Realistic improv

[benjamincanfly]

Hey guys. If there's already a thread like this posted, someone let me know and I'll abandon this one. I searched and did not find.

I'm in between classes 301 and 401 at UCB. I've been going to shows for almost a year and I feel like there's a disconnect between what my teachers tell me and what I see at the theater. Teachers repeatedly urge students to play it as real as possible with serious, life-like characters that (through honesty and an infusion of the improvisor's real-life experiences and opinions) will develop into interesting characters with hilarious but realistic points of view. They encourage you to start out mostly neutral, get a good sense of your partner's mood, and act the scene naturally as you wait for the game to emerge organically. I love this idea, and usually my favorite scenes are ones that are played as straight and real as possible by one or both performers. The funniest scene I've ever witnessed happened during last week's Gravid Water show, in which Christina Gausas went into a fury, yelling hysterically at her scene partner for what seemed like minutes on end while hardly showing a hint of sarcasm or comedic self-awareness. It blew my mind and the entire audience was roaring.

In most shows at the UCB, though, performers continually telegraph their awareness of the audience and of the irony of their actions. Most characters are one-dimensional and most justifications are unreal. I'm trying to use objective language here because I don't mean to say that I dislike the UCB style. I look up to UCB performers and I love most of the shows. But it doesn't seem like anybody is making an effort to develop realistic, well-acted scenes, and this is what I really want to try for.

I think that every style is valid, and there's nothing inherently better about realistic improv (i.e. set in the worlds of Ingmar Bergman and Wes Anderson) as compared to unrealistic improv (i.e. set in the worlds of the Pythons and Mel Brooks). It's just that I only see one side of things being explored, and I'd really like to go in the other direction.

To get to my point: do others have the same desire to see and practice more-realistic improv?

[Masten]

Before the inevitable IRC firestorm starts, I will say that this seems to be an issue peculiar to NYC improv in particular, rather than just UCB.

I started gravitating more towards the Magnet and PIT philosophies, becuase they seemed to have a more organic and intuitive approach to scenework. Sometimes finding the game can seem a bit too much like doing a math problem rather than discovering an emotional connection.

Again, that's not a knock on the UCB curriculum, but those other places do a lot to fill in the gaps UCB leaves you with, and vice versa.

[benjamincanfly]

Since I'm new to the IRC maybe I should mention that I'm not at all trying to start a firestorm.

[Masten]

Originally Posted by benjamincanfly

Since I'm new to the IRC maybe I should mention that I'm not at all trying to start a firestorm.

I didn't think you were. But sometimes folks gets a mite defensive.

[bozarth]

I think of it this way.

Remember in grade school when you learned long division? It was a huge pain in the ass, but you had to keep doing it and doing it and doing it so you understood it.

Then they teach you that easy shortcut that makes it so much easier, and faster, and you get more done.

Well, it's like that. You sorta have to learn these tried-and-true ways of finding laughs that are pretty hard to master. Then after that, you learn how to follow that fun you are having and just play in a way that your team will all be comfortable with.

Basically, you need to learn the hard way before you can do what looks like the "easy way"

That's just my opinion though. If you think I'm full of shit, you're perfectly within your right.

[Antny]

In my opinion, good improv should not be about winking to the audience or just focusing on laughs - not ever. However, it's also not necessarily about being "real." It's about being "truthful."

Now, the types of characters/relationships/situations/scenes the improviser is choosing to be truthful about, and the truths an improviser chooses to explore, as well as how that truth is explored, ultimately comes down to style and sense of humor. The best improvisers I know can play fast and slow, they can play "realistically" (as you define it) and broader (as I presume you define the opposite). Some improvisers are also better actors than others (Christina Gausas, for example, is an excellent actress and she is able to use those tools in her improvisation). Some shows also lend themselves to slower, more "realistic" play (Gravid Water, is definitely one of these shows because a huge majority of the scene is already defined by the actor's scripted lines - which are, more often than not, incredibly "realistic.")

But UCBT's focus on the game of the scene has absolutely nothing to do with these choices in style of play (game is about what we play, not how we play). And good, interesting games are not math problems - they are patterns of behavior that arise out of this truthfulness.

I know I often encourage my students to start their scenes in more recognizable, "realistic" situations (say, a mother and son talking in the kitchen on a college break) rather than more strange, clever situations (say, an alien and a Q-tip playing Plinko) because it's easier for us to play the truth of a situation we find easily relatable than a situation we have to strive to comprehend, and therefore easier to build patterns of behavior. But there's equal truth to the Q-Tip's desire to win Plinko as there is to the mother's desire to connect with her son, and both of those truths will be decided based on the sense of humor of the improviser, and hopefully the improviser will play them both as "truthful" as possible.

