Spreading the Transforming Power of Improvisation
The Trouble with Yes, and...
During my stay in Norway, I was finally able to articulate my thoughts on the difficulty I have with Yes and...
What I am about to discuss, comes not from any condescension or blind loyalty to Spolin’s work, but a considered opinion based on all my experiences in the world of Improvisation as teacher and student.
I welcome opinions and comments as I am thinking of publishing this as an article.
The trouble with Yes, and…
“Information is a very weak form of communication” - Spolin
I have been working with Spolin Games for the last thirty years. I first began in an improv comedy class learning how to be fast and funny with a group of very talented actors, who are still playing today (Off the Wall, LA). Then, by happy accident, I encountered Viola Spolin and her genius for improvisation. Since then I have been exploring the ideas that she used to create the first improvisational technique that resulted in Improvisational Theater emerging as its own art form.
I have studied other forms of Improv styles over the years. I’ve taken classes from many improv teachers since Viola Spolin and even performed for several years in a group that use Keith Johnstone’s Impro formats and ideas. I have also met and worked briefly with Keith Johnstone and watched the master of Impro at work.
Improvisation has swept the world since Spolin and Sills introduced the form in the 1950’s. Since then, it has changed and been adapted and shaped by other thinkers, teachers, and students; among them Del Close, Keith Johnstone, Dudley Riggs, and Second City.
One concept that came into popular use after Spolin codified the first methodology is “Yes and…” It has become the most revered and almost inviolable concept in improv practice. “Yes, and…” is the rule of accepting any offer (another term coined later in Improv’s evolution) and augmenting it with a new offer, often building on the earlier one. The thinking is that constantly adding new information helps the actors refine their characters and advance the scene.
Having watched many improv shows and seen many different styles of Improvisation, I have always had the nagging feeling that, though, on the surface, the idea of Yes, and… seems like a natural rule for improvising, it misses the point of total relation needed in improvised theater. Using yes, and requires a conscious awareness of other supporting ideas to make a so-called ‘successful’ scene, including, narrative (being aware of the story structure as it unfolds, i.e., flash-back, historical, event driven, etc.), blocking (A form of canceling, which completely denies an offer. Example: "Is that your car?" "No. There's no car here."), waffling (when you stall or post-phone an action instead of just doing it. It is talking instead of doing.), gagging (Getting a laugh at the expense of the story. Gags are narrative killers, but sometimes useful for ending scenes. Example: A menacing killer corners our hero, pulls out a gun, points, and bites into it explaining that it's made of candy), and wimping (Refusing to define an offer. Example: "Who are you?" "I'm the man you called." "The man I called of course! You’re here to fix that thing, aren't you?" "Yes, I fix those things better than anyone else.") .( - found at Living Playbook by Randy Dixon.)
Each concept is a part of what is needed for improvisation, but defining these ideas and applying them only skims the surface of Improvisational Theater. The magic comes from a full integration of all these concepts and one more… Follow the follower.
By adhering to the individual rules of improv you will get a performance. But the effect on the ensuing performance using this method has made most of what I have seen in improv, uninspired, ‘talky’ and not very theatrical. I do not mean to say some shows using this technique weren’t funny and entertaining. Some were very funny, but the humor and entertainment came out of individual players’ ability to ad-lib and manipulate the action. Actors whose individual talent for quick thinking and wit, can make a show entertaining. These actors are usually the so-called ‘strong’ players or stars. Saying Yes, and… for the supporting players allows them to support the more interesting ideas of the naturally gifted players. A star system develops and is detrimental for real ensemble playing. This is the general rule, but I do acknowledge that several great players can form a real improvisational troupe and be great. Again, this is usually the synergy of already intuitive artists, and not the product of current improv training.
In teaching, when using the Yes, and… construct, much information is added, sometimes too much. In working with that information, one must add rules to make that information usable on stage. Yes, and... requires the use of narrative structures. Story becomes important in the ordering of all this information. The actors must not only be aware of the offers being proffered to each other, they now have the added task of shaping it into some kind of story that incorporates all this information.
