Yesanditis

[amn]

I heard Besser use this term first so credit goes to him but it refers to the tendency to "yes and" to everything even after you've found an unusual thing and it's time to explore and heighten and you don't have to "yes and" anymore (save the debate about if this is correct or not as that's not what my question is about)

My question is, when you you've intiated with a premise or even a half-idea and you make yourself the odd person. You, the improviser, want your scene partner's character to say "No" to something your character has said but they keep saying "yes", matching your point of view and being OK with the crazyness, how do you avoid going to crazytown or having it flip and you end up being the straight person?

Caveat - if you end up being the straight person after establishing that you had the weird point of view, your scene partner continues to say YES and agree and match you rather than frame the fact that you are being absurd.

I want to know how to handle this preferably without any backline support.

 

[Lord Hatsumi]

Use the world as your straight man, if both of you become unusual. How is the weirdness of these people juxtaposed to the world around them?

 

[mike short]

Don't overthink it.

I get into this problem a lot - I really want or expect my scene partner to say something because I know that'll lead to a particular kind of funny scene. It's because I have really strong directorial instincts, and while those are very useful sometimes, a lot of times it gets in the way of just being in the moment.

So I know I can't control my scene partner. I can lay something out hoping I'll get a response, but I can't hinge the rest of my scene on getting that. If I get something else, I gotta treat that as a gift too. It's hard if your tendencies are like mine, but it's worth it once you start believing that everything is a gift.

Now, I also think Yes-And-itis is a little different from Being Ok with Craziness. If someone's okay with my craziness, I get to say "Hooray! Here's someone I share my POV with. We're peas in a pod! Our behavior is justified because we're both doing it! This is a world where people talk like this!" And so on. Yes-And-Itis sounds more like adding information to a scene regardless of any premise or dynamic or relationship or game we've already seen figured out. There is a point where we have plenty and all we need to do is ride out that plenty. The Yes-And-Itis I've seen usually comes from a place of having so much making stuff up, that Making Stuff Up becomes the focus rather than Making that Stuff Theatrical.

Anyway, I've gona off on a tangent. Don't overthink it, just treat it as a gift. Let yourself get into that uncomfortable scary place where you don't know what's going on and you'll figure out how to handle it on your own.

 

[morganphillips]

Use the world as your straight man, if both of you become unusual. How is the weirdness of these people juxtaposed to the world around them?

A trick to do this without depending on a walk-on from a straight man: If you're surprised by your scene partner being cool with your weirdness, go ahead and express that surprise as your character.

"Honey, I murdered our baby."
"Good, I hated that baby."
"Really? Okay, phew! The way you were cooing over it before, I thought you'd be angry with me." (Or, "Wow. It just amazes me how far you've come since the first time I murdered one of our babies.")

COMEDY GOLD.

And then from there you'd hopefully cooperate to find a specific justification for baby murdering.

 

[lefty]

I've never understood the whole "I wanted/expected my scene partner to do x" thing except that react to that surprise the way we would in life.

If you confess something bad and you're partner is cool, well that happens in real life all the time. We often work up big complicated plans only to find they weren't needed because the person is cool with what ever we're proposing. "Man, I had this planned in case you were like 'no'" is what happens in life. Or, "wow, I felt bad about this but I feel better because you're cool with it".

But, and I guess I do this to a lot of scene partners and I"ve seen it a lot too, where they look (and are) stumped and stopped as you're improvising and not following the script they didn't bring in with their premise-heavy initiation. It's the thousand versions of this problem that make me tend to steer away from premise heavy initiations, after leaning on them early on. Scenes are just easier without them. Meghan Duffy once said "Improv isn't about ideas, it's about communion" and, since the only real things on the stage are the 2 people, the only thing really going on is the level of communion between them-- the premise isn't even part of that except to set up the response to it, which is a big part of it. Which then leads to the quote from Del Close that I heard from Jeff Michalski "The pony in the pile of shit is in the response". No idea or premise is anything, it's all in the response to it. Honestly, I think when they don't respond the way we expect them to is when we'll always get to something good and unique are more real and truthful.

Just play the scene like it matters.

 

[BGulya]

I agree with most of these thoughts on how to deal with scenes where your scene partner doesn't respond how you've expected. But, I want to add this:

If you're initiating with a strong premise, it should be because your team has used an opening and discovered the premise together. If your partner doesn't respond in away that supports the premise you and your team have already yes-anded to (in the opening) it's either because A) Your partner didn't understand the idea in the opening OR B) You didn't make your initiation clear enough. If a team consistently feels this way, the issue may be more about the opening and how they use it than it is about scene-work notes.

HOWEVER, of course it's not always going to work out. And, when in doubt you have to just accept and support what your scene partner says, and you'll YesAnd yourselves to a new game. If they missed your idea, for whatever reason, don't blame them, sell them out, or try to force your original premise. At the end of the day, it's all about having each others' backs.

YesAnditis, as I understand it, real just means keep it simple. If you already have a game that you and your partner understand and have initiated into your scene, why keep YesAnding and changing the game?

