Can anyone become a good improvisor?

[jillybee72]

It's an old question: can anyone become a good improvisor?


Recently, as a teacher, I've been looking at students - I look at the improvisor they could be, and I take note of all that stands between them and that great improvisor, all the layers they would have to work through. Then I take note if they have the will to chip through the layers. I think a strong will can bust through thick layers given time. It's all a matter if they have the time and will to work on it.

That's my current thought, what's yours?

[Timmy R]

Agree. With time and will, anyone can become an improviser who is engaging and fun to play with. That would be my def. of good.
Time can deliver the trust in the form and your partners, will can deliver the technique for when scenes go pear-shaped.

Some people can jump up an do impro pretty well straight away. Most, it takes, I would say, two to three years before things start flying. (Based on Melbourne training model)

The difficulty is, in that time, folk are going to be battered by dogma, catch-phrases, gurus, contradiction, competition and extreme self consciousness, all of which are enemies of trust.

You just gotta hope people stick around long enough to get their first consistant dose of sweet improv, then all the noise tends to fade.
(To be replaced by different noise)

Short answer.

Yes.

[B. Tribe]

I don't think so. There are some people who just don't have 'it', whatever 'it' is. Most people have enough 'it' to become good improvisers, but there are exceptions. Maybe it's a mental block or an emotional problem or a brain dysfunction or a straight up lack of talent/presence. I know a few people in Austin who have graduated from programs and you'd never be able to tell by how they perform, no matter their commitment level or excitement about improv. They take workshops, they try to form troupes, they play in any open jam or sign up that'll take them, and they still aren't any good. Years go by and nothing changes; every time seems like their first time on stage.

Some people just have limits and there's nothing to be done about it. Someone with a low IQ (or even high!) will never understand Quantum Mechanics regardless of how many books they read or classes they attend. It's a straight up fact and the same kind of thing happens in the arts as well. I know it's not positive to say this, but facts are facts. I'm not trying to be a downer, I promise!

[Tim Traini]

I don't think so. There are some people who just don't have 'it', whatever 'it' is. Most people have enough 'it' to become good improvisers, but there are exceptions. Maybe it's a mental block or an emotional problem or a brain dysfunction or a straight up lack of talent/presence.

See I would bet on the mental block or emotional problem. We're human beings - we can do anything, as cliche as it sounds, so I can't buy lack of talent. I can buy a lack of enthusiasm to be talented though. Different people pick up at a different rate, or they aren't seeing it the right way. As an example, I failed to pick up guitar for a long time. I learned guitar finally by watching someone play for me, when a light bulb went on and said "it's six pianos on strings you dummy" and then it hit me like a ton of bricks and made complete sense (I can't master any instrument you put in front of me, but from then on I can learn them really quick once I convert it mentally into a piano). I've had similar things happen in improv and it's frustrating when you know you can be better but are unable to do anything about it immediately. Maybe the person/people in question you know of are fighting against that and don't know how or are going the wrong way about correcting it. We're also creatures defined by strong social cues and reactions that are crazy hard to break or manage over time if you don't know they're there. When something like a plate breaks we reactively flinch partially cause of the loud noise and partially cause something in the tiniest dark corner of your brain is screaming that mom's gonna bring out the belt and give you a whuppin.

Not to mention we still see mistakes and unfunny stuff out of seasoned improvisers. It's managing yourself and your brain and some (most (okay everyone)) people aren't at a stage mentally where they're aware of everything that's wrong. You never "fix" a problem in improv, you only manage it so you're not doing that behavior all the time, and only the times when it's funny.

So to answer the OP, yes. We tell everyone who's new to our theaters that anyone can be funny to get them to sign up, why wouldn't I believe the same thing for an improviser who's already been taking classes?

[Spots]

I think anyone can tap into the group mind if all the pieces fall into place. But I'm finding that everyone has a different idea of what that is.



To me "good improv" means exploring the group mind to the furthest degree. It doesn't necessarily fall on an individual's shoulders "to be a good improviser". As far as the question is concerned, yeah there are definitely blocks that prohibit people from getting there. But I'm convinced anyone can be partnered up & absorbed into a solid group mind.

[Rev. Jordan T. Maxwell]

hmm...i think anyone can be a good improvisor. i don't know that i think everyone can be a GREAT improvisor. which is semantic and subjective, i know, but if someone has natural ability and doesn't work very hard, they can still be very good. if someone doesn't have natural ability but works their ass off they can become very good. But true greatness i think has to come from some combination of the two. There are some people that are just magical to watch ply their craft onstage and you can tell they're working their ass off, and to watch that kind of person develop and improve over time...ah, it's just a joy.

[Rev. Jordan T. Maxwell]

(it should be noted it's also a joy to watch someone who at first doesn't seem very good come out of their shell and work and develop to that very good level as well...really, growth and development in general are joyful. )

[valetoile]

I feel like being "good" at improv is not so much about developing skill sand talents as it is about letting go of fear, the need to control, and trying to be good. It's a state of mind, first and foremost. Anyone who can chip away at that need for things to be good, who can tap into that state of loss of self for even an instant, can get better at improv and find that sweet spot more consistently. The only real block to people getting good is their own attachments.

