Peter Gwinn 11/15/06 Part 3
JF: I've been told that you're pretty big on openings when you're teaching or coaching.
PG: Umhm.
JF: Why do you think that's so important to impress upon your students and what do you hope them to get out of it?
PG: The first reason it's important is that if you don't do an organic opening you're not doing a Harold, because a Harold as an organic opening as part of its definition. Beyond that, it's that I've been in Harolds where you have such cool discoveries that come up in the opening sort of organically that inform the whole show. It's so much more exciting and inspiring when you're actually coming up with the stuff, and you kind ahead of time what's going to happen.
Here's a quick story. There was a team named Bucket at Improv Olympic a while ago. TJ Jagodowski was on it, and they were coached by Mick Napier from the Annoyance Theater. We all went to the first Bucket show, and they had the most amazing opening we'd ever seen. It was choreographed with like marching one at a time to the front of the stage, giving a monologue, pivoting on two feet then marching back. It looked so fucking sharp. Everyone was like 'wow, how do we do something like that.'
Cut to a month and a half later. They'd been doing the same opening for six weeks and it was boring, because it wasn't inspired anymore. It had gotten to the point where they were doing it just because they were supposed to do it. And it was boring. They were boring, and their scenes were boring coming out of it, because there was nothing happening. But if they did that same exact opening organically, and had all that excitement of 'oh, my God we're creating something really cool here' the [scenes would have been more inspired.]
The last thing is that I've been in openings that have been really cool, and I know how cool they can be. All you have to do is convince yourself that they can be cool. The thing that frustrates me about openings is that more often than not people are doing set openings because they're afraid to do organic openings. Because organic openings look 'gay,' or they're like 'this is so stupid. I look like an idiot.' One of the first things I tell teams, when I start working with them is that 'organic openings are not gay. You're doing gay openings.' If you just sort of change your mindset that this can be cool, you can get some great stuff.
The Shoves were a great example of that. I coached The Shoves for a while and our organic work lead us to the show that I was actually reading stuff about still. They had a fantastic show where everything was happening in Risa [Sang-urai]'s head, every scene. That was a discovery made in the opening. If you look on the IRC when they broke up, everybody mentions that show as one of the coolest things they've ever seen. Through that kind of show, I think you maximize the potential of the Harold. Anybody can do three scenes, game, three scenes, game. It's when the Harold itself becomes one big group game, usually because of something people did in the opening, that it really sort of transcends that stuff, and that's hitting the kind of goal the whole idea behind this thing anyway.
JF: And just to make it clear, when you're talking about organic openings, you're talking about...
PG: Openings where, when you take the suggestion, you have no idea what's going to happen first, or next.
JF: And you just hope the way you've been training yourself with patterns helps you build some sort of structure to the opening?
PG: Yeah, that's the other thing. That's all it is. It's pattern work. Whatever somebody first do it again. Make patterns out of it. If you are in a place where you can look and listen, ....it's just looking, listening and remembering, which is something that any improviser should hopefully be able to do.
JF: It seems like it'd be really good at encouraging groupmind also.
PG: Yeah, if it's a group opening, you have no choice but to focus on what's going on, whereas if it's a set opening now part of your brain is going to focus on what you're supposed to do next. That takes you out of the moment.
JF: In your opinion, what makes good improv? What are some of the things that you like to see?
PG: What I like to see is honest emotion, which kind of goes hand in hand with grounded characters. If it's going to be crazy, I need to see how that craziness is rooted in reality. Wacky characters doing wacky things is not interesting to me. How that wacky character got so wacky is quite interesting to me.
JF: So how do you work on people doing grounded characters? How do you encourage that behavior in a person or a team?
PG: I teach acting excersizes actually. I'll do stuff where it's just working on emotion, being able to represent that onstage. Or I'll encourage people to take acting excersizes, whatever method will work for them.
JF: Do you have any excersizes that you find to be particularly helpful for characters?
PG: There's an excersize called Hot Seat, where it's just two improvisers on the stage. They're not allowed to talk to each other. You just start interviewing them. You've established they're two characters with a shared history, that they know each other. There's no wacky situation that they can be in. We're just asking questions. It kind of forces them to just be those characters.
