top of your intelligence

[Roy Janik]

You always hear that you should "play to the top of your intelligence". I agree with this. But I'm no longer sure I understand what it means.

It's like during last night's Family Portrait show. There was a scene where my character's uncle was working at the DMV, and was going to fail me arbitarily because he didn't like me. So I said something about how if he was so corrupt, he should try his hand at practising "nepotism". It got a nice hearty laugh. I said it because I know what it means, and it was appropriate to bring up in the scene... and I figure it's a good thing to use your own knowledge and experience to make a richer character and environment.

But rather than feeling smart, I just felt gaggy. It was like, "Ooooh, I know a word!" And that reminded me of other scenes I've done/seen where characters bust out minute details of wars or historical events, and it gets a laugh from the people in the know. But it has this feeling of a meta-joke... that maybe it's not firmly grounded in the scene's relationship.

I guess maybe that's the answer. Play to the top of your character's intelligence.

I don't know. What's it mean to you? And how do you avoid the pitfalls of trying to be too clever?

[kristin]

I've usually heard it referenced as rule about avoiding being "stupid", not as a rule about knowing every minute detail you know... to avoid the beginner tendancy of making the whole world be new and hard "duh, I don't know how to tie my shoes". Then of course like all rules you can break it as a specific choice.

[Wesley]

Bah, I think you are overcritiquing yourself.

I think not only was that a good choice for the situation, but a good comment because I immediately thought you were making a larger political statement--that made it serve multiple purposes and it worked on several levels. I thought it was brilliant actually because of that.

I was trying to do it myself last night. The whole "die like Dale Ernhart" was on purpose because I had clearly established several times that I didn't drive. If no one had caught it and only one or two audience members did, then so be it, but you guys did catch it and call it out and it became hilarious. It was a purposefully subtle statement.

I think playing to the height of one's intelligence is just not being too swayed by the audience. You have to give them what they want, but in a way that keepsi it fresh and exciting for them. If they laugh at a fart joke and you drop your style to just keep giving fart jokes, that's not playing to the height. But if you can find that line of crudeness and entendre and pun and subtlty, etc then you can still give them that thrill, but in a more original, creative, intelligent way. I've seen brilliantly crude comedy.

[shando]

I've always taken that remark to mean don't pander. And intellectual display can be a form of pandering as well. It's tricky.

One of my own personal goals as an improviser is to be able to bring to the stage my whole person, and some of that definitely includes a certain amount of intellectual esoterica. And I know the exact gaggy thing you're talking about, Roy, and have maybe been one of the examples you've thought of in your post above.

I think the key is not thinking about these things onstage. By that, I mean if you're improvising loosly and freely, chances are a reference to something a little outside the main share of the audience's knowledge base will still come off as natural and in character and will play better for both you and the audience. It's when you know in advance what you're about to do that these ploys come off as weird, out of nowhere, and gaggy. Maybe that's what you were feeling last night. That it was Roy saying nepotism and not the character. At least that's been my experience when things go awry--and I've certainly made plenty of arcance offers in my day that have fallen flat.

It's weird too, becuase the desire to wink at the audience from within the character can be valid and an effective technique. I mean, we'e making this all up on the spot--it's not like we're doing some play where we can sublimate our personalities into the character with weeks of rehearsal. The performer's person is a lot closer to the surface in improv than in scripted work, so you're still very much there as a thinking presence. Hard then to turn off the conscious part of your brain and let the interior stuff out naturally---but it's the quest to get this right that makes improv such a high and why I find it much more satisfying as a performer than scripted work.

For me, the key to dealing with this is irony. Irony gets a bad rap a lot of the time, because a lot of people mistake irony to mean insincerity and pretending to like shitty pop culture for it's camp value and noting more. But irony is much grander than that, and a very useful tool. I try to use it in Spices a lot, when Cornelius makes comments with the utmost conviction about things that audience knows are incorrect, unaccptable by today's standards, or batshit insane. I should also note that people don't laugh very much during Spices shows, but I find it satisfying in a way that some of my more jokey calls to historical trivia in other shows don't.

This has been kind of a ramble. Hope this is helpful. Great topic for discussion, Roy.

[arthursimone]

... that maybe it's not firmly grounded in the scene's relationship.

you fail to mention anything about your own character- was he young, stupid, a caveman?... from what I read, invoking nepotism to your dmv uncle sounds like a pretty fun choice


I'm a big fan of characters with simple wants and a simpler understanding of how the world works, and the way I understand playing to the top of your intelligence comes down to the character. I love it when an obscure historical event or sport is invoked, and the scene pushes into a fun new place as one of the actors doesn't get it, but the characters do.

It all comes down to confidence of the character to believe, or at least convince the other characters to believe, that, like a naive eight-year old trying to keep up with sex talk in the middle of a group of teenage boys, he knows what's up. even if he doesn't. fun.

