Follow me on Twitter!

Saturday, August 27, 2011

Improv and Thank you



I taught an improv class for a YMCA teenage program last week, and this week I have a very nice thank you letter from them.

Monday, August 22, 2011

Soft Skilled part II

A few months back, the New York Times reported on Dr. Verghese, a physician who is trying to revive the lost art of the physical examination of patients[1]. As may come as no surprise to anyone who has spent any time in a hospital – either as a patient, visitor, or medical professional – modern medicine has largely been reduced to tests. The MRI, CT Scan, X-Ray, Ultrasound, and a million other fancy instruments and other tests have begun to be repeatedly and exceedingly relied on for the diagnosis of ailments, and for good reason; these instruments can shed light on things that previously could not be seen (not without surgery anyway), but the good doctor's problem is that these instruments, no matter how useful they may be, have begun to be relied on more than good old fashioned observation (an over-reliance, even). (As Dr. Verghese says: “What's the most important part of the stethoscope? The part between the earpieces.”) The powers of close observation of the patient, from what you see medically, to what's around them, can be infinitely useful in understanding the patient, shattering the concept of the “therapeutic distance” and replacing it with something bordering on connecting and caring.

The point here is that we as improvisers cannot survive on stage using a “therapeutic distance” (perhaps an “empathetic distance” in improv parlance). I wrote about what I call soft skills a few months ago (you can read it in my archives, Oct. 2010), and I mentioned that in a blog written by Jason Chin, he bemoaned the idea of going to get a beer after class being the anathema to no group mind, but what I think Mr. Chin's issue is assuming that group mind will be the ultimate goal of such a trip. Now, I won't argue that you're not going to get group mind out of just pounding drinks with your classmates (sorry), but you will become more comfortable with them. Soft skills are not synonymous with group mind – quite the contrary. Group mind is that capacity to follow the invisible drum beat in your group, to accept and work with mistakes as though they were intentional, to understand where your fellow players are going; what an audience often sees as “mind-reading”, or more appropriately to act as if you were one entity, as opposed to a bunch of individuals. Soft skills and group mind do have some overlap, and one may help the other, but they're not the same thing. (At least, that's what I think Mr. Chin doesn't like about the concept; I may be dead wrong.)

Let me reference another New York Times article, one that analyzed research that found that people with sisters were more like to consider themselves “happy” than people who did not[2]. The knee jerk response is that it's because women are more likely to be open emotionally, whereas men are not. However, what really appears to be happening is not that women are more open (because research has shown that time spent talking, regardless of the topic, makes people happier), its that women are more likely to talk more often and for longer periods of time than men. This is what we're doing when we go to the bar with our fellow improvisers (or really anyone). It should be noted that it doesn't have to happen at the bar, just seems that's the way it works out. (What does that say about us as people?) It's not that its the drinking that spurs the soft skills, its the spending time with people, playing games, go-cart racing, or just talking that allows us to become better, more connected people, which in turn helps us be better improvisers.

So then what are these skills we want to acquire? Well basically the concept boils down to players being willing to be open and accessible to each other. I just finished reading Johnstone's “Impro for Storytellers”, and he lists at the end what he sees as qualities players have when they are working well together: “They're taking care of each other and being altered by each other. They're daring, mischievous, humble, and courageous. They're being themselves, rather than fleeing from self-revelation.” (For counter-point purposes, here's what he sees as “bad”: “Being negative (e.g. killing ideas). Fighting each other for control. 'Planning' instead of 'attending'. Wrecking stories for the sake of easy laughs.) What I was struck by was how much those don't just sound like “My list of things that make a good scene”, but more like “My list of qualities that make a good player or group of players”. Especially take note of that middle one: “daring, mischievous, humble, and courageous”, these are qualities that hard to foster in a group of strangers, but if your group takes the time to spend with itself, these qualities come naturally as you get comfortable with each other. (Picture any long-time friend of yours, and even if you haven't seen them in years, you know that if you got together it would be “just like old times”. Or, the proclivity of some people to get back into relationships with people they've previously broken up with (even if just “for benefits – seriously, some guys have all the luck).) Studies have shown that happy people tend to be more creative problem solvers, making decisions faster, with less back-and-forth, and are better at combining material in new ways and to see the relatedness between things (sounds pretty useful for this improv thing, just sayin')[3,4,5,6,&7]. Johnstone also refers to what he calls the kinetic dance, which I find to have a lot of similarity to what I'm calling soft skills (not the least of which because it's a better sounding name).

