The conversation that has broken out over in Justin's class post is maybe better thought about over here in the improv theory section.
http://forum.austinimprov.com/viewtopic.php?t=1090
Justin's Class posts
Discussion of the art and craft of improvisation.
Moderators: arclight, happywaffle, bradisntclever
Justin's Class posts
http://getup.austinimprov.com
"She fascinated me 'cause I like to run my fingers through her money."--Abner Jaymadeline wrote:i average 40, and like, a billion grains?
thought i'd hike up my britches and wade in to this discussion. i have a lot of passionate thoughts on this, hence the length of my reply.
Shando said:
as an example of this, i think we can all point to times we have created scenes on stage that were lacking in commitment, but the audience response was overwhelmingly positive. conversely, at other times, we commit heart and soul to a character or relationship and the audience remains utterly silent. del theorized that - by freeing ourselves of the drive to please or satisfy the audience - you can strive for (and eventually yield) a more direct distillation of the piece and group's idea (the theme) and, indirectly, your POV as an actor.
one - does the chicago school of thought (which is really an amalgamation of compass players, the annoyance, del close and accolytes - not strictly 'del') advocate for absolute freedom of the player at the expense of the audience?
not as i was taught it. by disregarding the audience, the players don't seek to play despite the audience, or in opposition to the audiences wants or need for a satisfying theatrical experience. we strive to play to the top of our abilities, in a grounded, intelligent and truthful way. if you ask an audience "what do you want to see tonight?" they aren't likely going to say "I want to see a series of scenes in which you play to the top of your intelligence". however, if you undertake all of that (grounded, intelligent and truthful scenework) with confidence and dedication, you can be reasonably sure that they will leave satisfied with their theatrical experience.
any masterbatory, self-indulgent or lazy actions by the improviser short-change the audience no matter what form you choose. the chicago/del school doesn't advocate self-involved improv. the theory is: the audience benefits when we don't tie our actions as players to the response from the audience. (note: there are some other theories regarding improv as theatre vs. improv as comedy that relate to this idea).
two - does the chicago school believe furthering narrative is anathetical to good improv?
yes. however, since I have been down here, i've come to understand this point more clearly, and i think there is an important context missing from a full understanding of this statement. chicago tends to talk about chicago-based longform improv as if it is the ONLY improv (football, to use Jeremy's apt comparison) and only longform, and that short form and theatresports don't exist or are somehow less-than (futbol). we all know this isn't true - i played at comedysportz for 3 years with some of the same teachers that liked to use this microcosmic, verbal shorthand.
narrative driven
i have taken this statement to mean that, if your end goal is to tell people a story, then your focus is on furthering the plot and weaving the narrative, as well as creating characters within that world as an ensemble and player. net, furthering narrative is good.
theme driven
in contrast, if your end goal is to create a series of ideas around a theme, then your focus is on serving the thematic idea through scenework and creating character and relationships as a player. to force a narrative structure on this approach is limiting.
in my mind, there is no need to declare one approach or the other superior. you have to find out what you are drawn to and werk it.
i believe this - there are no absolutisms in improv. i've seen scenes that consist wholly of blocking and NO that were hilarious and memorable. i've also seen people "yes, and" the bejeezus out of something and would have rather taken a napdump that watch it one moment more.
IMO, those that encourage adherence to absolutisms beyond beginning tenets of improv are normally looking to serve something other than the craft. to me, improv theories are like religion - rife with contradictions, and belief systems to which people subscribe for personal, and sometimes not so obvious, reasons. belaboring this wilted analogy further, adhering to a strict fundamentalism BEYOND your first few years as an improviser inhibits and limits individual (and - relatedly) ensemble growth.
that said, i am incredibly excited to see jtowne teaching a harold class. bob and i have discussing rehearsing and putting one up so that those who haven't seen it can contextualize the theories beyond a textbook or one-offs.
excellent discussion aic.
