danieldwilliam | (no subject)

I’ve recently finished running a series of classes on Improv for Beginners.

I’ve enjoyed teaching them. I’ve learned quite a lot about the theory of improv from teaching the practise. Preparing the sessions took quite a bit of time despite having helpful notes from one of my colleagues. He’s done much more improv and improv teaching so his notes were more of an aide memoire whereas mine were more worked up. My output was okay. I think the next time I run them it will be good. I’ll have some extra time to think about how the sessions could link together and how to coach people to get the most out of the sessions and the games and exercises I’m using.

The Illustrator ran a very good session on How To Get the Most Out of the Games. It was very practical guidance on what to be thinking about when you start on a scene and how to make them work well. For example, in a Secret Endowment game (one where one player does not have know what they have been endowed with, like Repair Shop or Actor’s Nightmare), you get a better result if you keep making Offers to the other person. If you are passive and wait for them to give you clues the game is a little dull. Not only are you not really playing the guessing game that lies at the heart of the handle but it tends to make you a passive character and that’s dull. If you take action it is easier to shape in the right direction.

I’m finding some of the Fixture Secretary stuff hard going at them moment. I’m not getting much input about what we should be working on this term or how we might work on it. I’m certainly not getting any volunteers to do anything. I want to avoid the situation where I do all the thinking and all the doing. I don’t have time. I’m not a good enough improviser or teacher. I don’t know what these guys want so I’m not going to guess (although see para above on Secret Endowments).

I still enjoy it and the difficulties are far far outweighed by my enjoyment of the actual work and the value that I get from the group working well.

The other big improv wrestle is what is our overall objective. Do we want to put in the effort to improve our quality? Should we be a small, very committed group of improvisers who aspire to excellence or do we want to have an open access policy? There are pros and cons on both sides. More I think on this anon.

Over the next few months I want to work on narrative and character based games, some long form stuff and being snappier about how we do operate on stage (Get On, Get A Laugh, Get Off).

I'm also very excited about the prospect of doing a devised piece. (This is a piece where the performance is static but the content is created through a process of improvisation.)

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

> If you take action it is easier to shape in the right direction.

I say this to actors a lot when I'm directing. If they give me something, even if I hate it, I can work with it. If they give me nothing, it's a lot harder.

i see the wisdom of it absolutely tho, of course, it is harder to do in practise than to nod along to.

Example in our last improv session which I spotted because we'd been specifically told to do the opposite and the session coach aluded to it in wash up.

Playing Actor's Nightmare. B comes in and replaces C. B has a go at making an offer but it's not the right one, gives up slightly and adopts a "bunny in the headlights" aspect.

I noticed aslo the difference between a good actor and a good improvisor.

Absolutely.

The hardest thing for me in improv is to stop analyzing and DO something. Even if it's a suboptimal thing much of the time, that still works out better in the long run than standing around waiting for something optimal to occur to me.

I know that, but I'm not especially good at acting on that knowledge. As you say, harder to do than to nod along to.

Also, I think quickly (when I'm not brain-damaged) so I can often "think-and-then-do" fast enough to make it work at entry level. But it's like learning the wrong fingering on a piano; when I try to advance it becomes painfully clear that I've been doing it wrong all along.

My big take away from last Wednesday's session was if in doubt do something, anything. So long as you have trust in your fellow players and they have trust in you the very next thing you say or do will be perfect.

I think what is needed is both to think and to do and to think-and-do at the same time.

A model I have when I am writing well is a tri-partate one.

One part is actively doing the writing, the pen to paper bit, but also the crafting of each indivual sentenance, stanza, paragraph or line. (This part live I think in my stomach)

The second part is running the bigger picture. What does this scene have to do? How would my charater respond? Where am I in the narratice arc? This part is tapped into the written down plan. (It lives in my head)

The third part is the focusing lens. It directs my attention between each of the two aspects, the individual word and the piece as a whole. When I am writing well I find I can have a clear image of both and magnify the one that needs most attention right now without losing the clarity of the vision of the other.

It feels like a wakeful trance at time.

I think something like this probably exists for improv. An awareness of how the next line or action has to come out, how your character should be portrayed and interact with other characters - the surface detail and also an awareness of the underpinning structure and quality, the meta-scene. I've yet to become good at this but I'm sure it's there.