The effect of dealing with information and structure often leads to needing to ‘freeze‘ the action, and ask the audience to make sense out of what they are seeing. The audience or director then adds new information or an adjustment and the scene continues. Many times, freeze is used to have the actors take turns to ‘make something different’ out of the onstage action for the sake of variety and to keep it ‘entertaining’. To my mind it is stilted and awkward, albeit funny. It is not as much improv as quick labeling and ad-lib.
I have seen many an improv scene become muddy with information and justification. Having been in scenes like this, as I assume every improv performer has, it occurs to me there is some major thing missing: Intuitive connection between players.
Intuition
Intuition is the ability to sense or know immediately without deliberate reasoning. We all have this capacity and this is the key to Spolin’s approach to improvisation.
Intuition is a difficult thing consciously access. Spolin’s idea was that by sharing a direct, non-intellectual connection where mind and body work harmoniously, as in play, spontaneity, and true improvisation appears. It transcends information sharing. Watching intuitive connection between people onstage is highly theatrical and thrilling. It is the same process we witness in any team sport played well, where players seem to know what is going on in a wild melee of action in order to accomplish a common goal. Improvisational Theater requires the same thing.
Information
Information comes from the head. The use of information actually disconnects us from the process needed to play successfully. We search our minds for what could be added informationally to justify the scene or change the scene without denying what has already been added and then trying to steer the scene in a direction with narrative or tilts. This means each player is in his/her ‘head’ working hard to make something of the scene. They are subtly disconnected from each other on an intuitive level - The level that operates outside of the intellect. The level any ensemble needs to work successfully.
Viola Spolin saw her job as a director to connect the players onstage. Many times she would use a common focus as in a game. She would always sidecoach the onstage action, urging actors from the sidelines with phrases and reminders that might ‘wake the player up’ and reconnect them to their fellow players, themselves and the stage environment. These were not directions to ‘say this or do that’ or “freeze” to stop the action and think what would make the scene work, but supports to empower the players as they play. It is the most important thing for improvisation onstage is to be tuned in to his fellow players. This awareness cannot happen intellectually. It must happen intuitively - in a flash.
Follow the follower vs. Yes, and…
Many of Spolin’s games short circuit the intellect, trying to unite players on a deeper level. The most basic concept and the most necessary for group play is a shared focus, resulting in a direct experience (the exclusion of self-conscious thought) and following the follower.
Repeatedly we question the necessity of our actions and evaluate critically the reasons for carrying them out. But in flow there is no need to reflect, because the action carries us forward as if by magic.
From “FLOW” by Mihaly Csiksentmihalyi
Follow the follower happens when neither player leads or initiates. Each player on focus, staying with what the other is doing to such a degree that flow occurs. Spolin’s work with the mirror exercise illustrates this perfectly. You begin by reflecting the other with an initial leader then switching leaders so quickly that the idea of clear leader disappears. Rather than having the mirror disappear, the mirror increases and connection between players finds a new level.
It often happens spontaneously in everyday life. Have you ever been walking toward another person and both of you try to get out of each other’s way, simultaneously syncing up with that person stepping to the same side, back and forth, unable to move out of the way? You were following the follower. Although it might be disconcerting to find flow with a stranger, an opportunity for deeper connection appears. It is socially awkward though, and violates an invisible norm (accepted behavior). We excuse it with a joke to break the tension. “Wanna dance? Ha, ha, sorry!” This is because this accidental ‘meeting’ is outside the norm. Maybe in life it is a bit strange, but onstage it should be the norm for actors working well with each other.
I have a theory of how Spolin’s ideas morphed into what we call Improv Comedy: It is when this disconcerting moment of true unknowing created by following the follower appears, the tension that precedes flow and unison often creates anxiety in the actor who resists going further into the unknown. The tension created in that moment of Follow the Follower can be popped with a joke. It is a way to gracefully retreat from the unknown outcome that true flow introduces. When these moments are created, the first one to break the tension with humor is considered a hero, for rescuing the scene from uncertainty.
