Physical Matching At The Top
Kevin Hines and I debated via email.
Subject: PHYSICAL MATCHING AT THE TOP OF A SCENE
Will: When two people step out at the top of a scene and start matching each other physically I think “THIS SCENE WILL BE BORING FOR AT LEAST 60 SECONDS.”
One person comes out and chops carrots. Then a second person, who probably stepped out just one fraction of a second later, starts chopping a separate pile of carrots right next to the first person. Then they both just chop carrots for five seconds. I feel like they’re starting with less than nothing. Now they have to invent something fun that involves this mundane action. People seem to put making choices on hold for ten seconds or more when they have physically matched each other - zombieprov.
Kevin: Yeah, that sounds bad. But I think the alternative is worse! Someone steps out, starts chopping carrots, and the other person steps out and watches them. Maybe they are trying to figure out what the other person is doing. Are they chopping vegetables? Are they a chef? Are they using drumsticks? Maybe they don't want to step on that person's idea, so they are waiting for that first person to speak.
Now when someone does speak it comes from a place of indecision. I didn't choose to match, or do anything so my character isn't doing anything. I'm not a chef, I'm not helping make dinner, I'm lazy. That's not a choice. That's the absence of choice. In either case you need to make choices, but if you matched you are going to start stronger then if you just stood and watched for a noticeable amount of time.
Will: It might just be at what point you see someone in their development. Maybe at first younger students, like one two or three courses into their training --someone tells them to physically match first and make the choice second and it makes a big difference from just standing there because they relax and start making choices.
But then they settle into that too much! They get comfortable making that physical match and then STILL don't make a choice. They see the person chopping carrots and they start chopping carrots for a WHILE -- like ten or fifteen seconds before the next line. It's really no better than doing nothing at that point. Even worse, they think they're making a decision -- or at least they act like they've made a decision. But there I sit, fuming unfairly. Ideally, you'd physically match and as you're doing it make a decision about what's happening and either say something or have your energy be affected by it.
Kevin: Matching is definitely more important for newer improvisers. But I still see it with experienced folks a lot. Truthfully (and possibly off-topic) I think the first guy out should speak immediately If someone steps out and starts an action but doesn't speak, I assume they have no idea. So I speak immediately. I label what they are doing, and I start doing something as well. That's my decision. I jump start the scene even though they stepped out first. Even more so if there is an opening. If you did a 3 minute opening and you're only idea is "cutting carrots" then we have a lot of work to do. We should have a game or something close. So I initiate something from the opening, ideally something inspired from the "cutting carrots" part of the opening. The top of the show needs CHOICES. Keep making choices until we know what is going on. I am cutting carrots. I am also cutting carrots. We are in a restaurant. I am nervous about the amount of work we have. I am even more nervous. We are freaking out as the mountain of orders keeps increasing. Now we are getting somewhere. Until you reach that point, not adding (and more importantly ANDing) is boring. And you will sit in your seat angrily whether or not they matched. So I like matching because it's a choice. An easy choice, sure. And not the final choice. But a choice. While watching and waiting is not a choice.
Will: We agree that you need choices. And I agree that compared to just standing and watching, that matching energy/physicality is much better. But I posit to you sir, that intermediate performers stay happy with that choice far far too long. They match and then wait upwards of 20 seconds.
I'm not so suspicious of silence at the top, but I don't see it so much so maybe I would. It IS cool when a wordless initiation gets things going. What if the opening had a big long thing about the repression of housewives in the 50s, and there's all these images suggested of sad angry housewives -- and after THAT someone walked out and started chopping carrots? I bet the audience would laugh, because people would assume there's a simmering volcano behind that action. But that's because there's a lot more information associated with that simple action. What I'm saying is: chopping carrots is hilarious! Always do it.
Kevin: Your example, of the repression of housewives leading to silently cutting carrots would be good. But I'd be surprised if for every 100 silent starting scenes any more then 5 were from anything other then not having an idea.
Again, if someone is not speaking and chopping carrots, but they are humming a song or looking super sullen or chopping angrily then I’d count that as making a choice, and maybe not feel the need to deliver a line of dialogue.
We are way off topic! We are now discussing silent starts: good or bad? I blame my half of the discussion. Chopping carrots is a bad decision. Cut a chicken breast instead. It's different!
Will: How about after an opening? A group does a 3 minutes pattern game. One person comes out and stirs a pot, the second person matches. Are you furious?
Kevin: Furious? No. I am more even-tempered then you. But I would rather that first person spoke and initiated a game or idea from the opening, or something more then "cooking" or "kitchen" which is what it seems they came in with. Use that opening! If the scene goes on too long without talking and nothing but mindless stirring, I am disappointed in both performers for not adding information.
Here is what I believe: I think physical matching encourages you to make a quick decision. It shouldn't allow either performer to stop making early decisions. It should be the first of many for both performers. I don't mind silence, to be honest, if it is a choice. I think it is generally used as a delaying tactic among many students. I think silence in the middle of the scene can be powerful, and it can work up top. Some of my favorite scenes I have ever seen were dialogue free. But they had numerous other non-talky decisions being made.
Stop being so furious. Will: On reflection, I get more fidgety than furious.
Here's what I am asserting: I think improvisers learn that physical matching is a good thing, and for young improvisers it is. But for too long in their development they simply match and do not truly choose and add -- the tops of scenes are much slower than they realize. That's what I see. They're not matching with a choice, they're matching with empty physical parroting and not backing it up with full reactions/choices. I DO agree that standing and watching is worse. I am not AS suspicious of silent beginnings but then again I don't see many so maybe I would be suspicious if I saw more that failed.
I also realized we never discussed the difference between "physical matching" and matching in general -- where you're just trying to be someone with the same point of view and general experience at the top. Next time!