Learning Improvisation

Responding to the first line of dialogue

I thought it would be fun to approach learning improvisation by examining some first lines of dialogue and asking ourselves how we would respond. Of course there is going to be some nuts and bolts basics to an analysis like this (is the base reality clear, could I add something missing to it, etc) but I want to focus this post primarily on whether there is something funny enough in the first line to warrant a comedic move.

An improviser about to respond to an initiation for a scene set in a game show.

By comedic move I mean any action taken intended to inject, bring into focus or to otherwise define the comedy of a scene. This might take the form of a matching reaction or a voice of reason reaction, or it might be you labelling a game or taking responsibility for a problem or mysterious element in the scene; a move that sends a message to your scene partner that says, “Here it is, here is the thing we can make our scene about.”

I don’t think we need too much more explanation, instead let’s jump right into some examples. (I pulled these initiations and suggestions using the improv bots over on The Improv Gym page. Feel encouraged to do the same yourself!).

SUGGESTION: Coat

INITIATION: You know Harold, I can't help but feel like we're going to have a great lunch.

I love this initiation. It is a calm, positive beginning to a scene. We don’t know everything about the base reality, but we know a lot. These are at least close friends about to have lunch, maybe at a restaurant, maybe in a kitchen… We know a lot.

The initiation also creates a positive vision of the near future without hinting at any problems or leveling any accusations. There is no need to make a comedic move in reaction to anything in this line, instead you can simply Yes And as you flesh out the base reality.

A good response might sound like…

RESPONSE: The menu is certainly appetizing, I’m glad you picked this diner.

It doesn’t do much, but it doesn’t have to. It firms up the “where”, arguably they might have been talking about their upcoming lunch not at it but somewhere else in the initiation, this response puts that fear to rest. It might have also looked to better define the relationship, but I chose to focus on the “where” instead of the “who”.

SUGGESTION: Waiver

INITIATION: So let me get this straight, you're telling me we're stuck in a hot air balloon with no way to land?

This is an interesting type of initiation, and you are likely to receive this type a lot. It is a question, but a very leading one and a lot of times people with a little experience don’t mind that.

More importantly it creates a problem that feels like it came straight out of a 1990s sitcom writers room. You’re stuck in a Hot Air Balloon with no way down!

The reason this is tricky is there really isn’t anything funny about the initiation, it is just a problem.

At the same time you can’t just ignore the problem or leave it as is. To be clear, if you just Yes And a problem initiation it might feel like you're ignoring the problem, for example:

INITIATION: So let me get this straight, you're telling me we're stuck in a hot air balloon with no way to land?

RESPONSE: Not only that, we’re supposed to deliver this cake by 3 PM!

I see responses like that a lot. There is nothing overtly confrontational about a response like this, but it so fully ignores the previous line it almost feels confrontational. It feels like the response is saying, “Stuck in a hot air balloon? That’s nuthin compared to being stuck in a hot air balloon and having a cake you have to deliver on schedule!”

When scenes move in this direction they tend to do so in spurts, one nonreactive Yes And response follows the next until so many comedic ideas have been suggested it is hard to know what the scene is about. Here is an example of how a scene like that might play out:

INITIATOR: So let me get this straight, you're telling me we're stuck in a hot air balloon with no way to land?

RESPONDER: Not only that, we’re supposed to deliver this cake by 3 PM!

INITIATOR: A cake? Inside of this box? I hear a ticking sound like it is a bomb inside the box, not a cake.

RESPONDER: I hear things I can’t explain all the time myself, I am worried I may be receiving messages from another dimension.

And so such scenes often go, until they are very difficult to enjoy or even understand. This is what happens when we choose to ignore a problem, accusation, question or comedic offer.

One possible remedy is to take responsibility for the problem in your response to the initiation. Consider…

INITIATOR: So let me get this straight, you're telling me we're stuck in a hot air balloon with no way to land?

RESPONDER: Yes, I wanted us stranded in this balloon, that’s why I sabotaged the steering mechanism, because I wanted your undivided attention.

Now instead of a scene about a problem caused by unseen forces, we have a scene about two characters, one of whose behavior is causing a problem for the other. This is a good place for an improv scene to be, lots of opportunities from there. It comes from the comedic move of taking responsibility for the problem.

Playing this out some more, perhaps the initiator responds to this new information as a Voice of Reason (which we might expect given that the initiator seemed unhappy about the predicament they found themselves in). This leads the responder to offer a deeper justification for their behavior: “I never make business proposals until I have undivided attention and I want to do business with you.”

Eh, we could bicker some about the justification, maybe just “...because I wanted your undivided attention,” is enough, but certainly we have a game with a justification by the time we get to that 4th line.

This comes easily once one player in a scene with a problem takes responsibility for the problem and says why they are causing it. Thus if someone initiates a problem scene, respond to it by taking responsibility for it and saying why.

