Weigh in on argument scenes.

[Rev. Jordan T. Maxwell]

just remembered another term for a scene i had never heard until i moved to chicago, teaching scene. i think this is similar to the argument scene. both can be done well but both have the same pitfalls every time you get stuck in one. you just have to manage the pitfalls and not get sucked into negativity for the argument scene and talking about the activity for the teaching scene. if you can avoid those common missteps they can be perfectly fine scenes, but because people fall into them so often, that type of scene gets a bad name. bottom line, of course, its about relationship, and not an action or a debated concept.

JD used to talk about teaching/training scenes a lot at Ultimate. it would always irk me a bit, thinking about story structure and the hero's journey and all that...the training and relationship with the mentor character (or characters) is crucial in a lot of ways. but i came to realize that i was falling into exactly the pitfall you're talking about...the scene becomes about the activity. it becomes about basketball instead of a father and son opening up to another. but it's such a slope, even being aware of the pitfall, i shy away from those scenes...i think because i don't trust myself to dodge it, necessarily. i dunno...another fun obstacle to tackle at some point, i suppose.

Most argument scenes happen because people want there to be heightened emotion but they're afraid of being vulnerable. If it's about love instead of anger we might end up kissing, god forbid. I hate arguments. When I go to a show like "Tony & Tina's Wedding" that's all arguments I just want to leave. I want there to be more love in the world. I didn't get into this work to make the world an uglier place.

i love a good argument...of course, i was raised in a warped family who consider argument and debate a sign of affection, so there's that. but i do think you raise a great point about vulnerability, because that's one of the few things i think can save an argument scene from becoming pedantic and just characters yelling back and forth...either making yourself vulnerable in the argument (ie: arguing about something that affects you/your character on a deep emotional level) or allowing the intensity and passion of the argument to wear or tear down your defenses and render you vulnerable, which i think is far more difficult. because you're not starting there, and it can come across really clunky and manipulative to force yourself into a state of affected vulnerability. so to have it come off deftly and organically, you have to let go as a performer beforehand and allow the energy to overtake you...in essence, you have to consciously become vulnerable a few (or perhaps several) beats beforehand to allow your character to become vulnerable as well in the scene. and i still struggle with that in scripted acting, when i know the beat's coming. lol! but i think because it is such a challenge, it's that much more rewarding when you pull it off.

This is interesting. Beginning improv classes tell us all sorts of ways to have high or low status. I know that being vulnerable doesn't necessarily mean low status.

Does anyone have tricks to play vulnerable? Especially without playing low status?

no real trick, as others have said. it's really about being as engaged as possible. the temptation a lot of times, and i used to do this a LOT more, is to hide behind big character choices, voices, funny physicalities, etc., playing broad because that's more likely to get the laugh. but it also shields us because everything we're playing is affected emotion. it's especially tempting in improv where there's no safety net or map that a script can provide, where if you go out there and portray genuine emotion, you know where the next line or beat or other character will be there to catch you. with improv, it's so much more an act of faith to convey a genuine emotion rather than portray the affectation of one.

which isn't to say you can't be vulnerable while playing a limping drunken Irishman who's fond of fart jokes. but that's all window dressing. strip it back to the core...what is he/am i feeling? how am i/is he reacting to this situation? to this relationship? i think for beginning levels, and even more advanced players, it's useful to just go out as yourself. don't worry about being clever or entertaining. just be in the moment. let go of those concerns, let go of worrying about seeming foolish or how the audience or your other performers will react. if you come at them with real emotion and vulnerability, they'll have your back and even if they don't know it appreciate the amazing gift you've given them to work with. there will be times when the other player's not being supportive of that, will just try to make jokes out of everything...and they'll get the laugh sometimes, but the audience will be on your side. so that's a gift too. because that's realistic in its own way too! what do so many of us do when confronted with genuine emotion? we close off, we deny it, we try to flip it aside with a joke because we're taught not to care, not to connect, not to be affected...and yes, it's a stronger choice if the other player is intentionally playing that, but you can still use it when they're just being a jerk.

you build up that ability to be vulnerable, to open up, to let go and have real, honest communication through your character, relationship and story...then when you start layering on those broader character elements, suddenly you have a limping farting Irishman that we give a damn about!

[jillybee72]

Another thing I wanted to say about argument scenes. They can be facilitated through something called the YES/NO.

Saying "yes" to your partner's ideas doesn't mean you have to play a bunch of characters that are just super-agreeable and pleasant all the time. One of my favorite approaches is the Yes/No. You say "no" with your mouth but "yes" with your actions. We can play a scene where I say, "Put on this ballerina outfit!" and you say "That's the stupidest idea in the world! It will never work! No one's going to believe I'm a prima ballerina!" All the while you are putting on the ballerina outfit. You will never once have verbally agreed to it, but all the same the action of the scene will continue and we'll actually get to see the scene where you try to pass yourself off as a prima ballerina, which sounds a lot funnier to me than you standing there on stage just bitching at me about it.

