PIT vs UCS vs Magnet
- Thread starter Saul
- Start date
I read this and thought about ignoring it or posting a bit (it was going to be about Will Hines), but a lot of students do read the IRC so…
Dan, thank you for saying you enjoyed studying with me. Also, I’ve never had anything but pleasant interactions with you in person and I look forward to having further pleasant interactions with you in the future. I hope our kids have pleasant interactions together. So I hope you don’t see this as an attack on you. That being said…
I don’t think there’s anything wrong with stating honest preferences. I do however think that there’s a better way to do it. If you had a bad experience in Anthony’s class and you really felt it was necessary to share that in a public forum, you could have simply stated it in those words. If anyone had any deeper questions about the subject they could have messaged you. I agree with Curtis. The way you said it was very off-putting. It feels like a mean jab at a guy who a lot of people here view not only as a great teacher, director and co-worker, but also as a friend. I’m not saying your opinions aren’t valid (although I do strongly disagree), I’m only asking you to re-read what you wrote and think if it wouldn’t feel a little mean-spirited if you read that about Armando or one of the teachers that you really admire.
A further thought…
You said you had a tough time in Joe’s class because of philosophical differences and Anthony’s class because he was “solipsistic” and “closed-minded” My response to that is this…It’s not the teacher’s job to accommodate your philosophy or preferences. Actually, if they do that it hurts the rest of the class that has paid to learn the approach that the instructor is providing. If you’ve paid money for the class I can only assume it’s because at some point you felt that the teacher had some knowledge or worthwhile information for you. You’re in the class, so why not really dedicate yourself to adjusting to their philosophy at least for that class session? If you give it a try but at the end of the 8 weeks you decide to disregard it…at least you’ve given it a try, right? I honestly don’t see the value in taking a class and resisting the teacher’s point of view.
I probably should have just posted my Hines bit.
Dan, thank you for saying you enjoyed studying with me. Also, I’ve never had anything but pleasant interactions with you in person and I look forward to having further pleasant interactions with you in the future. I hope our kids have pleasant interactions together. So I hope you don’t see this as an attack on you. That being said…
I don’t think there’s anything wrong with stating honest preferences. I do however think that there’s a better way to do it. If you had a bad experience in Anthony’s class and you really felt it was necessary to share that in a public forum, you could have simply stated it in those words. If anyone had any deeper questions about the subject they could have messaged you. I agree with Curtis. The way you said it was very off-putting. It feels like a mean jab at a guy who a lot of people here view not only as a great teacher, director and co-worker, but also as a friend. I’m not saying your opinions aren’t valid (although I do strongly disagree), I’m only asking you to re-read what you wrote and think if it wouldn’t feel a little mean-spirited if you read that about Armando or one of the teachers that you really admire.
A further thought…
You said you had a tough time in Joe’s class because of philosophical differences and Anthony’s class because he was “solipsistic” and “closed-minded” My response to that is this…It’s not the teacher’s job to accommodate your philosophy or preferences. Actually, if they do that it hurts the rest of the class that has paid to learn the approach that the instructor is providing. If you’ve paid money for the class I can only assume it’s because at some point you felt that the teacher had some knowledge or worthwhile information for you. You’re in the class, so why not really dedicate yourself to adjusting to their philosophy at least for that class session? If you give it a try but at the end of the 8 weeks you decide to disregard it…at least you’ve given it a try, right? I honestly don’t see the value in taking a class and resisting the teacher’s point of view.
I probably should have just posted my Hines bit.
Gavin and Curtis,
first of all, I meant no disrespect to Joe, in fact, quite the opposite. I felt that although he and I interpreted the world in different ways, he was able to adjust. If anything, that's a glowing recommendation.
For Anthony, I will say that people who work with him have never had anything but the kindest things to say about him, and many I know who have taken classes with him have enjoyed it, particularly if they enjoy game. I personally had a really bad and even traumatic experience and I know others who have as well.
I also feel as though there are many schools of thought on this, but due to UCB's institutional status in the New York community, it's school of thought is the accepted authority. Any philosophical debate needs to be a dialectic, in my opinion, and there doesn't seem to be enough of that in the community. Any attempt to enumerate or describe the aesthetic of any individual theater is seen as an attack.
