Austin Improv

Justin York’s Philosophy on Improv
Day 5
Today’s Topic: The Harold is Easy

Not only is the Harold easy to perform, I think it should be every improviser’s INTRODUCTION into long form.

A Harold is like putting training wheels on long-form. Essentially, it is just a form where you have to learn a very simple structure. It is not, however, easy to do a Harold well. Luckily, even if the Harold doesn’t come together, it’s still a great montage show: You have group scenes, characters, small story lines, and call-backs. The very accurate analogy that the book “Truth in Comedyâ€

York99 wrote:Think Picasso: He proved himself a brilliant artist doing realism before he earned the credibility to paint and be appreciated in a Cubist style.

"As a child I drew like Raphael, it took the rest of my life to draw like a child." -my favorite picasso quote.

Nothing better than playing a mindless, retarded brute of a bear on stage. But it's taken me a long time to get there!

Favorite Picasso story:

A socialite spotted Picasso sitting at a cafe in Paris. Excitedly, she approached him and asked if he could draw a little something for her. Picasso protested, but the socialite was very persistent. Picasso took his pencil and made a quick sketch on a napkin. As he handed it to her he said, “That will be five thousand dollars.â€

I have often heard of the Harold, but I've never done one or seen one done. I've also been doing longform improv in some form or another for about six years now. So i'm not entirely sure how crucial it is. On the other hand, from the descriptions i've read here (at least insomuch as the word "montage" is used), it is very similar to how I (and the rest of the Well Hung Jury) got into longform. When we first started out, we did a lot of shortform games. After a while, we closed out every show with a game of relationship freeze that would go on for about five minutes or so. It was fun for us and the audience seemed to dig it. Then Jeremy came to us one day with the idea of doing a 20 minute game of relationship freeze at the end of a show. A lot of people in the troupe didn't think it could be done. There's no way we could keep something going for that long! But we tried and it was awesome. So we started stretching further and further to see how long we could take it for until we did an entire show as a game of relationship freeze. It was like a breath of fresh air. I was getting so tired of playing the same games and just trying to think of the best pun i could to get a laugh. Here, we had characters, relationships...and as we went on, the beginnings of an actual narrative. We made the transition into longform and never looked back, thinking up different ways, formats and structures to get us into the story. Telling stories AND being experimental...it really didn't get much better than that for me. And of course I found it hilarious that this troupe who didn't think it could do a 20 minute relationship freeze wound up doing a continuous longform for 27 hours. Sigh...i miss those days...

Anyway, that was more or less our gateway into longform (and i'm sure Jeremy can elaborate on any of this and/or correct everything I remebered wrongly). So as someone who is completely ignorant of the Harold, what do you think? Did we get there by a different path or do we just have different names for the same thing? I'm curious...

I think the big difference I see between a Harold and the type of longform I've seen down here is where the focus is for the improvisors.

Down here, it has been the story, narrative, storytelling, etc. Harold's focus is on themes, characters, and relationships. Neither type is necessarily exclusive, but the overall focus is different in each.

editted to add: ...and, when each is done well, the result may nearly be the same: rich in story and character/relationship.

I don't think the Harold is "crucial" at all. It is an EXCELLENT way to rehearse and train, but it is certainly not the ONLY way... and I doubt that it is the best method for everyone. As a performance piece, I personally find it fun to perform and to watch. Many people feel that it is stifling creatively. I understand that and would never want to do or see ONLY Harolds (or only ANY form for that matter). I will work on a post about forms later because I think that topic warrants its own thread.

As a response to the differences mentioned by Bob, one thing that I love about the Harold is that you can focus on themes, characters, and relationships and often the narrative aspect "takes care of itself."

EDITTED TO ADD: I just did a Yahoo search with "Keith Johnstone" and "Harold." I followed some of the links and discovered that the Harold is taught at Theatre Sports in L.A., at the Johnstone improv workshop in San Francisco that many AICers are taking, and at many other theaters. Both approaches (and many many many many many others) are valid and valuable.

York99 wrote:at the Johnstone improv workshop in San Francisco that many AICers are taking

this is misleading. i know i'm splitting hairs, but keith is not teaching the harold. the harold is being taught by other teachers during the BATS summer school during which keith is also teaching.

just thought i'd be annoying.