SUGGESTION: Flavor

INITIATION: Oh great, here we go again with your ridiculous ideas. Can we for once have a conversation where you don't say something completely nonsensical?

Well this is a pretty combative initiation and you may very well object to it on that basis. After all, aren’t we supposed to approach our scenes with the spirit of Yes And? Aren’t we supposed to make our scene partners look great and avoid unnecessary fights?

Yep, that’s all true and those are the reasons this initiation is not the best. Even so, an accusation laced initiation is very common and you are going to need strategies for how to deal with them.

In this case, I’d say you have a great opportunity to say yes to the accusation in the initiation. By reacting in the affirmative you establish that your scene partner is not simply disagreeable, instead they are having a Voice of Reason reaction to your behavior, which must therefore be in the Unusual Point Of View position.

Remember, you are being accused of saying and promoting ridiculous things, but saying yes to that accusation doesn’t mean you can’t play the scene at the top of your intelligence. Hearing that you say ridiculous things might tempt you into playing the scene in a goofy, absurd way that features you braying out one surprising absurdity after the next. Alternatively you might try something like…

RESPONSE: Yes I am aware of the nonsense that is our existence. I give voice to it in order to pay tribute to it, to honor life itself.

Maybe that second version of the scene will still feel nuts, but you get my point. You can always reach for a smarter explanation/justification. Also, I’ll note, this justification is getting very close to feeling like a religion which is not how we want to justify our games ever. Be careful of that.

SUGGESTION: Dynasty

INITIATION: Hey Neighbor, that’s an awfully big hole you’re digging in your front yard.

This feels like a common initiation, sort of goofy, gets some of the base reality out there, really a lot of it. But also includes an (albeit non-combative) accusation. That accusation is the goofy part. Similar to the problem initiation (about the Hot Air Balloon) the solution here is for someone to take responsibility and say why. Since the initiator is making the accusation it really only leaves the responder, who might respond successfully with something like…

RESPONSE: Yeah I’m really into negative space lately, I’m just enjoying using it to play around with design.

By saying yes to the hole, taking responsibility for it and saying why you dug it, we immediately find ourselves on firm game footing. I think Will Hines writes about the mechanics of this much better than I ever could. You can explore in this blog post, particularly the section labeled “Exercise: I did it, and here’s why.”

SUGGESTION: Horn

VERSION 1

INITIATION: Careful where you are driving, Hon, there are a dog and a chicken in the middle of the road dancing.

This one though feels tailor made for exploring how far you can take the "taking responsibility" principle.

Let's examine it in a series of variations, each one draining more of the comedy out of the initiation.

Okay to start, a chicken and dog are dancing in the street. This can’t be part of our base reality unless we are living in a Disney movie and it doesn’t feel like we are as motorists in Disney movies are normally cool with dancing chickens and dogs.

So we should react to that and similar to our previous examples, we should do that by taking responsibility for them, maybe with something like…

RESPONSE: Oh do you like that dance? I taught it to them.

VERSION 2

INITIATION: Careful where you are driving, Hon, there are a dog and a chicken in the middle of the road.

Okay so this version is less obviously comedic, more of a problem. Animals are in the road, we don’t want to hit them.

Even with this less funny problem, we can’t afford to ignore it . We have to turn the moment into comedy or accept that it exists in the scene for no positive purpose.

Like before we should look to create comedy here by taking responsibility for the problem. If we don’t take responsibility for it, it will simply be a weird fact of the scene, that a chicken and dog were in the street together. There is no good reason for this detail to be included unless it is to draw us into a comedic scene.

RESPONSE: Yes, I know, I left food in the street for them, it’s a political statement.

Don’t go too far into the details of what your political statement is and I think you’re on firm footing with that response. All you need to do is keep putting animals into dangerous situations that you are tangential to, and say you are doing it to make a political statement, and I bet people would love it.

Again, this happens one, two, three, by simply taking responsibility for the problem and saying why.

VERSION 3

INITIATION: Careful where you are driving, Hon, there is a dog in the middle of the road.

Okay, maybe all of the comedy has been drained out now, but we still have a problem. What are we to do with a problem?

We should take responsibility for it. If we don’t it is there for no reason for it or worse, it creates a sticky, unfunny section of the scene.

If we do, well, maybe we get something like.

RESPONSE: That’s Chester, my dog, I trained him to use the roads. Why shouldn’t he? He is no different than a horse!

Which is what we want, a comedy scene springing from an unusual point of view.

But that’s so fast, just off of one line?

I know, I know, and that’s why I prefer to initiate without being funny, because when these funny moments, or problems, or questions, show up in our scenes, ignoring them won’t help. In fact ignoring them can often ruin scenes. At the same time these moments can be used to propel us straight into game.

VERSION 4

INITIATION: Careful where you are driving, Hon.

Even this is a problem and a response that takes responsibility will work.

RESPONSE: I believe to truly be free you have to drive like the wind, without care or consideration of what is before you.

VERSION 5

INITIATION: Careful.

…what do you think?