Drink the Electric Kool-Aid Part II

I've finished reading Wolfe's “The Electric Kool-Aid Acid Test”, and I've made a few more observations. While we're on the subject, you recall in Part I that I could only guess that maybe Del Close and Kesey may have knew each other, as they were both interested in drugs for enlightenment and living in the same area at the same time, well, I've found the proof. Near the end of the book, a reporter goes to an Acid Test and sees Close and Severn Darden at the event (doing what else, but improvising some scenes right in the middle of the party), of course at the time Kesey was hiding out in Mexico, so no direct line just yet. But what I was struck with was Kesey's final lesson to the Merry Pranksters (and all drug users really), that doing all these psychotropics was cool and all in that it gave man a way to really dive into himself, but in the end, we had to figure out a way to get there without the drugs.

The Acid Tests really were this, an attempt to reproduce the introspection you get from LSD without having to take it (except for one party where someone actually did spike the punch with acid, but then again, they weren't call the Pranksters for nothing). They would play the weird music, do light shows, the whole shebang, trying to mimic the experience. I have to think Del probably made the same connection – while the kind of crazy, off the wall spiritual experience you got while doing LSD was awesome, you couldn't really do scenes or relate to any audience while you're on it, so the next obvious step was trying to bottle that lightning in a way that you could use it on stage. A lot of the early Close Harold openings were based around this concept (including the “3 Rituals” and the “Invocation” - still used today), and Close even said that he loved it more when audiences gave the most mundane suggestions, because that really gave them the opportunity to wow them by elevating something bland into something extraordinary, or even God-like. The Beatniks (who preceded the Hippies in drug use by a decade) discovered this too. The Beat culture was addicted to Benzedrine and Dexedrine (amphetamines for those of you following at home) instead of LSD and DMT, and they were doing it for different purposes (artistic productivity, including writing for the Beats, while the Hippies used it for spiritual exploration), but they reached the same conclusion. Eventually, you have to figure out a way to capture that without taking pharma. (This is compounded by the fact that it requires increased doses for amphetamine, some individuals pushing as high as several hundred milligrams and eventually toxifying themselves to hospitalization or worse. Ah, the pursuit of artistic endeavor.)

I taught a Harold workshop recently to a group that is relatively inexperienced in longform (though they have been experimenting with a very Commedia del Arte approach to it in the last couple of months, and that's pretty cool). The director asked me to teach some longform, and said I could teach whatever I wanted, and after a great deal of internal debate I settled on the Harold for its simplicity of structure, it's influence on other, more complicated forms, and also because every other longform player I know of started on the Harold, so it seems a good place to start. The biggest lesson I learned teaching this two and half hour crash course, is that you can teach the structure relatively easy, but that's only really half of what the Harold (and by extension, Longform) is about. The other half has to do with that paragraph right up there (go ahead and read it again, I'll wait). The other half is largely what I think Close contributed to improv – it's the attitude: everything from the “Theater of the Heart” all the way up to artistic integrity (e.g. play to the top of your character's intelligence/integrity). And it's this way of thinking that would explain why exactly it is that when my first group back in college tried Harold's (twice) that we failed miserably. We were missing that piece of the puzzle that makes longform different from shortform, and what makes longform more than just “longer scenes” but transforms it into something mind-blowing. In a post crash course sit down with the group I taught, one of the players said she didn't like the Harold because it seemed too chaotic; which she was right about, but the Harold I can teach in two hours, sure. What I can't teach in two hours is the mindset of how a longform improviser approaches a piece. This is one of the reasons why the big three cities holds a tight hold on “good” longform – they have the right mindset. Running all the way from Kesey to Close and up to every improviser performing longform today (or at least the ones who can trace their improv lineage back to the original drug users) runs a line that has to do with artistic integrity, discovery, and group mind. This is what makes a longform improviser – not the form he does.

On a personal note, my group is chomping at the bit for some longform, but I don't want to drop that on them until they've attached themselves into that lineage. Once they have, the Harold will be easier than breathing.

Close Encounters of the Longform

I was speaking with the director of one of my short form groups a few weeks ago, and we started talking about how much we both want to see and do more longform in San Diego, and I confessed my love of longform; namely all the different kinds of forms and how they’re all useful, and how I want to see more groups capable of improvising beyond form. I didn’t realize it, but I was actually being interviewed, in a way. He asked me about different forms that I knew, how long it would take to do them, etc. Then, he asked me to teach his group some longform. He didn’t know anything about longform, and I said I would love to teach some workshops on longform. When I asked which one he wanted me to teach, he replied with the words it seems everyone would love to hear, but no one really wants to hear, “Whatever one you think is best.”

