A glue improviser?
- Thread starter googs
- Start date
This is a subject my improv friends and I have been talking about for a long time.
I'm particularly interested in the wild card member, maybe because it's the furthest from who I usually am. I often refer to the wild card people as being able to "access the random." Having more glue-ish tendencies myself, it is fun when I get to be the wild card once in a while.
It's true that everyone should be able to "play any position," but I think it's smart to cast a team where people have different specialties. Dillinger was a great example, I think, and one of the strongest lineups that the UCB put together. They were all great improvisors, but I think you could definitely point out the stronger actors, the stronger game players, and the stronger crazypantses.
I remember a couple teams that were all wild cards. Yeesh. At the best, you get hilarious chaos. At the worst, excruciating, wandering randomness.
I'm particularly interested in the wild card member, maybe because it's the furthest from who I usually am. I often refer to the wild card people as being able to "access the random." Having more glue-ish tendencies myself, it is fun when I get to be the wild card once in a while.
It's true that everyone should be able to "play any position," but I think it's smart to cast a team where people have different specialties. Dillinger was a great example, I think, and one of the strongest lineups that the UCB put together. They were all great improvisors, but I think you could definitely point out the stronger actors, the stronger game players, and the stronger crazypantses.
I remember a couple teams that were all wild cards. Yeesh. At the best, you get hilarious chaos. At the worst, excruciating, wandering randomness.
Here are the descriptions of the other types:
The Funny
Is very verbal, usually the first to speak in a scene
Is auditory oriented: he fears sounding stupid, so he always over-explicates
This asshole always sacrifices emotional integrity for the sake of a joke; probably the easiest to deal with if you find one in your group
Emerges naturally among improvisers because Declare Then Justify is how improv is taught
The Actor
Is usually first off the line
Creates his own little world; tends to get lost in the idea
Is kinesthetic: he fears not doing something for his scene partner, so he becomes overly involved in object work
Best complimented by Funny
This asshole always wants to know, What about ME?
The Wild Card
Flavors other with their sensibility by being so uniquely themselves
These types are all potential strengths. It's hardest to discern the strengths of the glue type, I think, because it's easiest to describe them in terms of what they are NOT. They typically aren't saying clever things or creating elaborate worlds with their object work. What they are doing is LISTENING. They're the people who walk into a scene that's stalled, get it going again, and then walk off. They notice when a show has had too many low energy scenes in a row and start a high-energy scene. They edit at the exact moment you're sitting in the audience thinking, "...and scene!" In a short form show, they nudge the person who's hosting the next game but has lost track of the running order. Until I discovered there was such a thing, I thought I was just a lousy improviser. Now I see that while glue players don't get people coming up to them after the show saying, "You were so funny," they get the satisfaction of knowing that the show as a whole worked in part because they set their fellow players up for it.
The Funny
Is very verbal, usually the first to speak in a scene
Is auditory oriented: he fears sounding stupid, so he always over-explicates
This asshole always sacrifices emotional integrity for the sake of a joke; probably the easiest to deal with if you find one in your group
Emerges naturally among improvisers because Declare Then Justify is how improv is taught
The Actor
Is usually first off the line
Creates his own little world; tends to get lost in the idea
Is kinesthetic: he fears not doing something for his scene partner, so he becomes overly involved in object work
Best complimented by Funny
This asshole always wants to know, What about ME?
The Wild Card
Flavors other with their sensibility by being so uniquely themselves
These types are all potential strengths. It's hardest to discern the strengths of the glue type, I think, because it's easiest to describe them in terms of what they are NOT. They typically aren't saying clever things or creating elaborate worlds with their object work. What they are doing is LISTENING. They're the people who walk into a scene that's stalled, get it going again, and then walk off. They notice when a show has had too many low energy scenes in a row and start a high-energy scene. They edit at the exact moment you're sitting in the audience thinking, "...and scene!" In a short form show, they nudge the person who's hosting the next game but has lost track of the running order. Until I discovered there was such a thing, I thought I was just a lousy improviser. Now I see that while glue players don't get people coming up to them after the show saying, "You were so funny," they get the satisfaction of knowing that the show as a whole worked in part because they set their fellow players up for it.
Clarification on Actor-Glue-Funny-Wild Card
Hey everyone, here's he clarification (And thanks Dan for the heads up!)
These are not exclusive labels, nor exclusive of each other.
