Spontaneity
Awareness
Transformation

Chapter 7 Applied Improvisation Work

Who/where/what

The ‘who/where/what’ exercises stem primarily from the work of the American teacher of improvisation Viola Spolin.1 Keith Johnstone finds this technique unhelpful,2 but this is because his aims are different. We have found this approach most useful in the creation of a consistent piece. It concentrates the attention, and removes distractions, without limiting creativity. It gives the actor something to start with, and to build upon. Given either a ‘who’, a ‘where’ or a ‘what’, the actor can create the other two. Given nothing, the actor can still choose one of these and generate a consistent and coherent piece of improvisation. For example, the ‘who’ might be ‘a farmer’; this suggests the ‘where’ (for example, in a field) and the ‘what’ follows quite naturally (for example, planting potatoes). But the ‘who’ might just as easily be ‘yourself’, in the same field doing the same thing – or some other ‘where’ doing something else. Or the ‘who’ might be the character that one is developing in a formal, scripted play ‑, which can then be examined carefully in another context. The exercise asks that the imagination remain constant to the ‘set’ chosen or specified. If the ‘who’ is a king, the actor has a constant imaginative focus to return to; he must behave consistently like a king (and that, of course, implicitly involves status work too) or he must consciously choose to alter the imaginative set. One problem that the ‘who/where/what’ exercise can overcome is the automatic tendency of any group of inexperienced improvisers to ‘play for laughs’ at inappropriate moments – to make the scene as absurd and laughable as possible.

The reasons for doing this are fourfold. First of all, the actor hasn’t entered fully into the piece, either through not concentrating or not listening to what the other actors have created. Second, it’s a subtle but very aggressive form of ‘blocking’, which rejects the creativity of the other performers (effectively saying ‘NO’ by ironising their work). Third, it’s an easy way out, avoiding the responsibility of having to remain consistent and ‘true’ to the situation. Fourth, it evinces a deep insecurity about this type of work felt by the actor.

This fourth type of response is very common. In a scripted play, the actor has a set of reassurances to rely on: the rehearsal process, the learned moves and gestures, the other actors doing preordained things. Above all, the actor knows where he’s going; he knows what the outcome should be like, and works towards that.

In improvisation the actor doesn’t know where he’s going, and isn’t always comfortable going there. He isn’t at all sure that he doesn’t look very foolish. His defense against this can be to make the scene funny. It disarms criticism and, at the same time, gives the actor the reassurance that those watching accept that what he’s doing works (they laugh). He is reassured by a response, even the wrong response, from the audience or from his peers.

The ‘who/where/what’ discipline helps to remove these anxieties and these blocks. It gives the performer a reassuring and familiar structure within which to operate, and it also insists that the creativity keep within the logical bounds of the initial idea. It’s another way of taking pressure off, without losing genuine spontaneity.

It probably doesn’t suit Keith Johnstone’s freer ‘impro’ work; and its use is therefore limited to specific exercises on plays, or to the creation of sustained and ‘true-to-life’ scenes.

Objectives and resistances Improvisation workshops and rehearsal situations are a great means of teaching the fundamental principles of acting and dramatic theory. A group of students will almost always organically ‘discover’ many of the major theories of acting for themselves, among them the Stanislavskian idea of the ‘want’ or ‘intention’ and how to play it against the conflicting wants of other characters. This playing of ‘objectives and resistances’ can work in some very strange ways, and not only ways connected with Stanislavskian theatre.

For example, an actor wants to pass through a doorway. What might happen if the doorway (played by another actor) chose to resist him ‑ or if he imagined that it did? He would have to talk or fight his way through, or invent a way round or over the obstacle. Whenever a scene is flagging, or lacking in impact, it helps to devise or strengthen a resistance, and make the actors overcome it. This invariably produces new improvisations. The Stanislavskian terminology is very useful, keeping the ‘want’ active by shaping the idea (always using the most active verb possible) and getting the actor to concentrate on physical objectives.