 

[El Jefe]

I've never understood the whole "I wanted/expected my scene partner to do x" thing except that react to that surprise the way we would in life.

If you confess something bad and you're partner is cool, well that happens in real life all the time. We often work up big complicated plans only to find they weren't needed because the person is cool with what ever we're proposing. "Man, I had this planned in case you were like 'no'" is what happens in life. Or, "wow, I felt bad about this but I feel better because you're cool with it".

But, and I guess I do this to a lot of scene partners and I"ve seen it a lot too, where they look (and are) stumped and stopped as you're improvising and not following the script they didn't bring in with their premise-heavy initiation. It's the thousand versions of this problem that make me tend to steer away from premise heavy initiations, after leaning on them early on. Scenes are just easier without them. Meghan Duffy once said "Improv isn't about ideas, it's about communion" and, since the only real things on the stage are the 2 people, the only thing really going on is the level of communion between them-- the premise isn't even part of that except to set up the response to it, which is a big part of it. Which then leads to the quote from Del Close that I heard from Jeff Michalski "The pony in the pile of shit is in the response". No idea or premise is anything, it's all in the response to it. Honestly, I think when they don't respond the way we expect them to is when we'll always get to something good and unique are more real and truthful.

Just play the scene like it matters.

A lot of smart things have been said already in this thread. The above especially rings true for me.

Your expectation of a "no" is something for you to adjust — you don't need that "no" to have a good scene. But what about the times when your scene partner is all over the place, heightening and inventing details that threaten to take your scene far away from the initial "one strange thing"?

Maybe that's the time to steer the conversation back to your relationship? Or allow yourself a pause from speaking, letting your body talk for you? Talk about your philosophy? Anything to take you out of that downward spiral of logorrhea and knee-jerk invention that can bog down a scene.

 

[amn]

This is all great. I think I might be describing more of a Yesitis than a Yesanditis. Blindly saying Yes and not adding anything. Just sort of being like "yep that's true!" and then rocking back on your heals whistling while your scene partner adds all the info to the scene.

Yesanditis is, the more I think about it, about adding stuff to the scene after you've discovered something unusual to explore.

But the main point is: I have to adjust. I have to get my scene partner's back.

 

[El Jefe]

Yesitis is a huge problem, in my opinion. One of my top five improv pet peeves is when Person 1 initiates with a premise (often crazy), and Person 2 says, "This is going to be the most awesome x ever!" If I had a nickel....

 

[SixSider]

I regularly do an exercise that was inspire by the play of Eric Scott. (I used to call it "The Eric Scott" but now I call it "Fuck, Yes!").

In short: Player A initiates with something that is high stakes. Can be a "problem." Can be crazytown-ish. Example that I always use (which is eerily close to morganphillips' example): "Oh my god! All the babies are on fire!"

Player B responds, before anything else, with "Yes!" They have to LOVE the situation, whatever it is. Love it first, justify why afterwards. And, if it is possible, take responsibility for the situation. ("Yes! I set all the babies on fire! Those babies were creeping me the fuck out!")

"Yesanditis" is not due to the first yes/and. It is when each And just keeps upping and adding but doesn't explore. Once you have what is going on and have WHY it is going on, explore what you have. Dig deeper instead of out. Explore vs create.

 

[lefty]

OMG, I love that exercise. It reminds me of something that Marcus Bishop Wright said to me, and it changed forever the way I improvise. He said "Lou, you are never again allowed to say no in a scene. I don't care if someone says 'let's go rape some children' you can not say no to it".

The other thing, and really the bigger thing, I love about it is is that it reminds me of my obsession with "complicity". I took John Wright's idea of complicity and completely blew it up going far beyond what I can legitimately think he means by it. I like when the scene partners are like partners in crime with regard to whatever the crazy thing is. It's my favorite kind of move ever, it solves so many potential problems-- like why are you here with this person. Awesome. When ever I'm presented with something insane, I want to discover how I am part of this, how I am complicit in all of it. Anything less is a bit like standing outside it commenting on it-- a bit, I don't want to push that idea too far.

I feel like there are like 3 separate subjects in this thread: the real problem of "yesanditis", the "damn it you missed the big idea I came in with", and the third thing I can' quite label Mable.

I think "yesanditis" is really common as improvisers grow into this art and are no longer unsure how to fill in the infinite ambiguity that starts like all scenes. Once they realize "oh, I see what's in this world and if those things are true then these things can also be true"-- it's fun to color in the page and add all the fun crazy things of the world. It's like a phase we can all go through analogous to a bad dope habit we can fall into because getting high is fun and easy. It's also like the playing of the list of stuff or list of attributes instead of realizing when enough exists and getting down to the ... well ... communion part of the scene, the deeper truth of it all.

 

[mike short]

Not sure if this totally relates to what's going on, but this thought occurred to me after a note I got in class last night.

I started a scene that a bit pop culture reference-y, and my scene partner responded with something a bit left field (to me). But it was big and bold and funny anyway and I was ready to go with it. The teacher suggested that I take the time to drop out a bit more information about what I was doing (I was trying to play Skeletor, He-Man's arch-nemesis) to give my scene partner a bit more information to work with.