The kinetic dance is the existence of the “threads” that connect all the players – it's the little, almost intangible and for the most part unquantifiable little physical things we all do: how we hold our hands, our bodies, our heads, how far apart we stand from each other that allow us to maintain our various statuses and dynamics with all the people around us. (Imagine two people talking in an office. A third person enters – how do the previous two people react to accommodate the new addition?) This dance exists outside the stage, but often can be lost when we get on stage – but this kinetic dance is the same soft skills that allow us to react spontaneously to each other. Spending time with your fellow players helps strengthen these threads so that they don't disappear under the watchful eye of the audience – it makes for more playful, more attuned teams.

Footnotes

[1] Grady, Denise. Oct. 11, 2010. “Physician Revives a Dying Art: The Physical.” New York Times.

[2] Tannen, Deborah. Oct. 25, 2010. “Why Sisterly Chats Make People Happier.” New York Times.

[3] Greene, Terry, and Helga Noice. 1988. “Influence of Positive Affect upon Creative Thinking and Problem Solving in Children.” Psychological Reports, 63, pp 895-98.

[4] Isen, Alice M. 2001. “An Influence of Positive Affect on Decision Making in Complex Situations: Theoretical Issues with Practical Implications.” Journal of Consumer Psychology, 11 (2), pp75-85.

[5] Isen, Alice M, K. Daubman, and G. Norwicki. 1987. “Positive Affect Facilitates Creative Problem Solving.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 62 (6), pp. 1122-31.

[6] Isen, Alice M., Thomas E. Nygren, and F. Gregory Ashby. 1988. Influence of Positive Affect on Subjective Utility of Gains and Losses: It Is Just Not Worth the Risk.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 55 (5), pp. 710-17.

[7] Isen, Alice M., and Robert Patrick. 1983. The Effect of Positive Feeling on Risk Taking: When the Chips Are Down.” Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 31, pp. 194-202.

Wednesday, August 10, 2011

The Hot Spot

We as performers are constantly charged with an exceedingly daunting task: getting along, working, and performing with nearly complete strangers with the ultimate goal of producing laughter. Improv already has very little set up, and we want to make it as portable and flexible as possible, so as a result improvisers (starting with Charna Halpern and Del Close) formulated those treasured iO ideals of cherishing each other on stage and loving each other's contributions. But it’s one thing to say something (“the earth is round”, for instance) and quite another to make it happen.

Primarily for this reason (and maybe others, hell I wasn’t there when they invented the game) Hot Spot was created. The basic rundown of Hot Spot: everyone gets in a circle, one person steps into the middle and starts singing a song. When it starts to become obvious that they no longer know the words, or are uncomfortable, someone steps out of the circle and takes their place in the middle. My level one teacher said we should use the game to train our own internal instinct to edit. “Feel it in your stomach” he would say. “You already know when things need to stop to make room for something else, and you already know when your partners need your help. Just feel it.” (I am actually paraphrasing; it’s not like I recorded my improv classes.) This game actually sounds great in theory, but I’ve never seen it work the way I think it should.

Here’s what I think the problem is: the game says that someone goes out there and sings for 15 seconds or so and then is replaced. I don’t think the average improviser’s brain allows for this kind of fast editing. It requires a little longer than that to settle into to new input. The other problem, and I encourage everyone to look at this the next time you play, is that everyone is thinking way too hard. It’s just natural. We are all trying desperately to be inspired by something right now so we can get in there with a new song. The result is not a nice organic in and out flow of players, but a forced projection.

I make this humble theory on a few distinct observations. First, the larger the group, the slower the interchanges, which runs opposite to what’s expected. You would expect that with an increasingly large circle size, there should hardly be anytime for anyone to sing. Everyone should be charging the center. (For example, let's say that at any one time, 25% of a group is ready with a new idea. That means in a group of four, one person has an idea, but in a group of 10 two or three people should have ideas.) Additionally, I have only ever seen maybe two times where two people entered the center at the same time, and I have never seen three enter. The principle of the game should result in this constant cascade of nearly everyone entering the circle at the same time, because everyone should be simultaneously recognizing the need for an edit. (Then again, maybe they are, they’re just too busy thinking of a song to get in there.

Does this mean Hot Spot is a bad exercise? Probably not, as its heart is in the right place, but it’s just a weak game. It has a very lofty goal, but just doesn’t achieve it. Or maybe the problem is I’ve only ever seen it done with brand new groups where everyone’s still unsure and nervous as a result of all these new people. Or maybe the larger groups make everyone feel like the responsibility is spread out thinner than in small groups so people don’t feel as big a need to help out. Good group work is everyone's responsibility; one group, one voice.