Wizard Battles

I love the term Wizard Battles. It refers to arguing in an improv scene, and evokes the crazy stuff that's made up in order to justify one player's position. I came across it recently in a blog post discussing the many problems with arguments in a scene. It also discussed an effective way of getting out of that situation (lose the argument!) The post has a few insider terms that aren't defined, but overall the post is pretty good. And I'm going to start using the term Wizard Battles

http://improvoctopus.tumblr.com/post/96992523283/wizard-battles

John Kinde, Humor Power, Improv and Comedy

There are few people I know who can authoritatively write about the difference between improv and comedy. John Kinde has just the right skill set, and a great article to prove it. John has an interesting background, and it includes teaching improv. Right now he's living in Las Vegas, but for several years he lived and taught in Santa Maria. One of his venues for learning was here at the Santa Barbara Improv Workshop. For several years he drove down every Wednesday night. He also put on amazing improv shows in Santa Maria and always invited the Santa Barbara players to participate. If you ever get the chance to take one of his workshops, I recommend it.

He's also a public speaker, gives workshops on using humor in public presentations, and writes the blog Humor Power where he shares his knowledge and experiences. I read his writings regularly. Today John posted an article discussing the differences between comedy and improv, and it's great read. I think he nailed the differences and also talked about what makes improv funny.

Go!

Read it now!

Really!

Improv Comedy, Truth, and Realism

Ben Whitehouse over at the Improvoker has written an interesting article about comedy in improv. He discusses the difference between going for a quick gag in a scene vs. building up a truthful scene that is funny in a complex, emotional way. The sort of difference you'd find between fast food and a complex, gourmet meal (my poor metaphor). The quote that most resonates for me comes from Anthony King, Upright Citizen Brigade's Creative Director in New York:

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.”

I find the distinction between real and truthful to be a helpful one. I try not to get hung up on whether the setting or the offer is "realistic", but instead I focus on my character's (or my own) emotional reaction to the setting or the offer. Given the situation (however bizarre), and my character (however extreme), how would I feel and then how do I react from those feelings.

And the audience's reaction isn't always the best measure of whether what we are doing is good improv. I don't necessarily mean to ignore the audience (although I've had instructors who were contemptuous of the audience), and I'm certainly susceptible to an audience's feedback (it's tough playing to a quiet audience), but I think the quote in the article from Del Close is a sobering truth:

Just because they’re laughing doesn’t mean we’re succeeding

Link

The Right Way To Do A Scene

A couple of weeks ago, Bill Arnett at iO Chicago wrote up another interesting post, this time about "the right way to do a scene". His point: there really isn't a right way to do a scene. There are plenty of things you can do wrong, but there isn't some absolute best way for a scene to go. The process of building the scene is more important than the specific rules. And that process includes supporting the connections your fellow players make, no matter how wrong you may think they are.

Experiences Finding a Game in a Scene

I want to direct you to series of posts by Ben Whitehouse in his blog Improvoker (which is a great name). He's going through a UCB (Upright Citizen Brigade) class in New York: Improv 201. At this point, there are only two entries, but the class is focusing on long form work and "finding the game". His first entry was from the 4th class in the session when he had an interesting insight into the concept of "finding" the game. Rather than it meaning he had to search out a game from the scene - artificially building a game from elements in the scene - he realized that it also meant discovering a game by chance or happenstance.

Along with that realization he thought about the concept of finding "a" game rather than "the" game. This seemed to eliminate some resistance he was having to these "cerebral" concepts in long form work. His post is well written and insightful.

His second entry focused on the second beat of a Harold scene. This second beat is the second round of scenes that follow the first set of establishing scenes. It should carry forward the games found in the the first beat, not necessarily the plots. He gives a good example of this and the post is worth a read for some more insights he has into the Harold long form.

Just Say It!

Once again, Bill Arnett at iO Chicago wrote up a great post about scene work. This time he discusses the problem with being coy about an object or situation in a scene. We've all seen the problem where some object in a scene is described in indirect terms: how amazing or disturbing it is, how desirable it is, or how important it is. But, defining it is put off to somehow "build tension". Instead of building the relationship between the characters, we spend time focusing on some thing in the scene. When we find out the big "IT", can it possibly pay off on all the build up? Just say what it is and get on with the scene. As always, Bill says it to much better effect. Check it out.

The Harold, diagramed

Dyna Moe at Nobody's Sweetheart is putting together an Improv Infographic that explains a Harold. Roughly in the form of a flow chart, all the phases (beats) are illustrated along with an indication of the flow, timing, and points of focus. It's a pretty fun graphic although she hasn't finished it, yet. It's possible that she'll do other graphics on the elements of a scene. If she decides to make these into posters, I'm buying some!

Humor under the Nazis

This post doesn't directly address improv performance, improv in Santa Barbara, nor improv techniques. This is more along the lines of my post on Soviet Era humor. I see these as examples of how humor is a common component of the human condition, no matter how horrific or oppressed that condition may be. This post will discuss humor under the Nazis, and if this sounds like too uncomfortable a topic, I understand and would recommend you exit this post now. A new book is being published in Germany that looks at humor under the Nazis. The book is in German, but there is an English review at the Speigel website.The title translates as Heil Hitler, The Pig is Dead. The Speigel review quotes a lot of jokes:

Hitler visits a lunatic asylum. The patients give the Hitler salute. As he passes down the line he comes across a man who isn't saluting. "Why aren't you saluting like the others?" Hitler barks. "Mein F�hrer, I'm the nurse," comes the answer. "I'm not crazy!"

