Playing The Victim

[B. Tribe]

I've noticed that when an experienced improviser plays with someone new to the craft they tend to end up in the place of a victim. New improvisers want to fight and are often aggressive. The experienced improviser wants to avoid a boring argument so they take whatever the scene partner gives them. Almost every endowment breaks down to 'you're stupid and you don't know what you're doing'. The experienced improviser takes on those endowments and becomes a defeated, sad, crying creature that is being screamed at about the right way to kill zombies with a mop. It CAN be funny but very tiring for the older improviser, especially if he's taking classes at a new theatre (I saw this happen personally when I T.A.ed Level 1 at Coldtowne. A dude who had taken classes everywhere in Chicago and was REALLY GOOD did level 1 and I think he left very frustrated.)

Anyone have a good tactic to avoid this type of scene or do you have to ride it out?

[scott.hearne]

Brett - Disclaimer: I'm a noob and I don't know a lot. Nevertheless, better improvisers than I have advised me to deny endowments if they are inconsistent with the character I want to create on stage. Saying, "No" is not always a block. Matt Besser said that endowments and "Yes, And" are only useful at the very beginning of a scene. Deny that shit.

One thing you can do as the experienced improviser: open a scene and drive the scene. Set up the scenario. Driving is not always bad. I've read there is a big difference between "driving" and "steamrolling". Steamrolling is bad. In this situation, the new improviser appears to be "steamrolling" the experienced improviser. Bad news dude.

Simply deny their endowments without creating a huge confrontation and open a scene with you driving the scenario. Does that make any sense?

STH

[bradisntclever]

I took a workshop recently at the Del Close Marathon about agreeing in difficult scenarios. Check this tumblr post from the teacher for his views on a lot of the material that was covered relating to arguments and fighting.

I think the best thing to come from it was just a sense of really owning accusations and treating them like gifts/endowments. Have fun with the fact that you're stupid or late for work. Justify appropriately with a point of view or philosophy that reflects it and roll with the punches.

Hell, I'll quote it for the people who don't feel like clicking the link.

I think about this so much it’s hard for me to be simple in response. Almost all young improvisers fight too much and they fight early, and they get offended by things that were just meant as endowments, and they accuse rather than gift. A lot of it has to do with tone. Teachers and people who watch a lot of improv grow immensely weary of all hostility in scenes — it generally goes along with bad insecure improv.

It’s hard to get people to stop. If you FORBID all fighting, then all the scenes seem to become toothless hug-fests in which everyone just says “I LOVE [the suggestion] so much!” and the other person goes “Me too! It’s SOOOOO great.” And that’s annoying and dumb.

I’ve tried to teach how to “fight well” which I think means to see all accusations as gifts which you should own. Someone says something about your character that implies something negative or maybe is straight-up presented as an accusation — say yes to it by owning it.

Someone says you’re late for dinner —- admit it, then justify why you are late with a philosophy. Don’t blame it on traffic or your boss — that’s deflecting. Even if it’s a reasonable excuse, you are deflecting the gift. Don’t be surprised to learn you are late. Own it — it’s a gift.

Related: “Sympathetically disagree” is something I’ve been saying lately to people so that they can have differing points of view without getting mired in an angry, stalled scene.

I tried to write something here:

http://improvnonsense.tumblr.com/post/9 ... complaints

Former UCB Artistic Director Anthony King talks about this in his essay about Harold Auditions:

http://theanthonyking.com/post/18958200 ... -auditions

Chris Gethard talks about avoiding being an obstructionist protesting straight man for no reason in his essay on improv advice (numbers 9, 10, 11 and 13):

http://improvnonsense.tumblr.com/post/1 ... art-1-of-2

I don’t know. Don’t fight. Say yes to accusations. Be sparing in how often you accuse? Watch how good teams do it. Let me know how you beat it.

[Rev. Jordan T. Maxwell]

i've always found that being low status can give you a lot of strength in a scene. so the more the newbie endows the vet with "victim traits," the more sympathetic they become. i try to roll with that...highly judo style. pull the rope-a-dope. they're coming at you, aggressive and high status and overpowering...agree, accept, establish, elevate, all that good nitty gritty prov stuff. and then, when you see your opening...pivot and give it back to them. "No, Dad, YOU listen!" the audience loves to see the rise of the peasant and the fall of the king. they've been WAITING for this moment. one simple moment of assertion and EVERYONE is on your side. and hopefully, if they go with it, you've just made both of you look brilliant for setting all of that up. of course, if they don't and it just becomes a shouting match status battle, be like water one more time and flow off the stage. nothing says you HAVE to stay onstage or keep the scene going until someone outside edits it. break the mop over your knee, grab the shotgun off the mantle, and head out to kill zombies on your own.

