOC is a Co-Founder of The Pack Theater in Los Angeles, an actor, writer and director who (among many other things) co-created the TV series "Hell Den" and directed the film "Bloodsucking Bastards"
Please subscribe the Exploring improv, and check me out on Twitter @ironblimp. Also be sure to like Relentless Comedy on Facebook.
Listen to this episode on...
Spotify
Apple Podcasts
Stitcher
Pocketcasts
Announcing The Exploring Improv Podcast
Howdy Improv Explorers.
I have a big announcement! Exploring Improv is now a podcast that will feature interviews, improv thoughts, and much more. I have several guests lined up that I'm sure will bring fascinating and insightful improv knowledge.
Click to Subscribe to the Exploring Improv Podcast On...
Spotify
Apple Podcasts
Stitcher
Pocketcasts
Matt Besser Workshop Notes
These are my notes from the Matt Besser workshop at The Improv Shop St. Louis on 10-19-19.
The workshop dealt entirely with premise style improv. Premise improv scenes are inspired by an opening such as a monologue. This is in contrast to organic improv, which are scenes that start directly from a simple suggestion. All of these notes apply specifically to premise, and not necessarily to organic.
Please note that these are not direct quotes. They're transcribed from my notebook, and edited, expanded, and organized for clarity.
MONOLOGUES / OPENINGS:
A true story is the easiest thing to pull a premise from. If someone remembers a story from their life, there must be something inherently interesting about it.
A monologue doesn't have to be funny. It just has to be true.
A monologue should be 3-5 minutes long. Less than 3 minutes won't provide enough information, and more than 5 minutes creates too much information.
The specific way a monologist tells their story reveals things about their personality. The details they use and the way they say things can end up being scene ideas.
The more ideas there are, the less ideas we will remember together. For this reason, too many ideas in an opening can hurt group mind.
PULLING IDEAS FROM AN OPENING:
We should aim to find full premises or at least half ideas.
A half idea is when you know something in the monologue is funny, but you're not sure why. A full idea (premise) is when you know why a detail from the monologue was funny.
Try to pull 3 ideas from the opening. That way you have a backup idea if someone takes yours.
During an opening, remember your premise ideas and half ideas by "sticking flags" in them. "Sticking flags" means saying 1-3 words in your head that will help you remember your idea.
Pulling details from the opening is NOT the goal. The goal is to pull COMEDY from the opening. The details you bring should serve the comedy.
It's not enough to pull something specific from the opening. It should be a specific funny thing.
Try to understand specifically why something in the monologue is funny, and stay true to it.
If you understand specifically why something in the opening was funny, you will have a much better chance at connecting with your partner (and the audience).
If you're listening to a monologue and think "That makes me think of this other thing", beware. If an initiation comes from a thought only YOU had, it will make the scene needlessly difficult.
If you're not trying to pull a clear idea from the opening, then why do an opening at all?
INITIATING:
It's okay to initiate if you only have a half idea. But we want to aim for full ideas (premises).
To initiate a half idea, initiate in the general area of the thing you found funny.
Different people will initiate the same premise with slightly different angles. This is because everyone sees the world in a unique way.
The comedy in your initiation should be the same as the comedy in the opening.
If you change the comedy or put a different spin on it, you're being a bad ensemble member.
Clever ideas from your head will confuse your partners.
Work with the comedy that everyone saw. This is so crucial to group mind.
The further away your initiation is from the opening, the more confusing the scene will be, and the less group mind you will have.
The first line of a premise should express what you found funny in the opening and why you found it funny (or unusual). You have to clearly express why it's not normal.
Complicated ideas will confuse your partner.
Give your partner clues. Don't make them guess how your initiation is tied to the opening. Be totally clear.
There can be a lot of funny things even about one detail in the opening. That's part of why we have to be very clear and specific.
You can start the scene with the exact same who, what, where as the opening. This can be an easy way to stay true to the comedy in the opening.
Get rid of the note that you can't hit the nail on the idea with an idea. Hit the nail on the head. It's easier, and it works.
You can initiate with a who, what, where that's different from the monologue/opening, but don't change the specific thing that made it funny. Don't let your analogy take away the thing that made the monologue funny.
Be comfortable hitting the nail on the head before you practice analogous scenes.
We want our initiations to stay as close to the monologue as possible, except for the things we change for the sake of comedy.
Initiations should only draw from one part of the monologue.
If you step out first, you are the initiator.
In a show with a group opening, don’t initiate from your ideas you pitched in the opening. The reason: You might be the only person who remembers or understands it. Initiating from someone else's idea is more conducive to group mind.
RESPONDING TO INITIATONS
The goal when listening to an initiation: Listen for clues. Try to understand where from the opening your partner is coming from.
The responder has to be in the mindset of, "Where are they coming from?"
When you respond to the initiation, DO NOT bring another idea. Support THEIR idea.
If you don't know what your partner's idea is, play to the top of your intelligence until you do (playing at the top of your intelligence means acting like a real person).
ALWAYS give the person who comes out first a chance to get their idea out. Listen to them.
If you are not the initiator, label nothing until you're sure what they're going for.
It's easier not to guess what the other person is going for. Let them say it first.
SCENES:
Scenes should start grounded in reality. This will help everyone see exactly why the thing in the opening was funny.
Talking fast in a scene is a sign of nerves. Take your time. Breathe. Don't be afraid of dead space. Silence is fine.
Justify why your character does an absurd thing. Give an honest, truthful reason.