I think an entire style of improv grew out of this escaping of the limitless possibilities when two or more players hang in the unknown and explore it together. Instead, in order to keep something happening onstage, rules like Yes, and… accepting all offers, don’t deny, freeze, narrative, and a whole host of other imperatives that intellectually guide players into improvisation.
Spolin’s philosophy of intuitional connection around a common focus allows all the other rules to apply automatically. And, if the players stray from the focus, suggest sidecoaching be used ‘in the moment’ to bring about re-connection, rather than notes after the fact.
Yes And… and ideation
I don’t want to say that Yes, and… is without merit. Indeed, it is a great starting point for all collaborative effort. There is a great benefit in using Yes and… as an applied improv tool for people who want to share information. It is a proven and valid technique. Brainstorming and information sharing is an important part of collaboration. Yes and… creates an atmosphere that reduces competition, and encourages cooperation and validation. Idea sharing can lead to a more productive workplace and open the way for even deeper relationships. It is also a good tool for developing material for written sketch comedy, although, without the inspiration of transformational spontaneity found in Follow the follower, most sketch material will be derivative. It can also be used to work with beginners who have no idea how to begin to improvise.
But adhering to Yes, and… as a main rule in advanced improvisation performance is counterproductive. In performance, Yes, and… is cumbersome and unable to evoke anything more than old material shared and acted upon by the players. The single reason this is true is that ideas come from the head (old frames of reference) and leads to stereotyped characters and situations. And that, in this writer’s opinion, hinders great Improvisational Theater.
“Creativity is not the clever rearranging of the known.” - Spolin
There needs to be a way to transcend the bounds of information and enter into the theatrical and inspired. That can only be found in the intuitive connection between players. Intuitive connection is not as easy to create as one would think. It can certainly not be willed into being. It must almost be fooled into existence by other means. Conscious action and information sharing must be replaced by direct experience and inspiration! That can only occur when following the follower. Inspired playing when using Yes, and… happens only coincidentally, based on the natural gifts of those who play.
Follow the Follower includes Yes, and…
When true flow occurs, all the participants happily enter into the exploration of the unknown, unencumbered by judgment, premeditation, and old frames of reference. Only then can true improvisation occur. Players intuitively know they are on the same journey and will accept and augment any new situation, solve any problem together and truly play!
My advice to improv directors and players: go beyond Yes, and… Follow the follower!
Gary Schwartz,
North Bend WA June 2008.
What I am about to discuss, comes not from any condescension or blind loyalty to Spolin’s work, but a considered opinion based on all my experiences in the world of Improvisation as teacher and student.
I welcome opinions and comments as I am thinking of publishing this as an article.
The trouble with Yes, and…
“Information is a very weak form of communication” - Spolin
I have been working with Spolin Games for the last thirty years. I first began in an improv comedy class learning how to be fast and funny with a group of very talented actors, who are still playing today (Off the Wall, LA). Then, by happy accident, I encountered Viola Spolin and her genius for improvisation. Since then I have been exploring the ideas that she used to create the first improvisational technique that resulted in Improvisational Theater emerging as its own art form.
I have studied other forms of Improv styles over the years. I’ve taken classes from many improv teachers since Viola Spolin and even performed for several years in a group that use Keith Johnstone’s Impro formats and ideas. I have also met and worked briefly with Keith Johnstone and watched the master of Impro at work.
Improvisation has swept the world since Spolin and Sills introduced the form in the 1950’s. Since then, it has changed and been adapted and shaped by other thinkers, teachers, and students; among them Del Close, Keith Johnstone, Dudley Riggs, and Second City.