And with Anthony, I will say, as forthright as possible, that all he could do was side coach with the moves he would have made. But to me the interesting thing about improv is that each of us comes from a different background and brings our own natural reactions to a situation. There were other issues in that class, but I was not a fan of the teaching style and given that it was my limited interaction with him, it made for an unpleasant experience. I don't know what went on, but it was really a train-wreck and nearly made me quit improv, from which Armando saved me. It was really bad. He may be completely upright and great, and I've heard that from a number of people I respect, but my experience with him was life changingly bad. And I know a number of other people I respect who have had similarly bad experiences. He is in a position of authority and a smart guy, so I'm sure he understands he's more open to criticism.
Maybe it was just a clash of personalities. Everyone experiences the world in their own way. And I so wanted to love his class. I so wanted to learn to do what he does, because I am a fan as a player. But as a teacher there was a severe breakdown in communication. I couldn't understand what he was trying to communicate to me and I know that several other people in that class were befuddled. I think the philosophical difference was too great for us every come to a semiotic agreement on terms.
I got fairly depressed after Anthony's class. This is not personal knock. I felt he was not a great teacher. I feel he runs a good theater and is a good improviser. But I felt disgusted with the world after the class. There's few things in my life that have made me feel that way. If I react harshly or sound harsh in tone, understand that that's the frame of reference from which I come. In the end it was a good thing, because I found a greater depth to my work afterwords by rejecting the philosophy.
And I will say to the UCBers, you guys are in charge. All other voices are a minority. You have minions. You are an institution. You have leverage and power where others do not. Every comment I made was about Anthony was about what he brought to the table as a teacher, his demeanor and philosophy, yet it was perceived as an open attack on him as a person, which it was not. I disagreed with the style of teaching and the perspective of it. I got the feeling Anthony was similarly frustrated with the class, so maybe it was aberration. But none was personal. Some people aren't born to teach, I'd personally be shit at it.
first of all, I meant no disrespect to Joe, in fact, quite the opposite. I felt that although he and I interpreted the world in different ways, he was able to adjust. If anything, that's a glowing recommendation.
For Anthony, I will say that people who work with him have never had anything but the kindest things to say about him, and many I know who have taken classes with him have enjoyed it, particularly if they enjoy game. I personally had a really bad and even traumatic experience and I know others who have as well.
I also feel as though there are many schools of thought on this, but due to UCB's institutional status in the New York community, it's school of thought is the accepted authority. Any philosophical debate needs to be a dialectic, in my opinion, and there doesn't seem to be enough of that in the community. Any attempt to enumerate or describe the aesthetic of any individual theater is seen as an attack.
And with Anthony, I will say, as forthright as possible, that all he could do was side coach with the moves he would have made. But to me the interesting thing about improv is that each of us comes from a different background and brings our own natural reactions to a situation. There were other issues in that class, but I was not a fan of the teaching style and given that it was my limited interaction with him, it made for an unpleasant experience. I don't know what went on, but it was really a train-wreck and nearly made me quit improv, from which Armando saved me. It was really bad. He may be completely upright and great, and I've heard that from a number of people I respect, but my experience with him was life changingly bad. And I know a number of other people I respect who have had similarly bad experiences. He is in a position of authority and a smart guy, so I'm sure he understands he's more open to criticism.
Maybe it was just a clash of personalities. Everyone experiences the world in their own way. And I so wanted to love his class. I so wanted to learn to do what he does, because I am a fan as a player. But as a teacher there was a severe breakdown in communication. I couldn't understand what he was trying to communicate to me and I know that several other people in that class were befuddled. I think the philosophical difference was too great for us every come to a semiotic agreement on terms.
I got fairly depressed after Anthony's class. This is not personal knock. I felt he was not a great teacher. I feel he runs a good theater and is a good improviser. But I felt disgusted with the world after the class. There's few things in my life that have made me feel that way. If I react harshly or sound harsh in tone, understand that that's the frame of reference from which I come. In the end it was a good thing, because I found a greater depth to my work afterwords by rejecting the philosophy.