Don't make your justification silly or funny. Get into the head of your character and give a logical reason. How would a real person rationalize this behavior?
The game will provide the silliness. Justification makes your scene sustainable.
When justifying, go to your real life experience. Have you ever done anything like this before? Do you know anyone who has? What was the reason? There's no right answer. It just has to come from real life and be believable.
Just be real. What is the reality of this situation?
Whenever possible, interact with the environment.
You (and the audience) should be able to "see" the environment of the scene.
By "seeing" the environment, you are seeing details. You can use those details, rather than inventing things.
A scene can get as absurd as you want as long as you earn it. Stick to only one absurd thing in the scene and give it a believable logic.
GROUP OPENINGS:
The goal of openings should be to create comedic premises. Everything you do in the opening should be done with that goal in mind.
Approach a group opening like a sketch comedy writer's room.
In a group opening, go to your personal experience about the topic at hand. Then everyone can build off that anecdote.
Look for and build on observations about what's funny about the topic at hand.
In group openings, improvisers often go to tropes and archetypes. Things they've only seen on TV and in movies. Aim for truth in comedy. Be inspired by your real life, and the lives of people you know.
In group openings, make eye contact.
When you get a suggestion for a group opening, your first thought should be, "What about [the suggestion]?". If the suggestion were "popcorn", your first thought would be, "What about popcorn? What in my life do I know about popcorn?". Start with real stuff that the group would recognize as true. For example, "Popcorn smells good". From there, another person should build directly on that. The thought process for this is, "Oh yeah, popcorn does smell good. What about that?". Then we keep building directly on the last thing said until we find a premise.
Once we've found a premise, different people give different pitches on that premise. Do at least 3. This is like pitching sketch ideas in a writer's room. The pitch that feels the funniest should be the one you make a scene out of.
OTHER
Improv training won't make you funny. What it CAN do is show you how to work with other people.
Knowing how to work with others doesn’t come naturally. That's why we teach it in improv class.
Improv training is about learning techniques that unlock group mind.
To build group mind, you must analyze comedy together as a group. For example, watching sketch videos as a group. Everyone says why they thought it was funny. Everyone says what they think the game of the scene is, and the group decides which definition best nailed it.
It's good to analyze comedy, because that's basically what you're doing in an opening.
Analyzing comedy together is just as important as rehearsing scenes.
You want to work with people that use your ideas. Be that person for others. Honor the opening. Honor your teammates.
Selfishness leads to bad improv. It's not about your clever ideas. Improv is about building a shared idea, together.
Improv is a shared thought bubble between you and your partner.
Ideas that come from group mind are so much more fun, and so much easier.
If you know why an idea is funny, you can fuel it.
It's also important for the backline to understand the premise, so they can support it.
The premise is just the start of the scene. All a premise does is tell us what the comedy is. There's so much left to discover. It's just like having an idea for a sketch; you still have to sit down and write it.
Second beats don't lie. To do them successfully, you have to know what the game of the scene was. Otherwise, you're probably just doing silly narratives with the characters.
One of Besser's biggest beefs: starting scenes too large. Instead, play to the top of your intelligence.
Get rid of the idea that for improv shows "you had to be there". The comedy should stand on its own as good, whether it's improvised or written.
When improvising with new people, aim to get your premise out in the first line. If you've improvised with someone for a long time and trust them, you can take a few lines to get to the premise.
Trust that you will learn this stuff if you practice.
The big lesson for the day is listening. Are you hearing all the details your partner is saying? Listen so you can be an improviser that your partners trust.
Short Stuff
This blog is not dead. I've just been busy with other awesome things (see below). I want to start posting more, but I may start focusing on smaller, quicker improv thoughts. I also plan on posting notes for Improv Shop Level 3 with Bobby McCosky, which I've now finished.
I recently landed an acting job with the Branson Comedy Company, which specializes in immersive theater. We've been rehearsing a fully immersive murder mystery show, a unique immersive show called Area 51 3/4, and a short form improv show. The cast, directors, and producers are all top-notch pros, so it's been an awesome experience.
I've been helping to direct Branson Comedy Company's improv show, which has been very rewarding.
Short form is different from long form in some ways, but it's also extremely similar. There are lots of different ways to define short and long form, but here’s a super simplified way of looking at it: Generally in longform, the group takes a single suggestion and does an entire show, often with multiple scenes. Generally in short form, a suggestion is taken for each scene/game, and sometimes the scenes have specific built-in gimmicks.
I would say the two styles have more in-common than not in common. In my opinion, there are only two real differences with short form:
A host introduces each section.
Some scenes may have a built in game/gimmick.
Everything else is a stylistic choice. Some might say that longform improv tends to focus more on the overall show as an artistic piece. This includes returning to scenes, finding overarching themes, increasing the pace, etc. But who's to say you can't do that in a short form show?
In general, I believe that short form should borrow from the artistry of longform whenever possible, as long as it remains entertaining to the audience. Why can't short form be as artistically satisfying as longform?
A common complaint about short form is that the gimmicks prevent you from really expressing your comedic voice. I don't think that's totally true, but I get the sentiment. It's a big reason why when drafting a short form set, I like to include games that don't have much of a gimmick, and give more freedom to the performers.
I basically see it like this. There are two types of short form scenes:
Those that set up the game of the scene for you.
Those that invite you to organically find the game of the scene.
If the short form game has a gimmick, your job is to play the base reality (who, what, and where) of the scene honestly, and deliver on the gimmick (which becomes the game of the scene).
If the short form game doesn't give you a gimmick, you establish the base reality, and play the game that organically arises- same as you would in longform.
