Beth Burn's notes

[Roy Janik]

1. EYE CONTACT. If you aren't looking at your
partner, you are in your own head, you are uninformed
about the scene, and your info won't be nearly as
good.

2. COMMITMENT. Be your best actor. Don't be wry.
Don't comment on the scene from outside of it. The
stronger the committed emotion, the better.

3. KEEP IT SIMPLE. Improv scenes work best with
simplicity. Don't try to complicate it. Your scene
isn't reality in the first place, so don't try to make
it a French farce. Just make it make sense, and use
your eye contact, and your strong committed emotions
to explore a simple premise.

4. CHARACTERS. If you have a strong arsenal of
characters to plug into scenes, they shine. People
who are not stereotypes, but rather fleshed out
characters with a strong, specific point of view.

5. SET YOUR SCENE. Get your who, what, and where out
right at the top using your character's opinion and
your spacework. Then choose to make something in
there emotionally relevant to them. Setting your
scene early avoids confusion, allows for strong choice
simmediately, and lets your audience relax..

That's it. 9 times out of 10 those are the notes I
would probably be giving anyway

[Roy Janik]

I have to say, I must respectfully disagree with #1 and 5 of her notes as being necessities.

seconded that they aren't necessities. Although, I have nothing against eye contact or getting out that information.

I think number five is crucial, personally. Obviously, there are exceptions to every rule, and sometimes the game of the scene is delaying the knowledge of who, what, and where the characters are. But so so often (from my own observations/experience) scenes get derailed and/or muddied simply because this stuff wasn't defined at the top and the improvisers didn't know what was going on. My advice would be to do it until it becomes second nature, and only THEN play with deliberately leaving out information. The difference is that you made a choice, rather than staying ill defined out of indecisiveness or fear.

[kbadr]

The difference is that you made a choice, rather than staying ill defined out of indecisiveness or fear.

My favorite catch-all rule taught to me by Crouch.

[kaci_beeler]

The difference is that you made a choice, rather than staying ill defined out of indecisiveness or fear.

My favorite catch-all rule taught to me by Crouch.

Ooh. I like that.

[TexasImprovMassacre]

I have to say, I must respectfully disagree with #1 and 5 of her notes as being necessities.

seconded that they aren't necessities. Although, I have nothing against eye contact or getting out that information.

I think number five is crucial, personally. Obviously, there are exceptions to every rule, and sometimes the game of the scene is delaying the knowledge of who, what, and where the characters are. But so so often (from my own observations/experience) scenes get derailed and/or muddied simply because this stuff wasn't defined at the top and the improvisers didn't know what was going on. My advice would be to do it until it becomes second nature, and only THEN play with deliberately leaving out information. The difference is that you made a choice, rather than staying ill defined out of indecisiveness or fear.

I'm thinking more about the exceptions. I think that making one of those decisions right away is enough, and the answers to the others can come from it in a way that services the one you found most important. If asaf hadn't said necessities, I may not have replied. For myself personally, when I was trying to make sure all those questions were answered right away sometimes I would over think things. I still think those 3 things are important...but I kind of like for them to come naturally if they aren't a part of my initiation without having to rush it out of necessity, or not listening because you think that the scene can't start until all of that is out of the way.

[kbadr]

If you're watching a scene, though, you can tell the difference between "the improvisers are not saying the who/what/where, but they are still deep in the scene and completely connected" and "the improvisers walked on stage, defined nothing, and let the lack of definition derail them after 45 seconds."

[kaci_beeler]

I, personally, as an audience member am not satisfied until I know the basics of CROW (character, relationship, objective, where) when I watch an improv scene. Even before I "knew" about CROW, I felt that way when I watched improv.
If someone's gender is unclear, if the relationship is vague, if they are in a giant black abyss of possible locations, all of that takes me out of the scene. I just have too many questions in my head that are begging to be answered.

The defining of those things doesn't have to be overly obvious,
ex. "Hi MARCOS! I'm glad we came to the TACO SHACK to talk about YOUR NEW FILM you want me, your BEST FRIEND HENRY to be apart of."
That comes off as pretty unrealistic, unless the character saying those things is the type of person who has to clearly define things all the time.

