Straight / Absurd: adding nuance

[Spots]

Everybody knows what a straight man is. For instance Budd Abbot was the straight man in the popular comedy duo "Abbot & Costello." John Cleese was the straight man in the classic Monty Python Dead Parrot sketch.

John Stewart & Conan O'Brien usually play the straight man during their shows' respective bits.


I won't go too far explaining the value of straight in comedy. Straight helps to ground the piece in reality. It gives the comedy a sense of stakes and a reason to invest in it. You need it. It's that Yin & Yang because comedy itself is a dynamic.

Now, this post is about a sort of evolution. At one time Budd Abbot made 60 percent & Lou Costello made 40 percent. Apparently it was Costello's idea because "a good straight man is hard to find." Budd was setting him up for the huge laughs after all.

But I find that most people avoid playing straight because they devalue it. Straight rarely gets the laugh lines. It appears that all the fun to be had is by playing absurd. This is only true if you think of straight / absurd in limited terms.

Straight does not mean serious. Absurd does not mean goofy.

That is certainly one game we could play. We see it alot. But it's not fresh. Comedy constantly evolves and we discover new games using straight / absurd as a tool. We've come a long way since Abbot & Costello - just look at the Apatow films or Community or any of your current favorites. The trick is nuance. Or slipping the game past the audience.

Here's one clip by Mitchell & Webb:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xN1WN0YMWZU[/youtube]

The great thing that Mitchell & Webb do is that they trade off in scenes. There's not necessarily a straight man. Rather, they will find a value that's a little off. One of them will play with that value while the other grounds us in reality. In this sketch they pass it at 1:08. Mitchell adopts the absurd value by saying "Do you remember when we were chasing the Germans?"

He wouldn't be absurd except for the fact that Webb immediately adopts the straight perspective. And the dynamic has reversed. Hence they both have taken turns playing the straight man.

If you look back at the Parrot sketch, Cleese does this a bit too. He plays with the absurdity despite being a straight man. Cleese adopts the absurd value when he screams "Hello Polly!"

Rather than playing straight men - we should play straight values. It gives us more to play with & adds nuance to our scenes. The audience can put their finger on the game but not fully grasp it. They crave this sensation.

Now if this is new to you: start slow, start simple enough and play the straight man in scenes. Get a feel for it. You can rack up alot of straight experience in an improv community because nobody is racing you to be the straight man. Accept it as a privilege. After all it's usually the leading man or woman in the film who plays the straight man.

So get your pilot hours in. Once you have a comedy partner you trust begin to pass it back and forth and see how that feels. The few times I've experimented with passing straight - it's been exhilarating.

I'd love to get a dialog going on the theory behind straight / absurd. Playing straight is definitely an underappreciated craft & I'd like to discuss further games or challenges we can strive for in this field.

[ratliff]

Straight rarely gets the laugh lines.

This has not been my experience, unless by laugh line you mean a line that's still funny repeated out of context, like those on the "Best Show Lines" thread. I'm always pleasantly surprised at how many laughs the straight player can get just by reacting. I think it depends almost entirely on how committed s/he is to playing a real reaction, but that's probably just my own biases.

Maybe players don't like playing straight scenes because they don't get laughs because instead of committing to being straight they're trying to get laughs? Trying to get laughs is always problematic but when done by the straight person it can be deadly.

[Spots]

I'm totally with you. I actually treasure the reactions more than I treasure the lines.

It's still a relatively thankless job. The person you were reacting to usually gets the praise for the dynamic you helped him create.

In whatever regard, straight is thought to be bland. Ratliff you and I know this is simply not true. Because straight is grounded in reality - and there are infinite number of realities out there ... hence there are infinite number of straight men to play.

[ratliff]

I am indebted to Michael Jastroch for pointing out to me the seemingly obvious fact that being the straight doesn't mean you don't have a point of view ... and that point of view may itself become absurd in the back-and-forth dynamic you described above.

[Spots]

Which reminds me about one of the cooler things about empowering yourself as the straight man. You can build the world around you.


When you trust your partner is on the same page - you can literally start creating new rules in the universe and shift things around you as if you're Morpheus in the Matrix.

You do this to highlight whatever is "absurd" about your scene partner. It's your job to be on-duty and keep stacking blocks for the absurd person to knock over.


That's SO fun and inventive. Eventually you crave it.

[jose]

Sweet, thoughtful post!

But I find that most people avoid playing straight because they devalue it.

I don't know if people actually (A) avoid playing straight (like, on purpose) and (B) if they do, that it's because they don't value the straight role in a scene.

It seems more often than not that someone does or says something that leans toward being absurd and that, instead of reacting as the straight person in the scene, someone will yesand it/attempt to heighten it by taking part in the absurdity. So, instead of having a straight/absurd dynamic in the scene, you have two absurd folks (to whatever degree that they're absurd).