For instance, the improv game "Emotions" involves the host pausing and yelling out new emotions for the actors to immediately take on. The game of the scene is built in. Simply play the base reality, and allow the humor to come from the emotions changing.
In contrast, the improv game "texts" involves the host getting texts from audience members. There's no gimmick beyond using the text as an inspiration. In this case, the actors would need to establish a base reality, and organically find the game of the scene.
Of course, organic games can also arise in gimmick-centric short form. When we play from a place of joy (which we should always be doing, maybe even especially with short form), games naturally tend to arise, and that's great.
I have so much more I feel like saying, so stay tuned. In the meantime, check out Branson Comedy Company. The group is amazing and truly professional.
BCC on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/BransonComedyCompany/
Tickets: https://thewhitehousetheatre.com/tickets/
Improv Shop KC Level 2 Intensive Notes- Day 4
These are my notes for the final day of the Improv Shop Level 2 Intensive. All in all, this class was one of the most unique and impactful improv classes I’ve ever taken. Rather than focus on techniques for scenes or formats, this class drilled into me the power of the ensemble, and how crucial it really is. I’ve never experienced anything quite like it. I’ve never even heard of an improv class quite like this. The Improv Shop really has something amazing to offer. If you have the opportunity, I can’t recommend it enough.
EXERCISE: Facing away from each other in a circle, everyone makes complimentary abstract noises.
Connecting to each other through compliments and "feel good"stuff is vital to the work.
The real goal of improv is connection. Comedy is a red herring.
EXERCISE: Hold hands. Everyone voices an anxiety about the class.
Tasks that seem difficult to do alone are made easy with group mind. This is because you have the power of everyone's mind working together. Your mind is just one fraction of the whole.
You have to trust the group.
EXERCISE:
PT. 1: Group says the alphabet backwards, one letter at a time, one person at a time.
PT. 2: Group counts to twenty. One number at a time, one person at a time. If two or more people speak at the same time, the group starts over.
The group is not in the way of your ideas.
Overplanning an idea is ego.
Ego is how you protect yourself.
Moves are made out of either ego or group mind.
The "bony finger of ego" will often manifest as a snarky voice in your head.
Moves made from ego immediately feel terrible.
Ego pays too much attention to the audience.
When you feel ego, resist it by staying put, breathing, and focusing on your teammates.
The "bony finger of group mind" directs you in short bursts.
When group mind impulses hit you, it's fast, and action based. "Go. Now. Do this"
Group mind feels empathy for others.
BF of group mind pushes generosity.
Group mind knows when something is needed. It makes you act on instinct.
Knowing about ego and group mind lets us know when each is affecting us.
EXERCISE: Everyone is always touching in some way, and constantly moves. While doing this, they tell an unconducted story. Point is to do a bunch of BS to distract us from ego while we tell the story.
You're doing it right as long as it's what the group wants.
EXERCISE:
PT. 1: Two people sitting at a restaurant, one person is the waiter. The focus is on the two people at the table, and the waiter plays an auxiliary role. They should not steal any focus at all.
PT. 2: The waiter does a new scene with a new character. Avoid referencing the previous scene or the fact that they're a waiter. We want to see another dimension to this character.
PT. 3: Repeat parts 1 and 2 with different players playing different characters. Can have other scenarios, like a movie theater.
Because improv isn't beholden to narrative, it's especially great at spotlighting characters, and seeing them in different situations, and in other lights. Leverage this strength in longforms.
Longform improv is great for showing depth of characters. For instance, you can bring back a comedic character and show them in a more serious light.
We can take a one-dimensional character and make them three dimensional in a later scene.
When you trust a group, you feel liberated to do more experimental ideas.
Playing a background character can make the scene feel more real, but they should NOT steal focus.
Using specific names helps us call back characters.
Create opportunities for callbacks early in the longform by creating memorable specifics.
When bringing back a background character, you don't have to do a bunch of exposition to explain the connection. Don't be beholden. Be liberated.
In a longform, be in the mindset of constantly recycling previous ideas.
Talking about how you feel helps to ground a scene.
In a class, you have to lay groundwork before getting to more vulnerable stuff.
Classes should be front-loaded by the teacher with expectations and what to expect.
Playing broadly may be a sign that you don't trust the audience to pick up on subtlety.
Play with an attitude of helping everyone get to the next fun thing.
Never be limited by conventions. For example, if a scene doesn't need to be two minutes long, don't be afraid to edit it.
Being trustful of each other means we don't need to play overly politely.
Super groups feel empowered and have a blast with each-other.
EXERCISE: 20 minute montage. No swipe edits. Always edit from within.
Usually feels clunky, but it shows what's possible.
Teams that are consistently mediocre often try too hard to follow conventions.
A group in sync with each other can do anything.
The idea of making group mind the focus of level 2: gets people working together ASAP before moving on to more complex techniques.
If you’re interested in taking classes at the Improv Shop in Kansas City or Saint Louis, check out: https://theimprovshop.com/
YOU SHOULD BE ABLE TO DO... ARGUMENTATIVE SCENES
I’m continuing my series “You Should Be Able To Do…” where I explore some improv “rules” that are really just a place holder by teachers saying, “This is a little bit too complicated. Don’t worry about it right now.”
This week, I want to talk about a super common note we’re told.
DON’T ARGUE IN SCENES
This is like being told not to splash water in the pool. Argumentative scenes are going to happen, and to try to avoid them altogether would lead to some really boring scenes. We want our characters to react, and give emotional, honest responses, and it’s natural that this may lead to some sort of conflict between our characters. So, instead of avoiding argumentative scenes, let’s avoid the pitfalls of argumentative scenes.