One concept that came into popular use after Spolin codified the first methodology is “Yes and…” It has become the most revered and almost inviolable concept in improv practice. “Yes, and…” is the rule of accepting any offer (another term coined later in Improv’s evolution) and augmenting it with a new offer, often building on the earlier one. The thinking is that constantly adding new information helps the actors refine their characters and advance the scene.
Having watched many improv shows and seen many different styles of Improvisation, I have always had the nagging feeling that, though, on the surface, the idea of Yes, and… seems like a natural rule for improvising, it misses the point of total relation needed in improvised theater. Using yes, and requires a conscious awareness of other supporting ideas to make a so-called ‘successful’ scene, including, narrative (being aware of the story structure as it unfolds, i.e., flash-back, historical, event driven, etc.), blocking (A form of canceling, which completely denies an offer. Example: "Is that your car?" "No. There's no car here."), waffling (when you stall or post-phone an action instead of just doing it. It is talking instead of doing.), gagging (Getting a laugh at the expense of the story. Gags are narrative killers, but sometimes useful for ending scenes. Example: A menacing killer corners our hero, pulls out a gun, points, and bites into it explaining that it's made of candy), and wimping (Refusing to define an offer. Example: "Who are you?" "I'm the man you called." "The man I called of course! You’re here to fix that thing, aren't you?" "Yes, I fix those things better than anyone else.") .( - found at Living Playbook by Randy Dixon.)
Each concept is a part of what is needed for improvisation, but defining these ideas and applying them only skims the surface of Improvisational Theater. The magic comes from a full integration of all these concepts and one more… Follow the follower.
By adhering to the individual rules of improv you will get a performance. But the effect on the ensuing performance using this method has made most of what I have seen in improv, uninspired, ‘talky’ and not very theatrical. I do not mean to say some shows using this technique weren’t funny and entertaining. Some were very funny, but the humor and entertainment came out of individual players’ ability to ad-lib and manipulate the action. Actors whose individual talent for quick thinking and wit, can make a show entertaining. These actors are usually the so-called ‘strong’ players or stars. Saying Yes, and… for the supporting players allows them to support the more interesting ideas of the naturally gifted players. A star system develops and is detrimental for real ensemble playing. This is the general rule, but I do acknowledge that several great players can form a real improvisational troupe and be great. Again, this is usually the synergy of already intuitive artists, and not the product of current improv training.
In teaching, when using the Yes, and… construct, much information is added, sometimes too much. In working with that information, one must add rules to make that information usable on stage. Yes, and... requires the use of narrative structures. Story becomes important in the ordering of all this information. The actors must not only be aware of the offers being proffered to each other, they now have the added task of shaping it into some kind of story that incorporates all this information.
The effect of dealing with information and structure often leads to needing to ‘freeze‘ the action, and ask the audience to make sense out of what they are seeing. The audience or director then adds new information or an adjustment and the scene continues. Many times, freeze is used to have the actors take turns to ‘make something different’ out of the onstage action for the sake of variety and to keep it ‘entertaining’. To my mind it is stilted and awkward, albeit funny. It is not as much improv as quick labeling and ad-lib.
I have seen many an improv scene become muddy with information and justification. Having been in scenes like this, as I assume every improv performer has, it occurs to me there is some major thing missing: Intuitive connection between players.
Intuition
Intuition is the ability to sense or know immediately without deliberate reasoning. We all have this capacity and this is the key to Spolin’s approach to improvisation.
Intuition is a difficult thing consciously access. Spolin’s idea was that by sharing a direct, non-intellectual connection where mind and body work harmoniously, as in play, spontaneity, and true improvisation appears. It transcends information sharing. Watching intuitive connection between people onstage is highly theatrical and thrilling. It is the same process we witness in any team sport played well, where players seem to know what is going on in a wild melee of action in order to accomplish a common goal. Improvisational Theater requires the same thing.
Information
Information comes from the head. The use of information actually disconnects us from the process needed to play successfully. We search our minds for what could be added informationally to justify the scene or change the scene without denying what has already been added and then trying to steer the scene in a direction with narrative or tilts. This means each player is in his/her ‘head’ working hard to make something of the scene. They are subtly disconnected from each other on an intuitive level - The level that operates outside of the intellect. The level any ensemble needs to work successfully.