And I will say to the UCBers, you guys are in charge. All other voices are a minority. You have minions. You are an institution. You have leverage and power where others do not. Every comment I made was about Anthony was about what he brought to the table as a teacher, his demeanor and philosophy, yet it was perceived as an open attack on him as a person, which it was not. I disagreed with the style of teaching and the perspective of it. I got the feeling Anthony was similarly frustrated with the class, so maybe it was aberration. But none was personal. Some people aren't born to teach, I'd personally be shit at it.
As someone who's taken like a billion classes at two different theaters, that's something I think is really true. Every improv teacher has a different philosophy and approach-- even within the same school-- and if you take enough of them, you're gonna run into someone who may be an amazing teacher, but who you just don't click with. But hopefully, you can take a particular teacher because you want to take THEIR class. Maybe you've heard that they're a good teacher, or maybe you like how they improvise and want to hear their take, etc.
When I sign up for an improv class, it's almost always because of the teacher. Either I've had them before and liked them enough to go back for more, or I'm interested in trying them out based on their style or positive feedback or whatever.
That's why, if someone wants to choose between teachers (or theaters), I think the best thing you can do is go and watch. If the way someone improvises makes you feel like you're on the same page, that's someone whose class is worth taking.
When I sign up for an improv class, it's almost always because of the teacher. Either I've had them before and liked them enough to go back for more, or I'm interested in trying them out based on their style or positive feedback or whatever.
That's why, if someone wants to choose between teachers (or theaters), I think the best thing you can do is go and watch. If the way someone improvises makes you feel like you're on the same page, that's someone whose class is worth taking.
Maybe I am projecting. I've had a lot of teachers in a lot of fields over the years though, and never an experience this way.
I don't know Anthony in a social circumstance or even as a person really, so I can't comment on that, and I'm not. I think he's a good performer.
Let me explain the solipsistic comment. I felt that many of the notes he gave were him trying to instruct us in the moves he would make. I know that all a teacher can give is their personal outlook and view, but this was too an extreme. It was a very specific use of the word and I do not feel he was solipsistic in any other way.
I'm a comedy nerd as well. I've heard through the grapevine you're a fan of my favorite TV show, Peep Show, which few here have even heard of, a crying shame. I can't wait for that show to cross over.
Oh, and Locke is Suzanne Sommers.
I don't know Anthony in a social circumstance or even as a person really, so I can't comment on that, and I'm not. I think he's a good performer.
Let me explain the solipsistic comment. I felt that many of the notes he gave were him trying to instruct us in the moves he would make. I know that all a teacher can give is their personal outlook and view, but this was too an extreme. It was a very specific use of the word and I do not feel he was solipsistic in any other way.
I'm a comedy nerd as well. I've heard through the grapevine you're a fan of my favorite TV show, Peep Show, which few here have even heard of, a crying shame. I can't wait for that show to cross over.
Oh, and Locke is Suzanne Sommers.
Dan-- I think the stuff you said about Anthony was perceived as an attack not because the UCB has power and leverage, but because you used insulting words like "solipsistic" and "closed-minded". That goes beyond merely criticizing his teaching style. You can't publicly insult someone and expect people not to take it as an attack.
Also, and I absolutely do not mean to insult you in any way-- but from a lot of the stuff you've written, I get the sense that you specifically want to attack the UCB. Like you have a chip on your shoulder about it, and want to get across your view of the UCB as an evil corporate monolith that does everything the wrong way. You've even described it as having "minions".
To each their own. If you don't like the UCB, that's cool. You should do whatever you like. But why not take a "live and let live" approach? Why insult an improv theater or school or teacher? Don't you see how, when you insult both an individual teacher and an entire school and theater-- in public-- you're the aggressor? Nobody attacked you, or any other improv theater, or any teacher you like.
I've read your posts here and your blog posts, and I've talked to you in person. You're a nice guy and you're clearly passionate about improv. But insults make you look bad, and shoulder-chips are unattractive. Honesty is good, but so are diplomacy and basic niceness. I'm sure you don't want to be a mean person, but that's how you're representing yourself.