These are merely aptitudes in Improvisation that we ALL possess, they are capabilities, capacities and do a degree speak to how we are innately wired Psychologically. So one is not MERELY one or the other, but I have been mindful of an "aptitude profile" for performers when I've put together or coached a team, or even chosen a course of action for a class that I'm teaching, given the aptitudes in the group. I also have, for fun, called this the 30 point Jagodowski Improv Aptitudes Profile (because the corporate training geek in me loves that title), where a 10 in any category would represent an aptitude level of mastery in the capability or sensibility. In my opinion, TJ one of a very few improvisers that can play with mastery in all 3 of the aptitudes. He would be a 30 point improviser, along with a handful of others.
There are people that are just innately "wired" for funny...the Funny aptitude experiences the world through that sensibility...they live in the exchange of circumstance given premise (Think the UCB tenant 'If this is true in this world, then WHAT ELSE could be true'), usually the verbal "game", and the pursuit of Funny in a scene appears effortless, even if they're straining or allowing self consciousness into their character...Think Matt Besser, Paul Scheer Amy Sedaris, Rachel Dratch...
Actor aptitude can play honest, intense & deep...and they listen through emotion and are affected by manner and the unspoken...they play the exchange of emotion as their primary experience and concern themselves with chasing a laugh secondarily, but can bring greater depth to moments and the show, by augmenting people with a greater "Funny" aptitude. Scott Adsit would be a great example of an improviser in possession of mastery of the acting aptitude, and even with mastery of the funny aptitude, I view him as "leading" with his acting aptitude more times than not. He plays with believable emotion and he plays deeper than most, in my view. Amy Poehler & Ian Roberts I'd put as as "Leads with Acting Aptitude", and then I'd say that Amy and Scott's aptitudes tend towards Acting/Funny sensibility where Ian I think would be Acting/Glue. The difference being emotional fluidity and flexibility vs. emotional fixation. Neither is better than the other, nor an absolute, they are just derivative of tendencies as I've seen them & I just hope the example serves a greater understanding of what I"m saying.
Glue aptitude sees and hears the whole. They are the puzzle workers and are often visual learners and analytical thinkers. They are in possession of the patterns of the show, they make far out declarations relevant, they hear puns, rhymes and enjoy word smithing and word play. They are in the most possession of the Objective awareness of the show as a whole than the others and they tend to be 2nd line players/responders and highly adaptive... however they tend to be less dynamic along the energy spectrum of how they present their characters. They are excellent at deadpan and leading the charge into the meta...Matt Walsh & Chad Carter I think would be great examples of Glue/Funny and I think that Brian Stack might be Glue/Actor again, just taking note of tendency...
Wild Card is the one that doesn't fold in with the other 3, because, those people are so powerfully and uniquely themselves that they flavor everyone else in the group's method of play. The they are big personalities on stage and tend to just be themselves, amplified and consistent, and you either take the ride with them and account for their sensibility, or the show's going to be in trouble. A number of Stand-ups that do Improv Fall into this category, and in a way, this is a way to account for Stand up sensibility in putting together a group.
Fuck. That was long. Sorry.
Hey everyone, here's he clarification (And thanks Dan for the heads up!)
These are not exclusive labels, nor exclusive of each other.
These are merely aptitudes in Improvisation that we ALL possess, they are capabilities, capacities and do a degree speak to how we are innately wired Psychologically. So one is not MERELY one or the other, but I have been mindful of an "aptitude profile" for performers when I've put together or coached a team, or even chosen a course of action for a class that I'm teaching, given the aptitudes in the group. I also have, for fun, called this the 30 point Jagodowski Improv Aptitudes Profile (because the corporate training geek in me loves that title), where a 10 in any category would represent an aptitude level of mastery in the capability or sensibility. In my opinion, TJ one of a very few improvisers that can play with mastery in all 3 of the aptitudes. He would be a 30 point improviser, along with a handful of others.
There are people that are just innately "wired" for funny...the Funny aptitude experiences the world through that sensibility...they live in the exchange of circumstance given premise (Think the UCB tenant 'If this is true in this world, then WHAT ELSE could be true'), usually the verbal "game", and the pursuit of Funny in a scene appears effortless, even if they're straining or allowing self consciousness into their character...Think Matt Besser, Paul Scheer Amy Sedaris, Rachel Dratch...