Viola Spolin saw her job as a director to connect the players onstage. Many times she would use a common focus as in a game. She would always sidecoach the onstage action, urging actors from the sidelines with phrases and reminders that might ‘wake the player up’ and reconnect them to their fellow players, themselves and the stage environment. These were not directions to ‘say this or do that’ or “freeze” to stop the action and think what would make the scene work, but supports to empower the players as they play. It is the most important thing for improvisation onstage is to be tuned in to his fellow players. This awareness cannot happen intellectually. It must happen intuitively - in a flash.
Follow the follower vs. Yes, and…
Many of Spolin’s games short circuit the intellect, trying to unite players on a deeper level. The most basic concept and the most necessary for group play is a shared focus, resulting in a direct experience (the exclusion of self-conscious thought) and following the follower.
Repeatedly we question the necessity of our actions and evaluate critically the reasons for carrying them out. But in flow there is no need to reflect, because the action carries us forward as if by magic.
From “FLOW” by Mihaly Csiksentmihalyi
Follow the follower happens when neither player leads or initiates. Each player on focus, staying with what the other is doing to such a degree that flow occurs. Spolin’s work with the mirror exercise illustrates this perfectly. You begin by reflecting the other with an initial leader then switching leaders so quickly that the idea of clear leader disappears. Rather than having the mirror disappear, the mirror increases and connection between players finds a new level.
It often happens spontaneously in everyday life. Have you ever been walking toward another person and both of you try to get out of each other’s way, simultaneously syncing up with that person stepping to the same side, back and forth, unable to move out of the way? You were following the follower. Although it might be disconcerting to find flow with a stranger, an opportunity for deeper connection appears. It is socially awkward though, and violates an invisible norm (accepted behavior). We excuse it with a joke to break the tension. “Wanna dance? Ha, ha, sorry!” This is because this accidental ‘meeting’ is outside the norm. Maybe in life it is a bit strange, but onstage it should be the norm for actors working well with each other.
I have a theory of how Spolin’s ideas morphed into what we call Improv Comedy: It is when this disconcerting moment of true unknowing created by following the follower appears, the tension that precedes flow and unison often creates anxiety in the actor who resists going further into the unknown. The tension created in that moment of Follow the Follower can be popped with a joke. It is a way to gracefully retreat from the unknown outcome that true flow introduces. When these moments are created, the first one to break the tension with humor is considered a hero, for rescuing the scene from uncertainty.
I think an entire style of improv grew out of this escaping of the limitless possibilities when two or more players hang in the unknown and explore it together. Instead, in order to keep something happening onstage, rules like Yes, and… accepting all offers, don’t deny, freeze, narrative, and a whole host of other imperatives that intellectually guide players into improvisation.
Spolin’s philosophy of intuitional connection around a common focus allows all the other rules to apply automatically. And, if the players stray from the focus, suggest sidecoaching be used ‘in the moment’ to bring about re-connection, rather than notes after the fact.
Yes And… and ideation
I don’t want to say that Yes, and… is without merit. Indeed, it is a great starting point for all collaborative effort. There is a great benefit in using Yes and… as an applied improv tool for people who want to share information. It is a proven and valid technique. Brainstorming and information sharing is an important part of collaboration. Yes and… creates an atmosphere that reduces competition, and encourages cooperation and validation. Idea sharing can lead to a more productive workplace and open the way for even deeper relationships. It is also a good tool for developing material for written sketch comedy, although, without the inspiration of transformational spontaneity found in Follow the follower, most sketch material will be derivative. It can also be used to work with beginners who have no idea how to begin to improvise.