I’m certainly not an expert by any means on longform. I’ve seen a bunch of it, taken a bunch of classes, and asked as many questions of performers as possible, but that doesn’t mean I know everything about it. (I asked one of the Cook County Social Club members what their form was after a show, to which he replied “It’s not so much a form as it is a style.” Good luck to any other group trying to replicate their show, but no improviser should ever get their hopes up for cloning success.) Now, I do have a real love for longform – I love the things that it’s capable of doing, by being free to really run, and I love the philosophy associated with it that improvisers can actually be artists and make something on-the-spot and meaningful. But I was suddenly saddled with representing longform to a longform-naïve group, and hopefully making it interesting enough to make them want to do it again. Essentially, I was given two hours to introduce longform, conceptually and functionally. The one thing I can applaud the iO with teaching me that was more important than just how to improvise was how to yearn for expression, but heck, it took me a year of being there and almost a whole other year to begin to comprehend that concept. How do you convey that kind of mindset and teach a group how to longform in two hours? I feel that the two are intertwined: you can’t really do a Harold until you appreciate the “Theatre of the Heart”, and you can’t full comprehend formic creation until you’ve done a few by the book Harolds.

Now, that crisis avoided (by sheer virtue of probably being unable to convey it), now I have to decide which form to teach. Which form sums up the entire longform experience? Which one is the ultimate in inspiring creativity and play? Which one has the most room for artistic expression? Which one is easy? (I do only have two hours here, people.) Not to mention I want one that will allow everyone the chance to experiment around with it a bit (so Shotgun! and Dinner for Six are out) but also won’t require any special new skills (so long Armando, Orlando, and Eavesdropping). One that isn’t too complicated (sorry Close Quarters and JTS Brown), but that also fits the style of this particular group (Living Room, Deconstruction; gone, gone). Of course, there’s always the mainstay of the Harold, but I always feel like people who haven’t seen a few already seem a little daunted by the Harold.

These two crises now in full place, I thought about it in this way: if a group of aliens from another galaxy descended on to earth after hearing about longform but only having done shortform and only had two hours to learn before they had to return home, what would you teach them? What single longform structure and philosophy could you give them that they could take back to their home planet so that they could start exploring longform on their own? I spent a year studying in Chicago, and I only now just feel like I could go to some completely unknown place and inject new thought about improv.

Of course, I know that this will probably not be my only chance to teach improv to this group, but I can’t shake the feeling that this is my one chance to really get this group started off down the right track. This single ideological shift can change everything, if I can just get the points across right. After all, I really could teach any form (that is to say, there’s nothing stopping me), but I don’t want to teach just form – I want to teach the mysterious force about long form in general that I am so enamored with.

Theater of the Hate

(Author's note: I wrote this essay in 2008 - the mentioned fellow improviser and I have since mended the misunderstanding, and are now quite amicable with each other.)

I went up to the iO the other night for a panel discussion and reading regarding the "Lives and Legends of Del Close", in celebration of Kim "Howard" Johnson's recently published a book of the same title. The panel discussion was fine, about what I was expecting: Charna, Kim, Robert Falls (directing manager of the Goodman theater), and a few of Del's first students talking about Del, the good old days, patting each other on the back, etc. There was, however, a few gems of parting wisdom: as Del lay on his deathbed, with the doctors prepared to administer the morphine that would end his suffering, one of his last thoughts was: "We created Theater of the Heart, a theater where people cherish each other..." In his final moments, he was most proud of creating an art form and an ideology where actors cherish each other for their ideas.

Just over twelve hours later, I logged on to the computer before leaving for work, to find a message from a fellow improviser in another city, who opened his message with "I don't mean to be a dick, but...", which as we all well know is a direct indication that the words that follow will be undoubtedly very unpleasant, to say the least (it is the rough equivalent to the words "I'm not a racist, but..."). The following tirade proceeded to chew me a new one, for what was an immense misunderstanding. I replied with a polite, placating message, and left for work. At work, I was greeted with another two messages, each more angry and vitriolic than the last. At this point, I had to make a delivery across campus, so I rather predictably kept turning over the interchange in my head for the next 45 minutes.

Now, when you're verbally abused in any way, you usually respond by lashing back, but for some reason, I wasn't angry. Anyone who knows me will at this point realize how strange this is (to say I have a short fuse is giving a bit too much credit), and I started to wonder why this was, and after a good fifteen minutes I realized why: last night's Del Close discussion, or more specifically, one of the last things he said (the message above).

I wasn't angry, I was disappointed. I realized in that moment, that perhaps the high-minded ideas spread by Close, of cherishing your fellow improvisers, treating them like poets, artists, etc., i.e. the theater of the heart, were maybe just too idealistic. For about five minutes, I honestly considered just ending my nearly five year "relationship" with improvisation, over the simple violation of what to me, was Del's most important lesson. To me, it just wasn't worth even doing this anymore if I was just going to get yelled at by fellow improvisers. While I'd probably just brush off a similar encounter from a stranger, why bother dealing with improvisers I respected and considered to be my friends. I relented of course (I was obviously still thinking in an irrational manner, even if wasn't acting it), realizing that to give up was probably a bit excessive.