That's not necessarily bad, wrong, or whatever - it just is; it's just one way to yesand someone's offers & gifts & whatnots. Another way to yesand someone is to play straight (values, as mentioned) when someone starts to lean absurd.

Fun stuff to think about!

[Spots]

Sweet, thoughtful post!

instead of reacting as the straight person in the scene, someone will yesand it/attempt to heighten it by taking part in the absurdity.

Oooh I also believe this is a tendency. "Yes And" isn't so much a formula for comedy as it is a building block for improvisation. Once you master accepting the reality of a scene, you can learn to adopt a different point of view. I actually feel the most accepted when my partner contributes to my straight / absurd choice. It's the biggest "yes and" gift you can give me.

"Hmmm. I see your straight and raise you with this absurd choice."

Absurd/absurd can totally work if the players are in sync. Baxter & Bernard is a good example. Or most Will Ferrell SNL sketches ( the Culps, cheerleaders, dogshow, Roxbury brothers). Anything where the environment serves as the straight element.

Straight/straight, while perhaps more difficult, also works. This is where the players onstage create an absurd environment around themselves. And react to it.

The key is that the players create boundaries for their world and somehow highlight those boundaries. "Yes and" (the way you describe) can easily become nonsequitor and groundless. (Perhaps one reason why longform is hard to pull off on television.) The trick is learning to stop when a player has made a fun choice, and figure which one of these 3 dynamics will best showcase that choice. AKA "If this, then what."

[Jon Bolden]

I love playing the straight man, especially opposite Roy.

My first troupe,Rise & Shine, involved playing the same character every show and I was the straight man. It was pretty awesome learning experience.

[Chuy!]

"That person isn't very funny. Why are they in your troupe?" I have heard this from audience members and LOVE to dress somebody down when they say it. A troupe NEEDS at least one "straight person" that is devoted to solid scenework and set-ups. I'm not saying a troupe CAN'T be successful without one, but it's pretty rare. I find that these kind of players are the most giving and unselfish players. I love the way they make me look...

[Jastroch]

If I may,

Straight and Absurd are static principles. The reality is that people are neither absurd or straight 100% of the time, and thinking about them as such can limit flexibility and play in a scene.

I prefer to think of the straight/absurd dynamic as reasonable/unreasonable. Reasonable/unreasonable is situational, as opposed to absolute. I think thinking about it this way allows for more flexibility and nuance in your scene work. Straight men that contribute more to the scene than a double take. Absurd characters that are more deep than wackamadoo crazy voices. And my favorite: scenes where the straight absurd dynamic shifts from moment to moment.

When you look at it in terms of reasonable/unreasonable, the only thing separating the characters is the context of the moment.

Also, I think "Yes, and" is at the heart of pure play, and is inherently comedic. However, a more pointed and directional way of yes anding that is perhaps even more comedic in nature is the idea of "if/then"

[Spots]

Jastroch,

I think the culture will definitely improve when people play with the definitions for this single principle. As you suggest, the words "Straight / Absurd" can cause hang ups for the student. For instance "serious / goofy" misses the mark. So does "normal / insane".

You're right that static definitions could be preconceived by the player. But it's worth noting that hangups could just as easily arise with Reasonable / Unreasonable.

First, we're hinting at the intellect which I feel is unrelated.

Second, I'm imagining a higher frequency of straight instances who are calm, collected versus absurd who are manic, insistent. Alot of my straight moments include short tempers & impatient habits. I wonder if I would have come to this style if I had begun with Reasonable / Unreasonable. I'm not so sure. There are simply preconceived hangups with any such words we select for this principle.

The following is an email I wrote to my instructor last February:

So as I've been retracing old scenes of mine & their dynamics of "Straight - Absurd" I got to thinking that I have hang ups about each word. Like I can't imagine raising a little flag over each person's head in the scene that says "Absurd" on it. Because they're kind of clunky words that draw up images in my mind.

So I tried to find the simplest word pairing I could think of:


ON / OFF

ON is on-duty.

He represents reality, a ticking clock, and often sets the stakes. We see the scene from his frame of view. He must react or face breaking the established reality. He is always on. If off is flying in the sky, on must stay grounded to represent that contrast. If off is floundering in the lake, on must remain with the boat.

OFF can go offstage and pick flowers for 5 minutes. ON is still responsible for representing this reality somehow.


Probably a little oversimplified but what it does for my brain is make "straight man" sound really fun.

I fixed my own hangups with Straight / Absurd by replacing it with the principle of "On / Off." I think moreso than replacing Straight / Absurd outright each person should be encouraged to choose whatever definition helps them to hack their brain best for this principle.