But adhering to Yes, and… as a main rule in advanced improvisation performance is counterproductive. In performance, Yes, and… is cumbersome and unable to evoke anything more than old material shared and acted upon by the players. The single reason this is true is that ideas come from the head (old frames of reference) and leads to stereotyped characters and situations. And that, in this writer’s opinion, hinders great Improvisational Theater.
“Creativity is not the clever rearranging of the known.” - Spolin
There needs to be a way to transcend the bounds of information and enter into the theatrical and inspired. That can only be found in the intuitive connection between players. Intuitive connection is not as easy to create as one would think. It can certainly not be willed into being. It must almost be fooled into existence by other means. Conscious action and information sharing must be replaced by direct experience and inspiration! That can only occur when following the follower. Inspired playing when using Yes, and… happens only coincidentally, based on the natural gifts of those who play.
Follow the Follower includes Yes, and…
When true flow occurs, all the participants happily enter into the exploration of the unknown, unencumbered by judgment, premeditation, and old frames of reference. Only then can true improvisation occur. Players intuitively know they are on the same journey and will accept and augment any new situation, solve any problem together and truly play!
My advice to improv directors and players: go beyond Yes, and… Follow the follower!
Gary Schwartz,
North Bend WA June 2008.
Comment
-
Comment by Gary Schwartz on March 27, 2009 at 10:16pm -
Thanks Terry,
As a student of both Richmond's and Viola Spolin, I had the unique experience of learning the difference between spacework and mime. Viola asserted that mime was choreographical and space was a direct experience with the invisible material. To let you know how different the two became to me, I was fired by the American Academy of Dramatic Arts as a Mime teacher when I started teaching Spacework instead. Mime is definately a help when seeing the invisible. I started with Richmond just after you left in 1977. Small world. Welcome to AIN.
-
Comment by Terry Hart on March 27, 2009 at 4:01pm - Hi Gary, I liked your ideas about Folow the Follower and as a former student of Richmond Shepard (1975-1977) and a teacher of improv in recent years, I find that opening scenes with advanced players and letting them see out how they plug into each other via spacework(mime) really gets them in touch with that intuitive sense that you were speaking of.
-
Comment by Gary Schwartz on November 2, 2008 at 12:12am
-
Hi Richard,
no, I'm not familiar with Ann Bogart. I'll look her up. Not usually travelling much these days, but i'd like to visit and see the sights sometime.
thanks for the comments.
-
Comment by Richard Regan Paul on November 1, 2008 at 11:27pm - Hi Gary! Are you familiar with the Viewpoints techniques of Anne Bogart? By the way, I do enjoy your articles. Are you ever in Florida? Orlando maybe?
-
Comment by Gary Schwartz on June 18, 2008 at 8:40am
-
Andeas,
Glad to hear from you. Our discussion in that beer garden was fun.
As this discussion moves forward, just like Improv, one thing leads to another.
I'm not saying replace one concept with another, exactly. I mean to say one incorporates the other, so go for the larger practice, rather than the narrower one. Follow the follower automatically allows yes and....
Next, you bring up another concept that Spolin saw as the root of all our trouble improvising. - She called it the Approval/Dissaproval Syndrome.
Many of us get on stage wanting to be 'good' or not considered 'bad'. That effort and focus, distracts us again from true connection. It underlies all our relationships.
As Viola Spolin aptly says. "Trying to save ourselves from attack - we build mighty fortresses and become timid. Or we get angry at the oppression and rebel as we try to venture forth. This creates ego-centricity or utter conformism. It's the big boss with the sycophantic 'yes-man' at his side.” or the "yes, and.." man. :)
It is a paradox in improv. We want to be good at it, yet that motive should not be primary.
Primarily we want to play! Play fully! That's where the joy is and that's what we seek. The aftermath of play becomes the game, the scene, etc.
When Keith J says "try not to be 'good' , strive to be 'average'." he is addressing this concept.
Yet I can't seem to help thinking that by using that sort of language, makes me think he's still focused on the Approval/Disapproval Syndrome himself. If I say don't focus on your breathing, the first thing you do is become aware of your breathing.
