What's funny about this thread is that we all basically agree about what constitutes a really good improv show; we just disagree about how to categorize shows that don't meet that standard.
Tangentially related Bill Arnett quote: "When you see a really good improviser, you can't tell where they trained, but when you see a bad improviser you can tell exactly where they trained."
okay, what kind of narrative?
Discussion of the art and craft of improvisation.
Moderators: arclight, happywaffle, bradisntclever
Bill Arnett, who you may know as the man who won the Improvised Monologue Project:
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lVV3weVE5xk[/youtube]
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lVV3weVE5xk[/youtube]
PGraph plays every Thursday at 8pm! https://www.hideouttheatre.com/shows/pgraph/
- jillybee72 Offline
- Posts: 649
- Joined: November 16th, 2009, 1:20 pm
Merriam-Webster says that "narrative" is "the representation in art of an event or story." That's pretty much any character-based work, since "trash day" is an event, as is "that day you told me I looked like..."
But John's concern isn't really with categorizing types of narrative shows. It's with understanding the other performer's intention, which (along with your own) shapes the show.
How about speaking in terms of "open-ended" vs. "closed loop" narratives? That doesn't create a scale of relative goodness or purity. The scale arises from the strength of your intention.
"I'm not satisfied with a show unless we close the loop."
"I'm going to try to close the loop, if we can."
"I like to close the loop, but it's okay if we don't."
"I'm okay going either way. I'll play along if it becomes a story."
"I want to leave it open-ended - just see where the characters take us."
"I don't enjoy playing with others who push for a story."
But John's concern isn't really with categorizing types of narrative shows. It's with understanding the other performer's intention, which (along with your own) shapes the show.
How about speaking in terms of "open-ended" vs. "closed loop" narratives? That doesn't create a scale of relative goodness or purity. The scale arises from the strength of your intention.
"I'm not satisfied with a show unless we close the loop."
"I'm going to try to close the loop, if we can."
"I like to close the loop, but it's okay if we don't."
"I'm okay going either way. I'll play along if it becomes a story."
"I want to leave it open-ended - just see where the characters take us."
"I don't enjoy playing with others who push for a story."
What is to give light must endure burning. - Viktor Frankl
Right? I think the answer to that might be trickier than we think.ratliff wrote:WHAT? Why didn't anybody tell me this? Which one am I?jillybee72 wrote:Story HAPPENS. The artform is divided into people who don't care enough and people who care too much about that fact.
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?
-
- kbadr Offline
- Posts: 3614
- Joined: August 23rd, 2005, 9:00 am
- Location: Austin, TX (Kareem Badr)
- Contact:
Two of my favorite film-going experiences ever were seeing The Discreet Charm of the Bourgeoise and Celine and Julie Go Boating. Both films are narratives, but they are really innovative with how they handle story, and when both films end, it felt like all the moves they had made earlier established a situation where ANY SINGLE POSSIBLE thing the film did would have felt like a perfect ending. They had expanded the Circle of Expectations outward to infinity. In both cases, the sensation was exhilarating. I felt like my head was floating 10 feet above my body leaving the cinema. Some David Lynch films, like Mulholland Drive, do that to me, too.
I think this is the feeling Ratliff is talking about with the light pulls in TJ and Dave shows, and I know it's one of the reasons I'm such a fan of theirs and of Dasariski.
This will take us down the genre path, but with the shows I've put together, Lola and False Matters, and with Pocketful of Posies which I cooked up based on those aforementioned films before handing it to Liz, I've really tried to create formats that allow for maximal narrative freedom within a repeatable format. I still enjoy playing them and seeing them, but genre shows where the outcome is too tightly pre-determined aren't my first love.
So maybe open narratives vs. closed narratives? Some stories are self-contained cells of experience, and some are more open-ended.
I think this is the feeling Ratliff is talking about with the light pulls in TJ and Dave shows, and I know it's one of the reasons I'm such a fan of theirs and of Dasariski.
This will take us down the genre path, but with the shows I've put together, Lola and False Matters, and with Pocketful of Posies which I cooked up based on those aforementioned films before handing it to Liz, I've really tried to create formats that allow for maximal narrative freedom within a repeatable format. I still enjoy playing them and seeing them, but genre shows where the outcome is too tightly pre-determined aren't my first love.
So maybe open narratives vs. closed narratives? Some stories are self-contained cells of experience, and some are more open-ended.
Last edited by shando on August 15th, 2012, 7:24 pm, edited 2 times in total.
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?
-
- happywaffle Offline
- Posts: 4125
- Joined: February 20th, 2008, 12:42 pm
- Location: Austin TX
- Contact:
-
- kaci_beeler Offline
- Posts: 2151
- Joined: September 4th, 2005, 10:27 pm
- Location: Austin, TX
- Contact:
This is so well-expressed, Val. It really resonates with me personally. I love the freedom I find in challenges, structures, and focuses.valetoile wrote:We give ourselves limits and challenges and structures to build skills and stretch ourselves, but when we're on stage, whatever happens happens and it's beautiful and right and the best thing that could have happened. Doing a genre or a classic dramatic arc or a harold or anything else is just about learning a language together. If you don't know the language, you'll feel uncomfortable and you'll feel like you're messing up. Learning new languages is fun and lets you communicate with more people. But of course, you don't need to learn every language. There is always an infinite richness of experience and communication to explore within the language you already know and feel fluent in.