I much prefer On / Off because it highlights the principle of remaining grounded but doesn't hint at how.

[Jastroch]

I like that on/off thing. I think the less loaded words we use to describe what we do -- especially while teaching -- the better. We create so many hang ups trying to describe the act of improvisation. The metaphor I'm fond of is that you wouldn't try to learn how to play football by listening to the booth announcer. They are describing what playing football looks like, not the process of playing the game.

As for reasonable/unreasonable, I'm thinking of it more in terms of emotional context than intellectual. For example, a guy who's completely calm in the midst of a battle might be unreasonable, while the same guy who's at a party might be perfectly reasonable. It's less about the noise level, and more about what context his particular sets of emotions and wants finds themselves in.

Of course, I take a pragmatic view of things. In that I believe whatever process works for the individual is paramount. I think there was a thread on here a while ago that was like "All good improv looks the same. All bad improv looks different" or something to that effect.

[Spots]

For example, a guy who's completely calm in the midst of a battle might be unreasonable, while the same guy who's at a party might be perfectly reasonable. It's less about the noise level, and more about what context his particular sets of emotions and wants finds themselves in.

Right. This guy's change in temperament represents the overall ability to shift between Straight / Absurd perspectives ... but I suggest we're limiting our scope by trying to broaden our scope.


Attitude or Temperament is only one of thousands of things that can be considered Absurd.


This definition loses traction for an Absurd who Believes The Founding Fathers of the US Were Actually Fish.

We can shift the definition around to include this new instance, sure. But the definition still wouldn't hold water for an Absurd who Suffers From the Coincidence that He Lost His Parents to Pirates, His Girlfriend To Pirates, His Dogs To Pirates, and So On.

We can shift the Reasonable / Unreasonable definition around but it just doesn't encompass the broader principle. That being said, any ancillary method you bring to Straight / Absurd will bring your own personal touch and style.

[jrec747]

The main problem in the discussion of straight/absurd is that it depends the context , or style of play, of what you're improvising in. In a TJ and Dave style show, or a Dasariski, or anything considered "slow" (which I think should instead be referred to as "realistic"), it's not in our best interest to have straight/absurd characters that are polarizing and non-dynamic. It's not going to be believable to follow these characters throughout a realistic narrative for 1 hour since they are, in essence, not really believable. No one is 100% straight or 100% absurd in life, so it may not read correctly in this style of play.

But if instead, we are doing more fast style play, maybe like a montage of scenes, or a harold, or a deconstruction (after the root scene), straight absurd scenes are allowed to be more polarizing because, in these contexts, reality is more heightened. It depends on your style of play, but I find it more beneficial to attack the scene more actively as the straight man (if the scene calls for it), whereas in slower play, I can react more neutral to the absurd.

In regards to the laughs. A lot of times the audience doesn't realize that something is funny until the straight man points it out to the audience. We often times stow away the unusual comment in our subconscious, and only when the straight man points it out do we realize the truth and laugh. As improvisers, the best straight men that i have seen could probably make the audience laugh by pointing out the absurdity of a completely neutral line of dialogue. And it's a learnable skill. The key, besides an accurate initial reaction, is to heighten the behavior of the absurd, to make the situation worse. So if, in a scene, a 40 year old man acts overly emotional and cries about how beautiful butterflies are, I would, as the straight, probably make him the starting quarterback during halftime or something like that...thereby making the situation worse.

As the absurd, a general rule of thumb is to act in a positive light. Bad scenes can often times be easily fixed if the absurd acts more positively. This doesn't mean nicer, it just means not arguing with the straight. Obviously you can do whatever you want, but it's a very helpful tool for me. I learned this from Miles Stroth and have never stopped using it. It makes my scenes sooo much better when I am a happy absurd, rather than a sad absurd.

[Spots]

in these contexts, reality is more heightened. It depends on your style of play, but I find it more beneficial to attack the scene more actively as the straight man (if the scene calls for it), whereas in slower play, I can react more neutral to the absurd.

In regards to the laughs. A lot of times the audience doesn't realize that something is funny until the straight man points it out to the audience.

Hi thanks for responding, I'm so glad this topic is back & kicking. Straight / Absurd is a concept we can always get our heads around to better serve the comedy.

I feel this sentiment about context can be summed up nicely by saying that straight represents our given universe. Whatever the universe, he actively reacts to represent that universe.


Like you said: a universe where a man is already crying about a flower might as well become a universe where that man is on a football field. Because it serves to set up the absurdity even further.


I do understand your notion about realistic scenes and being more neutral but in these situations I find that we are making a stylistic choice for more realistic absurdity. To keep the overall piece grounded and believable.


The dynamics are still very much the same. As the straight element in the scene. you can make so many choices about how you construct the universe of the scene to make it more believable.