Rules

I've never liked rules or people telling me what to do. I've always had the instinct to disobey or avoid them. I never saw much good in restrictions and never had much respect for the way other people want things to be done. As time has past this knee-jerk contrary outlook has faded. At a job there are certain expectations and as an employee you are required to fulfill them, there is a complicit agreement. With certain modes of performance there are established ways of doing things, agreed upon paths and directions. There is a time to go against the grain but unilateral rebellion is not only unwise it is often unproductive.

Tonight I subcoached BIG JUDY for Mark. A great group of fresh improvisers. They were great at taking direction and took inspiration from some really cool places. What was most striking was their adherence to certain improv rules at the detriment to the scene and/or having fun.

Yes and is the core tenant of improvisation but I think there is a common misconception about what that actually means. Fundamentally its about agreement. Insuring the people on stage have some common understanding of what is going on. It does not mean that the players have to agree to each others ideas, concepts, or premises. If the character you are playing doesn't like what another character is saying or doesn't like them period its ok, even logical, to say no to them, to put them down, to enter into an argument. The text and subtext of a scene do not need to contain "yes and" its broader concept that applies to the performers not the imaginary worlds they create. Questions are another tool improvisers are conditioned not to use. But often a person has more of an idea of their character than you do and doesn't want to go off on an expositional monologue derailing the scene. So, questions are a fine avenue to use when teasing out more information about certain characters or the scene. Arguments are another no-no. This is probably the rule I think is the most useless after a certain education point. Disagreements or characters with opposing points of view drive dramatic action, they are normal in the world we live in. Misunderstandings and emotional hurt are fundamental aspects of life. To tell improvisers to adhere to this doctrine is not only hamstringing their ability to use their real life in their imaginary life but it often makes for incredibly boring scenes.

Next week at work "The Board" is coming in to do their yearly meeting. My bosses seemed to be wound pretty tight about it reiterating certain protocols multiple times. Something that in the past would have really bothered me. Now it doesn't so much, it takes little effort from me to wear a tie three days next week and to mind my p's and q's around the higher ups. There is no cause to go against my work place restrictions, there is no reason to, no end game. I receive a pay check, I'll gladly show up with a tie. When it comes to policy and our procedures for certain things, that's another matter, I handle things in the most efficient and effective way as I see it even if that means not necessarily going with the pre-established protocol.

There is a time and a place for all rules. From speeding, to work place dress codes, to performance. But often situations call for rules to be side-stepped, bent, or broken. In improv and in life we find those points where divergence from rules is most appropriate.