Shando said:
the emphasis is not so much that the audience is relegated to a secondary status and that the improviser focuses on their individual experience. quite the contrary, del's idea was that the improviser optimally surrenders to the creation of the piece and the direction of the ensemble (aka "group mind") and not on the audiences reaction. this will create a theatrical experience without a doubt. whether the audience likes it or not is really based on their individual taste.The Del school, as I see it, places primary focus on the experience the improvisor is having onstage, the way improv itself works. With this focus, the audience is somewhat secondary.
as an example of this, i think we can all point to times we have created scenes on stage that were lacking in commitment, but the audience response was overwhelmingly positive. conversely, at other times, we commit heart and soul to a character or relationship and the audience remains utterly silent. del theorized that - by freeing ourselves of the drive to please or satisfy the audience - you can strive for (and eventually yield) a more direct distillation of the piece and group's idea (the theme) and, indirectly, your POV as an actor.
i see two points/questions in your comments, Shando:In the Keith school, the priorities are reversed. How an improvisor gets to their end result is secondary to creating a thearical event that an audience is compelled to watch, hence Keith greater focus on narrative and story. I've heard some Del people speak as if creating a story or a narrative in the traditional sense were anathema to improv, as if it were limiting to the absolute freedom the improvisor posses on stage. The Keith schoolites (like me) would say the privileging of the absolute freedom of the improvisor doesn't mean jack if the audience isn't compelled to to watch what you're doing.
one - does the chicago school of thought (which is really an amalgamation of compass players, the annoyance, del close and accolytes - not strictly 'del') advocate for absolute freedom of the player at the expense of the audience?
not as i was taught it. by disregarding the audience, the players don't seek to play despite the audience, or in opposition to the audiences wants or need for a satisfying theatrical experience. we strive to play to the top of our abilities, in a grounded, intelligent and truthful way. if you ask an audience "what do you want to see tonight?" they aren't likely going to say "I want to see a series of scenes in which you play to the top of your intelligence". however, if you undertake all of that (grounded, intelligent and truthful scenework) with confidence and dedication, you can be reasonably sure that they will leave satisfied with their theatrical experience.
any masterbatory, self-indulgent or lazy actions by the improviser short-change the audience no matter what form you choose. the chicago/del school doesn't advocate self-involved improv. the theory is: the audience benefits when we don't tie our actions as players to the response from the audience. (note: there are some other theories regarding improv as theatre vs. improv as comedy that relate to this idea).
two - does the chicago school believe furthering narrative is anathetical to good improv?
yes. however, since I have been down here, i've come to understand this point more clearly, and i think there is an important context missing from a full understanding of this statement. chicago tends to talk about chicago-based longform improv as if it is the ONLY improv (football, to use Jeremy's apt comparison) and only longform, and that short form and theatresports don't exist or are somehow less-than (futbol). we all know this isn't true - i played at comedysportz for 3 years with some of the same teachers that liked to use this microcosmic, verbal shorthand.
narrative driven
i have taken this statement to mean that, if your end goal is to tell people a story, then your focus is on furthering the plot and weaving the narrative, as well as creating characters within that world as an ensemble and player. net, furthering narrative is good.
theme driven
in contrast, if your end goal is to create a series of ideas around a theme, then your focus is on serving the thematic idea through scenework and creating character and relationships as a player. to force a narrative structure on this approach is limiting.
in my mind, there is no need to declare one approach or the other superior. you have to find out what you are drawn to and werk it.
i believe this - there are no absolutisms in improv. i've seen scenes that consist wholly of blocking and NO that were hilarious and memorable. i've also seen people "yes, and" the bejeezus out of something and would have rather taken a napdump that watch it one moment more.
IMO, those that encourage adherence to absolutisms beyond beginning tenets of improv are normally looking to serve something other than the craft. to me, improv theories are like religion - rife with contradictions, and belief systems to which people subscribe for personal, and sometimes not so obvious, reasons. belaboring this wilted analogy further, adhering to a strict fundamentalism BEYOND your first few years as an improviser inhibits and limits individual (and - relatedly) ensemble growth.
that said, i am incredibly excited to see jtowne teaching a harold class. bob and i have discussing rehearsing and putting one up so that those who haven't seen it can contextualize the theories beyond a textbook or one-offs.
excellent discussion aic.
"I suspect what we're doing is performance art, but I'm not going to tell the public that."
