Austin Improv

While sitting at my desk, my mind wandered into improv theory, as it often does.

For some reason, the old "be obvious" rule that Johnstone and Crouch pounded into my head came to mind. Being obvious is good. It helps ensure that everyone is on the same page, and makes it more likely that your offers will be interpreted in a way you intended. That's the simple explanation, of course.

But then I was thinking that, perhaps, as you become more experienced, more interesting/complex ideas become obvious to you. The audience won't think of them as being quite as obvious as you do, but they are still in the circle of expectations, and because they are more "advanced" obvious ideas, the improvisers seem even more skilled, which they are, and the audience is wowed more.

So then I thought "Neat. What a great rule. No matter what stage of improv development you're at, 'be obvious.' always works."

But then I remembered reading something Del Close ( I believe) taught, which was to think of your response, then toss it and think of another one, and then toss it and use your third one. I think that was the idea.

Does that contradict being obvious? I haven't tried using that method much, if at all, but I'm having a hard time picturing it promoting being obvious. It seems to promote trying to be clever. Is the "use the third thing you think of" rule more for beginners who are actually trying to be clever or gaggy, as a way of killing that instinct?

Speak to me.

To be fair, I don't think Del Close said that. Unless it was in reference to doing a pattern game for an opening of some kind.

Most of our training, and Truth in Comedy, focuses on going with your first instinct. Not trying to find something funny, as such, but the honest reaction. Sometimes that's less "obvious."

I think it's a mistake to strive for being "correct" in your offers. So much more interesting to see where your mind takes you. That's where the funny comes from.

Over the past year I've been slowly developing a mental shorthand while rehearsing/performing.

Notes like:
--where's the relationship?
--why am I not moving about or doing some sort of space work?
--react bigger!
--obvious response
--let my character wax philosophic for a moment

These notes just pop in my head in the middle of scenes and help me to keep from thinking too much and bogging down. In other words, learning to relax more and trust myself.

Knowing these notes are developing in my noggin allows me to feel more comfortable as a whole with improv. When I'm comfortable on stage, my "obvious" (my smarts, my unique ideas of the world) come to mind more easily. I am able to navigate past the most obvious choice if I choose to do so and play more intelligently.

One of the most important things in improv, in my mind is to play sincerely. Yeah, playing for funny is okay too, but aren't the best laughs the ones that happen when you react through your character geniunely as yourself?

I say learn to be more and more comfortable by taking risks and playing in every kind of scene. That's what I'm trying to do. Then the obvious is never even really a consideration...it's just there.

kbadr wrote:perhaps, as you become more experienced, more interesting/complex ideas become obvious to you. The audience won't think of them as being quite as obvious as you do, but they are still in the circle of expectations, and because they are more "advanced" obvious ideas, the improvisers seem even more skilled, which they are, and the audience is wowed more.
So then I thought "Neat. What a great rule. No matter what stage of improv development you're at, 'be obvious.' always works."

Wow, what a great notion, and I think rather correct. I like this interpretation of being obvious, which has sometimes befuddled me.

kbadr wrote:But then I remembered reading something Del Close ( I believe) taught, which was to think of your response, then toss it and think of another one, and then toss it and use your third one. I think that was the idea.

I think this is a rule some teachers use for people who plan too much offstage and then enter with too many preconceived notions of how things should go. I don't think there is any improv teacher who would so specifically tell you to think this much on stage. To me, censoring two impulses and trying to act natural when the third comes along is a polar opposite to "getting out of your head." but if your offstage and about to enter, it might be cool/challenging/mentally engaging to throw out ideas and then enter cold.

beard

beardedlamb wrote:
To me, censoring two impulses and trying to act natural when the third comes along is a polar opposite to "getting out of your head." but if your offstage and about to enter, it might be cool/challenging/mentally engaging to throw out ideas and then enter cold.

beard

Yeah, some of the best scenes I've been in have been, "Oh, Shit, there's nobody out there, still nobody, crap, I guess I better 'kill' the deadness" scenes. Going out with absolutely nothing. Better to do that than be thinking of something that will work for the scene and then jumping out a beat or two late due to nerves. A blank slate can be much better than a half-filled slate of half-baked ideas.

Jastroch wrote:To be fair, I don't think Del Close said that. Unless it was in reference to doing a pattern game for an opening of some kind.

Not to start a Del, Not-Del argument, but...

Art By Committee, by Charna Halpern, p51:

"Del always told us to throw out our first thought when we are about to respond in a scene. The first thought is usually just a knee-jerk reaction to what was just said to us. The second thought would be better, and the third would probably be the best and most intelligent."

Of course, that's just hear-say, but that's what I was basing my question on.

OK. In every level of IO my teacher would say something about this "third line" thing. Here's what I think about it.

At first it intrigued me. Then I hated it. Now I think it's useful... SOMETIMES. I think that really solid acting is very much about natural RE-action. BUT, taking your time to really understand what's happening in the scene (especially at the beginning) can really get you on track for smooth sailing later on.

I'd say it's just one of those, find-the-sweet-spot-in-the-middle type of things. PLUS! I think people have elevated Del to so much of a God-like figure that they take his "teachings" too literally. You don't need to actually count three things. Just slow down and ponder your next line sometimes.

This third-line jazz is just a tool to make it so that your slow-build-thinking-style becomes a faster second-nature-obvious-choice. Like when Gene Hackman tells those kids they HAVE to pass to EVERY player before they shoot the ball. Bad strategy for 48 minutes, but a good way to get the team looking for the open man.

Kareem,

I think you're taking two great pieces of teaching that address two different issues of improv and using them for the same thing.

Take the "third" (or in other words, the non-obvious) choice in your head. But, be obvious about how you convey it to your scene partner.

The former is what you do/say; the latter is how you do/say it.

Another way that Del and Johnstone work together!!

York99 wrote:Another way that Del and Johnstone work together!!

Yeah, right. Like the way God works together with the dinosaurs? BOO COMPATIBILITY! YAY ANGRY FIGHTING!

At this point Dollar Bill is dragged away screaming by a bloodthirsty raptor...