They Who Shall Not Be Named

In mid-October, for about 6 hours, the San Diego Impov Collective (SDIC), a Facebook based page for members of the SD improv community, was on fire.  Normally, this would be considered a good thing - high traffic, lots of links, click throughs, comments (and comments to comments), and activity, but as with most conflagrations, heat and energy also indicate destruction.  The origin of this facebook post is multi-varied and long-term, and a story that could fill several blog posts (and has, on this particular blog).  I wish that I could have archived that entire post and everything attached to it, if only for posterity, though it truly would do no one any good should someone ever view that archive in the future.  One could also point out how quickly it devolved into name-calling, attacks on individuals, attacks on people's performative capabilities (all on both sides), and (most importantly), a grave misunderstanding of the underlying issues.

Like the young boy who sticks his finger in the dyke, we fail to understand and appreciate the real problem and instead just focus on going about our day-to-day and fixing only the current crisis.  The central problem in San  Diego is, quite simply:

SAN DIEGO HAS AN US VERSUS THEM PROBLEM.

We have basically two improv communities in town; one with people from one theater, and one with everyone else.  Again, I'll try to not get into particulars as to why this is, or who is at fault, or even to name names.  You'll just have to trust me that this thing exists, and we live under the shadow of it every day in improv in this town.  And, quite frankly:

IT SUCKS.

I miss my friends, some of whom I have known as long as I've lived here.  I miss getting to share in their triumphs and shortcomings, joys and sorrows, and just sitting with them shooting the shit at 2am over crappy food.  But as I was looking through all of the comments, some very passionate, erudite, and thoughtful about the issue (others...less so), I was struck by how much two groups of people who live in the same town and practice the same goofy, fringe artform don't know each other.  It's easy to pick fights with strangers or the "other", it's hard to do so when people are familiar.  We'll always have more in common than what makes us different, regardless of religion, race, sexual orientation, politics, nationality, birth state, class, education, gender, age, or devotion to bizarre theater that you can't fully explain to your coworkers. (It should be pointed out that none of the previous denominations were selected in any particular order, nor should their inclusion or exclusion of other groupings be representative of any percieved or actual status.)

The causal post is gone now - deleted into whatever magic archive all our supposedly "deleted" posts go to for Mr. Zuckerberg or his designated associates to read for their own amusement.  But the underlying root isn't, and certainly the memory of what was said (or wasn't said) will probably linger for some time. (I for the record, stayed out of the fray, an operand largely driven by 1) not wanting to go down the rabbit hole again and 2) the benefits of having a job where access to Facebook is largely impossible.)  But this doesn't change the fact that when you have two groups of people who don't know each other, conflicts easily arise, and not knowing someone else is everyone's fault.

Not Emotions

For a lot of us, the word emotion when it comes to improv is a scary one with a lot of panicking connotations. Most of the modern improviser are logical, right brained ones, a product, most likely, on an emphasis on game play. Game play is by it's very nature analytical requiring the ability to identify and amplify “unusual things”. Even game heightening, though necessitating a finesse best exemplified in ways that math cannot quantitate, can be broken down into a series of moves – that the UCB improv handbook reads like a science textbook is no accident. Combine this with the fact that most “comedy nerds” are comedy historians raised typically on static, witty comedy programming and you have a recipe for the typical improviser – smart, word-based, unphysical.

As a result, improv spends a lot of time on workshops about “emotions”. We're trying to remove improv from being a purely intellectual exercise into one that respects that it is a performative, acting experience. For new improvisers, the idea of emotions feels absolutely terrifying – I know that I feel a knee jerk response to avoid emotion workshops when I see them offered. Our western society frowns on the idea of “emoting”. Emotions are seen as being volatile, unpredicatable, and mercurial, which are not viewed as valuable in a society that likes consistent, objective, and reliable. Emotion also carries with it the “actor” connotation – which is to say big, theatrical emotions. This baggage presupposes that all “emotions” must operatic or at least soap operatic. We assume that to “emote” is to be melodramatic, which is the other incorrect assumption about emotions – namely that they must be maudlin or depressing.

Other synonyms also fall short; “feelings” for instance, conjur up ideas of either new-age frufruism or being on the psychiatrist's couch. Terms that equally do not achieve what we want: “sensitiveness”, “vibes”, “sentiment”, “sensation”, and “inspiration” all either fail to fully describe what is happening when we “act”, or go to far. This inaccuracy in terms makes it difficult to describe and to teach people how to do them.