The book reports that this joke was told openly in the early years of the Third Reich. As with the Soviet era humor, the images are very dark, and in some cases a joke could lead to a death sentence:

Hitler and G�ring are standing on top of Berlin's radio tower. Hitler says he wants to do something to cheer up the people of Berlin. "Why don't you just jump?" suggests G�ring.

The German worker telling this joke was convicted of undermining the war effort and executed in the final years of the Third Reich.

The article gives examples of how jokes changed over the war years, and even discusses the gallows humor of the Jews. Jokes provided a pressure release, and from the safety of our current perspective, they give an insight into the common concerns, frustrations, and fear of the general population. This one was told as the allies were closing in, and the bombing was wiping out German cities:

"What will you do after the war?" "I'll finally go on a holiday and will take a trip round Greater Germany!" "And what will you do in the afternoon?"

Personally, I find it hard to read some of the jokes, even though I generally find this type humor interesting and powerful. The pain behind each situation is really close to the surface and is hard for me to keep distant. And, I've only read the few jokes that were translated for the review. But, I think there is a lot to learn from this book, and when it is translated to English, I'll read it.

Back in Control

David Razowky has a great little article discussing what to do when a scene has spun out of control. To summarize:

• Make sure each line of dialog starts with "You ...", keeping the focus on each other
• Be honest when confused or lost
• Tell your partner how you feel about them
• Slow the scene down - allow silences and work the environment
• Don't let anything get by you - react to everything

I like every one of his suggestions, and they should be part of any good scene right from the start.

Another interesting exercise ...

Hmm, another interesting exercise from Bill Arnett at I.O. I really like the way he deconstructs improv and gets to nice little nuggets of improv insight. In his short article, he talks about the tendency to overly focus on coming up with a funny line, rather than staying true to the character we are creating. The lines and actions of our characters are what define them to the audience and they should come from the context of the character. To work on this, his exercise is to ask a player to name 6 things a character might say given their job or relationship. What are 6 things a mother would say? An elementary school teacher? And be specific. Don't give a line that someone from ANY profession would say.

Plan on seeing something based on this next Wednesday...

The Correct Way to Improvise

Bill Arnet is an experienced improviser at I.O. Chicago (Improv Olympic) and wrote a short piece about various ways of approaching an improv scene, especially at the opening. It definitely got me thinking, and I plan on trying his "slice from typical life" opening this Wednesday during the last hour. By the way, the heading for this entry is the name of his article, not a policy of the SBIW.

Bomb Scare Actually Second City Prop

This is a goofy story with an improv twist. Apparently, a discarded prop from a Second City improv show was mistaken for a bomb in Chicago.

Hammer & Tickle

Okay, Improv is not about the jokes. We work to avoid "going for the joke" in a scene. The humor comes from the situation, interaction, and relationship. We all get that, right? Good, because now I want to talk about an interesting article that won't really help your improv skills, but instead discusses jokes ... communist jokes. As in jokes told IN communist countries. Wow, did they have some dark sense of humor. This is the lead joke from the article:

A man dies and goes to hell. There he discovers that he has a choice: he can go to capitalist hell or to communist hell. Naturally, he wants to compare the two, so he goes over to capitalist hell. There outside the door is the devil, who looks a bit like Ronald Reagan. "What's it like in there?" asks the visitor. "Well," the devil replies, "in capitalist hell, they flay you alive, then they boil you in oil and then they cut you up into small pieces with sharp knives."

"That's terrible!" he gasps. "I'm going to check out communist hell!" He goes over to communist hell, where he discovers a huge queue of people waiting to get in. He waits in line. Eventually he gets to the front and there at the door to communist hell is a little old man who looks a bit like Karl Marx. "I'm still in the free world, Karl," he says, "and before I come in, I want to know what it's like in there."

"In communist hell," says Marx impatiently, "they flay you alive, then they boil you in oil, and then they cut you up into small pieces with sharp knives."

"But?� but that's the same as capitalist hell!" protests the visitor, "Why such a long queue?"

"Well," sighs Marx, "Sometimes we're out of oil, sometimes we don't have knives, sometimes no hot water?�"

The article is somewhat academic, discussing the history and reasons for the jokes. But it is peppered with examples of the jokes being discussed, and most are of the type that cause you to cover your mouth as you chuckle. A bit surprising, a bit tragic, self deprecating, and definitely funny.

I guess it appeals to me because the humor lies in THEIR experience, although it is recognizable to me. And that it is humor coming out of the difficulties that they face. There's some parallel with the humor that comes out of really good improv: a reflection of the difficulties in life that are absurd, but recognizable. At least, that's what I find most memorable in really good improv.

So maybe this was more about improv than I realized.

Reaction vs. Response

I just read an interesting article by Jeff Miller titled Emotional Truth in Improvisation. He discusses the problem I see in a lot of improv scenes (mine very much included) where the player is so focused on an interesting response, that he or she loses any real (or believable) emotional reaction to an offer. He deconstructs the Reaction from the Response to an offer, and I think gives a good structure for getting away from over-intellectualizing in a scene. It's a short article, and well worth reading.

Improv Everywhere

I came across the Improv Everywhere website which organizes what I would call "street improv" in NYC. In their own words, "Improv Everywhere causes scenes of chaos and joy in public places". I have a real fondness for this form of guerrilla theater, and envy/admiration for what they've already accomplished. I found the court document from their No Pants Case interesting and a bit reassuring that the justice system can allow for some random acts of fun.

Using all you know

I had a chance to read Chris Compton's article Every Part of the Buffalo from the playimprov.com newsletter. It's a great discussion of not dumbing down to the audience, not getting caught up in your head, and using what you know in a piece. I particularly liked his suggestion of naming characters using the names of people you know. Using names (actually, the lack of using names) is one of the many challenges I face in a piece (okay, I suck at it).