[Rev. Jordan T. Maxwell]

(failing that, you can always go a bit meta and use it IN the scene..."you seem really aggressive about this. is everything okay? is this because Carol left you? let me help, man..." :p)

[Roy Janik]

and then, when you see your opening...pivot and give it back to them. "No, Dad, YOU listen!" the audience loves to see the rise of the peasant and the fall of the king. they've been WAITING for this moment.

Yep! Good old fashioned tilt.

My favorite take on this type of stuff comes from Jill Bernard. And I will now attempt to butcher the idea. Hopefully she'll appear and say it better. But the basic tactic is that if someone angrily accuses you of being a fuckup...

1. Admit it and take it on. Say "I know, I know, I'm terrible."
2. Physically move to stand next to them and look at where you were and continue... "I'm stupid, I'm always late... man I suck."
3. So now you're figuratively and literally on their side, and you're both agreeing on what an awful person you are.

Or more succinctly put, Move next to your scene partner and take sides against yourself.

[scott.hearne]

1. Admit it and take it on. Say "I know, I know, I'm terrible."
2. Physically move to stand next to them and look at where you were and continue... "I'm stupid, I'm always late... man I suck."
3. So now you're figuratively and literally on their side, and you're both agreeing on what an awful person you are.

Or more succinctly put, Move next to your scene partner and take sides against yourself.

This is extremely awesome!

[valetoile]

I think the best thing to come from it was just a sense of really owning accusations and treating them like gifts/endowments. Have fun with the fact that you're stupid or late for work. Justify appropriately with a point of view or philosophy that reflects it and roll with the punches.

Yes! This. It's only an attack if you defend yourself or let it wound you. If you take it as a gift, it's a joy. I think we even did an exercise like this with... Bill Arnett? in a workshop. One person would try to do the worst scene ever, and the other person would just so totally yes and everything with extreme joy.

[Jon Bolden]

In acting classes in college we fucked around a lot with cognitive dissonance. We would rehearse really serious or dramatic scenes while trying to do silly ballet dancing around the stage. We would do an intense argument scene while getting closer and closer physically and eventually making out. It really taught me that an interesting argument or fight in theater really depends on how well connected you are.

Next time you watch newer improvisers with this issue, notice that they aren't even listening to each other, nor are they making any eye contact. Once they are connected, the "fight" seems to be more watchable and interesting, or dissolves. To me, not having a connection or listening to each other is a larger problem than the scene's content.

This doesn't directly affect what you're mentioning, Brett, but it does at least change how the fight or argument scenes feel. So perhaps the experienced improvisers can experiment with taking on these endowments while trying to deepen the connection. Hopefully leading by example will drive the scene forward.

[Jon Bolden]

It’s hard to get people to stop. If you FORBID all fighting, then all the scenes seem to become toothless hug-fests in which everyone just says “I LOVE [the suggestion] so much!” and the other person goes “Me too! It’s SOOOOO great.” And that’s annoying and dumb.

Also, I agree with this. It's kind of the opposite problem, it's just not the natural tendency. I think what's annoying about this is that's not specific or convincing most of the time.

[bradisntclever]

better improvisers than I have advised me to deny endowments if they are inconsistent with the character I want to create on stage.

I feel like this is useful advice only if you're already well into a scene, have your character fleshed out, and then get hit with some weird endowment that isn't sensible and would challenge the reality of the scene. If you're at the very top of the scene and the other person initiates with an endowment/accusation, it's a bit of an asshole move to flatly deny them. Especially within the context of this conversation, where that person is a beginning improviser in a Level 1/2 class.

Saying, "No" is not always a block.

Absolutely correct. Again, the goal for those level 1 students is typically to have them saying "yes, and" a bunch to understand the concept. At higher levels, it's easier to take those training wheels off and show students that saying no is permissible.

Matt Besser said that endowments and "Yes, And" are only useful at the very beginning of a scene.

Understand that Besser says this in context to the way UCB's improv philosophy works. He believes a lot of bad non-UCB scenework gets plagued by "Yes,and-itis", where improvisers stop playing at the top of their intelligence and inadvertently create preposterously absurd scenes because they have become slaves to that agreement framework. Ideally, "Yes, and" helps to create the grounded reality of an organic scene until the first unusual thing is discovered. From here, UCB improvisers shift to a "if this unusual thing is true, what else is true?" mentality. There's a focus on exploring this unusual thing and heightening when appropriate, followed by more exploring, more heightening, etc. Does that make sense? I can try to explain more later. I recently relocated from Austin to Brooklyn to study at UCB.

One thing you can do as the experienced improviser: open a scene and drive the scene. Set up the scenario. Driving is not always bad. I've read there is a big difference between "driving" and "steamrolling". Steamrolling is bad. In this situation, the new improviser appears to be "steamrolling" the experienced improviser. Bad news dude.