Also, for what it's worth: my first 501 class with Anthony was the class in which I went from hating organic openings to loving them, and was also the first time I actually believed all of the lofty stuff that gets thrown around about improv. It's the only improv class I've taken that changed my entire take on what improv has the potential to be. To each their own and I'm sorry your experience was worse than mine, but I'd recommend an Anthony class to anyone.
--Hal
minion
Also, and I absolutely do not mean to insult you in any way-- but from a lot of the stuff you've written, I get the sense that you specifically want to attack the UCB. Like you have a chip on your shoulder about it, and want to get across your view of the UCB as an evil corporate monolith that does everything the wrong way. You've even described it as having "minions".
To each their own. If you don't like the UCB, that's cool. You should do whatever you like. But why not take a "live and let live" approach? Why insult an improv theater or school or teacher? Don't you see how, when you insult both an individual teacher and an entire school and theater-- in public-- you're the aggressor? Nobody attacked you, or any other improv theater, or any teacher you like.
I've read your posts here and your blog posts, and I've talked to you in person. You're a nice guy and you're clearly passionate about improv. But insults make you look bad, and shoulder-chips are unattractive. Honesty is good, but so are diplomacy and basic niceness. I'm sure you don't want to be a mean person, but that's how you're representing yourself.
Also, for what it's worth: my first 501 class with Anthony was the class in which I went from hating organic openings to loving them, and was also the first time I actually believed all of the lofty stuff that gets thrown around about improv. It's the only improv class I've taken that changed my entire take on what improv has the potential to be. To each their own and I'm sorry your experience was worse than mine, but I'd recommend an Anthony class to anyone.
--Hal
minion
figured it out everybody
You're now chatting with a random stranger. Say hi!
You: hey
Stranger: hi
You: are you familiar with improv comedy?
Stranger: yes
You: do you want to have a discourse about Game with me?
Stranger: yeah well only comedy from holland i know
You: okay
You: what do you think is the best approach to performing improv scenes?
Stranger: well... my favorite comedian makes everything funny
You: can you describe some of his stuff that you really like?
Stranger: his improvising... he's awsome
Stranger: he was in an improvising tv show
You: what's his name?
Stranger: he's an actor and he's in tv shows
Stranger: jeroen van koningsbrugge
You: when Jeroen is being funny, is it because of an emotional choice or "a want" or does he find a first unusual thing related to behavior in his scene?
Stranger: he does what nobody expects
Stranger: I don't think you understand dutch?
You: i'm willing to give it a shot
You: i gotta figure this out TONIGHT
Stranger: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cg3e7vMhWeg
Stranger: from 3.40 you hear jeroen
You: i'm watching it now
Stranger: ok
Stranger: I'll try to make a subtitle
Stranger: I think it's only funny when you're dutch
You: i disagree
Stranger: you find it funny?
Stranger: you understand it?
You: well, I get the gist of it
You: this has been a big help
You: we still have a long way to go
Stranger: I'm trying to make a subtitle now
You: thanks
You: dan thanks you too
You're now chatting with a random stranger. Say hi!
You: hey
Stranger: hi
You: are you familiar with improv comedy?
Stranger: yes
You: do you want to have a discourse about Game with me?
Stranger: yeah well only comedy from holland i know
You: okay
You: what do you think is the best approach to performing improv scenes?
Stranger: well... my favorite comedian makes everything funny
You: can you describe some of his stuff that you really like?
Stranger: his improvising... he's awsome
Stranger: he was in an improvising tv show
You: what's his name?
Stranger: he's an actor and he's in tv shows
Stranger: jeroen van koningsbrugge
You: when Jeroen is being funny, is it because of an emotional choice or "a want" or does he find a first unusual thing related to behavior in his scene?
Stranger: he does what nobody expects
Stranger: I don't think you understand dutch?
You: i'm willing to give it a shot
You: i gotta figure this out TONIGHT
Stranger: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cg3e7vMhWeg
Stranger: from 3.40 you hear jeroen
You: i'm watching it now
Stranger: ok
Stranger: I'll try to make a subtitle
Stranger: I think it's only funny when you're dutch
You: i disagree
Stranger: you find it funny?