It occurred to me that sometimes, in the name of naturalism, we'll leave out information because people don't talk in an expository way. Playing Skeletor is an extreme example, and probably too steeped in pop culture (which is another conversation) but I think it still stands. I tried to talk in a normal, loose way, which meant I avoided some exposition and left my scene partner in the dark. So on the idea of expecting a certain response from a scene partner and not getting it: is it possible that we are leaving out all of the information our scene partner needs to make an informed choice?

Of course there's balance to be struck... but I think I'm on to something here...

 

[Lord Hatsumi]

I just don't really understand all of this. If we are initiating a scene and expecting a certain response, why aren't we writing sketch? The fun of improv are the moments where we are put on our heels.

If I initiate a scene as Skeletor, and my scene partner actually says "I don't know who you are" I would LOVE that response. Then I'd get to do a scene who feels sad because people have forgotten about me. (Just using this as an example because it is the most recent)

I guess I've also done this long enough to know the stuff I have over thought, often falls flat, and the stuff that comes up on it's own is the stuff that goes over well.

 

[mike short]

I think semantics are getting in the way. I'm sorry if I'm not being clear. I'm not expecting anyone to read my mind and do the awesome amazing sketch I've written in my head.

The thought is more along the lines of "This is the circle of expectations in my head about what relates to the idea I have." Like, isn't there the example in Truth in Comedy about coming in with pizzas but having them get labelled manhole covers? Of course they're manhole covers now... just for some people that quick adjustment takes a second longer than others. You thought your pizza thing was pretty clear, but now it isn't and it's something else.

Yeah, sometimes, you really wanted to do that thing you had in your head that involved pizza. Well, you should have just gotten it out of the way then, because once they're manhole covers you gotta abandon that. Or even simpler - if you just expected to get paid for the pizza and leave and now suddenly you're a manhole cover salesman haggling over the price and your role is much larger now than you expected... I understand if it's a struggle.

 

[lefty]

outside-in, right? What we think doesn't matter, in this or in life. It's what we do and what everyone sees. Externalize > internalize in theater.

The manhole covers vs pizza thing, well one weighs a whole lot more, so if anything it's more of an adjustment then for something verbal.

That's why "I feel this about that" or "You look blankity-blank" are the best ways to start, they're truthful and not ideaful.

 

[amn]

I just don't really understand all of this. If we are initiating a scene and expecting a certain response, why aren't we writing sketch? The fun of improv are the moments where we are put on our heels.

Do you think that if someone initiates with a premise, that the team found together in the opening, they can rightfully have an expectation of their scene partner to respond either:

a) in a way that lets the initiator know they understand what they found funny about something in the opening and that sets them up to explore the premise further and play the game?

or

b) in a way that lets the initiator know that they understand that they are going for something and have an idea but just want a little more information so they can be clear about what the game might be?

Of course you should drop it and adapt if the person just doesn't get it and labels you as something or someone other than what you had intended but I don't think having those expectations is bad if you are doing premise based improv.

Where I get stuck is when the respondant just keeps saying "Yes" and doesn't add anything.

 

[Lord Hatsumi]

if you just expected to get paid for the pizza and leave and now suddenly you're a manhole cover salesman haggling over the price and your role is much larger now than you expected... I understand if it's a struggle.

What I'm saying is that is a moment I would absolutely LOVE to be put in. If I somehow get morphed into a Manhole Delivery guy, that opens up an entire world for me to explore that I never would have thought of. That is when improv is the most fun for me.

As long as my scene partner isn't doing it because he's an asshole.

 

[Lord Hatsumi]

Do you think that if someone initiates with a premise, that the team found together in the opening, they can rightfully have an expectation of their scene partner to respond either:

a) in a way that lets the initiator know they understand what they found funny about something in the opening and that sets them up to explore the premise further and play the game?

or

b) in a way that lets the initiator know that they understand that they are going for something and have an idea but just want a little more information so they can be clear about what the game might be?

Of course you should drop it and adapt if the person just doesn't get it and labels you as something or someone other than what you had intended but I don't think having those expectations is bad if you are doing premise based improv.

Where I get stuck is when the respondant just keeps saying "Yes" and doesn't add anything.

When I initiate with premise, I'm not expecting any particular response. I'm instead putting all my focus on listening to how they respond. If we came up with an amazing premise in the opening, and I initiate, I can not expect my scene partner to remember the opening from front to back. Because I sure as shit know I forget a shit ton of the opening, so I'm expecting my scene partner to have the same problems I do with openings. So I just don't expect.

It's our primary job to listen/react and yes, and.

Sometimes when someone initiates to me, I'll just nod and agree until I get more information. If I'm still confused as to what they are going for, then I will just yes, and to the best of my ability and probably destroy what they were going for, but I'm confident in myself enough to know that we will find something new and fun to play.

 

[mike short]

As long as my scene partner isn't doing it because he's an asshole.

Well, yeah, that we are definitely on board with. No one likes those guys.