Kathy: Exactly. I feel like my primary goal as an improviser is to support whatever my scene partner does unconditionally, and I'm getting better at that. It's fun to play with people who don't think the same way I do and just be open to whatever happens.
AND ... it's also fun to play with someone who shares your sensibility so that you can explore it even further without having to negotiate it. Hess and I didn't think we had any rules we played by until the first time someone sat in with us, at which point we realized we had all kinds of rules. We had just never had to articulate them before.
"The only mistake you can make in improv is casting." -- Dave Razowsky
Shannon: Exactly. When I'm teaching the H-word, I sometimes tell people that whereas a straight narrative resembles a traditional novel, the Harold is more like an essay, introducing very disparate elements and then tying them together thematically in surprising ways.
As far as that broken-up approach to narrative goes, "Famous Blue Raincoat" seems like it's just wandering from thought to thought, but by the end of it you have three entire characters and a pretty vivid and specific story. So that might be the musical analogy to the loose narrative you're talking about.
Of course, that kind of sketchiness is much easier to pull off in a song or novel than it is in improv, because you know what it is you're sketching beforehand -- or even if you don't, you can revise it as you go along. I do think that one of the great challenges of improv is to do work that's subtle and connotative instead of literalizing everything, which is (for me) one more reason to play with people who have the same sensibility.
AND ... it's also fun to play with someone who shares your sensibility so that you can explore it even further without having to negotiate it. Hess and I didn't think we had any rules we played by until the first time someone sat in with us, at which point we realized we had all kinds of rules. We had just never had to articulate them before.
"The only mistake you can make in improv is casting." -- Dave Razowsky
Shannon: Exactly. When I'm teaching the H-word, I sometimes tell people that whereas a straight narrative resembles a traditional novel, the Harold is more like an essay, introducing very disparate elements and then tying them together thematically in surprising ways.
As far as that broken-up approach to narrative goes, "Famous Blue Raincoat" seems like it's just wandering from thought to thought, but by the end of it you have three entire characters and a pretty vivid and specific story. So that might be the musical analogy to the loose narrative you're talking about.
Of course, that kind of sketchiness is much easier to pull off in a song or novel than it is in improv, because you know what it is you're sketching beforehand -- or even if you don't, you can revise it as you go along. I do think that one of the great challenges of improv is to do work that's subtle and connotative instead of literalizing everything, which is (for me) one more reason to play with people who have the same sensibility.
"I'm not a real aspirational cat."
-- TJ Jagodowski
-- TJ Jagodowski
This is (was?) a great discussion.
I don't really have anything to add except that while coming to the end of the third page I had an idea pop into my head:
What if this discussion had taken place not on a message board, but rather in the context of an improv show? What if it had happened within a monoscene or maybe a collection of scenes? What would that show be categorized as?
I don't have the answers for that, but I thought I'd share.
In any case, can't wait to see you all in Austin in 9 days!
I don't really have anything to add except that while coming to the end of the third page I had an idea pop into my head:
What if this discussion had taken place not on a message board, but rather in the context of an improv show? What if it had happened within a monoscene or maybe a collection of scenes? What would that show be categorized as?
I don't have the answers for that, but I thought I'd share.
In any case, can't wait to see you all in Austin in 9 days!
I love that Dan referred to Joseph Campbell. That is crucial to this debate.
The Hero's Journey & The Harold
Both are almost identical in that they fit patterns from moment to moment using structural archetypes.
The Hero's Journey & The Harold
Both are almost identical in that they fit patterns from moment to moment using structural archetypes.
Last edited by Spots on August 22nd, 2012, 2:10 am, edited 2 times in total.
-
- chicocarlucci Offline
- Posts: 310
- Joined: January 9th, 2006, 12:57 am
- Contact:
Let's suppose I decide to eavesdrop on two different conversations, A and B, in a coffee shop.
A) is a story about a person who was cat-sitting and wound up having various problems with the cat. It starts off with "Man I've been cat-sitting and oh my god did I get more than I bargained for."
B) is a conversation between a man in a suit and lady wrapped in a Russian Flag. The man is talking about how nail polish was the first real American invention and that everything after that was crap.
At some point, my bus comes and I have to leave.
A) the last thing I heard in this conversation was that the cat had escaped and he was looking for it.
B) The last thing I heard in this conversation was "The whole country's going to hell."
Both conversations were interesting. Both had some element of mystery I wanted to follow, but only the cat-sitting conversation made me feel like I left things unresolved.
Why? Because the cat-sitting conversation "promised" me (even as an eavesdropper) some kind of conclusion early on. Leaving before the end of this story is like leaving before hearing the end of a very long knock-knock joke.