JF: It sounds like a Documentary opening almost.
PG: Umhm.
JF: What is 'Meta' improv? And what makes good or bad Meta improv?
PG: Meta improv is an improv show that acknowledges the fact that there is an audience watching the show and that we are performers. Good meta improv is improv that uses that fact to enhance the themes of that show. Bad meta improv is improv that uses those techniques as a cop out to excuse their poor technique.
An example of 'bad' meta improv would be someone who gets a laugh by saying something like 'why don't you walk into another scene,' or 'uh oh, here comes this guy we've seen before.' My absolute favorite bad meta improv is someone will say something like 'I don't know. I thought we start started the second beat,' which is an apology, a call-out of a mistake, and an inside term that half the audience doesn't know. That's all terrible. There was a Reuben Williams show where the whole show was about the fact that they didn't clearly get the suggestion from the audience. It was kind of a nightmare. It was also kind of good actually, because it eventually went beyond that. Don't start a game where you're arguing over which suggestion to take. I think that was the hook.
An example of good meta improv was this team I worked with in Chicago, People of Earth, were really good at Meta improv. One of the shows I remember the suggestion was Communism. Two thirds of the way through the show, someone had started a scene and one of the guys on the side of the stage turned to the person next to him and started complaining really loudly that Danny was in more scenes than anybody else, and we should all be sharing equally in these scenes. That kind of led to a discussion. At the end of the show was they brought the house lights up and they were standing onstage, trying to get the audience to come onstage, because this is the people's show and we all deserved an equal share in improvising it. That's not calling out the show. It's an improv game that is played with the 4th wall down, which I guess could be another definition of good Meta improv. It's still an improv game. It still follows that structure, but it just acknowledges the fact that you're performing in front of an audience.
JF: It seems like your approval or whatever of Meta comedy is tied to your more fundamental belief that improv should be organic and if something comes up Meta it should be explored.
PG: Absolutely, that's definitely true. That's kind of the other thing. If you're in a place where you can respond to stuff that happens organically, as opposed to 'right now we have to do beat 2 of scene B' or whatever, that's less inspired that 'oh shit, this thing happened organically,' lets make it into a game and see what happens.
JF: What does the term 'yesand' mean to you? And how do you use it to improve your improv?
PG: It's just basic support and heighten. I don't know that I use it to improve my improv, because at this point it's sort of inherent. I never think about it. The only time I think about it is if something throws me. Usually my first reaction will be to go 'what the hell are you talking about,' but usually I'll sit on that and just say yes. Of course, it's a little weird doing ASSSSCAT. A lot of times I've noticed, especially with the UCB 4, they'll initiate scenes where the way to yesand their initiation is to say 'no' and have a problem with what they're doing. 'I don't think that's appropriate at all.' That's what they're after. So, if you actually supported it, it throws the whole thing off.
JF: So you're not one of those people who ...well, do you think yesand means literally saying yes as much as you can?
PG: Absolutely not. That's the fall back. If I have no idea what's going on, I'm just going to say yes. You'll never get in trouble that way.
JF: What are some qualities of a good team? And is being friends outside of improv important to being a good team?
PG: Shared experience is good, because it adds layers to your communication, but you don't have to be friends. One of the people on Faulty Wiring I really didn't get along with very well off-stage, but he was my favorite person to do scenes with. When really clicked together as a pair was when we would do scenes together. From that, I don't think that you have to like each other as long as you don't carry it on stage with you. Beyond that, I've always said that the most important thing on a team is balance. It's having a strong ensemble, where you've got kind of a really strong player in every aspect of improv: strong initiator, strong actor, strong support player, strong person who can kind of shape the show and see where things need to go, with a willingness of every member of the team to play anyone of those roles if it's called for.
JF: Do you think there have been any great teams that haven't fit into that mold? Like when I hear about The Family, it seems like a lot of those guys have pretty similar styles.