I won't make the claim that you never see bad improv from performers who should know better. Sometimes the temptation to get that laugh is very high and I have seen a lot of hilarious bad improv. But that old Del quote is right, "Just because they're laughing doesn't mean we're succeeding." And I think you'll find that the majority of good improvisers may not always play "realistically", but they are striving to play "truthfully."

[Sry An]

Originally Posted by bozarth

Well, it's like that. You sorta have to learn these tried-and-true ways of finding laughs that are pretty hard to master. Then after that, you learn how to follow that fun you are having and just play in a way that your team will all be comfortable with.

Basically, you need to learn the hard way before you can do what looks like the "easy way"

I agree with that. I honestly think the people on UCB teams are just so good, and certain teams have such great chemistry, that they can be hilarious and truthful without obeying any set of "rules."

I'm thinking of Reuben Williams this past weekend. During the interview, they found a card from "The Funcade" in the subject's wallet. A few scenes in, Charlie Sanders just started scooting around stage in his chair chanting "FUN FUN FUN FUN FUN FUN," punctuated every ten seconds by turning to face the audience and shouting "CADE!" A couple people copied, and then Anthony King came out as the owner of the Funcade, pitching a commercial. It started off in a real bizarre, hilarious place that maybe in the first few seconds didn't seem 'truthful' or 'grounded,' but there was a plan from the beginning. And it ended up being extremely truthful, because Charlie, with the chaotic beginning, captured and heightened the unique mood of so many weird local commercials, and his teammates played it.

A beginning improviser couldn't pull that off, but it shouldn't be a surprise to any of us that the top performers can be awesome without adhering to what we've learned in levels 1-3. It's the same in anything.

[ProfessorKirk]

This thread shouldn't cause a firestorm - the intention wasn't to piss people off. Though, for future reference, the proper term is "shit storm."

Here's another thought... Gravid Water is a very different show from Harold Night. Their scenes last a lot longer - about 5-10 minutes, right? On Tuesdays, we've got about 2.5 minutes per scene, and that necessitates playing at a much faster speed.

There isn't really time to start at neutral, you cover more ground by making a strong decision right away instead of being polite and coy (as we probably would act in the real world). This usually result in scenes that are more exaggerated than reality. It's like the difference between running a marathon vs. sprinting.

Bob Acevedo of T.R.U.C.K.S. teaches a Slow Comedy class at the Magnet, and I believe they have class performances. It might be worth checking out.

[K-W]

I see Christina Gausas on the UCB stage on a regular basis as well as many performers with similar commitment and skill at developing deeper characters and scenes. I would certainly like to see more sophisticated scene work at the UCBT, but I think at the very least you are exaggerating its sparsity on that stage.

[ruby sneakers]

i wonder if benjamin was referring more to the level of acting in improv scenes at ucbt or more to the wildly wacky places scenes can go when performers really pay attention to each other's little slip-ups/mis-speaks/the internal logic of the scene.

my thoughts on both interpretations:
acting skills are really something that taught at ucb (as part of the curriculum i have been exposed to), even though many people who come through classes and are on teams are actors. some people are just better actors, or have better skill at portraying certain emotions or character types than others.

however, if he was referring more to some wacky place a scene ended up... if the players earned that place because they took each other seriously and that is where the scene ended up because of their bold decisions, and in the 2nd or 3rd beat, then i don't have any problem with that. in fact, it tends to be totally fucking awesome. overly premise-y/silly initiation wackiness is something i tend to be much less engaged with/less willing to get on board with (as an audience member), but i see a lot of improv at ucbt and i don't think i see it very often.

anyway, those are my scattered, n00bish thoughts. please feel free to disagree (although i will fight you if you do).

[ssw]

I reckon more people share these views than are willing to admit.

[iammattfried]

I agree with Anthony whole-heartedly on this one... but I hear what Ben is saying as well.

From my own experiences in performance at Improdome and other PIT events, I've learned to become less unsettled by fewer laughs because that doesn't mean that a bad scene is happening. In fact, more so it allows for more discovery and intrigue. In those casess, the surprise of the humor usually tends to be bigger, more unique, and more true than anything else.