If those very basic details are left undefined for too long, the scene loses ground and sinks into an unsatisfying and uninspiring place.

When it's just two people being witty and throwing words back and forth, I could care less. I'd rather contemplate my own fingernails.

[sara farr]

using your character's opinion

This was a great bit of advice I learned from Burnsy last OOB. It was simple, but made a big difference to me on how I could contribute who-what-when-where to the scene without it seeming forced.

[TexasImprovMassacre]

I, personally, as an audience member am not satisfied until I know the basics of CROW (character, relationship, objective, where) when I watch an improv scene. Even before I "knew" about CROW, I felt that way when I watched improv.
If someone's gender is unclear, if the relationship is vague, if they are in a giant black abyss of possible locations, all of that takes me out of the scene. I just have too many questions in my head that are begging to be answered.

The defining of those things doesn't have to be overly obvious,
ex. "Hi MARCOS! I'm glad we came to the TACO SHACK to talk about YOUR NEW FILM you want me, your BEST FRIEND HENRY to be apart of."
That comes off as pretty unrealistic, unless the character saying those things is the type of person who has to clearly define things all the time.

If those very basic details are left undefined for too long, the scene loses ground and sinks into an unsatisfying and uninspiring place.

When it's just two people being witty and throwing words back and forth, I could care less. I'd rather contemplate my own fingernails.

As questions occur to you it is natural to want to answer them, and i'm not against that. I also understand that sometimes there are questions that need to be answered for the audience to understand what they're seeing enough to enjoy it.

...and of course initiations don't have to sound as shitty as your taco shack example.

However, I don't feel like scenes without all of those questions answered are by default two people being witty and throwing words back and forth. I also don't think they have to be unsatisfying or uninspiring.

...like you said, your mind races trying to answer these missing things, and for me personally, I don't like this approach. I don't always feel like those things must be answered. If there is a question around one of them, then generally I feel compelled and often inspired to answer it...to me though, having this as a necessity puts me in a mindset where I'm thinking about what I don't have in the scene as opposed to what I do.



Edit: Like I said earlier, I'm all for getting out that information. However, it was problematic for me to think of it as a necessity.

[kaci_beeler]

However, I don't feel like scenes without all of those questions answered are by default two people being witty and throwing words back and forth. I also don't think they have to be unsatisfying or uninspiring.

I agree with this as well. There are always exceptions.
Specificity shouldn't be a strict hard and fast rule, and ambiguity shouldn't been seen as something that is okay to do all the time. Etc.

[Milquetoast]

Yeah that list is the core of the work I'm doing at Ultimate Improv. I am quite challenged.

I say it's all in how you play. I know of a bunch of troops that I love that would likely get their asses handed to them if the rules came to life and started handing asses. The only crime is dullness, like Frank Capra said.

[arthursimone]

I agree with most of them, including #5 to a certain degree.... it can't be predictable or heavy-handed in its delivery, and a large part of that is connection to the subtlety of the group mind, but getting all that out of the way as soon as possible allows you to discover more interesting things about your characters.

#1 I completely disagree with.
When you start a scene making eye contact with your partner you totally lose focus on your own character's wants, needs, environment, etc. You have to listen, sure, but if you're only watching, more often than not it will take several seconds of "did you make a decision/did you make a decision" back and forth that does nothing to help anyone.

[Milquetoast]

#1 to me reminds me of a note I got early on here. I have a tendency to look out to nothing when I am thinking of what to say next. It's pretty obvious. I think it's more about actually connecting with your partner vs. staring them down/communicating with eye gestures.

[Asaf]

I have to admit that I missed that she said "using the character's opinion."

Frankly, I read who, what, where and I think I assumed the rest of the sentence.

I personally hate the need to give who, what, where. It doesn't fulfill me as an audience member to see it. It doesn't feed me as an improviser to say it.

But through the opinion is a different story. Waaaay different. It is the difference between stating things and connecting to things.

[Jessica]

When Beth was directing Maestro she pounded the "eye contact." I had some awesome scenes. Gene and I both really committed to that and we played a wonderfully grounded and fun scene. Since then, I've been trying to keep this advice close to heart and it makes a huge difference for me. But I also think that what works for me doesn't always work for everyone else.