Speaking only for myself, I have to say that I never could quite wrap my brain around the Harold as described in Truth In Comedy.

At Cricket City Improv in Commerce, we used to rehearse (and sometimes perform) with a slightly dumbed-down version of the Harold. The structure was something like this:

*Suggestion*

M1, M2, M3

S1.1
S2.1
S3.1

M4, M5, M6

S1.2
S2.2
S3.2

M7, M8, M9

S1.3
S2.3
S3.3

Where M=a monologue, S=scene, and the practice of trying to combine characters etc. from the scenes, as the Harold progresses, was observed. The monologues didn't necessarily have to stem directly from the suggestion, nor did the scenes necessarily have to stem from the monologues OR the suggestion. Free association and non sequitir were highly encouraged.

Has anyone else here ever used this format? I found it very easy to learn and play.

Unlike the English language, judging by what I seem to have written above...

shksprtx, have I got some good news for you: The Harold is not nearly as confusing as that. It's basically this:

Intro
3 Scenes
Group game
3 scenes
Group game
1 or two scenes
Bow
Have sex
Repeat if necessary

As a response to Jeremy, no Johnstone is not teaching the Harold. In fact, it looks like he's only teaching one workshop. But whatever. My point in adding that was to say that Johnstone's and Del's work is often taught together.

I will also add that I have noticed upon re-reading "Truth in Comedy," Johnstone is quoted several times, including one of the most important ideas in good improv, which is that good improv is like driving a car by looking through the rear-view mirror (i.e. you don't ever know where you're going, only where you've been).

Again, I didn't know that there was some perceived disconnect between Johnstone and Del. One thing that I intend to cover in my workshop is how well the two approaches can work together and are often the same thing said two different ways.

I once saw a very smart and funny sketch written where a family was torn apart because some members preferred the improv way of doing things and other members preferred the stand-up ways (i.e. a stand-up shows the audience a gun by pointing an index finger forward and the thumb upward and the improviser mimes actually holding a gun). Jeremy, I challenge you to write a sketch with me with Del vs. Johnstone. I know there has to be some funny in there.[/quote]

we should just take a waiting for godot scene and change a few of the words to make it fit the D vs. K thing. then it would be absurd, contradictory, and existentialist; three things i love.

jtowne wrote:

Intro
3 Scenes
Group game
3 scenes
Group game
1 or two scenes

to add to this, i have learned and performed it where the third beats (post group game 2) can be:
1. a "run out" of the scenes and group games that have been played in previous beats (its often much faster than 1-2 scenes in duration - like a fast tag out sequence)

or
2. return to the opening, but the structure of the opening evolves to incorporate new elements of the piece and theme (i.e. complaints about meter maids in the opening>>>lend to thematic work on authority>>>complaints about thought police in the closing)

yay harold.

my favorite form of the harold is the backwards one. its like poppin wheelies on your bike, hard to do, awesome to watch.

e

I've always wanted to do a backwards Harold. I've never seen or heard about it being done before, though.
I want to hear a story.

Backwards Harold, is just that. You invert it (inside out Harold, etc).

Last time I saw Deep Schwa at IO, they were doing this form.

As I learned and saw it, it goes like this:

1. Run Out (In the classic format, this is 3 scene that comprise the third beats. In Chicago now, its much more common to see a series of quick callbacks that may or may not call back elements of scenes. The point is to ramp out of the show with a lot of energy, and not necessarily nail the 3rd beats)
2. Game
3. 2nd beats
4. Game
5. 1st beats
6. Opening

Chris, the object of the first section (run out) is a lot like what you mentioned learning in Bob Dassie's devices class - you come out and throw a bunch of lines out in a series of quick 2 person scenes and spend the rest of the show substantiating those lines through thematically driven scene work.

This also underlines how the practiced, contemporary Chicago Harold has departed from the classic, Committee-era Harold: if you attempt a Backwards Harold, you are going to get in trouble relying on narrative. You have to drive theme and character exploration.

Nerd out over, big T. Hope you enjoyed.