Spolin tried to eliminate the use of terms like 'good' or 'bad' in her work. Focusing on Sucess and/or Failure or even trying to not focus on it - binds us to it as a concept.
Trying to be “good” and avoiding being “bad” develops into a way of life and makes investigation and problem solving of secondary importance.
Yes Andreas, it is like meditating. What you meditate on is key. Meditate on "good and bad" and you steep yourself in the Approval/Disapproval syndrome.
Another problem I see in Applied Improv for Business is that most business activity is measureed in good and bad. It is very difficult to get to this concept when pitching how valuable Improv training is to companies. What I think Improv is trying to do is actually change corporate culture and in relieving people of the stress of Approval/Dissaproval, you magically increase their capacity to 'do better"! :)
If you meditate on total connection, without judgement (the goal of meditation) you get that too. So don't try to 'fail gracefully'. Don't even think about it. Have a sidecoach at your side or be your own sidecoach and continue to grab onto a focus and continue to try. When it does not work, just acknowlege that it didn't. Analyze the reason andthen try to find out what works. (*see, I don't use the word, failure in this effort) Try to eliminate that word from your practice of Improv and you will wean yourself away from the Approval/Dissaproval Syndrome.
I want to keep this discussion on practical things improvisers can do, but you bring out the philosopher in me.
Thank you Andreas for your comments and your thoughts.
Kind regards,
Gary
-
Comment by Andreas Benkwitz on June 18, 2008 at 1:21am -
Hi everybody,
Gary, thank you so much for this article. It is so inspiring, that I love to argue with you on that one. Great.
I agree with most of your thoughts, but I reject the offer of replacing one answer with another, one concept with another. And I will offer a certain kind of image of humanity as a ground for conceptualising improv, or rather: for thinking about our expectations upon pure improvisation.
I think any concept as profound as „yes, and“ as well as „follow the follower“ can help you: once you start improvising and on the way. I agree with Nathalie: If you just stick with the holy grail, the improv dies, you get lost in routines, old material.
But all of the talking about a good or even better concept seems to me overly theoretical and judgemental (I love theory and judgements), not connected to the situations, in which we interact as improvisers. Those situations vary in uncountable dimensions, each of which influences us interacting. Since we're never in a planable perfect situation for true improvisation, we just deal with all those circumstances and hope for a glimpse of learning, fun, connection... Do you like the following analogy? Humans are genetically identical with chimpanzees by 98,8 %, which means, that 1,2% make a huge difference (or more often a very small one). Improv stages differ from real life stages only by 1,2%, and those 1,2% sometimes make the difference of empowering people for true connection in improvisation. Most of the times though (like humans and chimpanzees) they are pretty much the same. But boy, those 1,2%-moments are really different. And in the 98,8%-moments? Well, we deal with our circumstances, partners, hopes, emotions, abilities... and make the best out of it. We try to survive. And once we're tired, we go home, don't think too much about it and hope for the next day. Good sleep helps improvisation. Damn it's 3:00 a.m. right now...
I agree with your theory about why most often we refrain from following the path into the unknown, break the tension with a joke (or any other way of saving ourselves on dangerous social ground). Still it does not make me feel of doing something wrong. Again I use an animalistic approach. What does our brain probably tell us unconsciously, when we block all surrounding information for the focus on just one other animal? I guess, it tells us, that this must be a dangerous, life threatening animal we're facing and we should try to get the hell out of that situation. Makes sense? So, how unusual for the human animal is it to stay in that focused situation and not process all surrounding information all the time? We're excited to enter the plane for our first parachute jump, but once that door opens and we have to jump, things look different for most of us. So I am inclined to think that processing as much information as possible in an intuitive way without blocking away essential bits of it is so vital to us, that we cannot feel anything but stressed by pure relations to just a partner on stage. Another try: What is presentation stress other than the feeling of standing in the open savannah with a lot of lions, which we can't see, waiting in the high grass, watching, ready to jump?
