What doesn't the audience see?

[kbadr]

This is a sort of broad question, that I think will benefit new improvisers.

We're always told to see lots of improv, particularly when you're just starting out or find yourself in a learning slump of sorts. But this assumes that everything that's happening on stage can actually be observed. I don't think it can.

For example, character motivations. If a player walks on stage with a goal/motivation, everything in the scene moves a lot smoother. Everything seems more natural. But to the audience, that motivation/goal might not even be visible. The player's got it in them, though, and it informs everything.

What are some more examples of this that you can think of, or use regularly on stage? What are the improvisers doing that an observer can't actually *see*?

[Pendark]

Well, having been in the seats and on the stage, I can tell you that a chuckle, a wince, a pause, and a shrug are the kinds of things that don't translate well.

What the performer thinks he is doing "big enough" may not look as big to the audience.

It is kind of the difference between a live action movie and a cartoon for me. A "regular actor" can go with the simple decisions that follow or are brought to mind by the lines of a script.

An improvisor, like a magician, or a cartoon, has to be big, flashy, bold, and brash to get the attention of the guy in the top row. Buggs Bunny never did nuttin small. Neither did Houdini or Blackstone.

Big, bold decisions and motions.

[York99]

Well, having been in the seats and on the stage, I can tell you that a chuckle, a wince, a pause, and a shrug are the kinds of things that don't translate well.

What the performer thinks he is doing "big enough" may not look as big to the audience.

It is kind of the difference between a live action movie and a cartoon for me. A "regular actor" can go with the simple decisions that follow or are brought to mind by the lines of a script.

An improvisor, like a magician, or a cartoon, has to be big, flashy, bold, and brash to get the attention of the guy in the top row. Buggs Bunny never did nuttin small. Neither did Houdini or Blackstone.

Big, bold decisions and motions.

Respectfully, I very much disagree... at the very least as far as long form is concerned.

[Pendark]

Ok, I get you. But for instance, if you are in the process of looking in the direction of another performer in the scene, how do we know you are looking at them, unless your whole head or body turns in the direction of that performer? If you just move the eyes, how does the guy in row 15 know you moved your eyes?

If you shrug the shoulders, then did the words you spoke express the emotion brhind the shrug? Or did you just shrug your shoulders? The guy in the rafters can't see the shoulders shrug.

The arms have to widen, the posture has to change, the facial expression has to change, the head might tilt to one side. But you didn't just shrug the shoulders. If you do, it loses something in translation.

Another example is, if you are pretending to chop down a tree, do you just move a little bit back and forth, or do you really hall back and swing? If the arms just move a little and you make the sound, then it might be misconstrued to be hammering a nail. And if you don't indicate that it is a tree, then you might be mistaken as hitting a baseball.

In that respect, it is the opposite of magic. In magic, the hand gestures, body movement, and facial expressions are most likely a diversion. They are meant in some cases, to distract you from the truth of the scene. In improv, you wish to create truth with the same gestures, expressions, and movements.

But those are just my opinions.

[York99]

Those are issues that concern all stage actors, not just improvisers.

The unrealistically "large" acting that is sometimes required for stage is a reason why I am not a big fan of plays. It's the reason I prefer small theaters to large ones (as a performer primarily, but also as an audience member).

The improv guideline of 'be obvious' applies here. Make choices that you can convey on stage to your scene partner and to the audience, if need be, without bastardizing the piece (unless that's the artistic choice you have made).

[Pendark]

Fair enough. I guess we agree on the fundamental principle then. "Be obvious".

Larger theater means larger actions and larger problems in conveying the meaning.

[kaci_beeler]

But for instance, if you are in the process of looking in the direction of another performer in the scene, how do we know you are looking at them, unless your whole head or body turns in the direction of that performer? If you just move the eyes, how does the guy in row 15 know you moved your eyes?

haha row 15?
This is rarely an issue for our main three theaters.
I think it is only an slight issue for playing the downstairs at the Hideout (it's larger than the other two stages but not by any means huge), the mainstage at Ester's at OOB or when traveling to other cities to play festivals on their stages.

Acting in improv should not be changed so that it is different from acting on-stage in a scripted work. You can have outlandish, insane, loud characters in a scripted play and you can have quiet, contemplative characters who may reveal only parts of their actions/intentions/motivations through subtleties.
You may need to always be heard by row 15, but if row 15 can't see all of your facial expressions, then they just have to miss out.

The idea of improv acting being big and cartoony when compared to scripted theatre is a contrivance. Improv is not always a children's show, audiences don't always need things to be BIG (unless the style you are going for is BIG).

I want to stamp out this gross assumption audiences have about improv.
I think current improv in Austin is doing a good job of that overall right now.

The people who you need to be the most "obvious" to is your scene partner/s. If they can't gel with you and get what you're doing (unless you're confusing them on purpose), then you're probably doing something wrong.

[York99]

Beeler and I agree on something on the forum!!!

There is hope for the human race after all.

[Asaf]

Back to the original question, I am going to tell you something the audience does see.

In the first few seconds, when you are making a physical initiation that you then drop because you think your scene partner has "beat you to it." That drop is something that the audience sees. And even if after the scene they are not aware enough about it to say that it happened, it registers. And specifically it registers as an Oops.

[sara farr]

What are some more examples of this that you can think of, or use regularly on stage? What are the improvisers doing that an observer can't actually *see*?

-Listening.

-Silent Mantras. Mine as of late has been "I want nothing" so I won't be so pushy on stage. Doesn't always work.

-Leaving space. Another thing I've been working on. The silences are as important as the noisey parts of your scenes. Silence makes your characters look smarter (as if they were thinking) and more intense. Most of the dialogue in life is short and sweet. AND silence gives the improvisers time to think about what the hell is going on in the scene and how to effeciently say what they want to say with less words.

[York99]

-Silent Mantras. Mine as of late has been "I want nothing" so I won't be so pushy on stage. Doesn't always work.

Be pushy. It's way more interesting than being pushed around... unless that's the character choice. But always have a want. It drives your character and the choices you make. It makes improv a lot easier.

[sara farr]

Yes, Yes, my character has an objective, has wants, etc., but...

"I (Sara Farr) want nothing"

[York99]

I stand by what I typed.

[bradisntclever]

One thing I've struggled with a bit as a budding improviser is recognizing the initiation of games when it comes to short-form. Jiving a bit with Asaf's post/philosophy about the importance of the opening moments of a scene, I think the most successful games are the ones established at the very beginning of a scene or character interaction. The person starting the game must realize he is making the offer to play one (I've inadvertently started quite a few in class) and identify what that game is while the person receiving the offer must also recognize a specific game is being played.

Rarely, you can stumble into a game, but I feel like the best ones I've seen on stage have a definite vibe where improvisers had to realize what was going on as it began.

I don't think the average audience member can see this initial key moment in a scene. Sure, they may be able to pick up on it halfway through the game, but that's irrelevant.

[sara farr]

I stand by what I typed.

Moi aussi.