I've seen people flop around on stage for years and then one day become brilliant, seemingly overnight. I've seen people slowly and gradually get more comfortable and delightful to watch. I've seen people find the right group and then everything clicks.

As long as someone wants to be good, they should have the chance to try. As long as they're getting something out of it, let them go for it. And we should reset our perceptions and be ready to be surprised and delighted by anyone on stage.

[Pdyx]

I believe that anyone can become a good improviser, in theory. However in practice I don't think it will be borne out that everyone/anyone *will* become a good improviser.

I don't believe that there is, necessarily, an innate talent that matters. I think that people come to their first improv experience with some skills developed or under-developed (acting, being in the moment, stage-presence) that makes it look like they have a knack for it, or natural ability.

I tend to think that while anyone could become a good improviser, being in a class with people who are 'better', difficulty overcoming letting go, all manner of things may make someone stop and give up before they can have the break-through needed.

Alternatively, someone who is a beginner may never excel because they don't challenge themselves, just go through the motions and stay improvising on the same level because they aren't pushing themselves. They will continue improvising but never reach the next level.

We all drive everyday (well most of us), but we don't all drive as well as Mario Andretti because we don't drive with the intention of improving. I read a Scientific American article a few years back stating that really talent isn't innate, but that it comes through practice. But not just doing the activity, actively practicing and trying to improve. It used the driving example. Andretti didn't have a natural talent for driving, he developed it.

That said, there are genetic things that can cause certain activities to be different for different people. If you're short, basketball will be harder. If you're tone-deaf, music will be more difficult. (And the inverse would be true with tallness and perfect pitch). I'm not sure if there's anything like this that speaks to improv. I don't know if a willingness to be open, to fail, to take risks, to make bold choices, etc. is genetically determined, but it might be (at least partly). So perhaps Andretti had genetically preferable hand-eye coordination, etc.

Am I talking in circles?

[zyrain]

To highlight some of what has already been said:

1) Everyone has a different idea of what "good" means here. This is subjective, yes, but we have subjective measures around. Personally, my bar is being cast in a Main Stage show at a major theater in town. So, by that measure, I'm not a 'good' improvisor, yet.

2) Everyone seems to agree, so far, that dedication is required, regardless of 'natural' talent. I agree with this, as I think skill comes from training and practice. Some of us might require the 10,000 Gladwellian hours to achieve it, but it will happen.

3) We seem to disagree on if natural talent is required. Obviously, having talent, makes one feel better and makes dedication easier, but is GOOD = SKILL + TALENT, or can it be skill alone? I think this partially depends on the various definitions of good. Personally, I think a cast can consist of a few "stars" and several supporting characters, and that while "stardom" may be hard to learn as a skill, support is definitely possible.

4) Some of us mentioned that the environment makes a difference. I agree. I think that in certain groups/troupes/projects people can be better or worse, so being a good improvisor does depend on those around you.

5) I also agree that the process of becoming good involves one of self-discovery and the peeling back of layers of judgement, mistrust, and other crap that abounds. Personally, I can't improvise well if I have anything on my mind that's bothering me or that I'm unhappy about. Which means to be a good improvisor, I need to be "happy" first. That's an awfully high bar, but still an attainable one, and it's a nice synergy with general life goals.

[valetoile]

I think you are good when most other people want to play with you. Whether that's directors casting you for their projects, other people inviting you to be in a troupe with them, or someone smiling when they see that you are in the maestro or jam that they are also in.

[Alex B]

I think anyone can get better, but some people have farther to go.

Talent is real, in improv as in anything. It is also subtle and multidimensional, as in many things.

(That's not to discount dedication and hard work. Paying your dues is probably a necessary condition for getting *very good* or better than very good.)

What is good?

I agree with Valerie--a good improviser is someone directors want to cast and other players want to play with. A very good improviser is someone that a lot of people badly want to see perform and are willing to pay to learn from. A great improviser is...

Or, anyway, even if that's not a genuine definition of "good improviser", those are features that good improvisers always seem to have. Action reveals preference.

[MitchellD]

Yes, but I believe it all hinges on time.

As in they will be great, eventually, and if they are committed to going all the way and taking that time.

A lot of people can be very geared towards improv and pick it up quite fast, becoming good in a short amount of time.

However some are resistant, have bad habits that need to be broken, or lean towards a different side of the brain that most improvisors would, and therefore it takes longer.

[Spots]

4) Some of us mentioned that the environment makes a difference. I agree. I think that in certain groups/troupes/projects people can be better or worse, so being a good improvisor does depend on those around you.

Environment is a major factor. The will of the individual improviser is detrimental to his/her success. But a community that fosters trust and support comes a close second.

I make this distinction because I feel that environment is more important than time. You can perform for years and cement bad habits (via lack of trust and support) which will limit your abilities.

[MitchellD]

Oh yeah. Good point.

Then there are the other factors such as environment, teachers, and opportunity for stage time that can effect elements of growth.