Follow The Fun
Something for me to work on, that specifically is for long form narrative like Stella is that I need to give my characters at least a few likes, dislikes, hobbies, etc. We need to know something about them that exists outside the scene that can get carried over. Character isn't just the physicality, accent, tone or mood but also the underlying things that make the character a rich thing. This is important for Stella in particular because it gives characters relatable quirks and things to bond over and love each other for.
Other than that, for my other team as a team we're struggling perhaps to make tagging moves from within the scene especially if we are all in on the scene. One thing I struggle with personally is that I want to rest the game more than my team does. They want to hammer home the unusual thing, which I like. But if the comedy is in the approach you need to let it rest to see it pop up again. Just let it be and trust it will come again! I think we're used to setting up game moves like T-ball, and that can be helpful as improvisers communicating but less funny.
Personally today I struggled with listening and being present ever so slightly and just taking my time and making my character interesting and having fun with it. Also failed to start in the middle of the scene which I think is the biggest thing I missed. I think sometimes when the stage is big, the walk on feels like a "walk on" in scene. It's important to remember that you can assume the person to have always been there if you want and start in the middle of something happening. This is more satisfying than the moment of meeting. I missed a nice move (mistaking feminism for faminism, someone who supports famines I think which the audience loved) that I really heard from the audience, but I kind of skipped over it. I think that's because I'm a bit in my head about making tag moves too early (because I was in rehearsal) so I saw it and then canned it. But I think I can still store that thing for a call back.
I took workshops with Will Hines and Jim Woods yesterday and boy, they were packed with info. It was so helpful to get their points of view. Some of the points form yesterday
Improv is a "tradeoff triangle" of agreement, commitment, and game.
Improv is finding ways to make the right thing to do, easier to do. Make it easy for yourself.
Find your point of view as an actor, not as a comedian. This is interesting and in sharp contrast to what I've heard from others. There's very little interrogation, and the point of view comes from within you and can be something that in our traditional training would be considered a rationalization. I guess the idea is to trust that something will be found, and it doesn't have to be forced.
Saying yes is so important. Just say yes and figure it out. I personally have had some trouble "negotiating" or rebutting things logically in scene. Sometimes I'm too committed to "reality" that I reject offers or normalize things. Like explaining something away. Say yes more to the accusations and things people are offering or framing.
As someone with an unsual "want" or point of view, once you express your want and it gets "denied", you let it go. Don't try to convince people. You're never going to give up that want, but every time it clashes against the base reality you let it go.
Humor comes from the approach to the ask! This is so important because too often in the FA style of improv I was taught, we make logical game moves where in a way the reaction of the person with the want is almost predictable. Unusual and funny, but kind of predictable. I think this style, of the genuinely unexpected ask is where deep humor comes from that really gets me. I love this style of humor, where even as an improviser watching the show you're not expecting it, but it's not invented.
For example the ATM scene from EIIF
Or a scene last night where Jim was playing a vampire asking Will's character to leave. The contrast of the characters was really funny, but some of the best moments that really got to me were the funny ways that Jim's character was asking Will to leaving e.g. picking up a phone and dialing for an Uber, or framing him for murder.
Something I've been picking up from watching Holy Shit Improv (they record all their shows, and they're great!) is that game of the scene is a lot looser than you might think. It's just something the audience things is funny that you can find a way to repeat. They really don't force game at all. There is very little deliberate construction as far as I can tell. This style, that is constantly active, constantly building, and adding things and more centered around following "if this is true what else is true" is very much easier to play. Clarifying the game is definitely something very nuanced and tricky, and I very rarely see that happen. When I say that I mean I very rarely see players negotiation or interrogating each others behaviour. They play the whole thing very grounded.
I just got back from the Edinburgh International Improv Festival. It's something I really look forward to each year, mostly because I learn so much. Not just from the workshops but just from being exposed to so many different philosophies or styles of Improv. One of the standouts this year to me was Jim Woods who I've never seen before. His moves were almost clownish at times, but hit the audience just right. The biggest laugh of the festival was him playing a man meekly taking money out of an ATM at a bank that was being robbed, and then walking out apologetically and completely ignoring the robbers then being chased down. It's hard to translate it, but it was wholly unexpected. Interestingly as an improviser we had seen the tag away, and knew this was a scene setup for a superhero we had just seen. And to be fair the scene was slightly predictable. In a way it was a move to be appreciated by other improvisers.
Something Jim mentioned in a workshop was to not play the game of the scene, but to let the game butt against the reality. You only play the reality. I think I really like and appreciate that style, as I prefer the theatrical immersion over cerebral joke telling "what ifs". But the idea answered an age old question for me which is when has the game been defined enough? When giving a justification you ultimately want to land on something playable. I think a game is defined enough it's playable regardless of the base reality. There will always be something to find in almost any space. Define it well enough to butt up against base reality. An example might be say if I have an obsessive love of corn mazes. That's fine, and silly, but it doesn't give us a game to just keep bringing up corn mazes. But if I think all food are puzzles to be solved, that's more interesting. I can play that almost anywhere, as food can exist almost anywhere.
Unrelated but an improv game I made up the other day that can be played solo or as a group. The game is designed to help you come up with names in a more free flowing manner. Saying names as an after thought is something that happens quite a lot, and is a bit of a pet peeve of mine as it really makes it sound like an improv line. "What a fine turkey you've got there... dave."
The Name Game
To play solo is simple, identify objects in your vicinity that you can fixate on. Pick them at random and try to name them with a full name as quickly as possible. e.g. I look at my pot and say Trooble Wyatts, or Jennifer Hardsteel.
To play in a group, a player starts by saying "My Name is..." and a full name that you make up on the spot. Then you go around in a circle (as many times as you like) and each person comes up with another full name (and says "my name is ...") that is based on the first letter of the previous last name so that you're not sitting there thinking of a name as the game goes around. You can also turn it into a memory game if you like and try to recall as many names as possible after the game is over.