PITFALL# 1) You can argue, just don’t argue about what is TRUE in your scene.
I would say the #1 pitfall in argumentative scenes is that it is so easy to disagree on the facts of the scene. Any good improv scene is built on the principle of “yes, and”, and if in our scene we can’t even agree on what is true, we’re not saying yes. Let me give an example:
DENISE: “I am going to hang the Christmas lights up, and it’s going to be so beautiful.”
ALISON: “Ugggh. You are the worst decorator I know.”
DENISE: “What? I thought you loved my decorating?”
ALISON: “I don’t. It is ugly, and stupid.”
This is a pretty typical beginning to an argumentative improv scene. If you notice, these improvisers haven’t agreed on the fundamental elements of the scene. Are we clear on whether or not Denise is a good decorator? No. No we’re not. Denise says she is, but Alison says she is not. We haven’t even yes’d the basics of this scene. It’s a trap that so many argumentative scenes fall into. If we can’t agree on the basics of our scene, how can we ever build on top of them? If one person says the sky is blue, and the other says it’s red, and neither of you budge, we live in this wishy washy scene where the audience has no clue what is real, and so they don’t know who to side with. Both sides are equally credible, but neither side can agree on what is TRUE.
Let’s try this again, but let’s have our improvisers agree on the truth of the scene.
DENISE: “I am going to hang the Christmas lights up, and it’s going to be so beautiful.”
ALISON: “Ugggh. You are the worst decorator I know.”
DENISE: “That’s true, but this time will be different.”
ALISON: “Last year it was bad, and the year before that it was bad too.”
DENISE: “Yeah. I got voted worst decorator in the city.”
ALISON: “And how’s that working out for you?”
So, we have at least agreed on the truth of this scene. Alison says Denise is a terrible decorator, and Denise accepts that to be true. This may not seem like much, but it’s something I see so often in improv scenes. One character is accused of some behavior, and instead of just accepting that behavior as a gift in our scene, we try to argue that it’s not true. It’s a very normal human thing to defend yourself against accusations, but in improv, think of any accusation as a character gift. Say yes to it. Agree to it so your scene can move on.
That said, in this last example, we said “yes”, but we did not, “and” it. No new information was added. Denise agreed that she is a terrible decorator, and Alison followed it up with a sentence citing a non-specific example of how in the past she has been bad at it, then Denise says she was voted worst decorator, and then Alison says she doesn’t expect her to change. Although we added dialogue, almost no new information was added. If you wanted to argue, you could say that we learned she was voted worst decorator last year, but that’s not adding much of anything aside from just restating what we already know. Denise is bad at decorating. This gets us to the next pitfall with argumentative scenes.
PITFALL# 2) A lack of specifics and new information.
It is so easy in an argumentative scene to stop adding new information. You want to argue about who is right, or wrong, and so we just keep circling around the same information we already have. Or when someone offers a new twinkling bit of information, we skim past it, and just go back to what we already know in the scene.
Let’s do this example again, but have each new line adding information, and specifics.
DENISE: “I am going to hang the Christmas lights up, and it’s going to be so beautiful.”
ALISON: “Ugggh. You are the worst decorator I know. You decorated your car and you can’t even see through the windshield.”
DENISE: “Yeah. But is it not cute? ”
ALISON: “That’s true, I guess. Can you at least decorate the tree so we can still see the tree when it’s done this year?”
DENISE: “To truly decorate something is to obscure it completely.” ALISON: “Yeah, I guess that’s true.” See how much clearer of a scene we have now after adding more specifics? Now we know more of what makes Denise a bad decorator. She is the type of person who just adds tons of crap on top of something and calls it decorating. She believes to truly decorate something, you need to cover it completely in something new. This is a very specific point of view for her character. I said it in a previous blog, but as a scene goes on, we need to know what THIS scene is. It’s like the genus, phylum chart in science. We have broad vertebrates, then mammal, then ape, then human. As our scene goes on, we need to know what exactly THIS scene is. It may start as something we’ve seen a million times, like a couple making dinner, but as we go on, and add specifics to the scene, we narrow it down so we know exactly what separates this scene of a couple making dinner from all the other ones you’ve seen before. There is only one real pitfall I have left with the last scene about decorating. PITFALL# 3) Giving into the unusual character beliefs. For an argumentative scene to be good, there needs to be this healthy back and forth of allllmmmooooosssttt being convinced by the other person’s logic, but defending your side. If you are the character with the unusual point of view, you want to argue for it in the most rational way this irrational behavior could be argued for. If you are the non-unusual character, you want to find the holes in the other person’s logic, and point them out. You want to be a scanner for BS in your scene. This is how the scene can sustain arguing for long periods of time, and not just seem stagnant. If you don’t call them out on their BS, you make their unusual behavior normal, and your scene has to find something new to be about. In the previous iteration of this scene, Alison says, “Yeah, I guess that’s true.”, when Denise said, “To truly decorate something is to obscure it completely.” No. That’s not true. That’s not true at all. Now, maybe Alison didn’t call it out because she realized she was arguing in the scene, and a coach told her not to argue so much. Maybe she did it because she wanted to move onto something else in the scene. Maybe she just wasn’t listening well enough, and thought that Denise’s logic wasn’t flawed. No matter what, Alison needs to poke holes at Denise’s logic. It gives Denise a chance to defend her rationale, most likely in some equally unusual way, and then Alison can call BS on that too. When we are doing this scrutiny of the other person’s unusual behavior, and adding specifics, and agreeing to the base reality, there is so much kindling for the fire, that it doesn’t matter if these characters are arguing or not. Let me give one last example where they are doing all three things at once. It’ll start just like the last round, but here Alison will push back on Denise’s logic. DENISE: “I am going to hang the Christmas lights up, and it’s going to be so beautiful.”