While it's nice to initiate, you don't always have control over that. Given the context of a level 1 or 2 class, there are probably many instances where you're in one line waiting to initiate a scene or another line waiting to respond to the initiation. Personally, I don't think it's a great idea to drive the scene away from the opening offer. Rather, play into it and try to make that inexperienced improviser look better than you. Ultimately, I think this is the most valuable skill to gain when you're an experienced improviser taking low level classes with students brand new to improv. A good improviser should be able to play with anyone. It may not be as much fun with inexperienced improvisers, but it definitely won't be fun if you're blocking and being hostile to their offers.

[Jastroch]

1. Admit it and take it on. Say "I know, I know, I'm terrible."
2. Physically move to stand next to them and look at where you were and continue... "I'm stupid, I'm always late... man I suck."
3. So now you're figuratively and literally on their side, and you're both agreeing on what an awful person you are.

Or more succinctly put, Move next to your scene partner and take sides against yourself.

To build on what Roy said, some sage advice from Miles Stroth:
1. Someone attacks/accuses you of something
2. Say, "yes i did that."
3. Do it more.

I don't think Roy is saying this, but to clarify: you never have to apologize or get permission for being a terrible person in an improv scene. On stage is where you get to misbehave. Enjoy it!

As an experienced improviser who sometimes plays with attacks people, I LOOOOVE not getting defensive about the assault. So much fun. If someone calls me a scum bag, then that's my ticket to party town.

Scott, this isn't written in stone, but generally if someone's endowment is a natural outgrowth of the scene you should own it and have fun with it. the exception MIGHT be when someone endows you with something out of fear or a desire to be hilarious, then it's alright to disagree with said endowment. The scene will often be more fun if you just don't be defensive about it.

Let's not confuse the character's attitudes with our own attitudes as improvisers. There's a difference between your character saying "I'm not a scum bag" and then going ahead and behaving like a scum bag and you the improviser not wanting to play a character who's a scum bag. The former creates scenes that are fun/interesting/funny and the latter creates unproductive conflict that's boring to watch and not fun to be in.

Also, here's where I start a flame war**:

With much respect to people who will disagree: status shifts in improv scenes are RARELY earned. They are often not a natural outgrowth of the moment, but a forced plot device or desperate attempt to invent something interesting about the scene because nothing interesting has happened yet. Or if it's happened, the improvisers have missed it. ***

Comedy happens when characters don't change. Drama happens when people do. Drama is awesome in improv, but as in real life, change happens over the course of a long journey. If you're sticking with characters for a whole show and there's a status shift, bravo! If you're playing your first scene and there's a sudden tilt in the character dynamic, you've taken us right out of the emotional realism.

** I don't REALLY want to start a flame war :>
*** I'm sure there are wonderful exceptions to this I haven't seen.

[Jastroch]

To clarify, re: status shift: I'm talking about your typical 3-5 minute improv scene.

[Rev. Jordan T. Maxwell]

::prepares flaming arrows and vats of burning oil::

what is this "com-uh-dee" you speak of, white man?

i do disagree with the thought that you can't have a status shift, or if it is it's forced. i don't think you HAVE to have one, but you absolutely can and have it come about naturally. it might not be the funny/comedic choice, but that doesn't make it wrong or forced. even a short scene has its own arc and journey, and that can lead to a shift/turn/fall. the only context i agree in, ironically, is in the case of a narrative show. having a huge shift first scene out of the gate might be a bit hasty or forced there, but even then it can be an inciting incident to move the story forward rather than a resolution of the conflict.

but your mileage may vary.

er...i mean...you're WRONG! and you SMELL FUNNY! and...um...death to America! wait, that's not right...

[Roy Janik]

With much respect to people who will disagree: status shifts in improv scenes are RARELY earned. They are often not a natural outgrowth of the moment, but a forced plot device or desperate attempt to invent something interesting about the scene because nothing interesting has happened yet. Or if it's happened, the improvisers have missed it. ***

I respectfully disagree with all of this, naturally.

But that makes sense, and I don't want to get into it. I just wanted to highlight it, to say that when people ask what real difference there is between Johnstone style and Del/Chicago style, this is one thing I usually mention. That really, deep down, it's all the same, except that by and large in scenes where you're finding the game and heightening it (Chicago/UCB/Del/Whatever style), characters stay the same, and in platform/tilt scenes (Johnstone) characters change.

Also, it's not to say that all Chicago-inspired scenes are game scenes, and every scene done at the Hideout is a platform/tilt scene (we teach game as part of our curriculum as well). But those techniques are outgrowths of the philosophies.

Worth pondering, anyhow.

Hope I've contributed without stoking any fires.