In our ever more complex and technological era, true person to person interaction is lost as we interact with each other via technology instead. (witness this blog) The technological revolution has brought us closer in one respect, but the need to interact in a wholesome way within our local community, person to person, is still vital.
Viola Spolin called her work Kindergarten for the 21st century. What she meant is that her work represents the fundamental skills needed for both actor and audience to meet and interact in a new and basic way. We meet as fellow players and learn from and depend on each other to create meaningful play. The audience plays too. Nobody is a passive player in Spolin's theater. This essence of play creates true community.
Her work transcends the theater in this regard. Her work is way to become 'part of the whole'. It is a way to shed the ills of the 20th Century; Ills such as authoritarian teaching and rote learning. Spolin called this the Approval/Disapproval Syndrome and classified it as the basic obstacle to a true relation with ourselves, our environment, and each other.
In Spolin Games, students and teachers work together, to discover and solve problems. Discovery learning is everyone's birthright and when one discovers a path to a solution on their own, in their own way, learning is integrated and belongs to the discoverer. The joy that accompanies this type of learning makes the exploration of any subject and the inherent skills acquired in the solving of the problem, meaningful and useful to the player forever. It is with this in mind that Viola Spolin began to formulate her theories.
Spolin chose to teach the disciplines of theater to express this greater goal. As a handbook for theater study, it has no peer. It is direct, practical, and easy (because it is fun). Improvisation for the Theater outlines a course of study that gives each and everyone the opportunity to play, be spontaneous, become self-aware and transform. These skills are necessary for our work in the theater, but are also necessary for the bigger stage of our own lives. Fulfilling the requirements of a game creates a playing field where we all become fellow players. Playing is the great key that opens our individual treasure house of intuitive understanding and our ability to act in authentic and meaningful ways.
Sunday, March 8, 2009
Wednesday, March 4, 2009
The Trouble with Yes, And...
The trouble with Yes, and…
“Information is a very weak form of communication” - Spolin
I have been working with Spolin Games for the last thirty years. I first began in an improv comedy class learning how to be fast and funny with a group of very talented actors, who are still playing. Then, by happy accident, I encountered Viola Spolin and her genius for improvisation. Since then I have been exploring the ideas that she used to create the first improvisational technique to create Improv Theater.
Since working with Viola Spolin, I have studied other forms of Improv styles over the years. I’ve taken classes from many other improv teachers and even performed for several years in a group that use Keith Johnstone’s Impro formats and ideas. I have also met and worked briefly with Keith Johnstone and watched the master of Impro at work.
What I am about to discuss, comes not from any condescension or blind loyalty to Spolin’s work, but a considered opinion based on all my experiences in the world of Improvisation as a teacher and a student.
Improvisation has swept the world since Spolin and Sills introduced the form in the late 1950’s. Since then, it has changed and been adapted and shaped by other thinkers, teachers, and students of Spolin; among them Del Close, Keith Johnstone, David Shepard, Josephine Foresberg, Byrne and Shira Piven and Second City. All of whom (excluding Johnstone) can trace their roots to Spolin. There have been a host of other teacgers since then, all being influenced by the aforementioned pioneers.
One concept that came into popular use after Spolin codified her methodology is “Yes and…” It has become the most revered and almost inviolable concept upon which current improv performance bases its practice. “Yes, and…” is the rule of accepting any offer (another term coined later in Improv’s evolution) and augmenting it with a new offer, often building on the earlier one. The thinking is that by adding and accepting new information it helps advance the scene.
Having watched many improv shows and seen many different styles of Improvisation, I have always had the nagging feeling that, though, on the surface, the idea of Yes, and… seems like a natural rule for improvising, (and on one level it is) it misses the point of total relation needed in improvised theater. Yes, and… does force the player to not deny, but it refers primarily to adding information only.
Using yes, and requires a conscious awareness of other supporting ideas and rules to make a so-called ‘successful’ scene. This includes, narrative (being aware of the story structure as it unfolds, i.e., flash-back, historical, event driven, etc.), blocking (A form of canceling, which completely denies an offer. Example: "Is that your car?" "No. There's no car here."), waffling (when you stall or postpone an action instead of just doing it. It is talking instead of doing.), gagging (Getting a laugh at the expense of the story. Gags are narrative killers, but sometimes useful for ending scenes. Example: A menacing killer corners our hero, pulls out a gun, points, and bites into it explaining that it's made of candy), and wimping (Refusing to define an offer. Example: "Who are you?" "I'm the man you called." "The man I called of course! You’re here to fix that thing, aren't you?" "Yes, I fix those things better than anyone else.")[1].