Point of concentration (focus)

Viola Spolin uses the term ‘points of concentration’ (abbreviated to POC) as the focal point of her system. She regards it as the ‘ball’ with which the game is played. It is related to the idea of concentration of attention which we have already discussed, but disciplines the work and enables each exercise ‑ and each moment of performance ‑ to be worked on in isolation with the actor totally given to the moment and to the action being played. Most of her exercises have a specific POC to which the actor can attach himself, enabling the aspects of acting to be separated out and put together afresh (she also provides for evaluation of each exercise and gives the session leader a ‘point of observation’. For example, describing an ‘orientation session’ in which a single actor becomes involved with a large, entangling object, she writes:

POINT OF CONCENTRATION: on the selected object.

EXAMPLES: spider web, boa constrictor, tree branches in forest or jungle, octopus, parachute, man‑eating plant.

POINT OF OBSERVATION

Watch the wording when stating the POC to be certain that the player’s concentration is on the object and not on disentangling himself from the object. This is an important Applied Improvisation Work difference and one that comes up continuously throughout the work.3

Spolin’s work is highly systematised and at first may hardly seem to relate to Johnstone’s pure spontaneity of response. But she is concerned with focusing the individual performer very tightly onto the work at all moments during the training in order not only to liberate, but also to channel that spontaneity.

Recent Comments

Steve

July 21, 2014 | #

Gary,

Thanks for your thoughtful response. When writing such a blog piece or responding with comments it is hard to find the right prose to convey a clear and complete message without writing a novel. I guess that is a weakness or limitation of written language as a communication medium, particularly when it is not the length of a novel (even then, I’m sure “Truth in Comedy” is not a great reflection of Del Close’s work and talents). It’s the same as in an office environment – emails are a tawdry replacement for a conversation.

The problem with me expanding on Keith’s teaching is that it is like taking a masterpiece of Rembrandt and making a black-and-white photocopy. You may get the idea but you’ll lose a lot of the detail, and some of it is important. I have had the opportunity to work with Keith a number of times but am more influenced through extensive teaching with his protege, Patti Stiles – herself a brilliant teacher. It’s also been several years since I performed on stage so detail can be lost over time. And I have never had training with someone who worked with Spolin – the closest to that type of lineage was via Randy Dixon (another great teacher). It’s also difficult to know what kind of improvised theatre Keith likes as I got the impression he only liked it when he was directing. 🙂

So with that in mind…

Theatresports is an example of the ‘Chinese Whispers’ effect of imitating Keith’s work without understanding the context of why he created the format. He wanted people to be as passionate about theatre as they were at a sporting event. Hence, theatre sports was born. But the competition is for the audience, not the players. It is to provide those watching to have an emotional investment in the scenes, in the show, in the players. The players themselves are only playing competition – not actually competing against each other. Devices such as judges and horns were created for specific reasons. For example, one benefit of having judges was the ability for them to draw heat/emotion from the audience; one benefit of having a horn is to ‘kill the scene before it dies’. If people are concerned about ‘winning’ or ‘stage time’ then it goes completely against what Johnstone was trying to create (and teach). Other formats such Gorilla Theatre and Micetro have ‘playing competition’ but were created to address different needs/desires. I assume you already have some understanding of this given your previous post.

The training game ‘Yes and…’ is again an example of ‘Chinese Whispers’ if not taken in the right context. Keith identified several ways in which actors reacted out of fear/self-censorship. Fear is a killer of spontaneity and being present in the moment. He used words such as blocking, wimping and shelving to to describe these behaviours. The ‘No’,’Yes but’, ‘Yes and’ constructs are essentially beginner games to demonstrate such behaviours. Once the principles are understood one can then move to ‘yes lets’, ‘happy nopes’, ‘dolphin training’ (the latter two I learned via Patti Stiles) and other games. It’s easy to pick up “Impro for Storytellers” and play games he has created, but if you don’t understand WHY he created them then you don’t receive the insights he was trying to teach. Many were all about addressing fear and helping actors be in the present/moment.

I get the impression that Johnstone, given he was a theatre director and playwright, had more focus on storytelling (in comparison to Spolin). Hence, his work related to the ‘circle of expectations’ and ‘platforms and tilts’ helps to provide mechanisms for an improvisor to create a cohesive narrative; once learned they can become second nature (or intuitive). Even his work on status is relevant to narrative. But much of his training, particularly for the beginner, is focused on spontaneity – being in the moment. This should not be forgotten.