PG: Actually, The Family was a classic example of role playing in an ensemble. Besser was an initiator. Ian was the super-grounded actor. Miles was the support player. Ali was sort of the support/grounding force. Adam was a little bit of everything. They all had their strengths and played them very well, but when they needed to they could switch on a dime.
JF: What are some things that can make a piece seemless, so people might not even know there is a structure to a long-form? How do you work on the formal aspects of a long-form?
PG: I do believe the first thing is having an organic opening. If you're sticking to a structure where there's stuff that you think is going to happen, and something happens over the course of the Harold where it's a chance for it to evolve, you won't follow that. You'll pull it back to where you think you're supposed to be going. That's one thing.
I talk to a lot of people who think that the structure of the Harold is a restriction, but it's not. It's a roadmap, but you can go off road. It's like Grand Theft Auto, you can play it mission to mission to mission or you can drive around the city beating up hookers, and they're both perfectly valid. The structure of the Harold is something someone is forcing you to do, but as a structure to give you common ground and to sort of catch you. If you need it, you can go back to it. If you don't need it, you should do whatever it is you're doing.
I think that if you have enough teams with the mindset that even that form is a springboard to whatever it is we're going to do tonight eventually that's where you'll start uncovering new ground in the Harold. As far as the next thing that comes a long, I don't think we need the next thing necessarily, because the Harold can contain the next thing. I don't think there's any limit to the possibilities of a Harold if you're doing it organically.
JF: How has improv helped you with writing?
PG: You learn a lot about comedic structure.
JF: How has it helped you specifically helped you with writing for the Colbert Report?
PG: The nice thing for me is at the Colbert Report I'm writing for a character all the time. Improv training helps me slip into that character voice and just write for it. Also, you're kind of used to spotting a game and running with it. So, once I get in the right direction I can go kind of quickly. I don't have to judge every line. I just sort of write it then go back and fix it, which is awesome. It's the greatest parts of improvising and writing. It's sort of like you improvise into a computer, then you get to go make it better.
JF: Do you have anything to say to the improv community that we didn't get out?
PG: [laughs] Not off the top of my head. Ok, I've got one. I would rather see a team having a lot of fun than watching a team not having fun, doing technically perfectly improv.
PG: Umhm.
JF: Why do you think that's so important to impress upon your students and what do you hope them to get out of it?
PG: The first reason it's important is that if you don't do an organic opening you're not doing a Harold, because a Harold as an organic opening as part of its definition. Beyond that, it's that I've been in Harolds where you have such cool discoveries that come up in the opening sort of organically that inform the whole show. It's so much more exciting and inspiring when you're actually coming up with the stuff, and you kind ahead of time what's going to happen.
Here's a quick story. There was a team named Bucket at Improv Olympic a while ago. TJ Jagodowski was on it, and they were coached by Mick Napier from the Annoyance Theater. We all went to the first Bucket show, and they had the most amazing opening we'd ever seen. It was choreographed with like marching one at a time to the front of the stage, giving a monologue, pivoting on two feet then marching back. It looked so fucking sharp. Everyone was like 'wow, how do we do something like that.'
Cut to a month and a half later. They'd been doing the same opening for six weeks and it was boring, because it wasn't inspired anymore. It had gotten to the point where they were doing it just because they were supposed to do it. And it was boring. They were boring, and their scenes were boring coming out of it, because there was nothing happening. But if they did that same exact opening organically, and had all that excitement of 'oh, my God we're creating something really cool here' the [scenes would have been more inspired.]
The last thing is that I've been in openings that have been really cool, and I know how cool they can be. All you have to do is convince yourself that they can be cool. The thing that frustrates me about openings is that more often than not people are doing set openings because they're afraid to do organic openings. Because organic openings look 'gay,' or they're like 'this is so stupid. I look like an idiot.' One of the first things I tell teams, when I start working with them is that 'organic openings are not gay. You're doing gay openings.' If you just sort of change your mindset that this can be cool, you can get some great stuff.
The Shoves were a great example of that. I coached The Shoves for a while and our organic work lead us to the show that I was actually reading stuff about still. They had a fantastic show where everything was happening in Risa [Sang-urai]'s head, every scene. That was a discovery made in the opening. If you look on the IRC when they broke up, everybody mentions that show as one of the coolest things they've ever seen. Through that kind of show, I think you maximize the potential of the Harold. Anybody can do three scenes, game, three scenes, game. It's when the Harold itself becomes one big group game, usually because of something people did in the opening, that it really sort of transcends that stuff, and that's hitting the kind of goal the whole idea behind this thing anyway.
JF: And just to make it clear, when you're talking about organic openings, you're talking about...
PG: Openings where, when you take the suggestion, you have no idea what's going to happen first, or next.
JF: And you just hope the way you've been training yourself with patterns helps you build some sort of structure to the opening?
PG: Yeah, that's the other thing. That's all it is. It's pattern work. Whatever somebody first do it again. Make patterns out of it. If you are in a place where you can look and listen, ....it's just looking, listening and remembering, which is something that any improviser should hopefully be able to do.
JF: It seems like it'd be really good at encouraging groupmind also.
PG: Yeah, if it's a group opening, you have no choice but to focus on what's going on, whereas if it's a set opening now part of your brain is going to focus on what you're supposed to do next. That takes you out of the moment.
JF: In your opinion, what makes good improv? What are some of the things that you like to see?
PG: What I like to see is honest emotion, which kind of goes hand in hand with grounded characters. If it's going to be crazy, I need to see how that craziness is rooted in reality. Wacky characters doing wacky things is not interesting to me. How that wacky character got so wacky is quite interesting to me.
JF: So how do you work on people doing grounded characters? How do you encourage that behavior in a person or a team?
PG: I teach acting excersizes actually. I'll do stuff where it's just working on emotion, being able to represent that onstage. Or I'll encourage people to take acting excersizes, whatever method will work for them.
JF: Do you have any excersizes that you find to be particularly helpful for characters?
PG: There's an excersize called Hot Seat, where it's just two improvisers on the stage. They're not allowed to talk to each other. You just start interviewing them. You've established they're two characters with a shared history, that they know each other. There's no wacky situation that they can be in. We're just asking questions. It kind of forces them to just be those characters.
JF: It sounds like a Documentary opening almost.
PG: Umhm.
JF: What is 'Meta' improv? And what makes good or bad Meta improv?
PG: Meta improv is an improv show that acknowledges the fact that there is an audience watching the show and that we are performers. Good meta improv is improv that uses that fact to enhance the themes of that show. Bad meta improv is improv that uses those techniques as a cop out to excuse their poor technique.
An example of 'bad' meta improv would be someone who gets a laugh by saying something like 'why don't you walk into another scene,' or 'uh oh, here comes this guy we've seen before.' My absolute favorite bad meta improv is someone will say something like 'I don't know. I thought we start started the second beat,' which is an apology, a call-out of a mistake, and an inside term that half the audience doesn't know. That's all terrible. There was a Reuben Williams show where the whole show was about the fact that they didn't clearly get the suggestion from the audience. It was kind of a nightmare. It was also kind of good actually, because it eventually went beyond that. Don't start a game where you're arguing over which suggestion to take. I think that was the hook.
An example of good meta improv was this team I worked with in Chicago, People of Earth, were really good at Meta improv. One of the shows I remember the suggestion was Communism. Two thirds of the way through the show, someone had started a scene and one of the guys on the side of the stage turned to the person next to him and started complaining really loudly that Danny was in more scenes than anybody else, and we should all be sharing equally in these scenes. That kind of led to a discussion. At the end of the show was they brought the house lights up and they were standing onstage, trying to get the audience to come onstage, because this is the people's show and we all deserved an equal share in improvising it. That's not calling out the show. It's an improv game that is played with the 4th wall down, which I guess could be another definition of good Meta improv. It's still an improv game. It still follows that structure, but it just acknowledges the fact that you're performing in front of an audience.
JF: It seems like your approval or whatever of Meta comedy is tied to your more fundamental belief that improv should be organic and if something comes up Meta it should be explored.
PG: Absolutely, that's definitely true. That's kind of the other thing. If you're in a place where you can respond to stuff that happens organically, as opposed to 'right now we have to do beat 2 of scene B' or whatever, that's less inspired that 'oh shit, this thing happened organically,' lets make it into a game and see what happens.
JF: What does the term 'yesand' mean to you? And how do you use it to improve your improv?
PG: It's just basic support and heighten. I don't know that I use it to improve my improv, because at this point it's sort of inherent. I never think about it. The only time I think about it is if something throws me. Usually my first reaction will be to go 'what the hell are you talking about,' but usually I'll sit on that and just say yes. Of course, it's a little weird doing ASSSSCAT. A lot of times I've noticed, especially with the UCB 4, they'll initiate scenes where the way to yesand their initiation is to say 'no' and have a problem with what they're doing. 'I don't think that's appropriate at all.' That's what they're after. So, if you actually supported it, it throws the whole thing off.
JF: So you're not one of those people who ...well, do you think yesand means literally saying yes as much as you can?
PG: Absolutely not. That's the fall back. If I have no idea what's going on, I'm just going to say yes. You'll never get in trouble that way.
JF: What are some qualities of a good team? And is being friends outside of improv important to being a good team?
PG: Shared experience is good, because it adds layers to your communication, but you don't have to be friends. One of the people on Faulty Wiring I really didn't get along with very well off-stage, but he was my favorite person to do scenes with. When really clicked together as a pair was when we would do scenes together. From that, I don't think that you have to like each other as long as you don't carry it on stage with you. Beyond that, I've always said that the most important thing on a team is balance. It's having a strong ensemble, where you've got kind of a really strong player in every aspect of improv: strong initiator, strong actor, strong support player, strong person who can kind of shape the show and see where things need to go, with a willingness of every member of the team to play anyone of those roles if it's called for.
JF: Do you think there have been any great teams that haven't fit into that mold? Like when I hear about The Family, it seems like a lot of those guys have pretty similar styles.
PG: Actually, The Family was a classic example of role playing in an ensemble. Besser was an initiator. Ian was the super-grounded actor. Miles was the support player. Ali was sort of the support/grounding force. Adam was a little bit of everything. They all had their strengths and played them very well, but when they needed to they could switch on a dime.
JF: What are some things that can make a piece seemless, so people might not even know there is a structure to a long-form? How do you work on the formal aspects of a long-form?
PG: I do believe the first thing is having an organic opening. If you're sticking to a structure where there's stuff that you think is going to happen, and something happens over the course of the Harold where it's a chance for it to evolve, you won't follow that. You'll pull it back to where you think you're supposed to be going. That's one thing.
I talk to a lot of people who think that the structure of the Harold is a restriction, but it's not. It's a roadmap, but you can go off road. It's like Grand Theft Auto, you can play it mission to mission to mission or you can drive around the city beating up hookers, and they're both perfectly valid. The structure of the Harold is something someone is forcing you to do, but as a structure to give you common ground and to sort of catch you. If you need it, you can go back to it. If you don't need it, you should do whatever it is you're doing.
I think that if you have enough teams with the mindset that even that form is a springboard to whatever it is we're going to do tonight eventually that's where you'll start uncovering new ground in the Harold. As far as the next thing that comes a long, I don't think we need the next thing necessarily, because the Harold can contain the next thing. I don't think there's any limit to the possibilities of a Harold if you're doing it organically.
JF: How has improv helped you with writing?
PG: You learn a lot about comedic structure.
JF: How has it helped you specifically helped you with writing for the Colbert Report?
PG: The nice thing for me is at the Colbert Report I'm writing for a character all the time. Improv training helps me slip into that character voice and just write for it. Also, you're kind of used to spotting a game and running with it. So, once I get in the right direction I can go kind of quickly. I don't have to judge every line. I just sort of write it then go back and fix it, which is awesome. It's the greatest parts of improvising and writing. It's sort of like you improvise into a computer, then you get to go make it better.
JF: Do you have anything to say to the improv community that we didn't get out?
PG: [laughs] Not off the top of my head. Ok, I've got one. I would rather see a team having a lot of fun than watching a team not having fun, doing technically perfectly improv.
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home