Stranger: you understand it?
You: well, I get the gist of it
You: this has been a big help
You: we still have a long way to go
Stranger: I'm trying to make a subtitle now
You: thanks
You: dan thanks you too
In my defense (or perhaps to damn me even more)...
I do have some very specific views of improv. I have spent, and continue to spend, embarrassing amounts of time thinking about why improv is an artform, why it deserves to be, and what makes it unique as an artform. And my working theory is that it is the only artform that allows multiple artists to spontaneously create their art in immediate reaction to each other.
Maybe that's so obvious it's stupid to put in print. But it's my working theory. If you ask me again in a month or two, it may have changed a bit. This is a young artform! But let's go with that for now.
Here's where I get "close-minded"...
If we're creating in reaction to each other, then it seems to me that two things are incredibly important:
1. Your scene partner.
2. Reacting to your scene partner. (Yes-And)
To me, the joy of improv is in that basic idea of making your scene partner a genius. Not allowing them to fail (or, conversely, failing with them spectacularly). The questions is, how do we do that?
We agree to a couple things.
1. We're building a scene together. Character? Relationship? Status? Behavior? Game? Use whatever words you want. They're all essential parts of a scene (I currently prefer the term "situation" rather than "scene" because I think it more accurately describes what we're looking to build together. We're not looking to be static here, we're looking to be active in the moment.)
2. We've already said improv is about "creating in reaction to the other people on stage" - so we agree that anything we individually "invent" - specifics, objects, off-stage characters, past interactions/history - we're only inventing them to get a reaction. So we should be MUCH more interested (and excited about) our scene partner's reaction to our invention than we are in whatever hilarious thing we just invented.
3. Our scene partner is a genius. Every choice they make is right. Judgment has no place on the stage.
One way I like to think of playing a scene is like a tennis volley. We're trying to keep the ball going back and forth as long as possible. No one is trying to win. But we do want to make it as fun as we can for as long as we can.
So let's say you hit an amazing, through the legs, double-flip backhand while you nail a Groucho Marx impression. Pretty hot stuff. Congratulations, you are hilarious and talented.
But - if that ball's gonna stay in the air, you better be focused on what the person on the other side of the net does in reaction to that shot. The shot they hit back determines what you do next. If you already have your next ridiculously awesome shot all planned out, you're going to miss the fun. The ball's going to go out of bounds while you pull out a new ball and say, "I got another one." And you hitting a bunch of amazing shots in a row isn't nearly as exciting or fun as a sustained volley.
So - it's all about making strong specific choices in reaction to our scene partner. But is there a right/wrong reaction/choice?
Kind of, but not really. The top of a scene is all about discovery. But because we're building a scene together, the choices we make impact the scene tremendously. Afterall, your scene partner is a genius, so everything they do is on purpose and important to the scene.
That's why I think "game" is just "yes-and." When we talk about game, we often use the idea of "if this is true, what else is true?"
If this is true = YES
What else is true = AND
So for the moment, let's toss that pesky controversial "game" word out of the conversation (Or is this a treatise? I'll be "solipsistic" for a moment and say it is).
We don't have props, costumes, source material, or a program note to give context to our scenes. All we have is what we create right now, in the moment (I'm talking about individual scenes here, not forms with openings - which create a shared context).
So - the way we behave in a scene defines our character. If we're in a job interview scene and my scene partner sings "Jingle Bells" while they peruse my resume, they have "invented" that to get me to react. And because they are a genius, I know they didn't do it randomly or for no reason. They did it because that specific behavior is part of a larger pattern of behavior that defines their character.
But what is that character!? What is that pattern of behavior!? All we know is they sang "Jingle Bells." Are they insane!? No. And we'll discover why they sang "Jingle Bells" together. By reacting and making strong choices.
You could react in a befuddled way. You could choose to "not know" why they're doing it. But this is improv. No one in in the room knows what is happening! But YOU are on stage. And if you're on that stage, YOU are a genius. Which means anything you choose is right. So just decide. As specifically as you can. Make a choice that makes your scene partner look like a genius for deciding to sing "Jingle Bells"...