An example of this (not applied on stage), Keith was once interviewed over the phone. While being asked questions on the telephone he was filling out a crossword puzzle so as to provide a more spontaneous and honest response to questions. About half way through the interview a sound technician commented on some scratching sounds – due the pencil he was using – so he stopped filling out the crossword. According to Keith’s account the second half of the interview was not nearly as strong as the first half.

Although I have done very limited mask work, it’s also important to consider Johnstone’s work and thinking in this area. Perhaps it is an area where Spolin and Johnstone converge in their thinking (even if not obvious), as mask work touches on a more primordial form of improvisation – something that tribes/pre-industrial cultures have been using for millenia. For example, taken from Psychology for Performing Artists (Glenn D. Wilson):

“Many drama theorists (for example, Cole 1975) maintain that shamanism is the central ingredient to theatre. The essence of true drama, they say, is not just the reproduction of mundane social reality, but the presentation of a different order – one that is supernatural, surreal, or ‘marvellous’.”

To me the format of a Harold lends itself closer to this type of experience more than a format like Theatresports – but the difference lies more in the show format than in the teaching methods or intentions. Maybe after all that rambling I have finally discovered a point to this post; perhaps the two are compared more by show formats they inspired rather than their teaching methods?

It’s also worth keeping in mind that Jacob Moreno was working in Vienna decades before both Spolin and Johnstone, so there are other ‘schools of improvisation’, methods and thinking to explore.

Gary Schwartz

July 19, 2014 | #

Steven,
I agree Keith and Viola are after the same thing. The approach differs dramatically. As founders of two different schools, their work immediately becomes subject to adulteration and Keith’s has too. Luckily he is still around to set people straight. Even Keith states that he cannot bear to see TheaterSports.
What Improvisation is according to the likes of Keith and Spolin and Spolin’s disciples like Del Close, has been interpreted and often are deconstructions. i.e., oversimplifications to achieve a certain result, neither Spolin or Johnstone desires. I point it out in this list. Keith and his disciples, I’m sure work to correct it as best they can. I too am trying via http://www.spolingamesonline.org. I freely admit this is my interpretation of Spolin’s ideas, but I worked with her the longest and do my best to be faithful to the principles she taught me.

I admire Keith’s honesty and vision. Johnstone’s path to the source of spontaneity is different than Spolin’s. It relies on a different concept of intuitive response, a different theatricality and understanding of the profundity of things like The Space. Competition is addressed in TheaterSports as a convention for the audience, but it’s often misunderstood and results in incorporating conventions like judging, picking apart narrative, and creating theater. Other Johnstone constructions address this. TheaterSports is to Johnstone as Second City, IO and UCB are to Spolin.
Since I am not a disciple of Keith’s my understanding is limited to reading his books, taking one day-long workshop with him and being in a TheaterSports based troupe for eight years.

I maintain that Spolin’s approach to the intuition and the unknown as applied to theater is more direct, albeit less understood in its practice.
I will admit to simplifying both Johnstone’s ideas as I know them and Spolin’s to create a provocative discussion.

Much light needs to shed on both philosophies to arrive at the elusive, evanescent thing that is at the core of Improvisation.
I would love to have you write more on what you believe Keith Johnstone is after, philosophically and practically.
Thank you for your post.

Steve

July 18, 2014 | #

This by in large is a piece worth reading but the work of Johnstone is severely misrepresented to the point of being unrepresentative (i.e., false representation).

The table of comparisons is either a distortion or dumbing down of Keith’s teaching. It’s also a misunderstanding of how Theatresports is taught by Keith, as competition is for the audience not the players.

To paraphrase someone who worked with both Keith and Del Close (how lucky is that!), they have/had the same core values but approach them in different ways. If one connects more with one particular approach, it does not devalue or invalidate the other. It is a personal journey – much like a spiritual path is different for different individuals.

Having said that, I love the Follow the Follower game and the principles underpinning it. It is one of the most powerful theatre games I have learned and use it outside of the context of theatre.