ALISON: “Ugggh. You are the worst decorator I know. You decorated your car and you can’t even see through the windshield.”
DENISE: “Yeah. But is it not cute? ”
ALISON: “Who cares if something is cute if it’s a hazard to their health?”
DENISE: “Fashion over function.”
ALISON: “You’re telling me that if you were scuba diving, you’d rather have a cute tank with no air than an ugly tank with air?” DENISE: “I would rather die than to be tasteless.”
ALISON: “You WOULD die! You would definitely die from that!”
DENISE: “Then at least I’d die gorgeous.”
This scene could continue this little repartee for a surprisingly long amount of time. Of course, at some point in argumentative scenes, say we’re in a monoscene, you may want to find something else to discuss, and get away from this whole subject. That is totally fine. Let’s just make sure we don’t let these unusual points of view, and opinions go by in our scenes. Let’s make sure we are constantly adding specific details about everything to our scene, especially specific emotions we are feeling, and thoughts we have when we hear BS. Let’s agree to the base reality of the scene while still disagreeing on the behavior or logic of our scene partner.
Let’s argue, and let’s argue well.
Exploring Meaning In Everything
Howdy, Improv Explorers!
In last week’s blog, I attempted to define improv scenes like this:
“An agreed-upon fictional reality that the performers play with in order to entertain themselves and/or the audience.”
I don’t go slapping this definition in the faces of improvisers. Hell, I routinely forget the exact wording myself. My only goal was to illustrate that improv scenes can be thought of as a self-contained reality.
The goal of today’s blog is to show that every tiny thing that happens on stage tells us something about the reality of the scene.
---
Del Close was famously quoted as saying “play paranoid”. Did he mean we should always be playing paranoid conspiracy theorists in our scenes? Probably not. The idea was to inspire players to constantly look for meaning in everything that happens.
Everything means something. Everything is a context clue. How we interpret those context clues defines our play-style, and decides the fate of the scene.
Last weekend, I taught an advanced improv workshop that (in part) focused on this concept. Let’s break down a two person scene from the workshop. This scene illustrates that there are no wrong moves as long as the moves are interesting and make sense within the established reality.
For the privacy of the innocent, let’s call the two players Kyle and Lilly. I’ll use these names to refer to both the players and the characters.
Inspired thematically from a previous scene, Kyle initiates:
KYLE: I don’t think I have a problem. I like being an alcoholic.
Already, this scene is loaded with information to infer.
What we know for sure: Kyle’s character likes being an alcoholic.
What’s probably true: Kyle’s character was accused of having a drinking problem before the scene began. This is a safe assumption because he’s using defensive language and acting in a defensive way.
LILLY: (looking incredulous) Honey… you go out drinking every night. The kids hardly see you!
Great! Lilly listened to her partner and yes-anded him. Not only did she acknowledge that Kyle is an alcoholic, she also implied that she was the accuser. Then she made the stakes personal by making herself his significant other (notice that “honey”?).
KYLE: Look at how much more time they have to study now! If I were around, it would just be a distraction to their education.
Here’s why this line works so well: Earlier, it was established that Kyle likes being an alcoholic. This is an established fact of the scene. Because of Lilly, we now also know that Kyle rarely sees his kids. To rectify these two facts, a big choice was made: Kyle decided that his character genuinely believes that his alcoholism is healthy for his family. This was a fun choice that totally fit with the reality that had been created.
As the scene progressed, we learned more about these characters. Kyle continued to insist that alcoholism is healthy, and Lilly continued to be skeptical. They had set up a classic Game driven scene; Kyle’s point of view was absurd, and Lilly’s point of view was grounded and reasonable.
But then something happened. As Kyle continued to explain why alcoholism is healthy, Lilly got more and more quiet, and eventually started nodding her head. Then she decided to call a babysitter so her and Kyle could go out drinking!
Lilly’s character had been swayed by Kyle’s justification for his actions. And why not? It didn’t contradict anything that had come before. Lilly’s character started angry, then skeptical, then eventually became fully swayed. The game they were playing was over, but they had an unexpected new direction to go in.
There was absolutely no reason why they couldn’t have kept playing the game that they had already established. Lilly could have continued to be the voice of reason, and the scene would have eventually reached a satisfying climax. In spite of that, Lilly made an unexpected move that still fit the reality of the scene. I loved it.
That said, it would have felt strange if Lilly suddenly and abruptly started agreeing with Kyle. It would have felt odd because real people don’t behave that way. It breaks (or at least damages) the reality of the scene. Lilly’s change of heart in this scene worked because it was earned. To an onlooker, it was a believable transition.
Let’s explore some other moves that would have changed the direction of the scene.
What if Kyle had chosen to not care about his kids? The scene would probably have been about Kyle being a no good piece of shit (and proud of it). The game would likely have shifted away from alcoholism, and become about how proud he is of doing shitty things in general. Maybe he slashes tires for fun. Maybe he intentionally yells at wait-staff.
Or what if Kyle chose to act extremely unsure of himself? The scene would have become about Kyle’s character being in denial.
