Follow me on Twitter!

Monday, January 23, 2012

How To Be Friends and Act Like Idiots - Toolkit

Back in December, I talked about my realisation that characters are interesting when they are being human – namely, that they are flawed, and act on those flaws. The human condition will always be endlessly fascinating and intriguing, and funny as well. My group has been working to try and capture some of the capacity for this kind of play, so I present to you now some exercises that dovetail nicely into “Being Friends and Acting Like Idiots”. As a sidebar for when working on this type of exercise is that everyone should be in the mindset of being affected majorly by everything that other players offer, and also that characters are human and are fallible and do have flaws.

“It's Tuesday” - this exercise is all about overaccepting offers; split the group in half onto opposite sides of the space – a person from line A steps forward and offers any line of dialogue, preferably something fairly mundane, and a person from line B overaccepts that offer. This could be thought of as yes anding in all capital letters. Players should be encouraged to make the overacceptances intensely personal in nature – it is very easily to fall into the trap of accepting an offer in a way that doesn't invest the players on a personal level, or to be dismissive but in a big way. Alternative: That's a great line because; A steps forward and initiates with a minimal line as before, only now B steps forward to the audience and says why this is the best initiation that could ever be given in the history of the world. After a two line exchange, switch sides. After a few goes, repeat with A delivering rich lines.

Character Monologues – player steps forward and delivers a character monologue about a subject, specifically detailing the character's opinion about the subject; good/bad, and most importantly why this subject is that way. Players should not be hesitant about playing characters with ridiculous opinions or ridiculous motivations or reasonings. Stupid or irrational characters make for great theater.

Two person opinion exchanges – forgive the rather clumsy title; as before, A steps forward, only this time, giving an opinion about a subject to B. B can then choose to agree or disagree with the opinion, then both sides provide supporting arguments or additional details for why they feel the way they do. Remember to maintain a balance of agreement and disagreement scenes, and also that both parts have to try an maintain their points-of-view in each scene, and continue to dig deeper into their supporting arguments.

Party Scenes – Four players, and each player silently labels the other three players with how they feel about them: stupid, smelly, and attractive (so one of the those labels to each other player). These four players now treat each by those silent labels, and the scene is that all four characters are at a party. It is important to maintain a level of treatment that allows the scene to proceed (treating someone someone as stupid too strongly, for instance, can alienate the character and grind it to a halt. The location being a party is because there is an obligation to be polite given the social situation – remember that you're not trying to solve the problem of someone being smelly or stupid, you need to find civilized ways to deal with it.

NPC's – one of the key elements of these types of shows is the interplay between the main players, but it is contrasted by the existence of, in role-playing game parlance, a non-player character (NPC). These are characters who are not part of the main group, have distinctly lower or higher status, and are ones who behave more reasonably that a PC. They often have everyday functions in the real world (e.g. cop, lawyer, boss) and act as foils to raise the stakes or frustrate the PC's. Playing with NPC's can be accomplished with the two person opinion exchanges as above, by either a) when a shared opinion has been reached, by acting as the opposing opinion (expressing it in a non-extreme way) or b) with an opposing opinion, but having the “b” player be more rational than his counterpart. As another tangential possibility, having any NPC act as a heavily characterized person (e.g. heavy accent) is usually a surefire way to make someone outrageously more extreme than a PC.

MAAP(ing) – the remaining element is to heighten the language that the characters talk in; this is done by deploying: Memory, Aphorism, Analogy, or Philosophy (MAAP) in the dialogue. Memories are any remembered thing that happened to a character (they usually being with “Remember the time...”). Aphorisms are colloquial sayings, e.g. “A stitch in time saves nine” or “A penny saved is a penny earned.” Analogies compare something to something else, usually using like or as (to quote “The League”: “You're like a gay Iron Man.”), and philosphies display a person's viewpoint on the world (to quote “League” again: “Hey, I can lead a horse to water, but I can't make it not have sex with me.”). It's best to try deploying these one at a time, so have two players step forward, and do a scene where they only have to worry about doing one of the MAAP elements. After, you can have the players use them ad libitum.


Good luck friending!