If you've watched a really good improv show (or TV or movies), you've seen people playing humans, which is what makes them interesting and engaging entertainment. If you've taken enough improv workshops, you've probably also noticed an identical-ness in the way we teach two “separate” ideas. Namely, that we teach people that playing characters and emotions are distinct, discrete concepts, but in reality they are nearly the same thing. Both concepts talk about commitment to ideas, point-of-view, and being affected. This gut-reaction stuff is about being more human, playing more than just ourselves, occupying fictional spaces on stage as though they were actually happening is: (drum roll) acting. (Another scary word.)

I think we can roll all of this stuff up into a single unifying concept. These are all just “states of being”. You, as yourself, is a state, where you as a cowboy is a different state. Angry is another state, and angry cowboy is another different state. States make you reactive (and sometimes even proactive) rather than “bulletproof” as a state. If you've followed me so far, let's evolve this into chemistry. All elements are constantly in search of making complete electron shells, 8 being the ideal number for those of you keeping count at home. Those elements on the far right are called the noble gases because they don't react with anything, because they have completed outer electron shells. The entirety of the rest of chemistry in pursuit of completing those shells, either by gaining, losing, or sharing outer electrons with other atoms to get to the magic 8 number.

What I'm preferring to think of emotions as now are “valences” - valence states being the difference in atoms to make molecules. Valence, in operative improv terms, being the difference in self to achieve something else – either something lost to another, gained from anther, or shared with another. How much valence dictates how different from ourselves the state is. This doens't really change how we do things, and doesn't change the necessity for being human and reactive but hopefully may give some solace of a new term to people wh oneed something that feels less terrifying and more analytical.

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.

I Hate Improv Class

-->

(Author's note: I wrote this essay around February 2009.)

Since moving to San Diego, my once weekly fix of improv with my long form group has yet to fully satiate my improv hunger. I decided to sign up for classes at the local improv house. It's a short-form in the style of Comedy Sports kind of place, and even though I don't particularly want to do that kind of 'prov again, I was so hungry to do some improv, any improv, I was willing to go back to “class one” again. Additionally, I'm hoping that I can get a place performing at the theater regularly when it's all over with, and get some stage time and start building a group of improv friends to hang out with. (What can I say? I'm lonely.)

I signed up for classes no problem (though, to my surprise, almost the same price as a session of classes at the iO in Chicago, and only six weeks instead of eight), and as I was driving to the theater, I noted a distinct knot in my stomach. I was nervous. I was dreading going to class - I was honestly afraid of getting up on stage and making a damn fool out of myself. Now, I have never been afraid on stage. I have proudly stepped on to many stages and have been animals, people getting sexually molested, doing the sexual molestation, and inanimate objects (that are being used for sexual molestation). But this class, and as a matter of fact, every single class or workshop I have ever taken, I feel nervous right before the first one. I am constantly afraid that this class is the one where I will completely screw up, and no one will ever want to improvise with me ever again. And, I would argue that this nervous feeling has gotten worse the longer I've been doing improv.

While most people would say that after they've been doing it longer, they've gotten more comfortable because they're more experienced. For me though, I feel that the longer I've been doing improv, the less of an excuse for screwing up I have. When I took my first class at the iO in Chicago, I was bold as hell (probably too much, my teacher Andy had me rope it in a little bit) because at that point I could have screwed up, and just said: "Oh well, I've only done improv at college". Now though, if I screw up, people can only say: "I thought this guy did improv in Chicago!"

A failure on stage is almost always the result of no support, etc. But I can't fault new players for messing up. A flub now will definitely support the theory that I have no business doing this. As a result, I find myself working ten times as hard for everything, just to keep my head above water (it also doesn’t help that I’m a bit of a perfectionist, and I’ve only liked maybe 5% of all the improv I’ve ever done). I feel the need, the absolute life-ending need, to prove myself every time I’m around a new group, and especially a new teacher/coach. I hate improv class for the exact opposite reason that people take classes: wanting to prove that I’m good enough. I’m a student! Shouldn’t I feel comfortable enough to make mistakes in class?

Unfortunately, I now wear my Chicago improv tutelage like a weight around my neck.

The Worst Show

(Author's note: I originally wrote this article in August 2008.)

I recently had a very bad show. Bad and then some. And excuse the hyperbole, but it was quite possibly the worst show I have ever been a part of, which is saying something. What went wrong in this show, you ask? Well, what can go wrong in any show? People not listening to each other, ambiguous people, relationships, and locations, focus issues, low energy, direct and indirect denials, and an all around lack of playfulness. That this show was an iO graduation show, and that it is supposed to showcase everything we have learned in the last year (improv-wise) is itself perhaps telling.