After spending eight months at Harold Night and then checking out a group like The Stepfathers on Fridays - I have to say I get more out of watching Christina, Delaney, and Co. in terms of understanding game and behavior than I do on Tuesdays. I think there is a lot of "wink-wink, nudge-nudge" going on, but doing The Harold is not easy either.

I'm learning now through my own work with NewFormat that those basic relationships - as Anthony puts it - are key. They are what root us in truth and remain as something for us to fall back on as the game gets bigger and bigger.

BUT in comedy, as I recently heard Kurt Braunholer put it, we're looking at the world through a filter where everyone can relate, which I think is incredibly liberating.

Drama is what we aspire to, but comedy is who we are.

Ben, if I may, maybe you should drop-in on a rehearsal with NewFormat Improvisation (NFI). We're exploring the full theatrical depth of improv, as well as understanding those principles that were laid out to us by Del Close, Johnstone, Boal, and others.

Just a thought.

[astamate]

I agree with Kirk and Anthony. Beyond what they said, I feel like it's much easier to start realistically and heighten to crazy, than it is to start crazy and have to go back to being real. It's just a better way to improvise, despite what you might see on stage.

Also, I'm sure there's a certain amount of "Do as I say and not as I do" going on from instructors; I know that the UCB 4 would say this to all their classes when their students would bring up their style of play in Asssscat. Teachers are going to instruct you in how to best go about building a scene, not to copy something that's crazy and jokey.

- Achilles O(*_*)O

[K-W]

Originally Posted by ssw

I reckon more people share these views than are willing to admit.

Id be surprised if most of the improv Nerds here didn't agree with the overall point of wanting to see richer, truer improv more often. I think the controversial question is whether there is something about the UCBT that discourages such improv.

Having no knowledge whatsoever about the internal workings of the UCBT, I have to say that I see alot of work there that isn't as sophisticated as I would like, but I always chalk it up to the sheer difficulty of improvising sophisticated scenes.

As an audience member I try to find groups and performers that produce the kinds of work I appreciate and see them wherever they perform, and I have plenty of opportunity to see such groups at the UCBT just as I'm sure there are such groups performing at the other theaters. (I say as I realize once again that I need to get out to other theaters more.)

So yah, insofar as this is a discussion about wanting to do truer improv and wanting to see truer improv I am completely on board. Insofar as this is a discussion about the UCBT in particular being monopolized by jokey shallow improv... I dunno, I guess I have to leave that judgement to the people who see more shows and know more about the behind the scenes stuff.

[Antny]

I think it's important to remember two things:

1. Everyone you see performing at UCBT (and other stages in NYC) are still learning. You can learn equally from success and failure (both while performing and watching). Hopefully our performers succeed more than they fail, but if they are failing because they are taking risks and working to learn new things - that's pretty awesome.

At its core, the UCBT teaches truthfulness and game. That doesn't mean both of those things are always present on stage (they are, afterall, the ideal), but it's what our performers are striving for. The main requirement for staying on a Harold Team at UCBT is a obvious, active desire to continue to learn.

I remember being in Level 3 and having ridiculously long IM conversations with people centered on, "has an improv scene ever made you cry?" Some improvisers are really interested in that kind of improv. Some are not. But there is nothing about UCBT's philosophy that excludes it - which I know is true because there is no way you're ever going to cry if what you're watching is not truthful and rooted in behavior (i.e. game).


2. This shit is an artform, yo. That means we're all going to have different, sometimes clashing, opinions about how to approach it. As you improve and learn more, you'll have all kinds of opinions about this approach. That's awesome and necessary. Try them all. Get as much varied experience as possible. Find what works for you. Then get really good at that approach. Discuss it with everyone who will listen. Get in arguments about it. Then try someone else's approach and work to get really good at that too. The last thing you want to do, though, is cut yourself off from other people's ideas too quickly.

And the very last thing you want to do is become a snarky asshole who makes pithy remarks about whole swaths of performers. No one likes that person.

[SixSider]

(I hate making pre-apologies, I know these things sometimes get heated quick. And almost every time I've had this conversation it has quickly become heated when it so does not need to. So I'll just say this is just my feelings/observations, that I love all of the theaters and that I've learned tons from all of the teachers I've had.

But...)

So you know where I'm coming from, I am currently in my second 501 at UCB after taking classes from a different teacher each time. (Now I'm trying to work with teachers that I feel have forced me to grow the most.) I am also taking Level 1 at the Magnet.

I agree with what Antny says about "real" vs. "truthful." I also agree that the idea of game has nothing to do with what style is chosen and that UCB's intent. BUT I do find that since UCB focuses on the aspect of game, this idea is often missed by students. Pretty much after 101, not a lot of energy is spent exploring a more naturalistic style.