The effect on the ensuing performance using this method has made most of what I have seen in improv, uninspired, ‘talky’ and not very theatrical. I do not mean to say that using this technique can’t produce funny and entertaining scenes. Some can be very funny, but the humor and entertainment comes out of individual players’ ability to ad-lib and manipulate the action. If you get enough actors together whose individual talent for quick thinking and wit, combined with a good sense of humor can make a show very entertaining, indeed. “Whose Line is it Anyway?” Is a fine example. It showcases the individual talents of each actor admirably. No small feat. But on the whole, most comedy improv based on Yes, and… is primarily verbal and tries to match the ad-lib style of Whose Line.
When using Yes, and… much information is added, sometimes too much. In working with that information, one must add more rules to make that information usable on stage, especially in long-form improv. Yes, and... requires the use of narrative structures. Story becomes important in the ordering of all this information. The actors must not only be aware of the offers being proffered to each other, they now have the added task of shaping it into some kind of story that incorporates all this information.
The effect of dealing with information and structure often leads to having to freeze the action, and ask the audience to make sense out of what they are seeing. The audience or director then adds new information or an adjustment and the scene continues. Many times, freeze is used to take turns for actors to ‘make something different’ from the onstage action. (Freeze Tag) To my mind it is stilted and awkward, albeit funny. It is not as much improv as quick labeling and ad-lib.
I have seen many an improv scene become muddy with information and justification. Having been in scenes like this, as I assume every improv performer has, it occurs to me there is some major thing missing: Intuitive connection between players resulting in flow; a transcending of the rules.
Repeatedly we question the necessity of our actions and evaluate critically the reasons for carrying them out. But in flow there is no need to reflect, because the action carries us forward as if by magic.
From “
Intuition
Intuition is the ability to sense or know immediately without deliberate reasoning. We all have this capacity and this is the key to Spolin’s approach to improvisation.
Intuition is a difficult thing consciously access. Spolin’s idea was that by sharing a deep non-intellectual connection where mind and body work harmoniously as in play, spontaneity and true improvisation appears. It transcends any mechanical form of information sharing. Watching intuitive connection between people onstage is highly theatrical and thrilling. It is the same process we witness in any team sport, where the players seem to know what is going on in a wild melee of action in order to accomplish a common goal. This same idea is what is required for Improvisational Theater.
Viola Spolin saw her job as a director to connect the players onstage. Many times she would use a common focus as in a game. She would always sidecoach the onstage action, urging actors from the sidelines with phrases and reminders that might ‘wake the player up’ and reconnect them to their fellow players, themselves and the stage environment. These were not directions to ‘say this or do that’ or “freeze” to stop the action and think what would make the scene work, but supports to empower the players as they play - To stay out of the head. It is the most important thing for an improvisational player to be tuned in to his fellow players.
This awareness cannot happen intellectually. It must happen intuitively - in a flash. Information comes from the head; our combined stored ideas and individual judgments about them accessed quickly to accommodate the ongoing action. The conscious use of this kind of information actually disconnects us from the process needed to play successfully. We search our minds for what could be added to justify the scene or change the scene without denying what has already been added and then trying to steer the scene in a direction. And everyone else on stage is trying to do the same thing. This means each player is in his/her ‘head’ working hard to make something of the scene. They don’t have flow. They are disconnected from each other on an intuitive level - The level that operates outside of the intellect. The level any ensemble needs to work successfully. Yes, the rules of Yes And… and don’t deny help, but they don’t offer a path to the intuition.
Follow the Follower vs. Yes, and…
Many of Spolin’s games short circuit the intellect, trying to unite players on a deeper level. The most basic concept and the most necessary for group play is a shared focus, resulting in a direct experience (the exclusion of self-conscious thought) and following the follower.
Follow the follower happens when neither player leads or initiates. Each player is intent on staying with what the other is doing to such a degree that flow and unison occurs. Spolin’s work with the mirror exercise illustrates this perfectly. You begin by reflecting the other with an initial leader then switching leaders so quickly that the idea of clear leader disappears. Rather than having the mirror disappear, the mirror increases and connection between players intensifies and they find a new level of interaction.
It often happens spontaneously in everyday life. Have you ever been walking toward another person and both of you try to get out of each other’s way, simultaneously syncing up with that person stepping to the same side, back and forth and unable, briefly, to accomplish moving out of the way?
Although it may be disconcerting to find flow with a stranger, follow the follower happened. We excuse it with a joke to break the tension. “Wanna dance? Ha, ha, sorry!” As if this accidental meeting was inappropriate. Maybe in life it is a bit strange, but onstage it is necessary for actors need to work well with each other.
I have a theory of how Spolin’s ideas morphed into what we call Improv Comedy: It is when this disconcerting moment of true unknowing created by following the follower appears, the tension that precedes flow and unison (Spolin calls this “The Off-Balance moment”) often creates anxiety in the actor who resists going further into the unknown. The tension created in that moment preceding Follow the Follower can be popped with a joke. It is a way to gracefully retreat from the unknown true flow introduces. When these moments are created, the first one to break the tension with humor is considered a hero, for rescuing the scene from uncertainty. I think an entire style of improv grew out of this escaping of the limitless possibilities when two or more players hang in the unknown and explore it together.