-- Del Close
-- Del Close
Nice post, Erika. Thoughtful, and very much I agree with. Not having gone through a Chicago influenced training center in one of their many iterations around the country, there is much assuming on my part in my view of what that training consists of. Like I said, these are my impressions hearing people talk about improv issues.
I can appreciate Del's (whomever's) desire not to let the audience control via their laughter, or other feedback, the shape of the improv and to encourage people to play at the top of their intelligence. In this, there's no difference from Keith. The sad thing is, I think a lot of people think of Keith in terms of the forms he invented, like TheatreSports and link him to short form and all of it's suppossed sins. I think Keith's insights into storytelling are much more powerful than the show styles that he invented (I'm not really a fan of Gorilla, Micetro, or Theatersports). The name of one of his books in Impro for Storytellers after all, and I think he'd say that of the two words, he's more interested in storytelling.
Also, nice explanation about the contrast between a theme based show versus a narrative based show, and how these, depending on what you're aiming for, can determine your attitude toward the desirability of story in your 'prov. Never seen it so well delineated. I guess my own preference for narrative comes from the fact that I very rarely see thematic shows that I find all that exciting as an exploration of a theme, and this is coming from someone who enjoys playing loose and flowy as much as in tightly structured narrative show. In other words, persoanlly I find my appetitie for thematic exploration satisfied more fully by other media, like say books. And when I do see theme shows that work for me as a show and not just a collection of interesting and often times hilarious scenes, it's usually because of some narrative aspect in the scenes (dramatic tension, strongly etched characters, unique setting or situation). But this is just a personal preference. Now, at the same time, I very rarely see narrative shows that are as good as, say, a well-written episode of Battlestar Galactica or Deadwood. So maybe that's just a way of saying improv, in whatever form, is harder than it looks.
Certainly one needn't declare one approach superior, there's room for all approaches. But one needn't feel abashed about declaring one's preferences, either. To venture into reading Jeremy's mind (which I'll do because we've talked about some of these issues), I think Jeremy's original post on this topic came from a frustration with the continued fetishization of Del Close in the improv community at large to the exclusion of other equally interesting improv theorizers. And as Justin pointed out in his original somewhat contradictory post about his upcoming class, it's perfectly fine to topple idols.
And Erika, I want to play in a CageMatch team with you called Napdump.
I can appreciate Del's (whomever's) desire not to let the audience control via their laughter, or other feedback, the shape of the improv and to encourage people to play at the top of their intelligence. In this, there's no difference from Keith. The sad thing is, I think a lot of people think of Keith in terms of the forms he invented, like TheatreSports and link him to short form and all of it's suppossed sins. I think Keith's insights into storytelling are much more powerful than the show styles that he invented (I'm not really a fan of Gorilla, Micetro, or Theatersports). The name of one of his books in Impro for Storytellers after all, and I think he'd say that of the two words, he's more interested in storytelling.
Also, nice explanation about the contrast between a theme based show versus a narrative based show, and how these, depending on what you're aiming for, can determine your attitude toward the desirability of story in your 'prov. Never seen it so well delineated. I guess my own preference for narrative comes from the fact that I very rarely see thematic shows that I find all that exciting as an exploration of a theme, and this is coming from someone who enjoys playing loose and flowy as much as in tightly structured narrative show. In other words, persoanlly I find my appetitie for thematic exploration satisfied more fully by other media, like say books. And when I do see theme shows that work for me as a show and not just a collection of interesting and often times hilarious scenes, it's usually because of some narrative aspect in the scenes (dramatic tension, strongly etched characters, unique setting or situation). But this is just a personal preference. Now, at the same time, I very rarely see narrative shows that are as good as, say, a well-written episode of Battlestar Galactica or Deadwood. So maybe that's just a way of saying improv, in whatever form, is harder than it looks.
Certainly one needn't declare one approach superior, there's room for all approaches. But one needn't feel abashed about declaring one's preferences, either. To venture into reading Jeremy's mind (which I'll do because we've talked about some of these issues), I think Jeremy's original post on this topic came from a frustration with the continued fetishization of Del Close in the improv community at large to the exclusion of other equally interesting improv theorizers. And as Justin pointed out in his original somewhat contradictory post about his upcoming class, it's perfectly fine to topple idols.