Going back even further in the scene, Lilly could have responded like this:
KYLE: I don’t think I have a problem. I like being an alcoholic.
LILLY: I know, right?! Everyone is always on our back about it, but it’s so much fun!
This response would have resulted in a totally different scene where Kyle and Lilly enable each other. It satisfies and acknowledges the reality just as well as the original response.
For the sake of really driving my point home, I’ll discuss yet another option: What if Kyle and Lilly treated the situation as extremely somber, and focused on the dark realities of alcoholism? This, too, is 100% fine. Would it have a strong game? Maybe, maybe not. Would it be uproariously funny? Maybe, maybe not. Game or no game, funny or somber, it all simply depends on how the actors want to portray the scene.
For me, this is what makes improv a legitimate art form. With our teammates, we get to choose how scenes feel. Through the choices we make, we get to decide the effect our scenes have on the audience. By making choices about the reality of the scene, we choose how we express ourselves.
Every single thing that happens on stage implies something else about the reality. Everything has meaning. What does it mean to you?
The possibilities are always infinite.
---
Questions? Comments? Thought experiments you'd like to engage in? I'd love to hear from you. Just reach out!
See you in the next improv exploration!
Classic Armando
Some notes from learning the Armando via iO Chicago
The Classic Armando is an advanced long form where a Monologist acts as the Director who influences the theme, mood, cadence of the show. The Monologist and Ensemble work together giving and taking focus to create a show where the 4th wall is broken and reconstructed throughout.
The Monologist
The goal of the monologist is to deliver a true and vulnerable story.
You are creating an honest moment with the crowd
You are creating tension for the audience so that the cast can have fun breaking it
The monologue should be specific and dig deeper into an emotional POV that can be explored. Detailed but unconnected, non-vulnerable stories will evoke similarly bland scenes. Raise the stakes.
Traditionally, Monologist plays the GODFIGURE
Usually 3 monologs, pull lights on the last
Directs the show by injecting energy and inspiration when needed
Plays the “Game Slot/Group Game” role
The Ensemble
The goal of the ensemble is to explore themes via scenes
Character Pull
Lead in Character: Wrap the theme up into a character’s behavioral trait rather than a premise or plot to fill in. Your scene will almost never play out the way you wanted it.
Explore the genres or archetypes represented in the monolog
Tangential Pulls
Explore an interesting part of the story that wasn’t too detailed
Exaggerate a specific from the story or a tic
Disproving the Monologist’s Theory
Flip the monologist’s P.O.V. and explore the antithesis
Some pretty cool improv notes on this blog. In addition to this one, here are some other good ones (featuring notes from Bill Arnett, Kevin Mullaney, and Mick Napier!)
http://improvist.tumblr.com/post/23579944473/weekend-with-bill-arnett
http://improvist.tumblr.com/post/25371328656/mullaneys-performance-class-1
http://improvist.tumblr.com/post/26431738354/mullaneys-performance-class-2
http://improvist.tumblr.com/post/24460830436/the-ultimate-harold-breakdown
http://improvist.tumblr.com/post/24211823575/a-timely-note-from-mick-napier
iO summer intensive, week 1, day 1.
my instructor for level 1 was steve waltien. he’s warm, calm, amiable. i could link to any number of articles and bios, but this interview he did with jimmy carrane on improv nerd is wonderful. i hope you enjoy it. here are my notes from day 1.
introduction to longform improv - this level is primarily about listening, agreeing, and building on things. - we say that every idea is a good idea, but even half-baked ideas are ones that provide something that can be built upon. - the secret to improv is breaking the notion that you have to spend your time thinking about what to say next. a really good conversation works the same way. when we listen intently, we instinctively know what to say in response without having to think about it. - we all want to look good, smart, funny… that’s normal and human. acknowledge it so that you can put it aside and just play.
we start with a name game. for posterity, my classmates are gabe, christine, angela, maggie jo, kaitlyn, beau, phoebe, jake, caleb, blum, andy, colleen, ryan, and rick.
conducted story (i love this game.) - get a suggestion of anything at all. one person “conducts” the story and the other players form a semicircle - the players tell a story as a group, one at a time (when pointed to) - take your inspiration from what was just said, rather than pre-loading ideas - if someone is cut off mid-syllable, pick up right where they left off, rather than repeating - don’t feel pressure to add a lot of new details; you will already have plenty of information to build on. take the opportunity to add depth to characters that have been established. - stories we told: The Heavy Crane, Little Vader, October, and The Melting Pot
shared monologue - players are in a line. one person begins telling a true story, and one by one, the other players tap in and continue the story, transforming it into something fictional. - good for establishing the who, what, where, why… improv involves answering unanswered questions, and each piece of information leads to more interesting unanswered questions.
cocktail party - four pairs on stage, each with a different topic of conversation (politics, music, travel, etc.) - one by one, each pair talks about their topic for a short bit - after each group has a turn, one pair takes focus and the pairs give and take, yielding focus to whoever begins speaking - listen to the pair that is speaking and see what connections are made among the various conversations - play with the pace (one pair talks for 30 seconds, the next only has one line, etc)
jibberish - two-person scenes, begin with two-line scenes: one person opens with a line in jibberish, conveyed with emotion (spacework and movement can be used), the other person responds in english - person speaking in jibberish should have an idea of what he or she is saying - next, on to three-line scenes: person 1 starts in jibberish, person 2 responds in english, person 1 responds in english - finally, three-line scenes all in english - also good for establishing the who, what, why. try to do this in the first few lines.
confession - 2-person diner scenes - first person says, “i have a confession to make,” then confesses something - second person also makes a confession - your confessions should inform your character, point of view, and relationship to the other person - dialogue follows always look for opportunities to make scenes about the relationship. remember that we have a natural drive to create conflict. it’s not necessary.
regarding establishing the who, what, why early on… the audience needs to at least think that they know what’s going on in order to more fully enjoy what’s happening (there are, of course, exceptions). there will always be opportunities to surprise the audience and turn a scene on its head. there’s no reason to keep them in suspense at the top of the scene to try to surprise them with a reveal.