Monday, January 9, 2012

So This Was Last Year

I started 2011 with one specific goal in mind for this particular blog: have a new posting every two weeks, which, excluding posting one a week late back in June, I've managed to actually maintain this year. As a little change from last year, I thought I'd start 2012 off with a re-cap of what I covered in 26 unique posts over this last year.

January – Make some improv resolutions – be invested in making yourself a better person. “Real” actors are weird with their scripts and whatnot, but work harder than improvisers. Seriously – we are a lazy bunch of artists. Also, we continue the tale of how I spend way too much time thinking about “American Pie” that started in November 2010.

February – Referring to good scenework as being based in just naming a relationship (e.g. “Dad”) is shortsighted and ignorant. The rule that you must know each other for amount of time X is equally inconsequential and narrow. Instead, worry about the dynamic (“How do I feel about this person”) - this will always have more consequence than time or identifiers. Also, I advertised a workshop that I ended up running in April.

March – A follow up to my writing in February, I presented some exercises that can be useful for developing a framework for defining scenes by the dynamic, rather than time or name. Also, I discussed how to approach doing an improv charity show.

April – The stirring conclusion to my essay trilogy examining the philosophical implications of “American Pie” - tis better to have legitimate honest relationships, than rely on technology, it seems. (Luddism 1, Technology infinity). Also, talk on erring in improv, both major and minor, and how it affects the scenes we do. Improv lacks controls in it inherently – it's up to us to keep the thing rolling.

May – More on errors: things are only mistakes if we allow them to be so, and paying attention to the details (i.e. slowing down) can help avoid erring. Also, the conclusion of the errors trilogy – coming to grips with facing the fear, making choices, and committing to them. After all, it's all pretend anyway.

June – Movie(s) review – college, graduation, and the cinema.

July – A response to “Why Improv Sucks”. Crappy players drag down teams, and we've convinced ourselves that being nice to them because they're “family” means keeping them around forever. The choice is: break new ground, or be friendly. Also, a review of status, and why large status differences drag scenes down. Longer, more representational scenework is rooted in narrow status choices.

August – The downside to the game “Hot Spot”, and where it fails us in teaching us to back each other up, and the conclusion to being Soft Skilled. Spending time with your fellow team mates will never be time wasted. Also, a thank you letter for teaching improv to the YMCA.

September – I rip into a guy I saw do improv three years ago for hogging the stage, stomping on his team mates, and not playing into the group mind. And, the human brain can't cope with stimulus not creating change. Be affected – by everything. There are also the pictures from the YMCA workshop.

October – I led off with a movie review for “Team America: World Police” that I wrote back in 2004. And, being affected means you get to make someone else be awesome. Honestly, I can't think of a better reason to let someone else change you on stage. (Also, I went to Australia!)

November – More about badasses and cause & affect – how even the tiniest things can be made monumental by being deeply and profoundly effected by them. A review of “Sideways” that I wrote back in 2004 as well.

December – I review my thoughts on the upcoming “American Pie” movie – Reunion. This installment represents the end of the innocence that was established in the first movie. Also, technology will probably embarrass someone in a significant way in the middle of the second act. And finally, I presented my unified theory for playing good characters – make them human.

And where am I after that year? The scripted show I talked about in the beginning of the year folded after two shows, but they were fun shows. I joined the Dinner Detective San Diego, and have found a large share of success with a fantastic bunch of performers who really take their craft seriously. I taught workshops for two youth groups, did a four-week longform workshop and a one-shot using improv for professional development for UCSD, and also a fund-raiser. (My blog has, however, gotten two shout-outs from Zenprov now (thanks Tracy Kobble (sp?).) My two-man team with Claire Yale has started to really develop some good legs, and the team I coach, the Stage Monkeys, was blessed with two separate professional improvisers coming down from LA to work with us. Also, I started doing an improv podcast (As Ink) that now has ten listeners (trombone glissando). As for where I was last year, I still feel pretty stagnant – I can't really tell if I'm improving anymore, but mostly I'm just trying to put in the work, and find ways to keep pushing myself.

“I resolve to accept challenges. When someone says that something is impossible because it's never been done before, that just means I'll be the first.”

“I resolve to not get comfortable. Nothing is ever 'good enough'.”