And Erika, I want to play in a CageMatch team with you called Napdump.
http://getup.austinimprov.com
"She fascinated me 'cause I like to run my fingers through her money."--Abner Jaymadeline wrote:i average 40, and like, a billion grains?
Amen, Sister and Brother. Speak the gospel, Erika and Shannon. Seriously, what's a napdump? Someone needs to teach me how to do the quote thing in the body of a post. This is silly.
I had heard rumblings and gotten feelings that there might be some short-form versus long-form sentiments in the AIC, but I really didn't realize what a nerve I was touching. I'm glad this is coming out, though. I wouldn't figure that a "short-form" background would translate well into "long-form." I came up through "Chicago-style" and have not had much exposure to "other" people.
I have seen some unbelievable improv from Chicago-style players (often simultaneously driven by theme, plot, and character). Last night I saw Jeremy and the Available Cupholders put on a dynamite show. I would have thought there was Chicago all over that. The fact that I didn't know that Jeremy was a Johnstone-hugger is a testament to the fact that all influences are valid. (I don't know who else I've seen is in which "camp," for the record... so don't bust my balls here.) I do know this: I use a lot of punctuation.
Bottom line: Do all improv roads lead to Rome? No. But there are a hell of a lot of cool cities in the world.
I look forward to how Austin players enrich my own improv and create better shows for audiences.
Now everyone grow a mustache like Mike Ditka.
I had heard rumblings and gotten feelings that there might be some short-form versus long-form sentiments in the AIC, but I really didn't realize what a nerve I was touching. I'm glad this is coming out, though. I wouldn't figure that a "short-form" background would translate well into "long-form." I came up through "Chicago-style" and have not had much exposure to "other" people.
I have seen some unbelievable improv from Chicago-style players (often simultaneously driven by theme, plot, and character). Last night I saw Jeremy and the Available Cupholders put on a dynamite show. I would have thought there was Chicago all over that. The fact that I didn't know that Jeremy was a Johnstone-hugger is a testament to the fact that all influences are valid. (I don't know who else I've seen is in which "camp," for the record... so don't bust my balls here.) I do know this: I use a lot of punctuation.
Bottom line: Do all improv roads lead to Rome? No. But there are a hell of a lot of cool cities in the world.
I look forward to how Austin players enrich my own improv and create better shows for audiences.
Now everyone grow a mustache like Mike Ditka.
"Every cat dies 9 times, but every cat does not truly live 9 lives."
-Bravecat
-Bravecat
Look in the upper right hand corner of any given post. See the button that says "quote" on it? Click that.York99 wrote:Someone needs to teach me how to do the quote thing in the body of a post. This is silly.
"Have you ever scrapped high?" Jon Bolden "Stabby" - After School Improv
http://www.improvforevil.com
http://www.improvforevil.com
-
- beardedlamb Offline
- Posts: 2676
- Joined: October 14th, 2005, 1:36 pm
- Location: austin
- Contact:
justin,
what you saw the cupholders do thursday actually comes directly from the chicago style. back in the day, we went to an improv festival in orlando and saw a group called plain cake donuts perform a series of disconnected scenes. we didn't know this was called montage (or maybe it was harold). they were from io and actually had jeff griggs on their team, author of guru. but we had been doing mostly long single story play-like improv in our shows. there was an overwhelming desire among our group to test this form out. we called it "flowey donut" as a nod to them and started performing it in austin. usually it was reserved for when we didn't have a full hour+ to perform or when we were going to be outside and weren't sure about the audience's attention span.
over the years we have worked very hard at mastering both styles and have found that a johnstone style (which sort of became well hung jury style as it was not technically a johnstone format) longform does not work well in under 30 minutes. this is the reason for my recent scheduling frustrations as i'm used to having more time in a show and flowey don't fully fix my jonez.
i agree with everyone that it's ridiculous to say which school is more important or useful. for me, it's a question of which will work right now in this venue, in this room, for what type of crowd we're expecting.