Here’s a pretty cool blog that goes over the first 4 days of the iO Summer Intensive. Here are the links to the other days:
iO summer intensive, week 1, day 2.
iO summer intensive, week 1, day 3.
iO summer intensive, week 1, day 4.
In addition, here are some retrospectives of the intensive from a classmate of theirs:
IO INTENSIVE WEEK 1
IO INTENSIVE WEEK 2
IO INTENSIVE FINAL WEEKS
Improv Shop KC Level 2 Intensive Notes- Day 3
Day 3 focused largely on reinvesting in what you've already created, with an emphasis on how that applies to longforms. As always, I wish I could say my notes were more comprehensive, but I think what I do have gives a good general idea of the class, and contains some great nuggets.
It's all about everybody else.
Always be thinking about the other person.
The best starting point is focusing on group mind.
EXERCISE: Chairs in a circle, facing away. PT. 1: Focus on letting go of your shit. PT. 2: The classic count to twenty exercise. PT. 3: Shared character monologue. PT. 4: Shared character monologue, but after three lines, start recycling the lines by repeating them, combining them, and only slightly tweaking them. The point: we don't need to keep adding content unnecessarily. Double down and dig deeper with what you already have.
Repeat what you already have.
We tend to think that adding more is better. Dig deeper.
The more you double down, the richer it will be.
You don't need more. You have all you need.
EXERCISE: Two characters talking out to the audience (can be framed as them talking to a therapist, documentarian, etc). PT. 1: Two scenes in this style. PT. 2: Different students try to replicate the original scenes. Even if you weren't listening, own it completely. Don't wink at the audience. PT. 3: Different students repeat one of the scenes, but with the emotional energy of the other scene.
There are so many ways we can create more without adding more content.
Reinvest in scenes; find new ways to invest in what you already have.
EXERCISE: PT. 1: Three person scene. One person is an inanimate object. No need to talk about or reference the object. PT. 2: Someone does a scene with the object from the previous scene. They play the same type of object. PT. 3: Two different people do a scene as objects from different scenes.
Always stuff to mine.
Why create a brand new world with every scene?
A way to think about longform: find what's yet to be defined in your friend's painting.
Rather than planning an idea for a scene/callback, bring one thing and trust-fall.
Don't overthink callbacks. Bring back a character and trust that your partner will take care of you. Focus on characters more than ideas and concepts.
Don't do callbacks just to do them, or just for their own sake. Use callbacks as a way to create more depth in the show.
The simplest way to approach group scenes: Max 2 points of view. This is the easiest way, especially if you don't regularly work with everyone.
Bad improv scenes often boil down to each person having a slightly different agenda, and each line being an attempt to sway the scene in the direction of one agenda.
The topics can morph in a group scene, but the characters who share their POV need to jump on board when new info is added. Group scenes run into trouble when a new piece of info is added, and we argue or change the subject instead of jumping on board. This is a crucial moment to navigate.
Playing simply frees you up to have fun.
Nothing matters beyond doing it together.
The mechanics of a form matter far less than the group working together.
Teaching note: when things get clunky, don't push harder- give people the space and opportunity to connect.
EXERCISE: In turn, we give each person in the class genuine compliments.
Thank you to instructor Kevin McKernan, and The Improv Shop KC!
Improv Shop KC Level 2 Intensive Notes- Day 2
There was so much great info on this day. We were up and moving a lot. It made for an awesome class, but it also made it much harder to take fully comprehensive notes. Here’s what I was able to write down:
Shift your mindset to "we".
There is a "bony finger of ego" and a "bony finger of group mind"
The "bony fingers" tap us on the shoulder to do things.
Check in to understand what motivated the moves you make. Were the moves motivated by ego or group mind?
Ego isn't inherently bad, just don't let it get in the way.
The 3 things that fuel group mind: specificity, appreciation, and vulnerability.
As a group, you have to feel like you can do anything as long as you do it together.
Class structure: do mentally exhausting exercises first so we're more out of our heads when we start doing scenes.
Warmups should be taxing so that it clears our head for scenes.
EXERCISE: Walk around the space. PART 1: One person stops. When you notice someone has stopped, you stop as well. PART 2: Everyone pick one other person to watch. If they stop walking, you also stop walking. Once everyone has stopped, once one person starts walking, you can only start walking when your partner does.
Sell it. Never undersell something out of self preservation. Don't act like a high schooler making excuses for work they know is subpar. It's a defense mechanism. Own whatever you're doing. Commit fully.
Listen to your teammates. Treat it like a friend called you and seriously needed you to do something very important for them. They're depending on you. Listening is your duty.
Frame listening as truly being there for your friend.
Bad shows happen when you're in your own head, unable to listen to your friends.
You can never be done re-investing in a scene. There's always more in the well.
Even though the lines are improvised, improvisers still memorize. They must remember details from scenes.
At a certain point, it's not up to the teacher to tell you to take care of each other.
It's more about a mindset than it is about specific rules.