But then, I started thinking about whether or not the encouraging and accepting environment exists at all. After all, improv is still at its most basic sense an art form, which as a necessity, requires criticism in order to improve. Of course Del was also a harsh critic of his students (perhaps the harshest), but the root of his criticism was probably still love of his fellow improvisers (I think I can only say probably, it may be to presumptuous to know his motivations). I've been around the Chicago scene long enough to know that some people don't really subscribe to this "heart" philosophy, but undoubtedly most, at least, try to. And it's then that I realized that respecting your fellow performers was as much a skill as "yes, anding". It wasn't just a natural reflex (we are all human after all). We, as well rounded improvisers (or at least improvisers in the Del Close methodology), have to A)want to respect each other and B)practice respecting each other.

I then grew concerned: with improv growing as fast as it is, will the theater of the heart become crowded with people who are not caring, loving, and respecting? Will a small part of improv theory that is almost more of an afterthought be just disregarded because it's just too much work to be nice to each other? What kind of mutual respect can we expect if we violently lash out at fellow improvisers over minor mistakes? Of course, it will always be easier to cherish those that are already our friends, but are we really challenging ourselves by only liking those that we're already close to? And if the pool becomes dominated by violent and harsh improvisers, imagine what kind of "art" they'll start producing.

Fifteen years ago, only a handful of people knew what improv was. Ten years ago, few outside the inner circle knew who Del was. Five years ago, troops were still mostly relegated to large cities and universities. Today, high school troops are coming by the iO for workshops and short courses. As improv continues to expand and be performed by more and more people, the only question I have is: will we still love each other tomorrow?

Shit. I'm already missing the good old days.

To Err is Improv Part 3

Our brains are good at making connections and finding patterns, but that is often all we do. We simplify the world around us into generalizations and stereotypes, we discuss things in probabilities and statistics, but as my friend used to say: “Statistically speaking, statistics are meaningless.” When we trade details for abstractions, we run the risk of missing potentially damming and useful information. The easy fix for this is to simplify. This may sound counter to my previous statements, but we really have to do a lot less work than we usually end up doing. Be blunt in the information you present, and it makes it easier to interpret it bluntly. Often we learn more from summaries of information, yet we still decide to overload ourselves with information, which, as it turns out, doesn't actually help us. (We also tend to focus on the inconsequential and easily observed.)

This is, for the most part, one of the great obstacles for a young improviser: humans dread finality. We prefer to think of our worlds as pliable and malleable, with options available to us, which interpreted into an improv scene is what Keith Johnstone referred to as wimping, Tom Salinsky called waffling, but you can just think of as “wiggle room”. It's the difference between a general saying we're in a missle silo, and the some dude saying we're at work. Put bluntly (here we go): “Hope impedes adaptation”. When you're stuck with something, you have to adapt and learn to live with it. In our current model, we can break it down a little more, and take the opposite form of “hope impedes”, and make it instead “decisions breed”, and make “adaptation” into “justification” (a wonderful improv word), and we get a fantastic improv mantra: “decisions breed justification”, which is (roughewn) Del Close's third “Kitchen Rule”.

Decisions, properly committed to will give you more defined, clear scenes. You can't fear mistakes and errors in improv. But to do so isn't the end of the world – you just learn more. Studies seem to repeatedly show that adults and children have trouble tolerating mistakes, which is the opposite of what improv teachers try to breed in players (Salinsky I think put it best: “This is going to be great! What is it?” Improvisers need to be made to see the perceived benefits of taking risks are worth taking them – the tightrope is where the tension is, not in the safety net.

“A pilot who doesn't have any fear probably isn't flying his plane to its maximum.” - Astronaut Jon McBride

I had an enlightening discussion with a fellow improviser a little while back; his argument was that beginner improvisers need a teacher to tell them how to do things correctly, and we ended up putting it into terms of skydiving instruction. The first few times you take dives, you are strapped to an experienced skydiver, and after doing that, you get to move up to heavily supervised solo jumps. Now, my friend's stance was that you need that instructor flying with you because otherwise you might die – a completely valid concern about skydiving. The problem with using the metaphor in discussing improv is that messing up while skydiving can at the very least seriously injure the diver if not kill them, but that doesn't really happen in improv. If your scene tanks, you and your scene partner don't slam into the ground at 120 miles per hour and get carted off in body bags, you go “that sucked” and move on. But fearing failure like the plague and relying on someone else to tell you the “right” way defeats much of the point of learning a craft. A better metaphor for improv is Legos: sure, the lego company tells you how to put the pieces together to make the pirate ship or the castle displayed on the box, and just doing that doesn't make you a bad person, but there is literally nothing stopping you from making the pieces into anything you want. Put together something strange, or unwieldy, or that falls over instantly? No problem – take it apart and start over. Want to make a pirate spaceship instead? Knock yourself out.

Never leaving a comfort zone means that you are potentially preventing yourself from discovering something amazing that may exist just beyond the bounds of what you currently know that works. I'm not saying that there aren't dragons out there, but you can't let fear of encountering them keep you from venturing forth.