Improv Theory

I ran a workshop this afternoon at iO for performers going over a couple, what I hope were, helpful and instructive ideas and exercises. Some of it I've written about here before. Here's a brief summary of some of the salient points.

The "Rules":
Yes, and- When learning improv the "yes, and" dictum is important. Laying the groundwork for support and collaboration. As time passes however this can breed stagnant affability, inert acquiesces, and indecision. The first person that speaks doesn't dictate the scene. Every player has the responsibility to contribute character and content. Sometimes this can manifest itself in conflict, argument, or even saying "no" directly. The only thing that needs to be maintained is emotional integrity, simple agreement is a tool to learn to do improv not a tool of interesting improv.

The Harold- Many people find the form constricting and there always seems to be some ongoing complaint about it. And certainly the cookie-cutter Harold taught to students is constricting and deliberately so. Over time however it becomes clear the Harold is more a style of play rather than a rigid form. Improv by its nature is mercurial, why then wouldn't it's most well known form be malleable? How could it not invariably change over time? Each team should develop their own conception of the Harold and their own style, their own feeling and tone, their own identity. Sometimes that'll reveal itself on its own and sometimes it comes about through experimentation. Deciding on specific openings, themes, and goals before going into a show is a great way to find out what makes a team unique. Some people would call this pre-planning I call it pro-active.

Narrative- There is much talk about spurning plot when discussing "good" improv. But there is a distinction between plot and story and ultimately improv, like all the performing arts, boils down to simple story telling. It can be problematic following what happened but it is incredibly interesting to investigate who it happened to. Characters and their individual stories are what we want to see, the machinations of how they got expelled from school are unimportant, how it affects them is. The deeper we delve into a character's story the more interesting they become and the more we know about them the easier it becomes to make connections with other characters and stories.

Argument- Yelling and conflict for no reason with no context is unwatchable. But antagonism with purpose and emotional stakes is compelling. As long as their is emotional risk involved and the characters have a point of view argument can be a great tool.

Violence- Also a useful tool. As an improv student this is avoided for safety but with experience and trust it can be utilized with great effect. An improv gun is a "bad" improv cliche because it needs to be used, the threat has to have some reality. When teammates are being jerks or playing jerks it behooves their fellow players to bring some justice to the circumstances, a great way to do that is by killing or injuring them.

I ended the workshop by asking the participants to ask themselves why they do improv, why they perform. And whatever the answer to that question may be to take steps to further that purpose. Whether its a career in comedy, strict entertainment, or social change, be specific about goals and take direct action towards them. Improv is a great medium and a great tool but it can lead to the illusion of productivity, a trap to be avoided.