Dramatic Improv

[Roy Janik]

A long-standing goal of mine (and Kareem's, and Wes's, and countless others) is to get to a point where I can pull off doing dramatic improv... improv that isn't necessarily comedy, but which is still compelling.

When we've made explicit attempts to incorporate more dramatic elements, it was always by focusing more on characters and their relationships with one another, and backing off of plot and "finding the game" of a scene.

I've heard accounts of a dramatic troupe called HARSH, but the consensus from people I talked to was that it was over the top, melodramatic, and ultimately unsatisfying.

My question for this thread is not on whether doing dramatic improv has merit, but rather how you personally would try and go about it?

[sara farr]

If drama is the balance of comedy and tragedy, I don't think you can do a dramatic show without comedy. In Romeo and Juliet, there is a mix of very funny, very tender and very sad moments. I think if you can move your audience through ALL emotions, you will get what you are looking for.

With that said, I think the best thing to do is to look for the truth of the scene -- don't go bizzaro; it will be original bc it is your own perspective. Finding themes and truths that are bigger than a specific action, but that are expressed with a specific action, will make for drama.

And within that truth, look for the love. Make the audience care about your characters and want to take them home. Characters that are angry or hostile are that way because their desires are frustrated. What is it they care about? Show that and you show the human side of a hateful character, which makes her/him appealing.

[kbadr]

First, I'll assume that by "dramatic, you mean "not comedy."

I've thought about this for a long time. I really see no reason that a non-comedic improvised narrative couldn't happen. A story is a story. There is no crutch with non-comedic work, though. What I mean is, you can't have a throw-away scene that entertained the audience because it was funny, but didn't really further the story. Everything in a dramatic show has to be razor sharp and purposeful. Arguably, the best comedic narratives are the same way, but the audience is much more forgiving if they aren't.

To make dramatic improv seem better than bullshit melodrama, you also need to be good actors. Everything has to be more grounded.

Ultimately, I think dramatic improv is just less forgiving, so all the things that we can get away with in a comedic show (less-than-realistic characters, a gag here or there, etc) just won't fly in a dramatic show.

This is not to say that a dramatic show has to be serious, without moments of comedy. Like Sara said, drama doesn't mean "not funny at all."

I think it can be done. There were a few times in Family Portrait where we came to the end of the show and there was a relationship that I really would have liked to explored more. I think if a troupe is experienced enough and really paying attention, they can find those relationships and moments earlier on and build the dramatic show around them.

I really think there isn't much difference between an improvised dramatic show, and what many would consider to be a rock-solid improvised comedic narrative.

[ratliff]

Isn't intentionally trying to eliminate comedy from a scene just as arbitrary as forcing it where it doesn't occur naturally? You could do it, but it's not any more realistic than a scene that's nothing but dick jokes.

[kbadr]

Yes and no.

When you're on stage "doing comedy", you'll be looking for different things to latch on to. The game of the scene, for example. If you're doing a more dramatic piece, I don't think you're going to be looking for a game, really. That doesn't mean you're forcing drama, it means you're just not explicitly trying to build comedy.

I'm probably getting too abstract.

[Roy Janik]

Isn't intentionally trying to eliminate comedy from a scene just as arbitrary as forcing it where it doesn't occur naturally? You could do it, but it's not any more realistic than a scene that's nothing but dick jokes.

Yeah, totally. I agree with what Kareem and Sara have said, that dramatic theatre will still have a place for comedy within it. But there's still a very real distinction between, for instance, a play that's a comedy, and that a play that's not. Most improv seems to be in a very narrow band on the full range of emotional options... and rightly so, since it usually happens in the context of a comedy theater... but I'd like to figure out ways to explore the rest of it.

So the goal wouldn't be to 'eliminate comedy', but to put the focus on exploring deep emotions, connections, truths, or plot, without having to worry about getting consistent laughs... to be able to do a show that measured its success by a different metric than how funny it was.

[vine311]

I wonder if this would be interesting to anyone other than the improvisers performing it though. I've seen shows that had very touching, dramatic moments in it and I could definitely appreciate it at the time. But, they always had some funny moments in it too. Heavy, emotional drama definitely has its place but I don't think most audience members would expect or appreciate it. You'd better be damn good or risk boring them to death.

[kbadr]

Sure it would. The goal is still to put on an entertaining show. The audience would have to come in expecting "not-comedy." There's an audience for non-comedic plays. That's all this would be...it just wouldn't be scripted.

There seems to be a misunderstanding, though. "Improvised drama" doesn't mean "Hey! They audience laughed at that line! It's a COMEDY!!!" Of course there will be moments of comedy. The best dramas have them...and they usually make you drop your guard so you can get punched in the gut with something.

[Roy Janik]

The best dramas have them...and they usually make you drop your guard so you can get punched in the gut with something.

And the classic example (I'll say it before Wes does), is MASH. Comedy is used throughout to off-set and heighten the drama. Its sudden switches can be both jarring and brutal.

[Roy Janik]

Heavy, emotional drama definitely has its place but I don't think most audience members would expect or appreciate it. You'd better be damn good or risk boring them to death.

It doesn't even have to be heavy-duty emotional, either. It could just as easily be genre-heavy... Noir, Western, dystopian, etc... I'm really interested in doing anything compelling that's not necessarily a comedy first, and foremost.

I think when I think of drama, my first instinct tends to be something like a Sam Shepherd play (well, the one I saw, anyhow)... two brothers verbally arguing over the course of a few hours, revealing the depths of their souls... something that would probably be pretty tedious improvised. But there are tens of thousands of stories like Blade Runner, Fight Club, etc., that tell compelling stories while still exploring the greater truths of the human condition.