Always be sharpening your ability to tell if a choice is made out of ego or out of group mind.
You can do anything. You don't even need to make people laugh. You don't even need to talk. Everything and everyone will be fine if we trust each other.
EXERCISE: Two people up at a time doing timed scenes. no one but the instructor knows how long the scenes will be. Caveat: One of the characters is unconscious.
Not knowing how long the scene is helps us let go and not panic.
Scenes are always shared. Each person is entitled to create whatever they feel is right. And whatever they feel is right IS right.
You have to be able to constantly surrender your own ideas.
People often do better in rehearsals than shows. This is because rehearsals have exercises that set us up for certain outcomes. In this way classes/rehearsals are a safety net compared to shows. We can get similar results in shows by remembering exercises, and mapping the ideas from the exercises onto our scenes.
A common thread for truly great teams is that they genuinely feel like they can do absolutely anything together.
Scene technique is still important. But it's groupmind that propels teams to true excellence.
Classes are almost structured like a longform, with the warmups as the opener, etc.
EXERCISE: Everyone touches at least one other person at all times. No speaking in English. Can go on for as long as the group chooses. It's over when everyone says in unison, "we are done".
The group makes its own meaning. It decides what's important. It decides what has meaning. We're in charge. The group can do anything.
Accept and absorb all information.
What does it actually mean to make your partner look good? There are 2 ways: Copy, and Compliment.
Anything your partner does is enough to copy and/or compliment.
Stop thinking that your way is correct. Adjust to everyone else.
EXERCISE: PART 1: One person makes pose, then everyone copies it. PART 2: Pose, then everyone compliments the pose in some way. Try to go one-by-one.
Everyone's job is to make their friend's thing look brilliant.
Everything works if we integrate mistakes.
No need to rush. Only go as fast as you need to go to support the group.
Attitude to have: "I'm just here to help. i don't need to be funny or clever"
EXERCISE: Different people in different groups in different parts of the room. Works like the Cocktail Party game, but with full scenic characters. PART 2: Everyone switches characters. PART 3: Everyone on stage does callbacks to anything in the exercise.
Clarifying questions are good if they need to be asked.
"Whale's Mouth Technique" [I could be wrong about the name]: Everyone does a tag-run around one person in order to call back other characters. Examples include a store clerk or psychiatrist that different characters tag in to interact with.
Thank you to instructor Kevin McKernan, and The Improv Shop KC!
Exploring Improvised Forests
Howdy there, Improv Explorers!
As promised in a previous blog, I’ve decided to start posting my own thoughts and theories about improv. Rather than ease into it, let’s dive head first.
…
For many improvisers (myself included) there comes a moment when the sheer amount of techniques they’ve learned becomes overwhelming. It becomes hard to make sense of what to actually do with them. This leads to paralyzing moments in scenes: “Should I lead with a body part?” “Should I state an opinion?” “Do I need to justify?” “Should I be more emotionally affected?” “What’s the game? Do we even need a game?” Etc, etc.
The reason why it feels so confusing is because the ideas aren’t unified. The antidote is to step back and start seeing the proverbial forest for the trees.
I believe it’s extremely useful to give a broad, clear definition for improv scenes in general. This way, we have a clear goal to shoot for.
Here’s my definition:
“An agreed-upon fictional reality that the performers play with.”
And for all ya’ll non-sadists, here’s a second part:
“...in order to entertain themselves and/or the audience.”
This definition works for me because it’s pretty much as fundamental as you can get. Really, it isn’t saying anything new- it’s the very essence of “yes-and”. You would be extremely hard pressed to find an exception to this rule, and that’s why it’s so useful.
To recap: The fundamental goal of an improv scene is to create a reality on stage that entertains the players and the audience. Techniques are just a means to that end.
The definition (goal) is the forest, and individual techniques are the trees.
But what techniques should we use? Well, it depends on what your specific goals are. Do you want a slow burn scene that explores the relationships of the characters? Do you want a scene that feels like a sketch? Do you want a scene that feels like a train nearly going off the tracks? Basically: what flavor of reality you want to create? There is no wrong answer here; it’s truly a matter of taste.
Top groups know exactly what flavor of improv they’re aiming for. That said, you and your group may not know exactly what flavor you want. That’s okay. It’s a good opportunity to experiment and learn.
The first step is learning what techniques result in what flavor. This is largely a matter of practice and observation, and is beyond the scope of this blog post. But I will give you a method for achieving this goal:
Pay attention to the impact your choices have on scenes.
It’s easy to say the choices either “worked” or “didn’t work”, but dig deeper than that. Think of it this way: How did the move impact the reality of the scene? What more do we know about this reality that we didn’t know before? What effect did it have? Was it what you intended?
You can use this method in your own scenes, and when watching other improvisers. In fact, this is exactly the reason why you can learn so much from watching improv (good or bad).
As you grow as an improviser, you’ll start getting a feel for the effects certain moves have. It starts becoming second nature. A classic analogy in improv is that techniques are like tools in a toolbelt. The question is: do you know how, when, and why to use those tools? An experienced improviser has the foresight to know exactly what tool to use for any given job. This is a skill they’ve learned through experience.
I’ve used a lot of colons in this blog post. Here’s another one: if you have any questions I would absolutely love to answer them! For example: it would be impossible to list out how each technique affects a scene, so don’t hesitate to ask about a specific one.
In the coming weeks, I hope to post several blog posts that build and expand on these ideas further.
See you: in the next improv exploration.
Click here to read the next article in this series.