As to how to play vulnerable - I like to picture my chest as having little cabinet doors that I open up so that the audience can see inside and look at my heart and soul. It's a dangerous sort of work, playing vulnerable. It's why so many improvisors are alcoholics or dead. All the same, I think it's the most valuable.

[DollarBill]

Any scene that is successful has a connection between the characters and the audience. Think of any scene you have witnessed, or been a part of that has had no dialogue and if it was successful, it was probably because the characters connected emotionally, and that was what raised the stakes, not a premise of getting somewhere, or fixing something.

While I agree that sometimes scenes should put relationship and character first, I also think that sometimes it's not needed so much. I once watched people do nothing but silently mime playing with the stuff in a car for about 10 minutes. It was super funny, and way devoid of "connection between the characters". I also watched EVERY episode of battle star galactica just to find out what-happens-next AND actually yelled and moaned and groaned every time they would delay the action with BOOOORING MELODRAMATIC POOOOOOOOOOP (aka relationship scenes). So there's a lot to be said for "plot" or "story" or "just going somewhere" or something actually happening without too much worrying about emotion. I think the audience does a lot of the emotional work for us... In the same way that we might point at two lounging bunnies and say "awwww they're in looooooove."

Now we're way off topic. So I'll bring it back to... JILL! The "yes/no" is something I've definitely taken to heart and consciously used in scenes with great results, but I think I've posted about my success stories with that before. Point is: TRY IT if you haven't. Especially if you find yourself declining a ridiculous request. It really really works.

[Jastroch]

As my therapist says, you can either be right or be in a relationship. Our natural inclination as people is to get defensive when someone calls us out on something, and we bring that to our scene work. It's unproductive arguing that's boring to watch, the kind that's more about the mechanics of being RIGHT than watching something develop between two people.

I like to ask my students why they're arguing in the first place. Is it because that's something the character wants to do or because they the improviser can't be wrong? I think it's because we don't know how to be wrong.

I stole this thing from Miles Stroth, kinda: I'll make students do a ton of scene starts. One person starts the scene by making an angry accusation to the other, the other person says "yes I did" then does whatever it is again, making the problem worse. Than I ask em, "How much more fun was that playing a scum bag and being in the wrong?" There's still an argument happening, but at least something's happening -- the problem's getting worse.

Owning your own shit -- in improv and in life -- is a way more productive way to be. When you watch two people defend themselves, it's like watching two people run into a brick wall over and over. Funny once, at times entertaining, but repetitive and mostly boring.

[PyroDan]

Any scene that is successful has a connection between the characters and the audience. Think of any scene you have witnessed, or been a part of that has had no dialogue and if it was successful, it was probably because the characters connected emotionally, and that was what raised the stakes, not a premise of getting somewhere, or fixing something.

While I agree that sometimes scenes should put relationship and character first, I also think that sometimes it's not needed so much. I once watched people do nothing but silently mime playing with the stuff in a car for about 10 minutes. It was super funny, and way devoid of "connection between the characters". I also watched EVERY episode of battle star galactica just to find out what-happens-next AND actually yelled and moaned and groaned every time they would delay the action with BOOOORING MELODRAMATIC POOOOOOOOOOP (aka relationship scenes). So there's a lot to be said for "plot" or "story" or "just going somewhere" or something actually happening without too much worrying about emotion. I think the audience does a lot of the emotional work for us... In the same way that we might point at two lounging bunnies and say "awwww they're in looooooove."

Well I wouldn't think that show as interesting if it were a mash up cut of explosions and spooling the FTL. My question then on your mime car scene would be, did they exist in their own space? Or was their interaction dictated by sharing that confined space and thusly creating a relationship?

I am not saying you can't have a successful scene without focusing on the relationship, but I do know from experience as performer and audience you can't have a show that is a string of unconnected people doing 'things' or 'solving problems'

The funny thing is I have seen lots of scripted work turn really melodramatic and crappy quickly, but I have rarely seen dramatic improvisation go badly by good 'comedic' improvisors.

[bradisntclever]

The funny thing is I have seen lots of scripted work turn really melodramatic and crappy quickly, but I have rarely seen dramatic improvisation go badly by good 'comedic' improvisers.

I think the scripted work depends mainly on A) the quality of the writing and B) the talent of the actor(s). Solid writing and solid acting can prevent a scene going off the rails.