Sure in the other conversation, I'm curious as to why the woman is wrapped in a Russian flag, but these characters seem outlandish enough that I'm just interested in seeing a little of what makes them tick. They've promised me nothing, and my level of interest in their conversation relies entirely on my voyeuristic fascination with their lifestyle.
Is this just me? Or is there something universally different about the "style" of these two conversations? Would this fantasy scenario impact you the same way?
P.S. Please do not read this as a thinly-veiled analogy. It is a genuine question about a real phenomenon that extends well beyond the boundaries of Improvisational theater.
A) is a story about a person who was cat-sitting and wound up having various problems with the cat. It starts off with "Man I've been cat-sitting and oh my god did I get more than I bargained for."
B) is a conversation between a man in a suit and lady wrapped in a Russian Flag. The man is talking about how nail polish was the first real American invention and that everything after that was crap.
At some point, my bus comes and I have to leave.
A) the last thing I heard in this conversation was that the cat had escaped and he was looking for it.
B) The last thing I heard in this conversation was "The whole country's going to hell."
Both conversations were interesting. Both had some element of mystery I wanted to follow, but only the cat-sitting conversation made me feel like I left things unresolved.
Why? Because the cat-sitting conversation "promised" me (even as an eavesdropper) some kind of conclusion early on. Leaving before the end of this story is like leaving before hearing the end of a very long knock-knock joke.
Sure in the other conversation, I'm curious as to why the woman is wrapped in a Russian flag, but these characters seem outlandish enough that I'm just interested in seeing a little of what makes them tick. They've promised me nothing, and my level of interest in their conversation relies entirely on my voyeuristic fascination with their lifestyle.
Is this just me? Or is there something universally different about the "style" of these two conversations? Would this fantasy scenario impact you the same way?
P.S. Please do not read this as a thinly-veiled analogy. It is a genuine question about a real phenomenon that extends well beyond the boundaries of Improvisational theater.
-----------
"What this country needs is a five-dollar plasma weapon."
-----------
http://mojokickball.com
"What this country needs is a five-dollar plasma weapon."
-----------
http://mojokickball.com
-
- chicocarlucci Offline
- Posts: 310
- Joined: January 9th, 2006, 12:57 am
- Contact:
Sorry for the dual posts, but I wanted to address the "labeling" issue on a separate post as I think the broader concept of "label or not?" is a different issue altogether.
I understand the problems with putting labels on things. I do. Labels can make artificial boundaries in areas where there didn't need to be any, followed by the unnecessary argument about who's definition is correct. Nearly every ubiquitous label I've ever known has changed in the common vernacular. (Racist, feminist, love, hate, liberal, conservative, whatever). So it doesn't surprise me when nebulous concepts like "narrative", "story-driven", and "character-driven" inspire people to want to create lines of demarcation. After all, everyone from poets to mathematicians have been trying to suss out what 'love' is for thousands of years. Why should these terms be exempt from scrutiny, simply because some people (predictably) will try to legitimize their own version of the label?
For me, personally, I am very grateful for all the labels that people have put out there within the improv community over the years. They have inspired me to create a personal taxonomy of my own incentives and impulses. Much like "love", the labels ultimately benefit me more than they will ever benefit anyone else. And when I don't have a satisfactory label for something, I make one up.
The only problem is when we try to enforce the "definitions" of these very personal labels on others.
That being said, I think what our good friend Ratliff is doing here is really just trying to suss things out for himself, like any of us. I think we can all agree that he's not trying to force his beliefs on anyone. Just trying to find the words to describe his own situation and draw his own personal lines of demarcation. Maybe he'll borrow your label for a while, or maybe he'll make up his own. I certainly appreciate the attempt and the manner by which he's attempting it.
I understand the problems with putting labels on things. I do. Labels can make artificial boundaries in areas where there didn't need to be any, followed by the unnecessary argument about who's definition is correct. Nearly every ubiquitous label I've ever known has changed in the common vernacular. (Racist, feminist, love, hate, liberal, conservative, whatever). So it doesn't surprise me when nebulous concepts like "narrative", "story-driven", and "character-driven" inspire people to want to create lines of demarcation. After all, everyone from poets to mathematicians have been trying to suss out what 'love' is for thousands of years. Why should these terms be exempt from scrutiny, simply because some people (predictably) will try to legitimize their own version of the label?
For me, personally, I am very grateful for all the labels that people have put out there within the improv community over the years. They have inspired me to create a personal taxonomy of my own incentives and impulses. Much like "love", the labels ultimately benefit me more than they will ever benefit anyone else. And when I don't have a satisfactory label for something, I make one up.
The only problem is when we try to enforce the "definitions" of these very personal labels on others.
That being said, I think what our good friend Ratliff is doing here is really just trying to suss things out for himself, like any of us. I think we can all agree that he's not trying to force his beliefs on anyone. Just trying to find the words to describe his own situation and draw his own personal lines of demarcation. Maybe he'll borrow your label for a while, or maybe he'll make up his own. I certainly appreciate the attempt and the manner by which he's attempting it.