Resolving problems in improv scenes

[K15]

I'm wondering about how problems (and resolving them) should be approached in improv scenes. Example scene: A woman's cat is stuck in a tree. She asks her neighbor to help rescue it. Do you...

A) Quickly rescue the cat
B) Exasperate the problem
C) Try to rescue the cat, but take your time

I've had some teachers tell me to just resolve the problem, because ultimately the scene is not going to be about the cat. Which makes sense; unless you have some spectacular plan for rescuing cats, the relationship between the neighbors is probably going to be what drives the scene. What worries me, though, is that it'll end up like a transaction scene. The cat gets rescued, nothing else is going on, and you have to struggle to develop something or edit the scene.

I've heard other teachers say that you never solve problems in improv, you make them worse. Instead of rescuing the cat, now you're stuck in the tree with it! Or cat-eating vultures are circling overhead! Use the problem as an opportunity to heighten and to raise the stakes. It immediately makes the scene more fun. But it also seems to make the scene revolve around the cat problem. Is that really ideal?

Probably not the best approach, but my instinct has been to rescue the cat slowly, to do cat-rescuing object work while building a conversation with the woman. Try to time it so that the cat is rescued at about the same time the scene ends. Treat the cat rescue simply as an activity to do, without making the scene about the cat.

I think the reason why teachers have insisted on either (A) solving the problem or (B) making it worse is that they are very active ways to approach the problem, while (C) take your time is a very passive approach. I'm still not sure how to resolve the (seemingly) conflicting advice I've been given, though.

 

[K15]

Ah, I'm stupid. There's already a discussion about this exact topic that's several pages long.

http://www.improvresourcecenter.com/mb/showthread.php?t=71305

 

[mikedwyer]

Ponder the futility of rescuing the cat at all, since he is just going to climb back up again eventually. Contrast the neighbor's philosophy with the woman's, and explore the other ways in which this contrast might manifest itself.

However I might play it, I don't think "rescuing a cat" by itself is really all that unusual or interesting to watch. Which isn't to say I wouldn't do it if the scene called for it, but for me sometimes "problem solving" becomes an excuse to stop yes anding the reality of the scene. I think just keep answering the unanswered questions in the scene, and something more fun will probably reveal itself.

 

[mikedwyer]

Which is a long-winded way of saying that I think my answer is closest to C.

 

[Lord Hatsumi]

don't make the scene about the problem, instead invest in your scene partner

"I told you if you throw the cat into the tree one more time I wasn't going to help get it down."

 

[mike short]

In this specific example, rescuing a cat from a tree is an action. How do you feel about the cat and the cat owner? That will color how you go about the action. (And we can decide going into the action that we feel one way, or we may notice that we feel another way as we're doing it; the important thing is that at some point we figure out what we feel.)

I am a big fan of object work, and I am also a big fan of the comedy structure "The Simple-yet-Impossible Task." Watch basically any Mr. Bean sketch to see one of those. So I do like the idea of really exploring the physical nature of rescuing a cat - there are opportunities for humor in there that we won't see if we just quickly and detachedly do the action. But that's the real trick - not being detached to the thing. If we're involved and invested in what we're doing, how to go about the thing reveals itself.

 

[Holmes]

The query doesn't include enough information, namely who I am other than just a neighbor.

If the scene starts and I am a small child and my partner says her cat is stuck in a tree, I might cry and get upset. Then that's what the scene is. Maybe a firefighter comes in to help but reveals that it's his first day and he cries too.

If the scene starts and I am a normal guy neighbor, I might choose to try to rescue the cat. Then I might just gallantly rescue it and see what happens next and that's the scene. Or I might start and fail and try again and fail, and that's what the scene is.


In the real world, you're already something. In improv, you should already be something.

 

[Markb]

We solve the problem--eventually. The problem (hopefully) provides drama and the potential for heightened emotions and reactions that are more interesting to watch and provide a context for the relationships and events that follow the "problem scene."

 

[ChrisCamp]

There are infinite solutions to this improv word problem.

Ask yourself, what does this character do when confronted with this problem. Does he/she lay down and cry like a baby? Maybe he/she starts doing pushups to work up the energy to solve the problem (meanwhile someone else solves the problem while he/she wastes time).

I wouldn't worry too much about solving or not solving the problem, instead worry about doing SOMETHING. Anything! React! Just do something and do it confidently. This will help you click into a character and give your scene partner something else to react to themselves.

The one thing that I wouldn't do is stand in front of the tree and discuss the fact that the cat is in the tree at length. Sure this could lead to some mildly funny banter ("but i thought you WANTED to put the cat in the tree, yuck yuck") but this will quickly lead to boredom and then when you do decide to save the cat it will feel forced.

Also if you are in the middle of the action (aka saving the cat). Don't delay the task with banter, just do it. If you give yourself a stance on the situation you'd be surprised how you won't fall into the awkward resolution. Hopefully the backline will present a similar problem ("oh man, grandpa is stuck in the tree"), or you will discover something about how your scene partner reacts to you saving said cat.

Bahhh before I start rambling anymore I'll stop. Like I said, infinite solutions. Have confidence!

