Resolving problems in improv scenes

[collin]

Something about the nature of problems strikes me. I remember being schooled into an understanding of the differences between problems and exercises.

Exercises are boring shit. The scene is not about the exercise. We all know where that's going and damned if we're interested in watching you grope your way through a textbook execution of the pythagorean theorem.

Do you have a problem? GREAT! Just try to fucking solve it. Play truthfully. If you rescue that damned cat in the length of an improv scene you are some sort of fucking cat whisperer and now that's fucking interesting. ( Don't always be a "cat-whisperer" that sounds repetitive and boring. )

Do you have an exercise? GREAT! In an improv scene any exercise becomes a problem in just one line. Through circumstance, relationship and point of view any routine situation becomes fucking interesting to watch on that stage.

 

[goldfish boy]

Please say fucking again.

 

[K15]

Gahh! I'm thinking too much. Rules are stupid. Back to basics! Yes And. Establish the 'who what where'. Identify the unusual thing and heighten.

Cat gets stuck in a tree. Need more details! Black cat got stuck in an oak tree in an Ohio suburb; the two neighbors are a female grade school teacher and a male nurse. Better! Is a cat stuck in a tree unusual? Not really. Play it realistically, keep establishing details, look for the unusual thing.

Problems don't keep scenes moving forward, characters & relationships do. Need to get better at character work.

 

[Markb]

If someone is shot they need medical attention.

True, but consider a shooting as a gift that should be exploited. Don't forego all of the cool interactions that can arise out of such an emotionally charged situation. Sure, it can turn out that someone in the scene was an Army medic and can suck the bullet out and put on a band-aid. That wouldn't take much time, can provide some funny visuals, and possibly spark some interesting reactions.

On the other hand, why not call 911 and, in the minutes it would take for help to arrive, use that time to really develop interaction and relationships among the characters? (Or, alternatively, drive the shootee to the hospital and give yourself some time to react, heighten, make discoveries about the relationship between/among characters.) All kinds of actions and dialog can develop when it looks like one of the characters could die. What comes out of this scene can be reincorporated later.

The shootee can be taken into surgery, but we only see the other characters and how they react to each other in the waiting room. Again, emotionally-charged situation, good opportunity to exploit. And then there's the suspense as to whether or not the shootee survives. Exploit the opportunity for suspense.

If the shootee dies--hey, even further opportunities to react emotionally and strongly! If he lives--as I said before, reincorporate some of those potential deathbed confessions or information that came out while waiting for help to arrive (or on the way to the hospital).

Some good can come out of any choice; however, there are some choices that almost write the rest of the scenes by themselves and make it easier for the actors to create exciting and entertaining scenes.

 

[mike short]

Getting shot is still an action. And don't we tell beginning improvisors to not make the scene about the action?

And no matter what, any action is meaningless without context. A gunshot can begin a scene (because anything can begin a scene) but then we need to figure out our context. Our context will help tell us what to do.

And that context is going to include everything from the hard details (are we kids playing with Dad's found gun, or are we mafia-types in a police shoot-out?) to how we view the world (it may be a source of panic, it may be a fact of our life we accept).

Which ultimately means there's no exact rule for how to deal with any "problem" that might arise, other than: React to the problem in a manner that is truthful to the character you're creating.

 

[BruceCarroll]

Solving the problem usually translates to stopping the fun.

May I suggest "Don't stop the fun" as a rule?

 

[mike short]

Perhaps, although I hesitate to use the word "rule." But if it helps you do good improv, then go for it and use it.

I also hesitate to throw "rules" into the negative because it doesn't really tell you what you should be doing. Instead, it might be more useful to say "follow the fun" or "keep the fun going." There could be a scene where, using our earlier example, stopping someone from rescuing a cat from a tree could be the most fun thing we can do. I'm sure we can use our brains and come up with a possible scenario where that would be fun and funny. We know what's most fun and funny for our scenario as long as we pay attention to what's been going on in our scene already.

 

[mullaney]

Don't solve problems. Make problems worse.

 

[proofred]

For me, it depends on how it is presented:

1) "Rescue my cat" - rescue the cat...then maybe ransom it or something. You have to still WANT something in the scene, as does the other person.

2) "Help me get my cat out of the tree" - You agree to help but again, you want something from the person. It's not about the process of getting the cat out of the tree, but what's really going on between the characters.

3) "My cat is stuck in the tree" - Yep, it sure is!

If the person is actually asking you to take an action, a "no" is a "no". If they're more coy, then you have wiggle room.

As Mullaney says, generally look to heighten the situation between the characters. It's not necessarily just to make the problem worse, but more vital and more important and find something that someone has a big reaction to and keep doing what they're reacting to.

In other words, give people in a scene something to react to. Find something they care about and put it at risk or tease them with their greatest desires only to keep accidentally continuing to push it out of reach.

Todd Rice
ProofRed
---------
Out of Reach

 

[Minderbinder]

When presented with a cat in a tree, I would attempt to save the cat but fail miserably, in new and fun ways, over and over until we run out of fun. Lots of opportunities for physical comedy here.

That's the easiest way to do it in my opinion.

But there's infinite ways to approach it, it depends on the characters. How your character views the situation will be different if he's terrified of heights vs. someone who believes he is invincible. If you're depressed you might just say "what's the point, we all die anyway?". If you have a semi-strong character, what to do will be simple and obvious.

If you choose to solve the problem immediately, e.g. scramble up the tree and say "here's your cat", you'll probably get a laugh but now the scene is over, unless you find a new objective. "Ahh look at that, I got a splinter while in the tree, it's a bleeder, can you help me out?"