"Always tough to do business at Christmas time, right sir? So distracting!"
"Oh, I'm sorry. I gave you the lyrics to 'Jingle Bells.' This is my resume."
"I'd just like to say, sir, you have a beautiful singing voice."
"I've, uh, never had anyone sing in a job interview before."
You could join in.
Doesn't matter. Make any choice you want. As long as it's in reaction to your scene partner, then it's all good.
But as we make these choices (and the choices that are to come) we're creating the scene. As we yes-and, we discover what this specific, individual scene is about. We move from "this scene could be about literally anything in the universe" to "this scene is about this specific thing." (HINT: The scene is always about the PEOPLE in the scene. Everything else is imaginary!)
So that example scene may have started as a generic job interview scene (which already narrowed it down from "anything in the universe!"), but as we make specific choices, it does not remain a generic job interview scene. It becomes much more specific. We're building a scene together (#1 on our list!)!
It becomes a job interview scene where one or both of the characters loves Christmas so much they keep injecting it into the interview. Or a scene with an eccentric boss and the applicant who brown-noses incessantly anyway. Again - doesn't matter. It could be anything. You're going to choose that together as you move forward. And those choices will always be in reaction to the choices you've already made.
Why? Because we're all geniuses. We KNOW those choices we've made MEAN SOMETHING. We can't ignore them.
We should yes-and them.
We should ask "if this is true, what else is true."
Which is why scene and game are inseparable.
Good improv is not about you, your brilliant ideas, and all the things you want to do. It's about your scene partner and all the brilliant things you want to do, moment-to-moment, IN REACTION TO YOUR SCENE PARTNER IN THIS SCENE YOU'VE CREATED TOGETHER.
That's my "close-minded" theory. My guiding principle. For now.
Of course, most theories only work perfectly in perfect systems. And let's face it - we're making this shit up as we go.
But I believe these are goals worth aiming for. They're ideals worth working to achieve. And I think they're unique to this artform in a way that makes me incredibly excited every time I get to perform it or watch it.
They're also the ideals I talk about, wrestle with, question, and give notes on when I'm sitting in a room of improvisers being a bad teacher.
I do have some very specific views of improv. I have spent, and continue to spend, embarrassing amounts of time thinking about why improv is an artform, why it deserves to be, and what makes it unique as an artform. And my working theory is that it is the only artform that allows multiple artists to spontaneously create their art in immediate reaction to each other.
Maybe that's so obvious it's stupid to put in print. But it's my working theory. If you ask me again in a month or two, it may have changed a bit. This is a young artform! But let's go with that for now.
Here's where I get "close-minded"...
If we're creating in reaction to each other, then it seems to me that two things are incredibly important:
1. Your scene partner.
2. Reacting to your scene partner. (Yes-And)
To me, the joy of improv is in that basic idea of making your scene partner a genius. Not allowing them to fail (or, conversely, failing with them spectacularly). The questions is, how do we do that?
We agree to a couple things.
1. We're building a scene together. Character? Relationship? Status? Behavior? Game? Use whatever words you want. They're all essential parts of a scene (I currently prefer the term "situation" rather than "scene" because I think it more accurately describes what we're looking to build together. We're not looking to be static here, we're looking to be active in the moment.)
2. We've already said improv is about "creating in reaction to the other people on stage" - so we agree that anything we individually "invent" - specifics, objects, off-stage characters, past interactions/history - we're only inventing them to get a reaction. So we should be MUCH more interested (and excited about) our scene partner's reaction to our invention than we are in whatever hilarious thing we just invented.
3. Our scene partner is a genius. Every choice they make is right. Judgment has no place on the stage.
One way I like to think of playing a scene is like a tennis volley. We're trying to keep the ball going back and forth as long as possible. No one is trying to win. But we do want to make it as fun as we can for as long as we can.
So let's say you hit an amazing, through the legs, double-flip backhand while you nail a Groucho Marx impression. Pretty hot stuff. Congratulations, you are hilarious and talented.