 

[high violet]

The note "never solve the problem, make it worse" should be clarified to "never fix the unusual/fun thing or make it normal or OK". It shouldn't literally apply to all problems happening to characters, unless that problem is the fun/unusual thing in your scene.

In the cat scenario, I would recommend realistically getting the cat. Get a ladder, ask the cat's name so you can call to it, coax it to come toward you, safely grab it and carry it down the ladder and hand it to your neighbor. Somewhere in that honest/realistic activity of rescuing a cat, something fun or intrtesting or unusual will happen and then you can "not fix" that thing and make that thing "worse", but for now rescue the cat realistically and keep your improv ears open for the fun discovery. Don't play dumb and delay the rescue or be a smart ass and reach a foot up and say "Here, he is!"

So don't "solve" or "exaperate" or "take your time", just do it realistically. The only reason you'd so quickly choose an opening problem to be "what the scene is about" is if you are doing a 2 minute short form scene but in longform you can spend 45 seconds playing honest and building the reality before you find a nice hook to play and blow out.

 

[K15]

Thanks for the clarification, high violet. "Never fix the unusual thing" makes much more sense as a note. Especially in the context of my example, "cat stuck in a tree" is a very mundane, realistic situation, and so it should be dealt with in a realistic manner.

So the consensus is to focus not on solving the problem, but on who my character is & how I feel about my partner's character; this will in turn dictate how I approach the situation. And then follow through with that approach in a realistic way.

 

[Hawkins]

One of you put that cat in the tree

You've "resolved" (w/o fixing) the problem, and the why is the fun shit to play with

 

[Holmes]

The scene is not about the problem or whether it gets fixed.

 

[David Siegel]

There's a big difference between dealing with an actual, real world problem (the house is on fire!) and an improviser having a problem with unusual behavior.

Real world problems, until a game has been defined, should be dealt with the way you'd deal with them in the real world. If someone is shot they need medical attention. If the house is on fire you use a fire extinguisher, etc. Until its being done in service of some specific, comedic idea, you should continue to deal with real world problems like you normally would.

That is very different than an improviser having a problem with unusual behavior. How many scenes have you seen that were just 1 person acting weird, and the other person trying to get them to stop it, realize what an idiot they are, and behave normally.

In this sense solving the problem isn't helpful. If we have a shell shocked, Vietnam vet working as a temp in an office job who keeps having flashbacks, yes in the real world that might be a problem. But in an improv scene, at no point do we want him to go, "Sorry guys, I'll just act like a totally normal temp. My bad." Nor do we want to fire him (right away) without actively exploring how this guy handles himself in the office. This is a problem we want to USE, and a situation where gas on the fire is more helpful than the extinguisher.

Either way, I think this issue falls under the general umbrella of, "Do it like it would normally go, until the scene partners and ensemble have a agreed on how/why it should go otherwise."

 

[Holmes]

No choice is bad.

It's okay to rescue the cat or choose not to or fire the weirdly acting employee. Then you can see what happens next and get more of that character or game or story or whatever is important to the scene.

A big problem I see with choice-making in improv is that people (improvisers) will freak out if you (the improviser) make certain choices. Often, this is because of "rules" (a whole other topic for discussion).

What you "should" do is keep playing.

 

[BGulya]

Any choice will work, as long as you are truly playing with each other and justifying your actions.

The term "Don't fix your problems" most aptly fits when you have a strong comedic idea. And that idea will lay in the way the two neighbors interact, not in the cat itself. But, if the two players have developed a game that they play while trying to get a cat out of a tree, getting the cat down could stall or end your scene.

If there is no strong comedic idea, then either choice can be fine, as long as you're agreeing with each other. If one player's idea is that there is a cat stuck in a tree, solving that problem right way might kill their idea. But, if you have a sweet reason for your character rescuing the cat, go for it.

"Don't solve your problems" is a great guideline that reminds us that solving the problem isn't the point. But, almost any move can be the right move given the right scene and time.

 

[goldfish boy]

As you can see, there's no one-size-fits-all answer.

I think the only time fixing the problem really gets you in trouble is when it puts you back to square one and you basically have to restart the scene. If you make a discovery while rescuing the cat, you can move the scene forward by exploring and heightening that discovery.

 

[Lisa P]

don't make the scene about the problem, instead invest in your scene partner

"I told you if you throw the cat into the tree one more time I wasn't going to help get it down."

I swear, Viv just got out and climbed up there on her own!

 

[burns1]

I'm worried about the cat, it's been up there days now.

 

[mike short]

That is very different than an improviser having a problem with unusual behavior. How many scenes have you seen that were just 1 person acting weird, and the other person trying to get them to stop it, realize what an idiot they are, and behave normally.

In this sense solving the problem isn't helpful. If we have a shell shocked, Vietnam vet working as a temp in an office job who keeps having flashbacks, yes in the real world that might be a problem. But in an improv scene, at no point do we want him to go, "Sorry guys, I'll just act like a totally normal temp. My bad." Nor do we want to fire him (right away) without actively exploring how this guy handles himself in the office. This is a problem we want to USE, and a situation where gas on the fire is more helpful than the extinguisher.

I totes agree with this part. I think we say "don't solve the problem" because solving the problem usually translates to stopping the fun.