 

[K15]

Bah. I've made up my mind. I disagree with you all! This isn't some wacky short form game of "Rescue The Cat!" The problem doesn't define the scene. It informs the scene. We know that the cat owner wants her cat rescued. We know that the location is probably outside her house. The neighbor's reaction to this tells us whether he's helpful or a jerk. How the neighbor approaches this problem tells us MORE about the scene. More information helps us find the game of the scene.

Don't solve problems. Make problems worse.

I understand that we don't want to resolve the unusual thing of the scene, that we want to heighten instead, but what about mundane problems? Or are you suggesting that we heighten a mundane problem until it becomes unusual?


P.S. - I hope I didn't just invent a short form game called "Rescue the cat."
P.P.S. - I suppose that I am somewhat agreeing with stuff most people wrote, but I still feel like being defiant.

 

[mullaney]

Yes, of course, it depends on the problem and the scene and no guideline works in every situation. But this is what needs to be worked on in a rehearsal or a class, where we can put scenes on their feet and try out different options. I'd rather keep it simple and clean on a message board, and give people a simple guideline. And then make sure they understand that all rules can be broken and guidelines don't apply to every scene.

 

[proofred]

I'm starting to hate cats...

 

[lefty]

I think this whole "cat" conundrum is like missing the point of improv-- but anytime we talk about a potential initiation in the abstract (IE not in a scene on stage), we are stuck with the fact that we're not in the scene but talking about a potential scene.

Curtis Gwinn said something in class a while ago that really stayed with me. A thing that makes improv great is that we're not seeing two generic anythings up on stage, we're seeing very specific people-- as long as they fearlessly play their "truth" it will be unique. The situation they end up in will be unique even if it seems like something we've seen a thousand times. We've seen analogous situtaions maybe, but not those two people inhabiting those two character incarnations in that moment. It will be unique in part due to, as Proofred points out, how it is presented. It will be unique because of the physical posturing of the two players as the scene starts-- and how the players choose to use that info.

Ultimately I think the whole "what to do about a problem in a scene" comes down to how to play it or continue the manner playing that is already going on. I also think everyone in this thread already knows that; but for some "newbie" reading this and wondering how to do improv, I'd hate for them to spend anytime thinking about "the right way" to rescue a cat in an improv scene. As others have said, it ain't about the cat or the rescue. But it is about, as Meghan Duffy has pointed out in her classes, the communion between the players as they are the only real thing in stage.

 

[high violet]

Basically the only wrong answer is to do nothing.

Everyone is going to approach the question from a different perspective. There is a way to focus the abstract concept into something you can practice or at least think about, and I think the more specific answers in this thread speak to that. There is also a way to embrace the abstract and speak to the vague truth that none of this is even able to be discussed truly, and you end up with "Just follow/do/be in the moment and anything is right".

I think the former more specific, practical answers are more beneficial to learning and discovering, and the more vague, philosophical latter example is more beneficial once you already have your own answer and just want to wax philisophical about improv and marvel at its abstract beauty. I don't think the cryptic, poetic "Just be..." means anything to someone until after they've already figured out the practical stuff over years and years of thought and practice- so yeah, obviously, the more concrete/practical/specific you get, the more exceptions you can find to it but I think you need to start practical and applicable, learn from it, and then you can go off and be an improv yogi.

 

[El Jefe]

Some People in This Thread: Don't solve the problem.

Other People in This Thread: But if the problem is an action, and the scene shouldn't be about action, I should just do what I want and be truthful about my relationship!

Those First People: Then that action isn't what we're talking about.

***

I really think the "There are no rules" contingent is over-thinking this.

Whether you call it THE GAME or not, there is something that is hopefully funny about your scene. Think of it as the logline of your scene, the elevator pitch to some fictional sketch-writing producer, how you would describe it in the writer's room if you only had one sentence. I sometimes like to think of it in the way that they teach mathematical functions to children: a function is a box that takes input, does a specific thing to it, and outputs it as something else.

Don't stop that function box from working. Do whatever else you want in the scene, but honor that function box.

Maybe rescuing the cat is that game. A number of people try more outlandish ways to rescue the cat. Maybe the game is the person at the bottom of the tree who gets Gulf War flashbacks from the stress of the situation — if that, then what other mildly stressful things will set him off? Maybe the owner of the tree is pissed off at the neighbor who owns the cat.

Whatever that game is, don't explain it away. If the game is more and more outlandish ways to rescue the cat, don't rescue the cat and kill the scene. If the game is the war vet, don't cure him of PTSD and kill the scene. Et cetera.

And again, no rule is set in stone.

 

[mikelibrarian]

The only time I remember rescuing a cat in a scene, my scene partner thought I was rescuing a balloon at a fair and the scene wound up becoming about her fear of clowns.

 

[goldfish boy]

When you have a cat-stuck-in-tree scene, make it about your scene partner's fear of clowns.

 

[benorbeen]

Personally, if this is a performance, then this is a scene, and a scene has a conflict ("can't get the cat out of the tree"), and I don't come to see a bunch of improvisers fail at accomplishing things on the fly.

I want them to get the cat out of the tree.

If they can't, then where's their talent?

If they don't get the cat out of the tree, I find the performers distractable. If they fail to get the cat out of the tree, I find the performers a number of negatives: perhaps uncoordinated as a team, perhaps lacking cohesion as a team, perhaps lacking in ingenuity, perhaps unskilled.

Basically, it's pretty lame if seven improvisers can't get a cat out of a tree in a scene.

Now, there's something to be said about humor but that's something independent of the issue. You can make me laugh as you try to get the cat out of the tree, but inevitably you have to get the cat out of the tree.

In so doing, make me laugh, make me be amazed by your creativity and acrobatics, wow me with your skill of impromptu coordination ... but in the end, save the damn cat.

Ben