[kbadr]

There's probably something about miming all your surroundings and objects that lends itself to comedy. I wonder if the audience will be as forgiving if you're doing a non-comedic western and there are no props, no costumes, no sets...

[Spaztique]

I think dramatic improv can be possible if it's not bland.

I'd say pretty much 2/3rds of Parallelogramophonograph's narratives are proof that dramatic improv works. While they have a couple jokes that are "out there" (like the one with the daughter who stuffs her dead pets and the other where they build a log crypt for their dying grandpa), there are a lot of really great non-comedy moments that are well-acted and have great awe-inspiring relationships (like the one that ended with the Bob Seger music playing). Also, the fun of watching a Get Up show are the innumerable cinematic elements, like the imagery at the start of each scene and the background music that plays during the varying moods, which usually veers from comedy, feeling more like traditional theatre than improv.

Also, the I Snood Bear show I saw in the Threefer was almost near pure dramatic improv. The whole show was extremely realistic with nothing too outlandish, and there was some simple, realistic, subtle humor/comic relief.

As for people who use melodramatics to illustrate dramatic improv (like those Harsh guys you mentioned), fuck 'em! Keep it real and act natural; it has worked for Parallelogramophonograph and I Snood Bear.

So, from those three statements, the formula for good dramatic improv is...
Grounded, realistic story + Natural, realistic reactions and emotions + Occasional comic relief = A good dramatic improv.

Also...

The best dramas have them...and they usually make you drop your guard so you can get punched in the gut with something.

That is too true. Most stories I write and most stories I love have this kind of element.

I think a good example of that would be the Roller Coaster scene from the Carnival show you guys did. It starts out with two characters talking about outlandish subjects (combining Alf and the Golden Girls, "And then there's that one episode where Blanch tries eating the cat!"), but then one of the characters launches into a more serious rant about how the other character can't face his problems, which was quite jarring for the audience, and in the opposite effect of the same thing, they get to the top of the hill and start screaming, causing the audience to burst into laughter.

So I guess drama followed by comedy is just as effective as comedy followed by drama.

[Wesley]

For me, drama is not a lack of comedy per se, but a focus on truth. Real truth. Not stage truth.

In stage truth, my wacky neighbor comes over and says "I bought a bear! Wanna go for a ride" and I do not deny them that and I say "Yay!" and I ride it. In real truth, my neighbor never buys a goddamned bear to begin with and if he did I'd look at him like he was insane and probably call animal control the second I shut the door.

However, in improv we've been drilled over and over to "never deny the other person's reality." But to not deny their reality, you often have to deny "actual" reality. So, when those wacky moments occur, we never react with disgust, horror, disbelief, or rejection, despite the fact that that would be our true reaction because that would be bad. I'll never forget Johnstone on that very point last year when he said "You open the door and find a homicidal maniac. Any idiot would slam the door, but on stage no idiot ever does." They invite them in for tea.

Of course there is humor in drama, life has funny moments. The Godfather has funny moments. Gone with the Wind has funny moments. But they are not comedies--though they are some of the best, most-revered stories of all time and I bet you could captivate any audience, no matter what they were there to see, if you made up the Godfather on the spot.

I don't fully believe the audience has to come in expecting "not comedy" because I've recently done several more dramatic shows and and both met with applause and kudos formt he audience. Granted, they were bookeneded by other comedic acts, but our set was still quite well received becuase the plot was so tight. I think the show just has to be a good narrative that isn't over-the-top melodrama and that doesn't insult the audiences intelligence. Although, this is why I refer to what I do as "improvised theater" and not improv comedy, so no one I tell ever comes in necessarily expecting comedy.

As Roy said, I'll cite M*A*S*H as my favorite example (and my all time favorite show). It created real characters that did some of the wackiest AND gruesomely real things imaginable. The show is called a comedy, but the humor wasn't an end to itself, but a survival mechanism for people in a horrific situation. That made it real, even when overly wacky. And damn if that show couldn't get you laughing and then slap you in the face with a god-awful truth.

Some of the best scenes I've ever seen have been dramatic. There was one about Japanese internment camps in America in a news-based show I saw in San Fran that kindof haunts me to this day with its honesty (it received the largest applause of any singular scene that night and there wasn't a single laugh). And I'll never forget Trew dropping a racism monologue in the middle of a Frogtown show one time that was likewise serious and met with overwhleming applause.

[ratliff]

Liz Allen, who was trained as an engineer, uses the analogy of a sine wave with the X axis as the duration of the show, the peaks in the wave representing big laughs, and the valleys representing emotional depth. According to her (and I believe her), the more emotional depth, the bigger the laughs.

What is being drilled into us over and over again up here is to find the emotional depth in a scene, and to play it realistically. This is what allows you to play a scene with noncomedic elements even if the subject matter is your neighbor's bear or the homicidal maniac at tea.

Chicago audiences view improv as a form of theater, and although they're certainly expecting to laugh, they're also interested in all the other things you can do with it. I agree that if you advertise it as comedy, you're setting up expectations that can limit your audience, which is why I've been arguing for some time now that improv should be marketed as improv and not comedy. People say that Chicago audiences are educated in improv, but someone had to educate them. It's silly to market what we do as comedy and then complain that we feel constrained because people just want to see us be funny.

[kristin]

I want to be able to do what TJ & Dave do. They don't advertise themselves as comedy, just as improvised. They are so on with their object work that it isn't even remotely comedic, but it is somewhat limited.

I know they have truly funny moments, based out of that whole realistic pain thing, because I remember laughing, but the laughter isn't why I watch. I also can't remember any specific parts that I laughed at but I remember every character from their shows and the feelings and relationships they created. I only got to see them a couple of times. I don't know if it's that magical if you see them every week.