Of course, the only thing worse than a truly horrendous show, is the backlash immediately after it. Because while a horrid (I will, in fact, use every synonym for bad I can think of) show lasts only twenty five minutes (despite the fact that it feels longer), the ripples of it can last much, much longer. This was one of those shows that everyone just sort of hangs their heads afterwards, and one that everyone knows was just bad. Even that one guy in every group who can find something positive about nearly every show (it's usually me). A show so atrocious that everyone immediately starts trying to come up with ways to fix it.
Let's run through the usual list: switch coaches, find a new practice time, required "hang-out/non-improv" time to achieve group trust/synergy, radical form changes, and a list of basics/guidelines/fundamentals/rules/commandments for what will make good shows.

It's interesting to point out that improv groups are much like bureaucracies: they are always fighting the battle they just lost.

This brings me to my point, and one that is especially resonant given that just seven days earlier, we had what was probably one of the best shows I had ever been in. Improvisation is a risky business. Perhaps the riskiest. Nothing is guaranteed, and every time you step on stage, you could easily be stepping on to your worst show, ever. Improvisers constantly tout that their artform is the purest, and the most interesting, because anything can happen. This is true, but to paraphrase a great scientist, the door swings both ways. This is the lure of the unknown, and the reason why improv is so interesting. Shows can be transcendental, entertaining, and intriguing.

They can also be boring, mind numbing, and unwatchable.

To paraphrase someone else, we deal in the unknown, friend. This is our business, and it is challenging, unique, and unpredictable by its very nature. We love it for the same reason we hate it.

So how do we deal with shows then? Can we do all the things mentioned above, and achieve success? Sure.

Can we not do any of the things mentioned above, and achieve success? Why not?

Sometimes we just have bad nights, things don't click, a smidgen of anxiety or apprehension slow a show down, and things just go awry. Not anyone's fault; just the name of the game.  When these shows come along (and they will) the only thing you can do is just keep on truckin'. Learn from your mistakes, keep working hard, and don't get too down.

Relax; after all, it can't get worse than rock bottom, right?

The "Perfect" Improviser

I rode with a fellow improviser to L.A. a few weeks ago, and we bided our time talking about T.V., movies, and of course, improv. (Put two improvisers in a semi-enclosed space for five minutes, and I guarantee all they’ll talk about is improv after just three of it. Doesn’t help we were also going to see improv.) My friend hasn’t been improvising all that long and we were talking mostly about basics, but I revealed to him my ultimate improv secret: even after doing improv for the better part of a decade, I still feel like I suck.

Don’t get me wrong, I don’t want people think I’m overly down on myself, pressuring myself unduly (which I do) and being a perfectionist about my own work (which I am). I even know that I am infinitely better than I was just two years ago. What I mean is that even after doing improv this long, every time I step off stage I wish I could have been a little better. (At this point he asked “What have you gotten me into, Chris George?”)

Personally, I feel that this quality makes me a better improviser, by sheer virtue of having it. I’m not happy with what I do at all, and want to be better. I go watch teams like Beer Shark Mice, 3033, or Deep Schwa and hold myself up against that kind of ideal not because I’m a glutton for punishment, but because I see that as a goal that is, in fact, quite reachable. Because whether we want to admit it, we are artists, and we have to take pride in our art. We need to be unsatisfied with everything we do. It is only through our unyielding desire to be better that we improve at all. It is when we get complacent and lazy that what we do starts to suffer.

Now that I’ve successfully terrified a few people into never wanting to improvise again for fear of failure, allow me to share the other quality that makes a good improviser. “Truth in Comedy” has a chapter simply titled “Face the Fear”. At the same time that I’m not happy with what I do (ever), I also respect myself and anyone else willing to step on stage with the absolute potential of falling flat on our faces. The name of the game is improv, which by its very definition means that we don’t know what will happen. The corollary of course, is that while we have the potential to blow people away, we also have the potential to come crashing down just as hard (and boy is it easier to fall). But what makes a good improviser is someone willing to hop right back up there and try again with no hesitation.

These two elements are not entirely disparate, either; it is the fear that continually focuses us to be uncompromising. Give in to the fear, and you are unwilling to take chances. Allow the fear to control you, and you will compromise to almost anything if it means you get some modicum of success.

Be fearless and uncompromising? Sounds like good advice for life. And that’s what I’ve gotten you into.