on the matter of theme, i have not enjoyed nearly as many montagey, haroldy shows as i have single story shows. i was not aware that one of the chicago things was to explore theme and i saw a good deal of prov in chicago. to me, it seemed like a lot of walking around "in unison" and immediately discarding the suggestion. the shows i enjoyed in chicago were single stories, tj and dave and baby wants candy. exceptions would be four square and chuckle sandwich. all of these groups were io groups. the reason i enjoyed four square and chuckle were because the performers were gifted comedians or actors. as groups they told great stories, even if they just told a story inside one scene that didn't relate to the one before it. in general the good comedians can pull off flowey with less effort. it's the other people who aren't as funny, like me, who like to rely on the storytelling part of it all.
maybe it's a product of what i was raised on but story just works better for me. stories are entertainment. a movie is basically a play with famous people. a good book is not often a book of unrelated bits that start at barbershop and end up in angola. even good commercials have good stories. obviously there are other ways to entertain but for me, a good song has a good story. good stand-up has good stories. i guess i'm sliding into non-topic land.
what i'd like to end with is that i was not meaning to attack delism. if someone would have come out and said every person who is a famous comedian or has ever wrote about improv learned it from keith i would have the same eyebrow raise.
and a plug, our Sunday mainstage show for Out of Bounds is going to be the coolest example of Keith and Del. 3 for All from San Francisco are steeped in Johnstone storytelling and our headliner Dasariski is three dudes who are old school io cats now living in LA and New York. it's going to be really cool to see both styles in one show. and now that i think of it, the one dasariski show i saw was all one scene. one big long story in one place. hmmm. i wonder what they'll do for OOB.
kisses. me no mean to step on toes.
beard
what you saw the cupholders do thursday actually comes directly from the chicago style. back in the day, we went to an improv festival in orlando and saw a group called plain cake donuts perform a series of disconnected scenes. we didn't know this was called montage (or maybe it was harold). they were from io and actually had jeff griggs on their team, author of guru. but we had been doing mostly long single story play-like improv in our shows. there was an overwhelming desire among our group to test this form out. we called it "flowey donut" as a nod to them and started performing it in austin. usually it was reserved for when we didn't have a full hour+ to perform or when we were going to be outside and weren't sure about the audience's attention span.
over the years we have worked very hard at mastering both styles and have found that a johnstone style (which sort of became well hung jury style as it was not technically a johnstone format) longform does not work well in under 30 minutes. this is the reason for my recent scheduling frustrations as i'm used to having more time in a show and flowey don't fully fix my jonez.
i agree with everyone that it's ridiculous to say which school is more important or useful. for me, it's a question of which will work right now in this venue, in this room, for what type of crowd we're expecting.
on the matter of theme, i have not enjoyed nearly as many montagey, haroldy shows as i have single story shows. i was not aware that one of the chicago things was to explore theme and i saw a good deal of prov in chicago. to me, it seemed like a lot of walking around "in unison" and immediately discarding the suggestion. the shows i enjoyed in chicago were single stories, tj and dave and baby wants candy. exceptions would be four square and chuckle sandwich. all of these groups were io groups. the reason i enjoyed four square and chuckle were because the performers were gifted comedians or actors. as groups they told great stories, even if they just told a story inside one scene that didn't relate to the one before it. in general the good comedians can pull off flowey with less effort. it's the other people who aren't as funny, like me, who like to rely on the storytelling part of it all.
maybe it's a product of what i was raised on but story just works better for me. stories are entertainment. a movie is basically a play with famous people. a good book is not often a book of unrelated bits that start at barbershop and end up in angola. even good commercials have good stories. obviously there are other ways to entertain but for me, a good song has a good story. good stand-up has good stories. i guess i'm sliding into non-topic land.
what i'd like to end with is that i was not meaning to attack delism. if someone would have come out and said every person who is a famous comedian or has ever wrote about improv learned it from keith i would have the same eyebrow raise.
and a plug, our Sunday mainstage show for Out of Bounds is going to be the coolest example of Keith and Del. 3 for All from San Francisco are steeped in Johnstone storytelling and our headliner Dasariski is three dudes who are old school io cats now living in LA and New York. it's going to be really cool to see both styles in one show. and now that i think of it, the one dasariski show i saw was all one scene. one big long story in one place. hmmm. i wonder what they'll do for OOB.
