Nights at the Improv

Flood improvisation by Wassily Kandinsky

It is easy to become deluded by the audience, because they laugh. Don't let them make you buy the lie that what you're doing is for the laughter. Is what we're doing comedy? Probably not. Is it funny? Probably yes. Where do the really best laughs come from? Terrific connections made intellectually, or terrific revelations made emotionally. - Del Close

For something as fundamental to creativity as life itself, improvisation rarely receives attention. Much of this stems from a social problem. Among art snobs, improvisation generally occupies the lowest rung of the hierarchical ladder, derided as being inconsequential, frivolous, inherently incomplete and awaiting a serious hand to recompose it into something valuable. Beyond the social prejudice against improvisation, however, is the fact that it is difficult to write cogently about the craft. It does not so much defy analysis as elude it shyly. Despite all that, it is important to try to remove improvisation from the ghetto where it resides and discuss it as a vital piece of contemporary theatrical practice.

In music, the quality of improvisation often relies upon how well the improvisor has mastered the idiom in which she works. In Persian gusheh this would mean knowing the dastgah; in North Indian music the raga and tala. In jazz, improvisation often relies upon "standards" and this is a useful phrase for theater improvisation as well. How a player handles the "standards" often serves as a benchmark for his imaginative skill.

The "standards" of theatrical improvisation come largely from Viola Spolin's theater games, with some modifications by Keith Johnstone's TheatreSports along the same lines. These are the basis of short-form improvisation. Short-form improvisation is rule-based using skeletal frameworks and suggestions. It is by far the most common form of improvisation on Seattle's stages, to the extent that it defines the stereotypical image of "improv."

After watching KRAM Improv, The She-Spot, Interrobang, Carskee, Unexpected Productions and Wing-It Productions in the past two weeks, I have seen a melange of short-form improvisation: some successful, some effective, some not quite mature, some promising. (Carskee and She-Spot work in long-form, and I will deal with that at another time). There are some general tendencies I have noticed in all six groups, though, that bear discussion.

In the half-dozen or so shows over the past couple weeks, a distinctly weak link in the improvisational chain has been the audience. All six groups rely to some extent upon audience interaction. But audiences at these events often come in with preconceptions and agendas that are almost destined to stifle good performance. In particular, when improvisors ask for audience suggestions on a theme, audience members seem intent on going for shock, especially with regards to sex and bodily functions etc. But shock is extremely limiting. Once you've administered the shock - then what? Unless one is ready to include something deeply meaningful immediately after the shock, the opportunity for truthful insight has gone begging.

What these suggestions are, really, to a performer is a double dog dare moment. Like most dares they tend to go nowhere and serve only to establish that someone is weirder than you originally thought. This is not particularly illuminating. Wing-It Productions have ameliorated the problem somewhat with the structure of Quiz Show but even there it persists to an annoying degree. I kept waiting for one of these improv groups to take up the double dog dare and, in all deadpan, take the suggestion and make it purposely so simultaneously boring, vulgar and unpleasant that it never comes up again. Audiences at improv events need to be trained just like the actors. Perhaps an effective start would be smacking them upside the head when they disrespect the process.

But, of course, this is Seattle and too much of the Northwest surface politeness prevents such things from happening. Why? Are the audience members inherently deserving of such politeness? Simply because improvisors are trained to say "Yes, and..." does not mean there is nothing to be gained by an adversarial approach. In fact, much of the problem of short-form improv in the United States stems from an unrecognized truth: short-form improvisation is largely a game that invites the audience to "participate" and then refuses to let them play. As a result of the slight, the audience grows more and more vocal in wanting to play, too. Without properly channeling the audience's energy in a creative way, an improv group will find their evening tough going.

A further limitation of Seattle's improvisors is the persistent belief among both performers and audiences that improvisation must at all times be comedy. In fact it is more than a belief, it is dogma. Writers on improvisation also perpetuate this dogma to the point where virtually all writing about improvisation in the theater deals with "improv comedy," whether in the popular press or academic journals. This often inhibits the growth of the form, even to the point of crippling it completely.

As a result of this dogma, performers often choose the funny line rather than the interesting line. Audiences expect laughs rather than excellence. These feed each other in unpleasant ways, recalling Second City director Nancy Hayden's rejoinder, "You might as well just go and do stand-up."

There are alternatives. KRAM Improv clearly has training in non-comedic improvisation. They are clearly familiar with Playback Theatre forms. Without going for comic lines, they play some scenes quite delicately, and deeply. Including the audience member as moderator helps them keep their scenes truthful, and after all, improv is about truth. As Del Close put it, "terrific connections made intellectually, or terrific revelations made emotionally."

I would love to see Seattle's improvisors explore that style more frequently. It would also be nice to see Seattle's improvisors move away from their penchant for light, frivolous comedy and into territory that is less familiar perhaps but ultimately more rewarding. They have proven they can play the "standards." But the time comes when the standards must give way to new forms. In jazz, standards became bebop and revolutionized the entire process of improvisation in music. While it may be too much to ask for another bebop revolution in the theater, pushing that direction certainly cannot hurt.