I'm not saying that it is discouraged by teachers. In fact I see it encouraged when it appears. But (and this is only a guess) that in the name of being open to ALL styles and levels of "acting ability" (because there are great improvisers who aren't fantastic actors), that not a lot of time is spent on character or relationships or emotion. Most energy is spent on game, not on the different tools to find game. And sometimes the bigger responses come from simple, fast game moves... as opposed to character/relationship/emotion-based game moves.

I think this is also based in the time issue, the as already been expressed. Longer scenes gives more room to explore. To use a horrible example, it is easier to make a game out of "two guys who make giant, sofa-sized sandwiches because they insecure" in 2 minutes then it is a game of "two brothers are coming to terms with the fact that they both have never succeeded in life because they both thought their father loved the other one more."

But this is also the difference in a Harold and, say the other extreme, a 15 minute 2 person scene. When you have 25 minutes, 8 people, and 9+ scenes to do, developing deep layered emotional games is hard... and often counter productive. Yes, it can absolutely happen. And when it does, it is a beautiful thing. But because of the Harold's nature and UCB's focus on the Harold, tons of time in class can't be spent exploring in finding more naturalistic games. And, since UCB does embrace all styles and doesn't want to force students/performers into any one style, a faster "wilder" game my get more of a response than something else.

The idea of having to do 2nd and 3rd beats adds to the influence of things becoming less naturalistic. Even when not heightening to "The President and an alien in Heaven," heightening often ends up in weirder situations. Add in support moves from 6 other players/minds... well, game moves often become less about real emotional places than a giant eagle swooping in with a Valentine card from Nicotiniti, the god of cigarettes.

But I've of course been talking about classes, not performances. But it is true with the house teams too. It appears to someone who has no idea how individual house teams are cast that UCB makes a point of combining a wide variety of play styles on each team. Which I think is fantastic. But it does mean that at least on of the 3 scenes in the beginning of a Harold is not going to be overly naturalistic. And when you get to 3rd beat connections, you know have the two teenagers that were awkwardly discovering to first feelings of love in beats 1 and 2 are now on a double date at Olive Garden with the mad scientist and his Kobe Bryant-lemur hybrid. You just aren't going to end up with a team of 8 people who are playing a naturalistic Harold... and the fact is I can't think I've ever seen a completely naturalistic Harold. In fact it probably would lean darn close to being boring (although I am sure amazing ones have taken place).

There is definitely a different attitude in different theaters. And thank god for it. But it has been a lot of fun taking a Magnet 1 class and a UCB 501 at the same time. One numerous occasions the teachers (both of whom I adore and respect extremely highly) have expressed DIRECTLY conflicting ideas about improv, mostly based on what comes "first": game or relationship. In fact, both teachers have obliquely referred to the other theater. "Other places teach blah blah but her we blah blah." And, like all art, that's one of the great things: discovering who YOU are as an improviser.

But you get that even WITHIN a theater. I'm not sure that I've had two teachers at UCB that agree on the definition of an organic opening. Some of that is because you will learn a rule or whatever at an earlier level but you are taught the "training wheels" version. Later it is expanded into something more layered/open. But often you are never told you are using training wheels and students take that early version as the complete version and then take another class and the new teacher corrects what they are doing incorrect or wrong... but never says "Okay, we are going to take this to the next level." And some student get defensive because they were trying to stay within the limitations of the rules they were taught the first time.

I think that plays a lot into the conflict a lot of students have about realistic vs crazy town. What is often missed is that it is not wrong to go to crazy town... it's just how you got there and why.

And using Gausas as an example is a bit unfair because she SO good at finding the emotional game of a scene. Just as comparing Gravid Water or Amper&and to Harolds. Very different beasts.

[Gethard]

I agree most with the idea of taking what works for you out of classes and building your own individual game out of it. Be it within one school, among many, that's just smart and I don't think anyone at any school would say otherwise.

I also think there's validity to all styles. I like fast play when done well, slow play when done well, everything in between when done well.

I also know that I put priority on game in my personal playing and teaching, but also know that treating things with integrity is a priority as well, and I'd like to think I play and teach this as well. Playing game does not mean make a bunch of jokes with no integrity, and if you're convincing yourself it does, it's certainly not fair to take swipes at a whole style based out of your misunderstanding of it.