Take two approaches that use clearly defined methods that try to help us stay in the the moment: meditation and masks.
As far as I know all traditions of meditation have a clear reference frame and rituals to help you stay in the moment without thinking (thinking is our life insurance, since we don't have big teeth!). I haven't heard about a natural meditator, who just does it.
The mask work of the Loose Moose developped clear rituals and a strong sense of mentorship and guidance through the process of entering that mask world of pure connection with your surprising image. After those short sensitively guarded moments, step by step we encounter the overwhelming world outside from the mask's perspective. If you want to understand Johnstone's approach fully, not only as a narrative, informational one, you should work with Steve Jarand and his masks from the Loose Moose. Steve is touring the world as a mask and improv teacher. (www.stevejarand.com)
What I see most of the times with improvisors (including myself), is that we are trying so hard to be good improvisers, that we don't allow ourselves to fail gracefully, stand up, honestly acknowledge that the show/scene was lousy – apart from that short moment, when he looked in her eyes and they were caught with each other and ... try to catch and remember those moments, and use that information to encourage ourselves to do it again (Paul, do those statements qualify for a solutions focus practitioner?). Honest playfulness helps us improvising all the time, manuals and concepts of how to do it right help us sometimes.
One thing that helps me most on stage is that I know I have kids at home sleeping, who will love me tomorrow, even if I am a lousy improvisor right now. (that's surely unfair, it is some kind of doping, it should be forbidden to make equal chances for anybody. But other guys are one foot taller than me and that's unfair too.) In other words: I know I will survive this night. Physically, socially, mentally. I know I survived many nights, I will survive this night. Breathe, breathe, let's go...
Boy, would I like to discuss that with you right now. And I would not bother to order one expensive norwegian beer after the other. Sorry for having mentioned that again.
-
Comment by Daniel Knutson-Bradac on June 17, 2008 at 8:36am -
Gary, Thanks so much for this thoughtful article. It is extremely helpful, and timely.
I'm 10 days away from a performance with a new group and I have certainly experienced the disconnect that happens as the players try to re-call and resort information from their heads, and as a consequence, fall out of the flow.
Thanks for the sage advice, and wish us luck.
=Daniel
-
Comment by Gary Schwartz on June 17, 2008 at 8:28am
- Thanks for the responses Johnnie and Paul.
-
Comment by Paul Z Jackson on June 17, 2008 at 7:45am -
One of the principles I use in workshops is 'Power of the Obvious', which is pretty much Keith J's concept of not trying to be clever, being dull, being average. I agree with Johnnie that it's those moments of obviousness, with real connection, that are the hallmark of good impro.
Another way of identifying such moments is that they don't generally look at all funny if you write them down. They are not joke-like; more 'you had to be there'.
-
Comment by Johnnie Moore on June 17, 2008 at 7:30am
-
Thanks for this article, Gary, I really enjoyed it. I really think you're onto something here.
The reflection on spontaneous street dances, and the role of humour in escaping rather then extending ambiguity, was particularly interesting.
The most satisfying improv performance moments for me have always been those which feel most spontaneous, not the ones that seemed the most clever. Rob Poynton says - very wisely - that in those moments we don't laugh because of the clever words, but because it's profoundly satisfying to us as humans to be present to those moments of connection and spontaneity.
I think the need to tie everything to narrative is pretty much endemic in organisations and seems to go largely unquestioned. "Yes, And" carries the risk of reinforcing that straitjacket.
Follow-the-follower is more paradoxical and perhaps more challenging to some... but I think you've persuaded me it could be more exciting.
About
Upcoming Events
-
Jane Austen UnScripted!
December 11, 2009 at 7:30pm to December 20, 2009 at 7:30pm – The Broad Stage
Birthdays
Birthdays Today
© 2009 Created by Leif Hansen on Ning. Create a Ning Network!
You need to be a member of The Applied Improvisation Network to add comments!
Join this Ning Network