Believing

[EmilyBee]

The more I do this, the less I like trying to add context to what I'm doing. Belief in/commitment to the situation at hand is the most important thing, in my mind. The audience will add context, always. I want to pull the ego out of the work, and just go and play like 5-year-olds play... minus, for the most part, the tantrums.

I love to get into a meditative state and forget my "self" as someone who exists outside of the play in the moment. I think I refer here to "self" as "head" as opposed to "gut." The more I try to intellectualize or plan (disaster in improv, really!!), the less I have fun. The times I've disappeared have been few and far between, but it has happened, and this makes me very pleased. The more often I can come to surprising myself in play, the happier I am as an improviser.

[sara farr]

Well, yes, you are always the puppet and the puppeteer at all times. Most people throw a little too much energy to the puppeteer and don't spend enough time in the puppet. I rarely meet people who are too much puppet. They probably couldn't find their way to...

Thank you!!!!!!!!!

Can I put this into my book?

Sara

[sara farr]

I'm (for example) an Arctic explorer on the deck of an icebreaker, rather than Brad Hawkins from Cedar Rapids, Iowa? No, that never happens. How can it? I would be very worried if it did. I'd call that mental illness.

great performers straddle this line of sanity. One (some??) of the best scenes I've seen were performed by ppl who TRULY believed what was happening on stage was reality.

And why not? Whether tis nobler in the mind to suffer the slings and arrows...

BurI can't be that person. Puppets are a GREAT conduit for this. The abstract & styilized form of the puppet facillitates believe and connection w/o loss of reality much in the same way cartoons are believable in their own world, yet off kilter when juxtaposed against ours.

[hujhax]

This is kind of tricky for me, because I don't have a very visual imagination.  (Side note: this makes dreaming a weirdly-conceptual thing for me.)  I definitely can't 'see' my surroundings, though thinking back on The Professor, I find myself remembering bits of the set design (the 60s radio from the Vegas episode was a beige and brown bakelite box with rounded edges).  It's never in that much detail, though -- the painting from my 'Louvre' guest spot with Confidence Men, I just remember DrawSomething-like blogs of orange and ochre, but nothing more specific.  I guess I get vague ideas of what's important to my character at any given time, and I greatly envy people who can see the settings more thoroughly than that.

And I think that visual thing reflects how much I'm capable of believing in my scenes generally.  I'll kinda sorta vaguely recognize the world that I occupy, but it never quite comes into focus.  And inasmuch as I recognize it, I believe in it, the same way I dive into something I'm watching.  (The Death Star is totally real when it's blowing up Alderaan, even though it's totally not.)  Some idle part of my brain sits back and watches, stays aware of Real Reality, and usually keeps quiet.

And then there are the times when I'm completely knocked out of the reality of the scene, and it's hello, blank stage, we meet again.



--
peter rogers @ home | http://hujhax.livejournal.com

Lord, let me always desire more then I think I can do.
      -- Michaelangelo

[KathyRose]

The thing that I need to believe is not "who I am" or "where I am," but rather, how I feel about the other person or the situation at this moment. To me, this is essential to being an actor. It's part of what you sign up to do when you choose to play a character; but unlike the character, to whom the circumstances are persistent and "real," you (the actor) are able to let go of it and move on to the next scene.

Most improvisers (that I've seen) play "this is what I think an angry person looks like" or a bereaved person, or a disappointed person, or a person in love, etc. Most imps are not willing to commit to the emotion of the moment (to "believe" the situation), so their portrayal of the moment is devised, rather than experienced. And it shows. Which is probably better for comedy, since it keeps the moment light (look! it's really all just make-believe!), but may not work so well for dramatic improvised narratives.

[happywaffle]

I had a couple of moments in Steam—not many, but a few—when I could really truly visualize the world around me. I remember in particular climbing up in the rigging of the ship (i.e. standing tiptoes on top of the box) and swaying back and forth and feeling like I really understood where I was.

I wish I got back there more often. It's collaborative for me. I can only get so far with just imagining a scene around me (though space work helps a lot). It needs a strong story for the visuals to plant themselves in my brain.