kisses. me no mean to step on toes.
beard
Two totally independent evolutions of the same thing, at roughly the same time. Keith's work in the theater in England was happening at about the same time that the Compass people were forming Second City and Del began the investigations into improv as an independent art form, not just a compositional tool. Like Darwin and Wallace coming up with the theory of evolution at roughly the same time, or Newton and Leibnitz with calculus.
http://getup.austinimprov.com
"She fascinated me 'cause I like to run my fingers through her money."--Abner Jaymadeline wrote:i average 40, and like, a billion grains?
After more thought and a few conversations since yesterday, I have refined my message somewhat. There is a wonderful and overwhelming feeling by many that Austin does have and/or should cultivate its own improv identity. I'm all for that. I feel that the best way to develop a unique style in improv is to meld all sorts of different influences and not reject anything.
That being said, what Justin York brings to the table is a background in and a great affinity for "Chicago Style." I put it in quotes because I don't think that Chicago has cornered the market on one particular style of improv... it's just easier for the sake of this discussion. So I bring that and I welcome more "Johnstone Style" improv into my own arsenal. As a side note, I will say that my exposure to Johnstone is reading most of "Impro." I did not find it to be seperate at all from what I learned. It's certainly a unique voice, but I never considered it to be another animal.
Bring on the white women.
That being said, what Justin York brings to the table is a background in and a great affinity for "Chicago Style." I put it in quotes because I don't think that Chicago has cornered the market on one particular style of improv... it's just easier for the sake of this discussion. So I bring that and I welcome more "Johnstone Style" improv into my own arsenal. As a side note, I will say that my exposure to Johnstone is reading most of "Impro." I did not find it to be seperate at all from what I learned. It's certainly a unique voice, but I never considered it to be another animal.
Bring on the white women.
"Every cat dies 9 times, but every cat does not truly live 9 lives."
-Bravecat
-Bravecat
-
- Mo Daviau Offline
- Posts: 1643
- Joined: August 11th, 2005, 3:14 pm
- Location: Austin then Ann Arbor, MI (as of 8/11)
- Contact:
Justin, I want to take your Harold class. For a long time, the Harold has not interested me, and I will tell you and the rest of the improv community why:
The Organic Beginning Thing. It makes me uncomfortable.
Not the invocation that Erika described ("I am, You Are, Thou Art!") but the one where they take the suggestion ("Q-TIP!") and then the troupe will awkwardly do something together, like pretend to be a Q-tip going into an ear, and then acting as ear wax, and then ending up in some sort of chugging machine formation.
I have been told that this beginning thing is to foster group mind, but the best group mind I've seen is fostered over time, not by a bunch of people doing the same thing. I've been encouraged to be impressed by the various chugging machines that begin Harolds, but I honestly can't say I ever have been.
Justin, if you make me not only understand this practice, but embrace it, I will buy you a box of ice cream sandwiches. And hug you.
Also, it would be interesting to bring Latifah Taormina into a discussion of the Harold, since she worked with Del back in the day and has some things to say about it.
The Organic Beginning Thing. It makes me uncomfortable.
Not the invocation that Erika described ("I am, You Are, Thou Art!") but the one where they take the suggestion ("Q-TIP!") and then the troupe will awkwardly do something together, like pretend to be a Q-tip going into an ear, and then acting as ear wax, and then ending up in some sort of chugging machine formation.
I have been told that this beginning thing is to foster group mind, but the best group mind I've seen is fostered over time, not by a bunch of people doing the same thing. I've been encouraged to be impressed by the various chugging machines that begin Harolds, but I honestly can't say I ever have been.
Justin, if you make me not only understand this practice, but embrace it, I will buy you a box of ice cream sandwiches. And hug you.
Also, it would be interesting to bring Latifah Taormina into a discussion of the Harold, since she worked with Del back in the day and has some things to say about it.
Mo, I actually agree with you. I'm not a fan of the organic opening either. I'm not totally with you on why, but in the end, I'm not a fan. Personally, I have never gotten anything out of it as a performer and certainly not as an audience member.
