Yes we are remedying this in some of our house teams now. Another thing we are collectively working on is problem prov. People are inventing problems in their scenes. Would love a post about that. Thanks Will
I think sometimes these kinds of issues is born out of improv being taught and encouraged as a airy philosophy, moreso than something that creates a watchable thing for an audience. Have definitely had the "just look into your partners eyes and listen and trust that the rest will come" from many a teacher.
Which while useful for a beginner, doesn't help when it's several years in with no new caveats added
‘Initiation etiquette’ is a great phrase to use and it’s one of my core beliefs - and when it doesn’t happen, one of my big bugbears.
The problem: without it, you have improvisers who are not respecting each other’s contribution and then potentially the whole form can become too chaotic and ego-driven. Assume that the 1st person out has an idea and wait for them to initiate. Only when they speak will you know if they have anything or not, but you can still use whatever they do say.
Person 1: (initiates chopping)
Person 2: (joins and watches)
(Extended silence)
Person 1: (finally) Can you pass me the carrots?
Person 2: (after waiting a beat in case there’s more) Sure. But I was hoping for something a little more profound, if I’m honest. You’ve been thinking for 5 minutes, Dad. And “pass me the carrots” doesn’t really answer my question of “what do you think I should do with my life?”
- Not a great example, but already the players have created potential from the characters and their relationship without stepping on each others’ toes.
And interrupting each other generally results in very shallow interactions that don’t give space for character exposition, and therefore we never get to discover what their ‘thing’ really is.
A lot of successful improv, I believe, comes down to giving respectful space, taking that space to explore, and that everything is up for grabs (that has to be an understanding between players).
This is a fantastic observation! We’ve been helping to correct this in Denver for years now and making some headway. Since we are a UCB adjacent theater, we are very heavy on the initiator speaking as soon as they hit the stage. Another thing I’ve been working on with my students is speaking as if someone is there even if there isn’t anyone. I see so many scenes where someone hesitates to speak or make a choice because no one else has entered the scene. And when someone finally does they give the classic “sorry I’m late” line that no one needs. I tell my experienced players no more of that as well because we just need to exist as if we’ve existed there all along.
Great post as always. Thoughts on movement as the first part of an initiation? Our Director’s protocol for one of our troupes is (theoretically) A starts some movement/activity first, A gets to speak first - unless it’s clear there’s nothing coming - with the idea that a clear movement is also the first part of an initiation that shouldn’t be cut off until it’s complete.
Yes we are remedying this in some of our house teams now. Another thing we are collectively working on is problem prov. People are inventing problems in their scenes. Would love a post about that. Thanks Will
hi Amey! :)
Hiiiii
The "I'm Michael Skarn, FBI!" thing.
I think sometimes these kinds of issues is born out of improv being taught and encouraged as a airy philosophy, moreso than something that creates a watchable thing for an audience. Have definitely had the "just look into your partners eyes and listen and trust that the rest will come" from many a teacher.
Which while useful for a beginner, doesn't help when it's several years in with no new caveats added
Thanks, Will. On the nose, as ever.
‘Initiation etiquette’ is a great phrase to use and it’s one of my core beliefs - and when it doesn’t happen, one of my big bugbears.
The problem: without it, you have improvisers who are not respecting each other’s contribution and then potentially the whole form can become too chaotic and ego-driven. Assume that the 1st person out has an idea and wait for them to initiate. Only when they speak will you know if they have anything or not, but you can still use whatever they do say.
Person 1: (initiates chopping)
Person 2: (joins and watches)
(Extended silence)
Person 1: (finally) Can you pass me the carrots?
Person 2: (after waiting a beat in case there’s more) Sure. But I was hoping for something a little more profound, if I’m honest. You’ve been thinking for 5 minutes, Dad. And “pass me the carrots” doesn’t really answer my question of “what do you think I should do with my life?”
- Not a great example, but already the players have created potential from the characters and their relationship without stepping on each others’ toes.
And interrupting each other generally results in very shallow interactions that don’t give space for character exposition, and therefore we never get to discover what their ‘thing’ really is.
A lot of successful improv, I believe, comes down to giving respectful space, taking that space to explore, and that everything is up for grabs (that has to be an understanding between players).
🫶
The most common problem I see in improv! THANK YOU FOR POSTING THIS
This is a fantastic observation! We’ve been helping to correct this in Denver for years now and making some headway. Since we are a UCB adjacent theater, we are very heavy on the initiator speaking as soon as they hit the stage. Another thing I’ve been working on with my students is speaking as if someone is there even if there isn’t anyone. I see so many scenes where someone hesitates to speak or make a choice because no one else has entered the scene. And when someone finally does they give the classic “sorry I’m late” line that no one needs. I tell my experienced players no more of that as well because we just need to exist as if we’ve existed there all along.
I call that materializing. The character has been sitting there for some time, but the improviser just now started occupying him.
From your lips to God’s ears
Great post as always. Thoughts on movement as the first part of an initiation? Our Director’s protocol for one of our troupes is (theoretically) A starts some movement/activity first, A gets to speak first - unless it’s clear there’s nothing coming - with the idea that a clear movement is also the first part of an initiation that shouldn’t be cut off until it’s complete.
I like movement first or at least I don’t mind it. I just want the responder truly taking it in first, to some degree, before jumping in.