I'm not surprised that a good improviser can improvise well in both dramatic and comedic situations (often they occur simultaneously).

[acrouch]

As my therapist says, you can either be right or be in a relationship.

Man, I love that. You can either be right or be in a scene.

I think dysfunctional argument scenes and teaching scenes absolutely come down to that fear and unwillingness to be vulnerable. Gene, I would say the easiest "trick" for being more vulnerable is to be affected by everything your partner says. Instead of trying to be "right" and push through your idea, be emotionally, physically altered by their offer.

[jose]

JD used to talk about teaching/training scenes a lot at Ultimate. it would always irk me a bit, thinking about story structure and the hero's journey and all that...the training and relationship with the mentor character (or characters) is crucial in a lot of ways. but i came to realize that i was falling into exactly the pitfall you're talking about...the scene becomes about the activity.

Those are basically my thoughts on arguments.

If a scene has strong, compelling characters then an argument just becomes another avenue for them to reveal and share their point of view in an interesting way. When arguments are just bickering over things no one really cares about - that's when it becomes an energy sink hole.

[Rev. Jordan T. Maxwell]

As my therapist says, you can either be right or be in a relationship.

Man, I love that. You can either be right or be in a scene.

I think dysfunctional argument scenes and teaching scenes absolutely come down to that fear and unwillingness to be vulnerable. Gene, I would say the easiest "trick" for being more vulnerable is to be affected by everything your partner says. Instead of trying to be "right" and push through your idea, be emotionally, physically altered by their offer.

...or go with what Andy said so you don't have to trudge through all of my "damn it, i got a degree in this stuff so i need to make it sound good" rhetoric.

and damn it, Bill, if you talk shit about BSG again, i'm going to have to shoot you again!

[jillybee72]

Matt Donnelly stops argument scenes and says "Raise your hand if you're wrong." Knowing which character is in the wrong helps the performers play out the scene in a much more interesting way than if they're both playing to win or playing like they're right.

[Rev. Jordan T. Maxwell]

Matt Donnelly stops argument scenes and says "Raise your hand if you're wrong." Knowing which character is in the wrong helps the performers play out the scene in a much more interesting way than if they're both playing to win or playing like they're right.

there should be a way of incorporating this into the scene itself, like tapping your chest before a fight scene in Start Trekkin'.

[jillybee72]

there should be a way of incorporating this into the scene itself, like tapping your chest before a fight scene in Start Trekkin'.

It can be accomplished with listening and sensitivity, there's no need for a short-cut to it.

[DollarBill]

Well I wouldn't think that show as interesting if it were a mash up cut of explosions and spooling the FTL. My question then on your mime car scene would be, did they exist in their own space? Or was their interaction dictated by sharing that confined space and thusly creating a relationship?

I'm not talking about explosions. I'm just saying that, for me, there was TOO much talking about nothing but feelings. Where as in something like The Office you can know everything about how someone feels from a glance. We get the benefit of feeling and the benefit of a story that doesn't take 5 20-episode seasons to get to the point (sorry Jordan).
As far as the car... obviously there was a relationship. There's always a relationship. Even strangers have a relationship when they relate. I have no idea if they were brothers, or strangers, or what. It was just funny slapstick.

I am not saying you can't have a successful scene without focusing on the relationship, but I do know from experience as performer and audience you can't have a show that is a string of unconnected people doing 'things' or 'solving problems'

Americas funniest home videos is a string of unconnected people doing things that makes my girlfriend laugh harder than any other show.
I don't think there's anything you straight-up can't do. I'm saying the relationship can sometimes be secondary because people tend to infer those things. Like we infer everything from a glance from a character in The Office.

The funny thing is I have seen lots of scripted work turn really melodramatic and crappy quickly, but I have rarely seen dramatic improvisation go badly by good 'comedic' improvisors.

In Chicago I see good people play "dramatic, character first" improv all the time that makes we want to scream. It's not bad acting. It's just so boring. I also see high energy "what comes next" improv that's super boring.

I don't know why I post these things cuz I always end up with the same conclusions*: I don't think we can nail down any one thing that always works. We have to learn everything and use what's appropriate when it's appropriate, and that's super hard to do and can only come from practice.
*I guess the reason is that this is a part of practice.

JILL! I'm stealing that "who is wrong" thing. That's awesome.

[jillybee72]

Yes! And if you ever have a chance to work with Matt Donnelly, do!

[Rev. Jordan T. Maxwell]

there should be a way of incorporating this into the scene itself, like tapping your chest before a fight scene in Start Trekkin'.

It can be accomplished with listening and sensitivity, there's no need for a short-cut to it.

sorry, that should've had a smiley with it to convey a low level of facetiousness.