Playing With Reality Improv Classes

Sometimes I think about improv classes as (weirdly) playing with reality classes. Not always or even most of the time, but sometimes I'll imagine improv pedagogy breaking slightly differently allowing me to market Playing With Reality Improv Classes instead of Improv Comedy Classes. Something weird is going on with me, right?

No for real, sometimes I approach an improv scene not as an acting challenge, but instead as a kind of word game that you might describe as a reality or category word game. 

This is going to be a strange post, probably best for serious students of improv struggling with finding the first unusual thing or finding game. This is a sort of loosely organized data dump of thoughts that springs from experimenting with how I find game. Game can be so hard to find when you're just getting started, because until you've found game a lot it can be hard to really be sure what it looks/feels/sounds like.

So I’m not writing this post to say hey, you should improvise this way! Not at all. I am writing this post to say sometimes I play around with improvising this way and when I have finding game and playing a conflict free base reality looks this way. And maybe seeing it this other way will help you recognize it more easily overall?

So here it is.

Instead of going into a scene thinking, “I need to be honest and react honestly,” I go in thinking about what reality or category the beginning of the scene falls into. Once I know that I keep a sharp lookout for moments that don’t fit that reality; for moments that alter the reality.

You could say I’m wondering about the base reality and first unusual thing, but I think that’s coming at it from an actor’s point of view, maybe? Maybe just for me it is? I came to improv primarily as an actor and when I first learned how to establish a base reality (and for years after) I thought of it as a chore I had to do before I got to the good stuff… the acting!

And just because of that, and because I suspect there may be an actor’s lament hidden inside of every utterance of the words “First establish a base reality,” sometimes I choose to think of it as identifying a category or reality instead. It means the same thing but I feel like I end up looking at scenes from a different perspective when I think in these terms. 

What's in a name?

I’ve heard great teachers describe improv as an art form where you work as an actor, playwright and director all at the same time. My natural inclination when approaching an improv scene is to approach it first as an actor, so maybe “searching for a category” instead of “building a base reality” helps me maintain enough detachment from the scene in order to more easily access it as a director or playwright first?

Maybe that’s all I’m thinking about. Improvising with a director’s or playwright’s hat on. (But out of politeness, I hope you'll continue to pretend this is about playing with reality. The whole blog post is called that for crying out loud!)

But in any case, it’s kind of neat, the perspective shift that results from the different verbiage, at least to me it is. So I thought I’d describe how I think about scenes when playing this way and why it feels more like playing a word game than acting.

Let’s imagine a scene.

Two actors take the playing area and one initiates by miming a medical exam with a stethoscope and stopwatch. “Cough, please,” is the two word initiation, but we know an awful lot from it. You might say the initiation places us firmly in a “Doctor Checkup category scene,” or a “Doctor Checkup reality.” 

That means I should say things and to expect to hear things said to me that I would file in the “Doctor Check Up scene” category. See how that is like a word game?

As the game continues, maybe I say something about being a little worried about my blood pressure and maybe my scene partner says something about a supplement I might want to try. Because those things fit in the Doctor Checkup category.

Other things that might be mentioned without causing a stir? How about:

• How you feeling?

• Okay, roll up that sleeve for me, would you,.

• Open wide please, say “Ahh.” 

• I’ve been getting migraines.

• I’m worried this skin rash might be out of control.

• My back has been bothering me for weeks.

Since all of those moves fit comfortably within the Doctor Check Up reality, there is no need for a big reaction to any of them. We can simply sit within our existing reality and continue to say and do things that fit within it.

But what if the Doctor mentions D&D?

That he runs his office as though it were a D&D campaign and that as the exam continues his patient would be expected to roll abilities checks intermittently and that these roles would affect any diagnosis and potentially prescriptions?

Well that wouldn’t be a line that I would expect from a Doctor’s Checkup reality. I don't think someone would say something like that in a movie or tv show or book, not unless it was meant as a joke. For that reason, we must be entering a new reality, one that would have different types of things filed within it. We need to know more but generally it feels like we’re entering a kind of D&D or RPG Craze reality.

Things that might fit easily into this reality include:

• Okay, check up is over. Let's have you roll these dice to see how much I will charge you.

• Your blood pressure is really high, it could kill you. Let's do a stamina check to see if you survive.

• Doctor, I’d like to roll an inspiration point with my base die level to see if I understand how my health insurance plan works.

• You’re saying I can’t enter the exam room until I am unencumbered?

Notice that all the things that fit into this new reality feel kind of funny, while everything in the first reality was more humdrum. 

Most people refer to the transition between these realities as alternating between playing the game (our new reality) and resting or exploring the game via the base reality (our first reality). But I think it can be helpful to think of it as playing with realities or categories. Maybe it will help you to think of it this way sometimes too?

