The Improvisor's Improvisor

improvisorsimprovisor:

montrealimprov:

“I’m breaking up with you.”

“No, you’re not. We’re still together.”

- vinny

Yes, this is Yes-anding.

It says “Yes” to the idea that these two people are in a romantic relationship. It says “Yes” to the idea that the other person wishes to break up. It “Ands” to…

I agree - this is Yes-anding. You can absolutely respond to the line “I’m breaking up with you” by saying “No, you’re not.” I don’t know if I quite like the “We’re still together” line as the And. I’d have to hear it in context with emotional inflection. As long as it communicates a different point of view (A: I want to break up vs. B: I don’t want to break up) on an idea both players agree on (breaking up), the scene can move forward.

I disagree that there is no such thing as denials:

An important hurdle for any improvisor to get over is the realization that there are no such thing as denials. There may be moves that makes the exposition harder, there are moves that don’t strongly forward the scene. There are placeholders and there is vagueness. But there are no denials. There is no move in made-up theater that is completely impossible to work with.

I think there are certainly moves that make moving the scene forward harder, but are not impossible to work with. However, I wouldn’t go so far as to say there are no denials. I think a denial is ignoring what was just said and bringing in a completely different idea. A denial is not even Yes-ing. I was in a scene recently where I endowed my partner with having a body odor problem.

Me: Dude, you stink. Here’s some deodorant. PLEASE, do me a favor and put some on.
Scene Partner: I know I stink. Fine, I’ll put some on.

My scene partner’s response was a denial. Why? Because it was off-game. Earlier in the scene, we had established that my partner was the star player on the football team, so we tolerated his persistent body odor problem because we needed him. My move was his opportunity to play his game by defending his odor. Instead, he took the deodorant and said he would put it on. Sure, he Yes’d me, but it was a denial. Our coach stopped the scene to point it out and gave us the opportunity to try again.

Me: Dude, you stink. Here’s some deodorant. PLEASE, do me a favor and put some on.
Scene Partner: What?! And cover my god-given, natural smell? Deodorant is poison.

So I think there are denials. It’s all about distinguishing game moves made by the character and mistakes made by the improviser.

That is fair - there is such a thing as a willful ignorance of the direction and details of a scene. My biggest concern is that, by thinking of things in terms of denials or off-game or whatever dichotomy, we are setting ourselves up to be judgmental. We don’t have enough time in our scene to worry about that stuff, that is the job of our director or coach. Playing from a judgmental place, trying to identify whether or not something is on-game or what-have-you, takes us out of the moment. I know, because I’ve been there.

But I think we have to understand - when something unexpected happens that is our opportunity to do something fun. In your specific example, your character finally got what she wanted. Now is the time for her to celebrate. Or perhaps now we dig deeper, there’s something other problem about the guy that needs fixing. His change was an opportunity. When a character gets what they want, they have to be affected by that. Adherence to the game of the scene will put us in a place of thinking what the scene is supposed to be, and not paying attention to what it is.

But whatever we call it, it’s not a mistake. It’s made-up theater, there is no script; how can there be mistakes?