But - if that ball's gonna stay in the air, you better be focused on what the person on the other side of the net does in reaction to that shot. The shot they hit back determines what you do next. If you already have your next ridiculously awesome shot all planned out, you're going to miss the fun. The ball's going to go out of bounds while you pull out a new ball and say, "I got another one." And you hitting a bunch of amazing shots in a row isn't nearly as exciting or fun as a sustained volley.
So - it's all about making strong specific choices in reaction to our scene partner. But is there a right/wrong reaction/choice?
Kind of, but not really. The top of a scene is all about discovery. But because we're building a scene together, the choices we make impact the scene tremendously. Afterall, your scene partner is a genius, so everything they do is on purpose and important to the scene.
That's why I think "game" is just "yes-and." When we talk about game, we often use the idea of "if this is true, what else is true?"
If this is true = YES
What else is true = AND
So for the moment, let's toss that pesky controversial "game" word out of the conversation (Or is this a treatise? I'll be "solipsistic" for a moment and say it is).
We don't have props, costumes, source material, or a program note to give context to our scenes. All we have is what we create right now, in the moment (I'm talking about individual scenes here, not forms with openings - which create a shared context).
So - the way we behave in a scene defines our character. If we're in a job interview scene and my scene partner sings "Jingle Bells" while they peruse my resume, they have "invented" that to get me to react. And because they are a genius, I know they didn't do it randomly or for no reason. They did it because that specific behavior is part of a larger pattern of behavior that defines their character.
But what is that character!? What is that pattern of behavior!? All we know is they sang "Jingle Bells." Are they insane!? No. And we'll discover why they sang "Jingle Bells" together. By reacting and making strong choices.
You could react in a befuddled way. You could choose to "not know" why they're doing it. But this is improv. No one in in the room knows what is happening! But YOU are on stage. And if you're on that stage, YOU are a genius. Which means anything you choose is right. So just decide. As specifically as you can. Make a choice that makes your scene partner look like a genius for deciding to sing "Jingle Bells"...
"Always tough to do business at Christmas time, right sir? So distracting!"
"Oh, I'm sorry. I gave you the lyrics to 'Jingle Bells.' This is my resume."
"I'd just like to say, sir, you have a beautiful singing voice."
"I've, uh, never had anyone sing in a job interview before."
You could join in.
Doesn't matter. Make any choice you want. As long as it's in reaction to your scene partner, then it's all good.
But as we make these choices (and the choices that are to come) we're creating the scene. As we yes-and, we discover what this specific, individual scene is about. We move from "this scene could be about literally anything in the universe" to "this scene is about this specific thing." (HINT: The scene is always about the PEOPLE in the scene. Everything else is imaginary!)
So that example scene may have started as a generic job interview scene (which already narrowed it down from "anything in the universe!"), but as we make specific choices, it does not remain a generic job interview scene. It becomes much more specific. We're building a scene together (#1 on our list!)!
It becomes a job interview scene where one or both of the characters loves Christmas so much they keep injecting it into the interview. Or a scene with an eccentric boss and the applicant who brown-noses incessantly anyway. Again - doesn't matter. It could be anything. You're going to choose that together as you move forward. And those choices will always be in reaction to the choices you've already made.
Why? Because we're all geniuses. We KNOW those choices we've made MEAN SOMETHING. We can't ignore them.
We should yes-and them.
We should ask "if this is true, what else is true."
Which is why scene and game are inseparable.
Good improv is not about you, your brilliant ideas, and all the things you want to do. It's about your scene partner and all the brilliant things you want to do, moment-to-moment, IN REACTION TO YOUR SCENE PARTNER IN THIS SCENE YOU'VE CREATED TOGETHER.
That's my "close-minded" theory. My guiding principle. For now.
Of course, most theories only work perfectly in perfect systems. And let's face it - we're making this shit up as we go.
But I believe these are goals worth aiming for. They're ideals worth working to achieve. And I think they're unique to this artform in a way that makes me incredibly excited every time I get to perform it or watch it.
They're also the ideals I talk about, wrestle with, question, and give notes on when I'm sitting in a room of improvisers being a bad teacher.
Last edited: