 |
| An example of game |
Here are some improvisers on their different takes on "the game" of a scene:
JOE BILL
I look at ‘the game’ as more of a macro proposition, whereas classic IO looks at it more as a micro proposition. I believe that ‘the game’ is nothing more than the context. Within the context, certain things that represent pattern happen. Within the context, there’s a one-upmanship quote, unquote ‘game’ that happens. What’s more important is not that you find or get ‘the game,’ but it’s how you play ‘the game,’ so that the context that has two characters one-upping each other is more important than that they one-up each other...
When you say ‘find the game’ in a scene, there’s always a game. You cannot help but have a game. There is always ‘a game.’ The game could be something routed in something as simple as proximity, or perceived cause and effect. There is understanding in that your left-brain knows that you want to bring this back, you want to repeat the pattern, you want to quote, unquote ‘explore’ that. The quote, unquote ‘game,’ the context of the scene is far more interesting to behold when it inspires people because of it, instead of obliges people to uphold it...
I usually say ‘the game’ in this context, there’s always a fucking game. Anybody who tells you to find a game is not giving you the best note. The best note is embrace the ‘the game’ that is there. I think that sometimes improvisers drive themselves fucking crazy trying to look for the game, trying to find the game or whatever, because that makes them analyze and think. The game is just really what the scene is about, or in a more immediate Annoyance sense what is your character about. To use Napier’s word, what’s your ‘deal?’ What’s your thing? What’s your shit?
If the lights come up and you and I are onstage and I snap twice and you fart, what’s the game? Do I just keep snapping and you keep farting? The answer is you don’t know, because we’re not there and it’s not happening. Who the fuck knows? You can theorize about it. You can talk about ‘what if?’ I could snap twice. You fart. We pause for 5 seconds. I snap twice. You fart. We pause for 4 seconds. I snap twice. You fart. We pause for 3 seconds, and so on until we do it simultaneously then we turn and smile to the audience and the lights go out. Then you can fucking sit and have a conversation with 20 people in your class about how you should have done it or what the fucking game was and you get 20 different fucking answers. When all we did was, we engaged in the simple active thing that I just described, snap, fart, and called that a game, and repeated it, so that’s the game. Alright, or is the game us smiling at the audience after snapping and farting?
If I’m going to talk about ‘the game,’ it’s usually in response to a question. I think when you talk about ‘the game’ in a non-specific [way], and you start talking about the quote, unquote ‘game’ in theory, it ends up having you take away stage time from students in a class that could be spent with them doing something, because it’s a very seductive conversation to have. I think it’s more important to know that laughter is always the result of tension broken. If you want to look at ‘the game’ in a micro, classic IO sense, the game is that which creates and breaks tension. Armando and I have talked about tension. Armando will talk about tension in terms of building and releasing tension, and I say creating and breaking tension. They’re the same thing, or are they? Do you know what I mean?
As long as you can get people to understand that, as soon those lights go up or as soon as they step onstage, whatever they do is an observable aspect of their character and their job is not play to the top of their intelligence but rather to play to the top of their character’s integrity, then the game kind of takes care of itself.
 |
| Joe Bill |
If the lights come up and you and I are onstage and I snap twice and you fart, what’s the game? Do I just keep snapping and you keep farting? The answer is you don’t know, because we’re not there and it’s not happening. Who the fuck knows? You can theorize about it. You can talk about ‘what if?’ I could snap twice. You fart. We pause for 5 seconds. I snap twice. You fart. We pause for 4 seconds. I snap twice. You fart. We pause for 3 seconds, and so on until we do it simultaneously then we turn and smile to the audience and the lights go out. Then you can fucking sit and have a conversation with 20 people in your class about how you should have done it or what the fucking game was and you get 20 different fucking answers. When all we did was, we engaged in the simple active thing that I just described, snap, fart, and called that a game, and repeated it, so that’s the game. Alright, or is the game us smiling at the audience after snapping and farting?
If I’m going to talk about ‘the game,’ it’s usually in response to a question. I think when you talk about ‘the game’ in a non-specific [way], and you start talking about the quote, unquote ‘game’ in theory, it ends up having you take away stage time from students in a class that could be spent with them doing something, because it’s a very seductive conversation to have. I think it’s more important to know that laughter is always the result of tension broken. If you want to look at ‘the game’ in a micro, classic IO sense, the game is that which creates and breaks tension. Armando and I have talked about tension. Armando will talk about tension in terms of building and releasing tension, and I say creating and breaking tension. They’re the same thing, or are they? Do you know what I mean?
As long as you can get people to understand that, as soon those lights go up or as soon as they step onstage, whatever they do is an observable aspect of their character and their job is not play to the top of their intelligence but rather to play to the top of their character’s integrity, then the game kind of takes care of itself.
 |
| Craig Cackowski |
I’m constantly aware of trying to create patterns, doing and saying things that have been done and said already in the scene. If anything that is at the power of two in the scene, it’s more important than anything that’s at the power of one. When in doubt, I will do or say something again that I’ve already done, but I’m not thinking of a big overarching game usually. I’m much more likely to do a relationship-driven scene than a premise-driven scene. If a partner lays out a premise-driven scene and it’s abundantly clear to me what the game is, I can play it, but that’s rarely something I’m conscious about creating.
ARMANDO DIAZ
The game’s very important in improv like all components. You need all of them. You can’t just go ‘hey, you need environment. Or you need dialog, or chairs or whatever. You need history.’ All those things contribute to the game, so the game is only as good as the specifics that you bring to it. We can play a one-upsmanship game where I would keep on topping you, but what’s going to make it funny are the ways that I top you, the specifics that top you. Therefore, that’s the reason that you want to develop a character, and you want to develop the location, the history, whatever, because then I have lots of interesting, more profound, heightened,
high stakes ways to top you.
To me the game is only a structure, the same way that Harold’s a structure. What makes Harold work is what you bring to Harold. And what was great about Del was how much he would inspire people to be able to play the structure, but being able to play it in a way that you aspired to something smart and meaningful. He didn’t say ‘play the game. Play the game. Play the game,’ but if the game’s not meaningful, then it’s sort of not interesting. It’s not going to be very funny. So to me the game is a structure and you can learn to recognize it, but you also have to be an interesting human being and have something to say...
 |
| Armando Diaz |
To me the game is only a structure, the same way that Harold’s a structure. What makes Harold work is what you bring to Harold. And what was great about Del was how much he would inspire people to be able to play the structure, but being able to play it in a way that you aspired to something smart and meaningful. He didn’t say ‘play the game. Play the game. Play the game,’ but if the game’s not meaningful, then it’s sort of not interesting. It’s not going to be very funny. So to me the game is a structure and you can learn to recognize it, but you also have to be an interesting human being and have something to say...
We respond to patterns. We like music and music repeats itself. Music has a verse and a chorus and verse. The rule of threes. We just get used to cycles. The universe is like that for some reason, and every living thing on it seems to be hardwired to it. And there’s probably some kind of Eastern philosophy that talks about this.
So we get pleasure every time a pattern in music happens. The same thing with game, with the joke that keeps coming back. We don’t want to hear it consistently. We want to see it [then have it go away.] In music, there’s this thing: the build up of tension, the release of tension. Most music is based on it. Build tension release tension. There’s a pattern to it. In comedy, it’s the same thing: the building of tension the release of tension. And that’s what the game does. And why that is? I don’t know. I don’t know the nature of the universe, but it seems like that’s just how it is and how we respond to it.
 |
| Just kidding. Here is Armando in the middle of a dance. |
So we get pleasure every time a pattern in music happens. The same thing with game, with the joke that keeps coming back. We don’t want to hear it consistently. We want to see it [then have it go away.] In music, there’s this thing: the build up of tension, the release of tension. Most music is based on it. Build tension release tension. There’s a pattern to it. In comedy, it’s the same thing: the building of tension the release of tension. And that’s what the game does. And why that is? I don’t know. I don’t know the nature of the universe, but it seems like that’s just how it is and how we respond to it.
 |
| Where's Armando? (Much easier than finding Waldo) Others in the picture include Charna Halpern, James Grace, Neil Flynn, Matt Walsh, Jimmy Carrane, Brian McCann, Peter Hulne, Pat Finn, Brian Stack, Theresa Mulligan Rosenthal, Armando Diaz, Susan Messing, Matt Dwyer, Miles Stroth, Craig Cackowski, Peter Gwinn, Jon Glaser, Noah Gregoropoulos, Laura Krafft, Pete Gardner, Matt Besser, Rebecca Sohn, Kevin Dorff, David Koechner, Michael Broh and Adam McKay |
Make your scene about one thing. That one thing will be the game of your scene. If all of the players on stage are trained in how to detect and notice that one thing, you can all stay on the same page and focus on it, build it together. A lot of it comes down to: Start your scene. Commit. And listen hard enough that you notice the first unusual thing about the scene. When you notice the first unusual thing, start asking yourself, “If that’s true, what else is true?
 |
| Chris Gethard |
If all of your comedic choices are driven by figuring out, “If this is true, what else is true?” you quickly start to build a world for your characters to play in that has a specific set of rules, a philosophy for them to live by. And because you and your scene partner are focused on just that one thing, you can explore it thoroughly without confusing it along the way, without having monkey wrenches tossed in. Everyone knows to build one singular idea. It makes life much, much easier.
ED HERBSTMAN
 |
| Ed Herbstman |
The game to me is the pattern and structure of the dynamic between two or more people. It’s more of a mathematical equation. It’s extremely important when you’re using it, and mildly important when you’re not focused on it. There are some people who can do the game in the scene, find the game in the scene and play the game in the scene and do it well. And there are some people who can’t or who don’t, or who don’t yet.
ROB HUEBEL
 |
| Rob Huebel |
It’s something you really have to focus on. You have to think: ‘what has been said, and of that what is the unusual thing? And how do we have fun with that unusual idea?’ I guess that I got it right away in my brain, but that doesn’t mean it was always in my scenes. It takes a little while. Even now, I perform with people who I’ve performed with for years and years and years and we still buzz past things some times, because I think there’s a tendency now to maybe not play the first or second thing. We’re waiting for something bigger and more complicated and some times that fucks it up.
BILLY MERRITT
 |
| Billy Merritt |
Game is structure. Game is the premise or what is funny about this. A game can be anything at any given time. I think the trick of knowing a game is not knowing it and just instinctively playing it. Because if you ‘know’ it, then you’re just playing it way too much. You know, that’s what ‘gamey’ is. To me, it’s important that you know what it is so you can get away from it then come back to it again.
I think all great comedy sketches have that [circles his finger] circle, the magical circle. Here’s the game. Now let’s get away from it. So when we get back to it …we ‘if that then what else’ and it gets bigger and bigger. It’s got a lot of different things. A lot of different phrases. I don’t think there’s one single sentence that explains it, because I think every scene can be different.
I think all great comedy sketches have that [circles his finger] circle, the magical circle. Here’s the game. Now let’s get away from it. So when we get back to it …we ‘if that then what else’ and it gets bigger and bigger. It’s got a lot of different things. A lot of different phrases. I don’t think there’s one single sentence that explains it, because I think every scene can be different.
TAMI SAGHER
 |
| Tami Sagher |
I believe the essence of the game is the relationship, which doesn't necessarily mean that you have to have a 'relationship scene'... It's a matter of listening to everything that is done, not just the words, but whatever the gesture is. It's a matter of knowing absolutely everything that was done since the moment of the beginning. If you're absolutely listening and responding to it, then you're automatically in the game, I think. The less you're in your head and the more you're noticing, you'll automatically get behind the game. And if you're in a real relationship with somebody onstage that will be the game. And if you're still not finding it, it's a matter of noticing a pattern. Even the audience will cue you in to where they're reacting. There's a natural rhythm to everything, and playing the game is a matter of discovering and respecting that rhythm.
MATT WALSH
 |
| Matt Walsh |
The game of the scene is the dynamic you discover between the characters that when you heighten it creates comedy... Heightening is adding stakes to something, adding detail, infusing it with emotional commitment, expanding it to a bigger world. Something could start in the living room, then it becomes a national problem, then a world problem, so expanding the impact of that dynamic is heightening. ...Just playing the 'if that then what' of the idea...
When you improvise you're seeking out pattern and ideas in the exchanges that you're throwing out there with your team, so you're not necessarily looking for repetition but pattern. There's a Del quote, I believe 'once is happenstance, twice is a coincidence, three times is a pattern.' So things returning definitely heighten things and make the pattern more present; it brings it farther forward in the audience's mind and in the players mind. So repetition is involved in that, but it's not like hitting a table is a complex game. If you just kept tapping a table, tapping a table, that's not necessarily going to provide a scene that is interesting to an audience.
Also, check out Will Hines' posts on game:
http://improvnonsense.tumblr.com/game
http://improvnonsense.tumblr.com/gamereally
 |
| Will Hines having a heart attack (his brother Kevin consoling behind him) |
No comments:
Post a Comment