Weigh in on argument scenes.

[Jeff]

...

[michaelmcgeary]

in my humble opinion this is all bullshit. I' never seen so much pyscho-babblish nonsense on a very simple problem. I said it in an earlier post-nip it nip it nip it!! we dealt w/ this in 1967 when improve was a baby and it became obvios that arguments werethe result of poor scene set up and lack of the actors taking care of each other,If other actors stand by and let an argument scene continue until it deteriorates they are failing thier fellows. Cut the scene off and maybe continue the argument in segments through out the piece, So it becomes a running feature instead of a static deadlock.In improv as in life,argument stops action

[Rev. Jordan T. Maxwell]

in my humble opinion this is all bullshit. I' never seen so much pyscho-babblish nonsense on a very simple problem. I said it in an earlier post-nip it nip it nip it!! we dealt w/ this in 1967 when improve was a baby and it became obvios that arguments werethe result of poor scene set up and lack of the actors taking care of each other,If other actors stand by and let an argument scene continue until it deteriorates they are failing thier fellows. Cut the scene off and maybe continue the argument in segments through out the piece, So it becomes a running feature instead of a static deadlock.In improv as in life,argument stops action

no disrespect intended (and apologies for my psycho-babble bullshit), but i absolutely disagree. one, i don't believe in absolutes and any "rule" can successfully be subverted (especially in art, especially in improv). two, as long as the actors are on the same page, even if the characters are arguing, then they're still taking care of each other. three, as noted throughout this thread such scenes tend to fall apart when they become about the subject being argued but can succeed if the focus is on the characters and the relationship (WHY they're arguing, not WHAT they're arguing about). four, argument is conflict. conflict is the essence of drama. as long as you're not just indulging in a wank-a-thon of rhetorical debate (which, to my shame, i've done onstage...not, y'know, LITERALLY) and the conflict/argument is really about the people involved, then it can't HELP but keep the action moving forward even if only the dramatic action (see: every play and movie ever. ). and five...if anything in improv has been "dealt with" with no room for dissent, subversion or innovation, especially if it was done so 40 years ago, then this REALLY isn't the artform i thought it was.

i've seen and done wonderful argument scene in improv...and yes, i've seen (and done...oy...) really shitty argument scenes. but the same is true of improv in general, even when it follows "the rules."

[jillybee72]

In scenes, argument games are a lot more fun than actual arguments.

[PyroDan]

In scenes, argument games are a lot more fun than actual arguments.

concur

[michaelmcgeary]

Respect,Reverend for a point well taken. It's a complex issue to be sure, but just by the nature of the discourse one can see that they have dubious and hard to capture value A good argument scene is a rare bird and it takes keen players to hold it at just the right tautness to keep us intrigued. I guess I'm somewhat of a crotchety old fart,but I know from this,as Harold was fucking plagued with them and they kept holdin' up the train. My point is that it's also a fine skil for the supporting players to know just when to move in . Like a batter has a half second to decide if he's gonna swing, a company needs the same intuition in judging the worth of an argument scene to the progress of the piece.But ,most important.the welfare of the actors. Bear in mind,this is 15 people onstage at once [big stage] all trying to figure out what the fuck we are doing. anyway some of the ways we helped lessen the drag was to cut them just as it was clear there was an argument and/or if you were in the scene use an activity or something in the place as a lifesaver. to bring back the argument ,now advanced,later was also a wayout. An argument scene that is goin south is the same now as it was then Forty years be damned!!!!

[Rev. Jordan T. Maxwell]

Respect,Reverend for a point well taken. It's a complex issue to be sure, but just by the nature of the discourse one can see that they have dubious and hard to capture value A good argument scene is a rare bird and it takes keen players to hold it at just the right tautness to keep us intrigued. I guess I'm somewhat of a crotchety old fart,but I know from this,as Harold was fucking plagued with them and they kept holdin' up the train. My point is that it's also a fine skil for the supporting players to know just when to move in . Like a batter has a half second to decide if he's gonna swing, a company needs the same intuition in judging the worth of an argument scene to the progress of the piece.But ,most important.the welfare of the actors. Bear in mind,this is 15 people onstage at once [big stage] all trying to figure out what the fuck we are doing. anyway some of the ways we helped lessen the drag was to cut them just as it was clear there was an argument and/or if you were in the scene use an activity or something in the place as a lifesaver. to bring back the argument ,now advanced,later was also a wayout. An argument scene that is goin south is the same now as it was then Forty years be damned!!!!

i'd definitely agree with that. i think beginning improvisors should be warned away from them because it's such a "comfortable" fall back position to start out in...which is odd since it's such an awkward place to be when it goes wrong (as, you point out, it so often can). i didn't mean to make it sound like "the rules" have no place in improv...indeed, they're a crucial life line at the beginning when the "i can do anything" head rush might lead one astray (also a good beacon to be mindful of when more experienced and advanced imps want to break off from base camp and do some exploring).

i think it can come easier if one has some prior or outside theatrical training as well (or film or literature study), because it's easier to approach the argument from a story perspective ("this is going to progress our characters emotionally or possibly reveal something personal that will move the plot forward!") versus a comfortable fall back of starting out negative and talking instead of doing ("this is my loud voice and i have a gun and you are wrong about everything!"). not that you NEED that kind of training/study to grasp such things, but as with most things in improv, the choice that comes from confidence will always trump the choice that comes from fear, even if on the surface they're the same choice. concept is nothing. execution is everything.

also, i wish i could say things in 50 words that Jill Bernard can say in 5.

[michaelmcgeary]

You are a brilliant man,dear reverend. Age and lack of contact have limited my experience and ability to keep up w/ current trends and philosophies but not my ability to produce large amounts of hot gas on the subject! This thread has brought me back to realize what a bunch of yahoos we were back then. Truly I think we invented as many ways to fuk this up as to create it. but after seeing some work this weekend I realized,looking at the rapt audience,some of the real important stuff never changes and that whole hearted willingness to get up there and have your supposed dignity shredded at any moment is a kind of cultural Heroism in itself. Hell the whole deal is a gas gas gas just because it is!

[Rev. Jordan T. Maxwell]

Truly I think we invented as many ways to fuk this up as to create it.

frankly, i've always seen the two as one and the same (and both worthy of celebration. )

my general philosophy is that the audience wants to see you catch fire and die onstage, and loves it when you don't. anything you can do to serve both of these goals is magical.

[michaelmcgeary]

Last night,out there in the wild jungle of austim improv I saw saw a rare and beautiful creature..an absolutely captivating,perfect argument scene!!It is also rare to see a scene like that with such relatively low volume but high intensity. Also very cool was that this argument was obviously between good friends[ but that was not mentioned til later] who were trying hard to fight but not bring out the hate bombs.It lasted all of 20 min and drum tight every one! That is art