The 'knocking at the door' in long form thingamajig

[HumansWearHats]

Hello. I love long form. I love improv. I love long form improv. I just joined this site to talk to cool improvisers around the world (like YOU.) Anywho, this is my first post/advice question.

Let's say there is a long form scene going on with two roommates in an apartment and someone wants to come in as the landlord, what that improviser usually does instead of walking directly in the scene is knock on door (whether the stage has a door or not.) I always thought the 'knocking on the door thing' (which I've done a lot) takes steam away from the scene as the people have to stop their conversation, acknowledge the door, get up and open the door whereas if someone was just to do a walk-on and say, "Hey, rent is late," or whatever it wouldn't take long and would get the point across. The whole 'knocking on the door' thing however I believe is used so people say to themselves, "Hey, that Falafel delivery guy just walked into that house without knocking." I know that it depends on what the scene is, where it is located but I always wondered if there was some easy way around it.

I do apologize this was my first post and I type a lot.

 

[Holmes]

Your group has to set a tone for editing scenes. Knocking is making the choice to enter a scene instead of editing one, which is why people do it (the easiest option).

Variations:
- Someone knocks on the door or rings the doorbell and does a walk-on.
- Someone walks into the scene as if we've jump-edited to a different scene.
- Someone does a stylized clap edit or swinging door or Canadian cross to cut and cut back.
- Someone enters as a third room-mate or otherwise logical character to enter and add new information.
- Someone narrates or scene paints to tell everyone that new information.

Don't be afraid to use any stylistic option.
People will accept it if the performers accept it, even if it's the only time someone does it in the show.

 

[mike short]

I'm with you, Hats! I also think that knocking has the effect of slowing down a scene. I've also never been a fan of the knocking effect: stomping with your foot while you move your hand back and forth. I don't like because (a) usually some helpful backline person tries making a knocking sound effect for you at the same time, creating a weird double-knocking (b) it looks as cartoonish as finger-pointing guns and thumb-and-forefinger phones and (c) it's a shorthand. I'll get back to (c) in a minute.

I truly believe there's never* any reason to knock on a door. Personally, I'm cool with people just opening up the improv door and saying their first line. Just position yourself downstage a bit so that the us on stage can see you and mime a really good door opening. Your character has the right to be anywhere they want to be in improv land.

*Okay, not really never. I like to say that when I coach because I'd rather get people in the habit of being bold and efficient with their scene entrances. Of course there's sometimes a reason to knock, which brings us back to (c).

When it's a shorthand, all you've done is communicated that there's been a knock at the door. It doesn't tell us anything more. I'd love to see what it looks like when an angry landlord knocks on a door as opposed to a happy Girl Scout or a jealous lover or a nosy in-law. If you must knock on the door, use it as an opportunity to communicate what you're bringing into the scene!

And, man, Hats, you don't type anywhere near as much as I do. So don't worry about it. Welcome to the boards!

 

[lefty]

I agree and appreciate both Mike's and Holmes' answers. I'll play devil's advocate. If you see a move that will help a scene that requires you to knock on a door, then that's what it is. If you could "walk back into the room where the scene is from some other room", you'd choose that, but you move is about someone outside coming it-- unless it's not and then maybe the knock is more about convention than it is about the best way to make the move.

But, I can't imagine a knock on a door coming in a scene were a door that might get a knock on it isn't at least part of the unspoken parts of the established environment-- unless the knock also helps establishes an unclear environment. So, in an environment where there is a door to be knocked on, that-- as we all know-- takes time to answer and does interrupt what is going on in the room. It's just part of reality. Like any object work, rushing through it disrespects the moment and has the potential to skip past the chance for discovery or play just to get to our big idea. Similarly to feel as a player imposed upon by someone knocking on a door during a scene is bullshit. Your teammate has a move, a gift to give the scene: respect it and love it and deal with the knock on the door in what ever way you deem appropriate for the scene. There are so many chances for creativity in all of this. As Mike said, just how you approach the door, knock and stand waiting is a great thing. How you get up to answer the door, and what obstacles are in the way, and what you have to do before opening the door, your reaction to the knock, are all playable. The knock on the door is not only crisis, it is also opportunity.

 

[goldfish boy]

If it's your house or a room that you would generally feel free to enter, then it makes sense that you would just enter without knocking. But if you're the falafel guy or someone else who wouldn't be expected to have access to the house or room, why on earth would you enter without knocking? To me, that would disrupt the scene far more than knocking would--you'd have to deal with the whole issue of why someone is barging in uninvited.

I also think that knocking has the effect of slowing down a scene.

In general, I think just about anything that slows down a scene is probably a good thing.

 

[mike short]

In the context I mean, slowing down is not synonymous with patience, measured play, or listening, or any one of the positive connotations. I mean slowing down as disrupting the natural flow of the scene. We should be driving slowly when we're in a speed bump zone, but in a 65-MPH zone when we're zipping along at a nice clip a speed bump is wholly unwelcome thing.