Actor aptitude can play honest, intense & deep...and they listen through emotion and are affected by manner and the unspoken...they play the exchange of emotion as their primary experience and concern themselves with chasing a laugh secondarily, but can bring greater depth to moments and the show, by augmenting people with a greater "Funny" aptitude. Scott Adsit would be a great example of an improviser in possession of mastery of the acting aptitude, and even with mastery of the funny aptitude, I view him as "leading" with his acting aptitude more times than not. He plays with believable emotion and he plays deeper than most, in my view. Amy Poehler & Ian Roberts I'd put as as "Leads with Acting Aptitude", and then I'd say that Amy and Scott's aptitudes tend towards Acting/Funny sensibility where Ian I think would be Acting/Glue. The difference being emotional fluidity and flexibility vs. emotional fixation. Neither is better than the other, nor an absolute, they are just derivative of tendencies as I've seen them & I just hope the example serves a greater understanding of what I"m saying.
Glue aptitude sees and hears the whole. They are the puzzle workers and are often visual learners and analytical thinkers. They are in possession of the patterns of the show, they make far out declarations relevant, they hear puns, rhymes and enjoy word smithing and word play. They are in the most possession of the Objective awareness of the show as a whole than the others and they tend to be 2nd line players/responders and highly adaptive... however they tend to be less dynamic along the energy spectrum of how they present their characters. They are excellent at deadpan and leading the charge into the meta...Matt Walsh & Chad Carter I think would be great examples of Glue/Funny and I think that Brian Stack might be Glue/Actor again, just taking note of tendency...
Wild Card is the one that doesn't fold in with the other 3, because, those people are so powerfully and uniquely themselves that they flavor everyone else in the group's method of play. The they are big personalities on stage and tend to just be themselves, amplified and consistent, and you either take the ride with them and account for their sensibility, or the show's going to be in trouble. A number of Stand-ups that do Improv Fall into this category, and in a way, this is a way to account for Stand up sensibility in putting together a group.
Fuck. That was long. Sorry.
Very interesting thread. When I first read this I thought that I would be either in the funny or wild card. After reading this, I think I am very much a glue improviser...tilted towards glue/funny. Though the Annoyance Intensive and Magnet Camp workshops really help towards improving the actor side too....and also the Dave Razowsky workshop from this past weekend. After taking his workshop and seeing him perform, I would say that he is about a 15 on the actor side. 
Thinking about this way may lead one towards becoming a more well-rounded improviser. For example, if you think you are weak on glue, you can take some classes or coaching sessions from someone who is strong on that concept.
It would be interesting though to see though the breakdown of the improvisers who came to improv from theater versus those who did not.
Thinking about this way may lead one towards becoming a more well-rounded improviser. For example, if you think you are weak on glue, you can take some classes or coaching sessions from someone who is strong on that concept.
It would be interesting though to see though the breakdown of the improvisers who came to improv from theater versus those who did not.
In my opinion, this isn't the kind of thing where you go into it knowing what "type" of improviser you want to be or think you are and want to play that up. Innate tendencies will emerge and others will notice and maybe that will affect how they work with you, but it's probably best to try to be an all-arounder and just accept that everyone is going to be better at some things than others.
But in your case, Dan, you're a marjoram improviser.
But in your case, Dan, you're a marjoram improviser.
I actually think it's very helpful to know how I improvise in some terms of categorization and comparison.
I know that I focus on myself and maybe that comes out of an actor's security.
I know that I can be 'funny' and (surprisingly) I think that does not come out of a need to take control of the scene, win the big laugh, etc. when you think it might.
It's helpful as an improv teacher/coach to hear how a 'type' of improviser does certain things for certain reasons.
With greater in-depth coverage of these ideas, I see how someone you might think of as 'funny' or 'trying to be funny' or 'thinking too much' is really just a Wild Card with a really specific frame of reference.
I know that I focus on myself and maybe that comes out of an actor's security.
I know that I can be 'funny' and (surprisingly) I think that does not come out of a need to take control of the scene, win the big laugh, etc. when you think it might.
It's helpful as an improv teacher/coach to hear how a 'type' of improviser does certain things for certain reasons.
With greater in-depth coverage of these ideas, I see how someone you might think of as 'funny' or 'trying to be funny' or 'thinking too much' is really just a Wild Card with a really specific frame of reference.
Last edited:
It's also interesting to hear how people change and develop.
I think I was playing 'glue' too much and someone else was not playing it enough, and through some coaching we got to switch those roles and broadened our experience as individuals and as part of a team. I see know how that situation fits into this template.
I think I was playing 'glue' too much and someone else was not playing it enough, and through some coaching we got to switch those roles and broadened our experience as individuals and as part of a team. I see know how that situation fits into this template.