Balance

We had a full roster for Schwa tonight and Joe in from LA, which put us at 10. Typical rosters at iO are 9 or 10 not because everyone is in attendance but because one or two usually aren't. Ten can be an unwieldy number of folks trying to do a 30 minute improv set. Bigger numbered ensembles are more compatible with longer sets, even two act shows, where the pacing is naturally more sedate.

I've been on a number of teams that had high numbers relatively frequently and there were all kinds of methods to try to find balance when there were so many people vying for time. One oft repeated "rule" is after you've been in a scene wait till everyone else has been in a scene before you make a move to reappear. Which is, I guess, in essence sound however with ten people that could eat up a good half of the show depending on how long the initial five scenes turn out to be. Which brings us to the next "rule" which is something along the lines of "be patient" "let it breathe" or "give people their time". Meaning leave those first scenes, when we're cycling through the entire roster, alone. Again, in theory sounds good, sounds egalitarian. However improv is a performative art form not a socialist enclave even though the way its discussed people believe it is or should be. Art & Entertainment shouldn't be bound by "waiting your turn".

The reality is that when your roster is light, then you have a chance to be patient and let stuff breathe. But when your roster is full that is when things need to move, pace picked up, so that the entire cast can cycle in and out of scenes quickly. This not only allows for everyone's ideas to be incorporated it allows each member the maximum amount of involvement. Speed not restraint is what's needed to make a possibly ungainly amount of collaborators effective in an improv piece.

Schwa rarely has a full roster so tonight was atypical for us but instead of agreeing to patience we settled on speed and because of that everyone was involved almost equally zipping in and out of the piece with relative fluidity. We were able to maintain a pretty high tempo because everyone was participating and making moves. And, I think, ultimately it was a success. Each of us knew going in we would play fast and that we individually would need to make the effort to engage. There is this idea prevalent in improv that the group comes first that can frequently discount the individual which can make for tentative or overly polite improv. A group of individuals with distinct points of view and their own energies and inspirations melding together actually takes care of the group more than this ineffective and untenable idea of "fairness".

And some shows don't necessarily require every individual performer be seen or highlighted at all. The Sight Unseen show last week turned into a narrative about this family musical group in Branson, MO played by Mark, Jimmy, and Rosie and I mostly participated as ancillary characters guiding the narrative, only coming on for a couple lines of dialogue or to move the show to the next scene. What I was doing was crucial to the success of the show but I wasn't really an "equal" participant per say.

Point being its the individual who determines their level of involvement, its no one's responsibility but their own to participate. And with that in mind, with that level of individual expectation shows are better and groups function more smoothly. Paradoxically by not "focusing on the group" by not trying to be "fair" by giving that authority back to the individual some kind of balance and artistic integrity can be achieved.