Note, all the same challenges you face when you first encounter an unusual thing await you when you find something that doesn’t fit within your original reality. You still need to react to that thing, decide if you are doing a matching or Straight Man / Crazy Man scene, you still need a justification and so on. Thinking of your scene this way isn’t magic, but I think it makes noticing what to react to and what not to react a little easier.

Sometimes.

I think the reason why is because improv is maybe easier when you aren’t judging everything from an actor’s point of view. For example, early in a scene a surprising thing happens, initiated by actor A. Actor B doesn’t react and when asked why says it didn’t feel truthful to him to react.

Okay so, I guess that’s good acting, but it is bad improv. It is also the kind of mistake I’m prone to make myself (because I primarily think of improv as an acting exercise, and I want to be truthful). Whereas thinking of your scene as playing with realities or as alternating between different categories lets you skip over all the traps inherent in being a truthful actor.

Let's take a look at the beginning of an imaginary scene that is approached from an actor’s perspective so we can examine some of the traps and pitfalls that await down this path. My thoughts in red!

Suggestion is: Ice Cream Sundae 

ACTOR A

My Sundae is delicious. Thanks for taking me to the ice cream parlor, Dad.

   Okay from an Actor’s point of view I love this initiation. I know pretty much the whole base reality, so now I can get straight to the acting. 

ACTOR B

Eh, my sundae could be better. They barely used any chocolate sauce.

   I see this kind of line a lot. Early in scenes most often, the introduction of an unnecessary problem. There is nothing funny about it but it seems valuable because it promises rising action.

   But if you pursue this course you’ll end up in a protracted problem solving mode that won’t feel like a comedy scene (unless, unless, unless… There are like a thousand exceptions, but I’m thinking in likelihoods here). 

   Still it is going to be very hard for a truthful actor scene partner not to follow that line up with a possible solution. Maybe, “I could get the waiter, see if he can get some more chocolate sauce.” And there you go, now you have a scene focused on getting an ice cream order fixed and I bet the waiter will be available but won’t have an easy solution.

   Whereas, if I am thinking of my scene as a Playing With Reality or Category Filing word game, well then reacting to the line “Eh, my sundae could be better. They barely used any chocolate sauce,” doesn’t feel tempting at all. Because someone not being happy with an ice cream order is something I would file in a Ice-Cream-Sundae-In-A-Diner category. 

   It doesn’t break my reality so I can just dance right over it. I’m not saying don’t acknowledge it, I’m just saying it is more obvious that you don’t need to focus on it.

Let’s look at another example that may be a little harder. Dealing with an accusation.

Suggestion is: Wall Street

ACTOR A

Quick Zach! Grab those files and follow me to the shredder! Federal Trade Commission inspectors are in the elevator.

   Super, love this clear initiation with a whole base reality. The circumstances are quite dramatic and probably feel entertaining, but I wouldn’t rely on initiations like this when I was just starting, because they have a way of becoming your whole scene.

ACTOR B

Oh great Brad, I have to destroy evidence because you have been stealing again.

   This is such a tricky line to respond to in improv. Lets take a second and acknowledge that this isn’t the sort of line we want to give our scene partner to work with as it is accusatory while not being in response to a comedic move or unusual thing. 

   Okay so we shouldn’t say lines like this, but who among could promise not to over a 60 minute set? Lets get honest, whoever can make that promise probably isn’t in your intermediate improv class. Improv comedy is dripping with accusatory, fight baiting lines, so it pays off to think about how to respond to them. 

   And I think someone wearing an actor’s hat is going to have an especially hard time with this line. They’ll have heard this deeply unfriendly assertion and they’ll want to respond to it truthfully, i.e. with more bickerish, fight oriented dialogue. Maybe they’ll feel drawn to it because of the drama the conflict promises or maybe they’ll feel the need to explain their character’s justification for greed, as actors often seem compelled to, or maybe they will just get lost in the fiction of it.

   But if we take that hat off and put on our playwright’s or director’s hat suddenly the line is just part of a collection of things one is liable to hear in a Wall Street Crooks Hiding Evidence category or reality. A rueful character resenting another for being a criminal? Sound like a humdrum item you are likely to hear which can therefore acknowledge without focusing on..

Eh, maybe I'll come back to this post and type out another example, but if I haven't gotten to it when you are reading this, imagine a scene where a character gets fired or informed they are flunking out of college. An actor led approach may get you lost in the given circumstances of that fiction, but thinking of the same scene as a category word game allows you to see that both pieces of bad news fit easily into your scene's first category. Imagine how well I wrote out those examples!

So that’s my pitch.

I love to approach improv as an actor, but there are advantages to viewing your scene as a director or playwright and I find that using a slight verbiage change helps me make that switch. Certainly don’t try this all of the time or even a lot of the time, but I would recommend experimenting with it some and seeing what you think!