Finding improvisers that play the same consistent short-form games is common. The tearful aspect of this discovery is that players will define their role in each game that their team plays and stay with that. The partier who is having a birthday or anniversary are setting their twiglets on the dining room table for their guests. They have their celebrations multiple times each year. Definitely a lucky person, but surely tedious to play that role every time. Even more so if the game has been played for many years and still just doing the same old guessing game.
The audience sees the player and the story. Improvising will show 'you'. Not just the exterior presentation you wish to let lose on the everyday world that you meet, shake hands with and murmur your words of elegant meanings and purposeful phrases. Augusto Boal states that we all present ourselves in life like we are in our own performance. Boal's 'Rainbow of Desire' shares the thought that everyone performs naturally. The last time I saw a person be their self in the present of others was in fact never. Barry may well be upset, but is the upset he is displaying to get the pity and sorrow of those around him? Barry might know, but also it needs to be said that Barry might not know. Sub-conscious desires are controlling what you get up to and will choose for you. (Not that the conscious self and the sub-conscious self are separate beings). Therefore, the more we listen and follow the sub-conscious the better the results in everything else. Then Barry might even realise that he is trying to get Sally and Jacob to hug him in the park on that miserable Saturday afternoon.
The most enjoyable moments in improv are when the player risks. I wrote an article about this for Ludus Ludius based on a mainstream news article about a mouse. As every player is delving into the depths of their own sub-conscious and coming up to the audience with their life's truffles, the choice to try and hide and go for a quick gag could be quite apparent. Even more so, are those that don't even get that far. Risk will be scary, but the audience think improvising is scary anyway.
The answer to risk is play. Look at kids.
Playing cannot be scary. What is scary is the judgement. The part of growing up where we learn that other people will mock you if they do not agree with you. Playing is not the scary part, its being concerned what other people think. Furthermore, after our education system has taken place, some decide to be actors. Our actors read through their script and enter a theatre and perform. The scripts that are performed we call a 'play.' Surely then the actors are experts at playing. The play is certainly named to be done in a playful manner. As improvisers, we spontaneously create our plays or productions. These experts can indulge in playing without fear. It is the usual hiding from their reality that stops play for these experts too. Jerzy Grotowski left having an audience and rather preferred the idea of the performance being for those involved, paratheatrical. The level of play that this would involve would be without fear then.
Many theatre practitioners teach acting in their experience and theories. Some agree with the sentiment I have made. Philippe Gaulier teaches through the use of play or pleasure. The issue is that English uses the term play in many ways and other languages do not even have the word. John Wright runs an amazing play course and it truly assists with digesting the people around you.
Play connects people. See the sparkling eyes of the youth and then see adults involved together with in a playful environment, the image is the same. The essence of human connection is the capacity to sparkle. Friendships are built upon playing.
If you can improvise there is not more challenge, no more risk. No risk means no pleasure for the performer and the audience. Also, there has to be play, like what Gaulier and Wright utilise to their best in the theatrical world. Gaulier is well known in the 'clown world' as well as others. Gaulier speaks about the essential part of performance and theatre as, “I teach theatre of freedom, I teach theatre of the imagination, I teach theatre and the dream of theatre, I don’t teach a style, when you show your please you show something fantastic.” (http://www.performingplays.co.uk/uploads/resources/14/philippe-gaulier-by-charlotte-clisby.pdf) Likewise with the way John Wright uses play in his theatre work. Wright describes how people perform, “When we're having a good time we forget that we are working hard, flops become more bearable and can be seen in the context of the workshop rather than signalling the end of your career, as a result we can take more risk.” (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Wright_%28theatre_director%29#The_Wright_School) So when we play and risk we engage ourselves in the activity and lose fear and panic over the scene and stage. As improvisers we revel in this and we can both engross the conscious in what we are doing and more importantly the others around us. In a competitive impro show the players should not be concerned at only part of the players making the show happen, but everyone. I have had the best moments in competitions when I play and play well with others.
Suddenly in the competition I found myself actually caring about what happened and started losing that playfulness within. It wouldn't take a genius to work out what happened then. What we did stunk! I felt like I wasn't living up to my title. Until I took a risk, I played to make the show great even if it broke the rule of make the show look like a competition and don't really need to win – we played to the opponents strength and something I truly gain jollification in playing with. The other option I had thought could have been fun was to challenge the other groups to name and set-up a game we had never played before. As improvisers we should be capable to improvise in any game. I started improvising because I wanted to get on-stage with nothing and find success. Frankly this is impossible, but I still search. The team you work with will know that 'I am going on stage to perform narrative' or 'music' or 'dance'... even simpler is 'I am improvising scenes'... whatever. In search of free-form I have found that it is impossible without all the team having the same experience of all uses of improv known. There still is unknown uses that can be found in the moment.
Working with some brave youth improvisers, I have taught them to go on stage with nothing not ‘pre-plan’. They know if they are doing scenic or improv games, but even then we have explored various other forms and uses of improv that can crop up. They have a long-form that is just telling a story in whatever way it happens. Although it is not free-form, the way it is done could be extremely fast-paced or long scenes. What this tells me is that if we sincerely use what's there then our strict need to adhere to a the format will vanish. For example, a monoscene format will not mean we cannot have 'cut to' moments. In one of the podcast 'improv nerding' sessions I have indulged in recently, the Americans spoke about this exact topic. Just because the monoscene is supposed to have no edits, if edits happen this shouldn't mean it’s no longer a monoscene. We 'yes and' on-stage, but do we then? Whatever happens can be accepted.
A recent production I created, desired no structure, but to get there we all needed the same base of what could happen. I used a puzzle structure in order to eventually get everyone on-board. Any of these 'puzzle pieces' could be placed anywhere as many times as occurred and be any length in the show. The reasoning was that if we can do everything, then everything can happen. Of course it is impossible to achieve this in all its glorious totality. We had discussion, singing, dancing, poetry, scenes, some games, some styles of scenes and puppetry; perhaps more too. Whatever happened was accepted most of the time. When I create this again, then I hope it will be easier to get to the right place (as I didn't complete it in time).
By this point the aims of when I step on-stage or a workshop as a facilitator will be clear. I want structureless play that will enhance the connections we have as people in life and in the theatre or stage area. I see what we do as more than what we have now or even what we are heading for. All forms of improvisation can be combined for great theatrical extravagance. Lets take the big leap of faith with our teams and really get into improvising freely and playfully. Play a game in front of your audience that you don't know. Why not? Second City would do their two acts and then have no idea what they would do in their third act. (Okay, they know it was going to be a run of scenes.) When being in a Jay Rhoderick's workshop we heard the great phrase of 'Yes the shit out of it.” The ability to support, no matter what, comes from in this phrase. Living and learning as we go. Fail with a smile. Find risk, play and free-form (at its most capable for your group[s]) and notice that it feels good and then entirely break it all. I speak as a hypocrite, as I search for this and try to live by this and clearly don't sometimes. This probably says a lot about me.
Images from: http://adssuck.blogspot.com/
http://www.clipartof.com/
http://adventuresinednos.blogspot.com/
http://www.prlog.org/