I don't see how playing an absurd scene (about something cartoony or silly) where you're treating it with a shit ton of integrity is idealistically worse than playing a scene about a girl with cancer and her long lost mom that is unfunny. Both have certain merits and drawbacks, and it's a matter of personal preference, but I honestly don't see what's better about one over the other.


As a performer and teacher at UCB, I'm not quite sure why UCB gets the bad rap on this one. I am not trying to point fingers or be inflammatory at all, and I would like to think my reputation is one where I don't cause trouble, but I find it hard to believe that no one has ever seen a jokey move done at another improv theater. I see things I like and don't like at shows at UCB, and I have seen things I like and don't like in other shows around NYC and the country as well.

Again, it's a matter of taste. The fact that UCB gets shitted on makes me question the motives of some of those shitting on it.

When I see people saying things like "I DONT SEE ENOUGH SOPHISTICATD WORK AT UCB", it really makes me wonder. Are you really here to promote the ideals of an artform you love, or to put down a whole crowd of creative people while just pretending to do so? Hmm.

[Gethard]

Also, I see most on this thread being level headed. 98% of the responses here I wholeheartedly agree with. But when I see people using Ben's original question as a way to dig in their heels and knock a whole institution of hard working creative types, it certainly does get my Irish up. It's only the 2% I have a problem with, so please other 98% of the IRC, take no offense.

[benjamincanfly]

Hey guys. I can't express how cool I think it is that you are all taking the time to share these insights. I appreciate it enormously.

To respond to what Gethard just said - I'm not really familiar with any kind of unstated competition between various NYC improv theaters, and I wasn't trying to involve myself in one. When I said earlier that most of the shows I go to are at UCB, I really meant "almost all." I love most of what I see. I'm a ridiculously inexperienced 301 1/2 student - I know I have no right to dismiss the hard work of people who have been doing this for years or decades. I'm just trying to begin to discover the style of improvising I'd like to develop in. If I come across as shitting on UCB or disrespecting broad swaths as performers, either I'm not expressing myself well or people are skimming over what I say and assuming the rest based on past experiences. This is the internet, so it's probably 50/50. In any case I'll try to be more aware when I write anything critical.

Antny and others, thanks for talking about the difference between truthful scenes and realistic scenes. I hadn't thought about the distinction, and now I see that it's really important. I'm going to try to keep this in mind as an audience member. Also, the time constraints, yeah. In my short experience with the Harold I have trouble fitting three beats in there and finding a game to begin with, so I know that I'm getting ahead of myself. I might be just wishing I could shoehorn certain ideals into Harold Night, then getting upset when my unrealistic expectations aren't fully met.

MattFried - about people not laughing - a few weeks [edit: "ago"] in cage match, a team ended their set with the death of the scene's father. His wife and son were holding him, yelling, trying to revive him. That was how it ended. I don't remember anyone laughing, but I thought it was hilarious and dramatic. A fun exercise would be to try to make the third beats of a Harold be tragic. Not even comedically tragic, just tragic. I don't know whether people would laugh, but I think it would be fantastic.

I'll look into the slow improv class and the new format group. Also, I've done only a little acting in the past and would really like to take some acting classes for the purpose of improving my improv performance. If anyone has recommendations as far as what kind of classes might help the most, let me know.

[MikeStill]

Originally Posted by benjamincanfly

In most shows at the UCB, though, performers continually telegraph their awareness of the audience and of the irony of their actions. Most characters are one-dimensional and most justifications are unreal. I'm trying to use objective language here because I don't mean to say that I dislike the UCB style. I look up to UCB performers and I love most of the shows. But it doesn't seem like anybody is making an effort to develop realistic, well-acted scenes, and this is what I really want to try for.

I've seen amazingly compelling, "realistic" improv done at UCB, Magnet, the PIT, shady bar venues, apartments, gymnasiums, etc. etc. I think that if it were possible to do a blind taste-test of different improv performances, it would be nearly impossible to say "oh this is improv from this theatre," or "this is definitely the style of this theatre."

I've seen so many different approaches to the art within New York theatres--Each one of these theatres contains multitudes of people, each of whom contain multitudes of approaches, ideas, tactics, etc. This city is so rich with diversity of performance, to say "There are three approaches to improv," is base reductionism. I really think that people confuse "personalities" with theatres. Sure, UCB and Magnet have regulars who perform, but they don't embody the theatres any more than a single actor represents the Atlantic or the Public.

If you feel that you aren't seeing the type of performance that you want to see, then go out and do that type of performance. Make it happen, be the change you want. There's room for it, and its healthy for the art.

Here's a picture to illustrate this: