Repetition 2

Sight Unseen, the improv team I perform with at the Annoyance, doesn't have a form per say. The structure we implement is based on scenic mirroring and thematic patterns, fluid and adaptable to whatever opportunities present themselves with the suggestion and first scene.

Typically form is there to give an improv piece some cohesion and underlying support. Focus what can frequently be a series of unrelated content into something with a point of view. Conversely narrative improv is also shied away from, there is a fear that once a piece becomes "too ploty" it loses potency, the performers focus more on the circumstances getting from A to B to C rather than character and relationship. These two guide posts- utilizing an established form and avoiding narrative- are useful when first starting to learn and perform but like many(if not all) improv "rules" they lose usefulness, and in fact become constricting, as you progress.

The way Sight Unseen plays developed organically. We talk briefly after every show and have some very basic goals going into a show. The only formulaic tools we utilize are mirroring and repetition. Last Thursday's show was a good example of when it works well. We developed a theme of familial generations and old age. By simply repeating the set up of an older person being cared for by a younger person we dug into that motif and cut up and down various generational lines showing repeated and divergent modes of behavior. Although the piece didn't have a "plot" it did follow a loose narrative and was more satisfying because of it.

I would alledge simple repetition is more functional than form for discovering and implementing a theme, in bringing about the interconnectivity that so many improv shows strive for. By repeating elements from the first scene or two you're inherently making connections and providing a specific scenic language which is unique to that piece. This also allows the freedom to have the actual improv dictate what the show will be as a whole as opposed to shoehorning in a form that may or may not be appropriate or serviceable for a particular shows inspirations. The other thing to consider regarding form is that a new one hasn't caught on in a long time, people are always coming up with new forms but the ones that are taught and performed are fifteen plus years old. There certainly must be a reason why a new form hasn't caught fire in the past decade, perhaps because form is no longer as relevant within the evolution of the artform.

Regarding reticence of "narrative improv" it is counterintuitive. What are individual improv scenes on the micro level but stories, however truncated or incomplete, and improv shows on the macro level but interactive storytelling, however disjointed. Elements of narrative are intrinsic to the discipline so it makes no sense to limit their application.

There is certainly value to what has gone before but improv, even more so than other artforms, is constantly evolving and our perception and approach should evolve with it.