[ejbrammer]

Strangely, I don't even try to visualize the world. I mean, I try to remember 'table here, fridge here' etc. I focus more on the other people and the relationship. For me it's never been a matter of "I believe I am a bridesmaid! I really am an astronaut!", but rather it's been "What do I want and how can I get it? How do I feel and how/what do I want my scene partner to feel/do? What is this emotion/relationship and does it feel like it really exists?" In the same way, during the day, I don't think "I believe I am a paralegal and this is how paralegals act." I just am one, by nature of adding up the sum of the actions I do and needing to put a title on them.

When watching improv, too, I personally think it's less interesting to see actors hammering out believable details in a clear way (which often leads to confusion), and more interesting to see them invested in their relationship in a believable way (no matter how unusual it is, and even if I can't ever tell, for example, exactly where they are).

I guess in that way, I like to believe in the relationship, but don't really try too hard to believe that I am someone else, or that I can totally see my environment. It's my acting Occam's razor, if you will.

I agree with what Emily said, that the audience will fill in details and context (and then they will get to be active participants, too, in the creation process, which is I think one of the things that makes improv so great to watch).

Katie, I also agree that a lack of plotting lets you be open to the moment in a way that is really delightful and refreshing, and super open to what's actually happening. I dig that a lot, and that's something I find believable! I also think that we as improvisers can think that, much like real life, story isn't happening because we are not focused on it, but really it is happening around us as we interact with one another.

[Katie T.]

I like reading how your minds go. It's the same thing, isn't it, but with approaches unique to each mind. Shouldn't it help us play together too?

Isn't it amazing? It is such delightful fun creating stories together. Sometimes in the middle of a show, I'll be watching from the wings and be stunned, Oh. My. Gosh. We are telling a real story together. HOW are we doing this!?
I sound so cheesy, but it's honest. This stuff is magical. I can already here folks arguing that it's not magic, it's study, and rehearsal, and repetition, but I say, whoa. It's magic.

[kbadr]

I agree with what Emily said, that the audience will fill in details and context (and then they will get to be active participants, too, in the creation process, which is I think one of the things that makes improv so great to watch).

I think there is a parallel with writing, in this regard, though. Provide *zero* details and your audience becomes passive, lazy, and uninvested. Give some very specific details and it lights up parts of the audience members' brains and they'll start filling in more details themselves. They become active participants.

[Kayla Lane]

I like reading how your minds go. It's the same thing, isn't it, but with approaches unique to each mind. Shouldn't it help us play together too?

Isn't it amazing? It is such delightful fun creating stories together. Sometimes in the middle of a show, I'll be watching from the wings and be stunned, Oh. My. Gosh. We are telling a real story together. HOW are we doing this!?
I sound so cheesy, but it's honest. This stuff is magical. I can already here folks arguing that it's not magic, it's study, and rehearsal, and repetition, but I say, whoa. It's magic.

YES!

[ejbrammer]

I agree with what Emily said, that the audience will fill in details and context (and then they will get to be active participants, too, in the creation process, which is I think one of the things that makes improv so great to watch).

I think there is a parallel with writing, in this regard, though. Provide *zero* details and your audience becomes passive, lazy, and uninvested. Give some very specific details and it lights up parts of the audience members' brains and they'll start filling in more details themselves. They become active participants.

Yes! Agreed entirely.

[Rev. Jordan T. Maxwell]

I like reading how your minds go. It's the same thing, isn't it, but with approaches unique to each mind. Shouldn't it help us play together too?

Isn't it amazing? It is such delightful fun creating stories together. Sometimes in the middle of a show, I'll be watching from the wings and be stunned, Oh. My. Gosh. We are telling a real story together. HOW are we doing this!?
I sound so cheesy, but it's honest. This stuff is magical. I can already here folks arguing that it's not magic, it's study, and rehearsal, and repetition, but I say, whoa. It's magic.

it's the study and rehearsal and repetition that let you do the magic. like Hogwart's.

(you're welcome, Halyn. )

[jillybee72]

Thank you!!!!!!!!!

Can I put this into my book?

:-) Sara

yesh!

[jillybee72]

Triple yes to everything everyone is saying!!