Yes And… is easily grasped as an idea. It does work as a simple mechanism for agreement. I can understand why it has become the prevailing rule. Follow the Follower is a much more subtle concept and unless experienced, cannot be learned and understood.
Yes And… and ideation
There is a great benefit of using Yes and… as an applied improv tool for people who want to share information. It is a proven and valid technique. Brainstorming and information sharing is an important part of collaboration. Yes and… creates an atmosphere that reduces competition, encourages cooperation and validation. Idea sharing can lead to a more productive workplace and open the way for even deeper relationships. It is also good for finding material for sketch comedy, although, without the inspiration of transformational spontaneity found in Follow the follower, most sketch material will be derivative. It works with beginners who have no idea how to improvise. It’s a starting point. But adhering to it as a main rule in advanced improvisation is counterproductive. The single reason this is true is that ideas come from the head (old frames of reference) and this leads to stereotyped characters and hackneyed situations.
“True creativity is not the clever rearranging of the known.” - Spolin
In performance, Yes, and… is cumbersome and unable to evoke anything more than old, familiar material shared and acted upon by the players. There needs to be a way to transcend the bounds of information and enter into the theatrical and inspired. That can only be found in the intuitive connection between players.
Intuitive connection is not as easy to create as one would think. It must almost be fooled into existence by other means. It can certainly not be willed into being. Conscious action and information sharing must be overtaken by inspiration and that occurs naturally when following the follower and only accidentally when using Yes, and…
Follow the Follower includes Yes, And…
When true flow occurs, all the participants happily enter into the exploration of the unknown, unencumbered by judgment, premeditation, and old frames of reference. Only then can true improvisation occur. Players intuitively know they are on the same journey and will accept and augment any new situation, solve any problem together and really play!
My advice to improv directors: go beyond Yes, and… instead, Follow the follower.
Gary Schwartz,
North Bend WA June 2008.
The Narrative Trap and the Dogma of "Yes! And…"
Spolin's concept of Give and Take and Follow the Follower is a two way system. Yes! And… is a one way system.
Respect is inherent in Give and Take even in conflict or disagreement. Follow the Follower erases 'self' consciousness and puts full attention on your fellow player. Yes! And… imposes unquestioned respect for any offer and forces only agreement.
Another trap of "Yes and…" is that it often adds too much information. Too many offers leads to muddled scenes, as the actors try to parse the information and fold it into the ongoing scene.
Give and Take uses reciprocal consciousness which contains the elements of follow the follower to allow for exploration of an ongoing event (scene).
Story should be the by-product of good scene work not the goal
I disagree with the idea of coping with narrative and story as a primary focus in improvisation because it puts most players in their head and disconnects them from true relation with fellow players and obscures the more immediate focus of staying involved with their fellow players, trusting the focus and letting the story (interaction) unfold.
When narrative becomes the focus, what occurs onstage is a story conference, without the benefit of revision or brainstorming. Crafting a good story is an art in itself. There's a Yes, And…. concept developed to create a story. It is called "The Story Spine" It works in concert with adding information.
- Once upon a time there was a _____
- And every day ______
- Until one day ______
- and because of this ______
- And because of that- this happened
- And ever since this happened this was the result.
- Find the moral of the story.
- and do not have to be foremost in a players mind.
The paradigm Spolin saw, was that any true relationship with fellow player and the environment, creates a story. The games produce a connection with the actor to himself, the actor to the other actors, the actors to the environment: A thread that weaves itself into situations and conflicts. When that connection is broken (being in your head) and one or more of the actors withdraw (for whatever reason) from any of the above mentioned elements - that actor is stranded alone on stage.
Finding yourself disconnected from your fellow players onstage creates urgency in the actor. Many actors try talking their way back into the scene by telling what they see, feel, or want to do. It is a cry for help and the sidecoach or director may call out "Help your fellow player who isn't playing!" Onstage players may recognize the situation too and try reconnecting with that actor by involving him/her in the where, or simply pausing in no-motion to come back into the playing field. (space) This rescue becomes part of the ongoing unfolding of the event the audience will eventually see as "
It is possible to house the elements of narrative inside playing. That takes what Spolin called detachment. Artistic detachment is achieved by having so much focus that the problem no longer occupies the whole self and there is room for seeing the larger picture. This is an advanced state for players and comes easily only to the very gifted, but all players are capable of it after having enough time in the space. Then narrative and things like that occur naturally Also Spolin had games that approached long form too. Games like “Hold it”, “Theme Scene”, “Scene on Scene” and “Word Game” all hold an evenings worth of play in them.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