Please don't push the metaphor further. It will quickly break down.

 

[Holmes]

In general, I think just about anything that slows down a scene is probably a good thing.

Improv that zooms by without allowing for anything meaningful is crappy.

However, improv that doesn't waste time and is good and fast without being too fast provides more improv. I get my money's worth.

I can't stand a show that takes 20 minutes to achieve one thing, or worse yet a 45-minute set with a ton of boring dead air while the players try to read each other's minds in the name of patient exploration.

 

[jayrevis]

- Someone does a stylized clap edit or swinging door or Canadian cross to cut and cut back.

Pssst...what's a Canadian Cross?

 

[mike short]

Pssst...what's a Canadian Cross?

To my understanding, it's when someone crosses the stage, sorta entering the scene but not really. They're just coming in to be scenery or background crowd or something. Here's an explanation: http://improvencyclopedia.org/glossary/Canadian_Cross.html

It's hard to do because you're sorta secretly hoping that the players on stage ignore you, which never really works. The hope is that the move doesn't steal focus, but the examples given are such big moves that that's pretty much what they'll do. And it's kind of an arcane phrase that rarely gets used anymore.

 

[goldfish boy]

I can't stand a show that takes 20 minutes to achieve one thing, or worse yet a 45-minute set with a ton of boring dead air while the players try to read each other's minds in the name of patient exploration.

This makes me suspect that you haven't seen good slow improvisation.

And it may be that the reason I don't enjoy fast longform is that I haven't seen much that was good.

 

[lefty]

I think both Holmes and Goldfish Boy are right both about slow and fast improv. There is a difference between patient exploration and just not making a move-- and I see it most often when it is 4 minutes and the actors peaks up from behind his character to look around and go "where am I?" Similarly there is a difference between fast improv and "fuck what's going on, I missed it anyway, here's my idea/joke/move/cry for help".

 

[mike short]

I think we've strayed from the original poster's question.

Other possibilities: Doorbell?

 

[goldfish boy]

I don't really get why knocking at the door is such a problem for OP. If the point is that OP wants to convey information instantly, maybe there's another way to do it than have an entrance.

 

[mike short]

I think you may have misread the question. If I understand it correctly it's this: A character is going to enter a scene, however there would naturally be a door in between where the character is coming from and where the scene is taking place. Because knocking at the door can be intrusive, is there some smoother way around it? And is that smoother way something that isn't jarring - something that might not disrupt the suspension of disbelief?

My first thought is: if you think the entrance could be intrusive, it probably is. The scene might be going along just fine and doesn't need the landlord or delivery guy or whatever to show up. Your entrance might not fit what's going on. Yeah, you're adding to the scene, but are you really really adding? If not, hold off for now.

But let's say someone on stage says that the landlord or delivery guy or mobster thug is on their way now... then sure, you'd want to make that entrance to support their moves. And this is where we need to be pragmatic. What entrance is going to enhance the element we're adding to the scene?

So yes, just walking in would usually disrupt the suspension of disbelief. Like I said, I personally would challenge people to not knock, knowing full well that there are occasions where you're going to anyway. For stuff that can be so situational, there's really no hard and fast rules. I like not knocking because I like boldness and efficiency... but some people may prefer high naturalism.

I also think that, just because there is a knock it doesn't mean that our scene has paused. If you and I are arguing about money and the landlord knocks, for the purposes of drama we might continue to fight as we answer the door. We're still active and present and acting out our deal even as we go through the action of opening a door. And the person on the other side is still active too while they wait on the other side of the door.

 

[goldfish boy]

My first thought is: if you think the entrance could be intrusive, it probably is. The scene might be going along just fine and doesn't need the landlord or delivery guy or whatever to show up.

I agree with you about this.

I also think that, just because there is a knock it doesn't mean that our scene has paused. If you and I are arguing about money and the landlord knocks, for the purposes of drama we might continue to fight as we answer the door.

Or: The knock could provoke an emotional reaction in the characters in the scene. Of course, this response might change the nature of the entrance, which is great--especially if the intention of the entrance was a bit. Now it may be something helpful.

 

[mike short]

Exactly - whatever we do, at least we haven't put the scene on pause. We're still our characters, just now we're opening a door too.

 

[Holmes]

Let's say there is a long form scene going on with two roommates in an apartment and someone wants to come in as the landlord

Maybe just let those two people on stage do their scene.

Maybe later you could start a scene as the landlord doing whatever you would've done as an interruption.

 

[high violet]

I don't think in terms of slow or fast improv. I think more in terms of improv that allows the audience into it's reality & improv that does not. A group's playing speed on it's own shouldn't be what makes them good or worthy of your improv respect.