If that is the means to putting on a great show for some troupes, then more power to them. Some improvisers swear by it.
Perhaps I haven't ever really "gotten" it or perhaps I have never done a good one, but I feel weird doing it and I feel weird trying to be a character after the audience just saw me "make an ass of myself." I quoted that because it is how I feel, not to put words into anyone else's mouth.
I'm not a fan of the invocation for some of the same reasons, though.
ps I don't know the person you mentioned, I'd be interested in finding out though.
If that is the means to putting on a great show for some troupes, then more power to them. Some improvisers swear by it.
Perhaps I haven't ever really "gotten" it or perhaps I have never done a good one, but I feel weird doing it and I feel weird trying to be a character after the audience just saw me "make an ass of myself." I quoted that because it is how I feel, not to put words into anyone else's mouth.
I'm not a fan of the invocation for some of the same reasons, though.
ps I don't know the person you mentioned, I'd be interested in finding out though.
"Every cat dies 9 times, but every cat does not truly live 9 lives."
-Bravecat
-Bravecat
In a long form, the opening serves two purposes.
1) Extracting material from the suggestion to use for your piece (themes, ideas, etc...)
2) Initiate group mind vis a vis the suggestion (putting everyone on the same page with regards to said material).
Openings show the audience the route you took to get all the seemingly unrelated information and ideas you tossed out there. To use the cigarette example, maybe "cigarette" reminds you of your Grandma and you want to do a scene about a pancake breakfast. That's fine, but how great is it for the audience to be swept up in that runaway train of thought? As opposed to scratching their heads and wondering what the hell pancakes have to do with cigarettes.
Organic openings and Invocations are great ways to open a long form. They make it easy on the imprvisor by tossing all the information out right at the top and are great for the audience, because they get to see how the entire piece is generated.
An organic opening is essentially word association with movement. I've seen some teams open with a word association.
The suggestion is Bark
Player one: Bark
Player two: (long pause) dog house
Player three: (longer pause) snoopy
Boring! Somebody shoot them. This generated information, but sucks the fun right out of the room.
As for the invocation, I don't think some people grasp the subtle differences between "It is" "You are" "I am" and "Thou Art."
I'm not going to back that up with anything or elaborate.
1) Extracting material from the suggestion to use for your piece (themes, ideas, etc...)
2) Initiate group mind vis a vis the suggestion (putting everyone on the same page with regards to said material).
Openings show the audience the route you took to get all the seemingly unrelated information and ideas you tossed out there. To use the cigarette example, maybe "cigarette" reminds you of your Grandma and you want to do a scene about a pancake breakfast. That's fine, but how great is it for the audience to be swept up in that runaway train of thought? As opposed to scratching their heads and wondering what the hell pancakes have to do with cigarettes.
Organic openings and Invocations are great ways to open a long form. They make it easy on the imprvisor by tossing all the information out right at the top and are great for the audience, because they get to see how the entire piece is generated.
An organic opening is essentially word association with movement. I've seen some teams open with a word association.
The suggestion is Bark
Player one: Bark
Player two: (long pause) dog house
Player three: (longer pause) snoopy
Boring! Somebody shoot them. This generated information, but sucks the fun right out of the room.
As for the invocation, I don't think some people grasp the subtle differences between "It is" "You are" "I am" and "Thou Art."
I'm not going to back that up with anything or elaborate.
--Jastroch
"Racewater dishtrack. Finese red dirt warfs. Media my volumn swiftly" - Arrogant.
"Racewater dishtrack. Finese red dirt warfs. Media my volumn swiftly" - Arrogant.
-
- Mo Daviau Offline
- Posts: 1643
- Joined: August 11th, 2005, 3:14 pm
- Location: Austin then Ann Arbor, MI (as of 8/11)
- Contact:
Latifah Taormina is Austin's giant of improv history. Read about her here:
http://www.austinchronicle.com/issues/d ... ature.html
She was in Second City with folks like Joan Rivers, Avery Schreiber, and uh, this guy Del Close.
http://www.austinchronicle.com/issues/d ... ature.html
She was in Second City with folks like Joan Rivers, Avery Schreiber, and uh, this guy Del Close.