Improv Resource Center - Forums
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.
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.