[Roy Janik]

you fail to mention anything about your own character- was he young, stupid, a caveman?... from what I read, invoking nepotism to your dmv uncle sounds like a pretty fun choice

At the time, he was a pretty reasonable young man, but as time wore on, the whole family was revealed to be pretty stupid. Though in order to justify my earlier intelligence, my character become the kid who was secretly more educated than he let on, and totally ready to move on.

Anhow, I didn't really make this post to beat myself up about a particular scene. It just got me thinking about how being intelligent for its own sake can be just as pandering as going blue or whatever, and how you reconcile that with your desire to play to the top of your intelligence.

[DollarBill]

Weird. I was just thinking about the "top of your intelligence" thing the other night. I think I hate that "rule". It's so vague and open to interpretation that to me it just doesn't mean anything. I would reword it "Use whatever knowledge you have to play as well as you can." Which pretty much boils down to "Don't phone it in." Which is also no good, cuz Ace has had much success* in that department.

* Whenever I say or hear the word success I always think Suck-Sex.

[Roy Janik]

And I know the exact gaggy thing you're talking about, Roy, and have maybe been one of the examples you've thought of in your post above.

No, no, I wasn't thinking of Spices at all. I was more thinking about whenI overdosed on Herodotus's Histories and kept bringing up Persians and the Peloponnesian War.

I try to use it in Spices a lot, when Cornelius makes comments with the utmost conviction about things that audience knows are incorrect, unaccptable by today's standards, or batshit insane.

YES. That's what's so satisfying about Spices. You manage to make a comment on Cornelius's era and society without selling him out as a character at all.

[York99]

But rather than feeling smart, I just felt gaggy. It was like, "Ooooh, I know a word!"

For one thing, playing to the top of your intelligence doesn't mean dumbing it down. Don't NOT use a word because you think it's going to alienate a few people.

[Roy Janik]

Which pretty much boils down to "Don't phone it in." Which is also no good, cuz Ace has had much success* in that department.

The one time I performed with Ace, he brought 5 suit jackets with him to the green room before the show because he couldn't decide which one to wear. That's dedication.

[shando]

And I know the exact gaggy thing you're talking about, Roy, and have maybe been one of the examples you've thought of in your post above.

No, no, I wasn't thinking of Spices at all. I was more thinking about whenI overdosed on Herodotus's Histories and kept bringing up Persians and the Peloponnesian War.

Well thanks, but I know I've made decisions (not necessarily in Spices) in shows that I feel later were just showing off and not being true to the moment on stage. I think everybody feels that way.

[improvstitute]

I prefer to use the phrase "playing to the top of your character's intelligence". To me, it's not about how smart (or dumb) you are as a person. It is about your character's ability to communicate and interact in a scene. Basically, if you are playing a character of limited intelligence; be sure your character still adds to the scene. There is nothing worse than a character who just doesn't know anything or contribute in any way. Given that, I think Roy's choice was fine...as evidenced by the laugh it got. It doesn't sound like a WTF moment.

On another note, it is also no fun for the audience (and to a lesser degree the other players) if you make reference to some obscure shit that is off of the majority's radar. That has nothing to do with the audience's intelligence. It has to do with their interests and experiences. The feeling, if you don't "get it" can be like being on the outside of an inside joke. Improvisers can just "yes and" it, but audience members need to process what they are hearing. They need to make sense of it on some level. That way they feel included. If they feel excluded, they likely won't come back. Obviosly you can't please all the people all of the time, but 80/20 is a good rule of thumb. Hell...I'd take 50/50 most of the time.

I am not suggesting that we never make obscure references. They have their place and if done will can take the scene/show in new and interesting directions. I am saying that we should not use the stage to show off our personal intelligence (or lack thereof for that matter).

My 2 cents.

[kbadr]

I think playing to the top of your intelligence is sort of the same as playing truthfully. If you're playing a character and trying to ground yourself in the character's truth and reality, you're less likely to say something for the sake of a gag or useless joke. If you just got a laugh and it felt kind of cheap, you probably weren't playing to the top of your intelligence. If you were just responding and reacting honestly and you find yourself thinking "why the hell are they laughing? that was just what was supposed to come next", you're probably doing fine.

Not sure how much that has to do with playing to the top of your intelligence, but it still seems at least semi-relevant.

[DollarBill]

The one time I performed with Ace, he brought 5 suit jackets with him to the green room before the show because he couldn't decide which one to wear. That's dedication.

Don't confuse Ace's love of unnecessary amounts of clothing with caring about anything except having lots and lots of stuff that doesn't fit him.

[deroosisonfire]

I think there is a moderate level of obscurity that audiences love. The kind of reference that makes them go, "Oh yeah, I knew that!" makes them feel in on the joke, and surprised you remembered that level of minutia. I've seen this work very well during gigs for professional groups - a sauces & dressings convention went nuts for a few organic chemistry terms I dropped in, though this wouldn't have worked for architects. But architects wouldn't have been in on the joke and would have felt alienated.

In regards to playing to the top of your intelligence, I think that includes not treating the audience like they are stupid. Explaining your jokes is one of the fastest ways to turn me off when I'm watching someone perform. And don't dumb yourself down for the audience.