Straight / Absurd: adding nuance

[bradisntclever]

Straight rarely gets the laugh lines.

This has not been my experience, unless by laugh line you mean a line that's still funny repeated out of context, like those on the "Best Show Lines" thread. I'm always pleasantly surprised at how many laughs the straight player can get just by reacting. I think it depends almost entirely on how committed s/he is to playing a real reaction, but that's probably just my own biases.

Maybe players don't like playing straight scenes because they don't get laughs because instead of committing to being straight they're trying to get laughs? Trying to get laughs is always problematic but when done by the straight person it can be deadly.

I concur with Ratliff. In most of the shows I see up here, straight men get at least half the laughs, if not more.

A good straight man isn't someone who just points the absurd thing out and says "wow, that's really weird!" A good straight man has a consistent emotional reaction to whatever the absurd thing is and can continue to coax the absurd behavior out of the other player so he can keep having that reaction. When that pattern of behavior is really churning, it's the emotional reactions from the straight man that get the majority of the laughs.

Additionally, for straight/absurd dynamics to really work well, it's best if the absurd improviser is absurd in just one way. If everything the absurd the improviser does is batshit crazy, then it's hard for the straight man to react to any one thing consistently. One absurd behavior is easier to highlight and explore (it can often lead to other unusual views or behaviors that are clearly a result of the original line of thinking). "Blue doesn't stand out against blue" is the line that really hammered the lesson home for me.

[bradisntclever]

Absurd/absurd can totally work if the players are in sync. ... Straight/straight, while perhaps more difficult, also works.

I think you might find this helpful, Jesse. UCB likes to categorize two-person scenes as either straight/absurd or "peas in a pod." "Peas in a pod" scenes involve two characters with the same point of view. In those scenes, there's not a straight man (aside from the audience), so improvisers are encouraged to straight man themselves a bit by questioning their behavior a little. "We're not crazy for living in a house made of aluminum cans, are we?" "No! Of course not!" Etc.

[jrec747]

Yes. In peas in a pod scenes, straight manning ourselves creates the tension that exists in straight/absurd scenes and helps bring the scene back to reality a bit. It's not 100% necessary to do that, but without it, I think it becomes more difficult to play. Probably because it requires more invention. It's like 'what are the two cooky characters gonna say next?!'

For me at least, I think the key in peas in a pod is to first of all make it a defined character- like stereotypical characters- southern belle, italian pizza man, new york mob character. From there, I create a very simple POV for my character, which makes the roadmap of the scene much easier to play. If I don't do this, then I start thinking of absolutely everything that a pizza man would say, and that's where it becomes very difficult...that's where I am trying to invent and it becomes very taxing. But if it's just a simple POV that the character would have, then it makes it easier. For example, if I am a crazy italian pizza maker, I would probably make everything my scene partner says into a 'pizza reference'. So if we were sitting waiting for the bus to come, I would say "riding a buss izuhlike makin a pizza.."

[Spots]

We do "Peas In a Pod" but we simply call that Absurd / Absurd. That's gonna be two characters behaving absurd & building a straight world around them.


"I wonder why all these dogs are running away from us!"


"I hope it wasn't because we tried to bite them."


(Again, I offer Baxter & Bernard as a solid example)


The New Movement doesn't have a separate definition for this. We just call the scene Absurd / Absurd so it stays in keeping with the vocabulary. (because the dynamic is always present)


Then a Straight / Straight scene would be characters behaving straight while representing an Absurd universe around them.


"Well Janet, we should just stay calm and wait for these aliens to finish probing us."

"I got a little frightened when they showed us that jelly, Dave. What could they possibly do with that jelly? They were so proud."



No matter what-- the scene is going to have Straight/Absurd somewhere in it. And commitment makes all the difference. Without it the audience just sees two kids pretending to be doctors.

[Spots]

Jrec, have we met? I haven't spent any time in Brooklyn but there's a chance you're like Brad in that you're a Coldtowne transplant at UCB? Or maybe you came down with Gethard the few times he's hung around here with Wengert , Hines, and Vacation Jason.


I realize UCB Brooklyn is a huge community.

[bradisntclever]

Jrec, have we met? I haven't spent any time in Brooklyn but there's a chance you're like Brad in that you're a Coldtowne transplant at UCB? Or maybe you came down with Gethard the few times he's hung around here with Wengert , Hines, and Vacation Jason.


I realize UCB Brooklyn is a huge community.

jrec appears to be posting from LA.

[Spots]

UCBLA. That's awesome we got folks talking theory on here. Again such a huge community. I was lucky to meet Wengert out there. He's masterfully subtle. I just searched and found the episode of of Matt's Game Chamber I filmed of him. It was real fun watching him work.

[jrec747]

That's really interesting. Yeah I tend to use three: Straight, Absurd, or Realistic. I figure in a scene, I am one of the three. In addition to Straight-Straight, we also use Altered Reality, which is just a normal, realistic scene, but where the reality is different. So in your aliens example, instead of calling out how absurd the aliens are, we would just be in a world where aliens and humans exist with no problems, and the audience accepts it, just like they would in a SciFi movie. We could also be the aliens, or we could be santa and his elves. Whatever the case is, we exist in an Altered Reality, but we don't necessarily call it out.

And yes UCBLA! I am new to this forum, so maybe I should get a thumbnail pic or something. And I love Wengert. He's so great. Spots have you seen him do his Girardi's Frozen Yogurt bit? It was one of the cleverest and funniest monologues I've seen. It won't let me post a link yet, but just type in 'Girardi's Frozen Yogurt' on google.

[jrec747]

Oh, and the reason I'm posting in this forum isn't because I'm in Austin...I just wanted a forum where I can talk about improv stuff. But I need to head down there soon, since I know it has great improv.

[Spots]

Let's share that with everyone, that was fucking hilarious.


[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4vB8qr1IrPg[/youtube]



You'll notice he can get away with more absurdity than usual because he invests into it. At the beginning he grounds us into his reality and therefore establishes "straight."

Because of that, the laughs pop so much harder when he tells us about the absurdity he's dealing with. (and even moreso by placing us as spectators in that universe)


In my training, we would call this scene Straight / Straight where he is playing straight but dealing with unseen absurdity. Interesting, because there is no scene partner but clearly he doesn't need one.


Thanks so much for this, jrec. This was the perfect way to end an evening.