Improspectives

Improv skills lead to success

Posts Tagged ‘live performance

Never Lie, Especially Not to Yourself

leave a comment »

In improv, like other arts, the audience wants to see a glimpse of the performers’ true selves. Those expectations make it difficult to deliver a truly satisfying performance when you’re not honest with yourself. That means being honest about your likes, dislikes, habits, crutches, and motives. It also means of being honest about whether you succeeded and to what extent.

Outside of the improv context, I have found it very useful to be completely honest with myself and others about whether I win or lose money when I play poker. I used to play pretty seriously, heading to Atlantic City or Vegas several times a year. Yes, this was before I got married. In the mid to late 90s I was a consistent winner, mainly because poker was just starting to get popular and my skills were a couple of years ahead of the pack. As time went by, the field got tougher and my results suffered. I analyzed my play, decided I no longer wanted to work hard enough to stay ahead of the game, and made the transition to playing recreationally.

I monitored my own play and results, and of course you should as well for whatever you do, but most improv groups have someone who is in charge of giving notes or notes are offered in a group session after a performance. Performers are expected to accept the notes, evaluate them, and incorporate them into their work. Improv notes, like performance reviews in an office setting, have a strong subjective element. Poker wins and losses, though of course guided in part by luck, are much more straightforward. If you leave with more money than you brought, you are a winner.

Where most performers, business people, and poker players trip up is by lying about how they did. Pretty soon the little white lies that save your reputation create cognitive dissonance, especially when someone sees a show or watches you play cards and the results don’t match the image you’re projecting. This realization can strain a friendship or promote distrust among colleagues.

My rule is to never lie to anyone, especially myself, about my performance. I don’t care if it’s about my work on stage, my writing, or at the poker table. I reserve the right not to answer a question (unless my wife asks, she gets to know everything), but I will never lie. This policy keeps cognitive dissonance to a minimum and forces me to deal with unfavorable results. That sounds pretty grim, but it also means I get to revel in what I do right.

Improv and Control

leave a comment »

This post is the second in my series on learning about improv from non-improv authors. My current favorite book of that type is Matthew Frederick’s 101 Things I Learned in Architecture School, in which Frederick has some very useful thoughts on control and the creative process.

Kinesthesiologists refer to walking as “controlled falling.” To move forward, you must first unbalance your body and then catch yourself before you hit the ground. This basic human activity illustrates our lives perfectly. Not only must we create an imbalance to make progress; we have to do so repeatedly. In a similar vein, human existence is about the struggle to control one’s environment. Whether you arrange your work area so you’re comfortable or you go after a job, you think will make you happy, you’re fighting for control.

Improv groups that rely on a single, more or less controlling individual can do good work, but in many cases the group’s performances will be something less than the sum of its parts. As Frederick points out, “properly gaining control of the design process tends to feel like one is losing control of the design process.” In another context, racing great Mario Andretti said, “If everything seems under control, you’re not going fast enough.” Improv teams are just like other groups in that everyone is responsible for everyone else’s success. When a performer makes a choice on stage, it is everyone’s job to make that choice work.

In relation to architectural design, Frederick says that every choice must be justified in at least two ways. In improv, justification means incorporating an offer into a scene. There are times when players make multiple offers and only one can be taken up, or someone could make an offer that truly can’t be incorporated without wrecking the scene, but among experienced players those incidents are exceedingly rare. Yes, you always want to make great offers, but Frederick argues that a beautiful composition is the result of a harmonious relationship among the design elements, not a grouping of the most beautiful elements available.

Welcome to Improspectives

leave a comment »

Thanks for joining the conversation at Improspectives. I’ll post articles that touch on communication, improv, and business. Of course, if you’ve read my book, you already know I believe those three things are inextricably related.

I started Improspectives with a discussion of what improv is and isn’t. It’s always interesting to see how non-performers relate to improv, especially when they identify something as improv when it’s actually a scripted performance.

This February 18, 2010 article on CNN reinforces the benefits of improv in the office. http://www.cnn.com/2010/BUSINESS/02/18/improvisation.business.skills/index.html One interesting thing about the article is the first image in the accompanying photos. The picture lists stand-up comedian Robin Williams as a brilliant improviser. Williams is a brilliant performer who uses improv to develop his material, but he rarely improvises during important performances. Most of his seemingly impromptu forays into the crowd during his HBO specials were planned in advance so the camera operators would know what to expect. The hilarious radio sequences in Good Morning Vietnam were improvised, but they were the product of much more work than the two or three minutes of material that made it to the screen.

Live performances are extremely demanding, but the audience also tends to be more forgiving because they know the performers get one shot and that’s it. Television and film audiences have higher standards because they know the performers have more than one chance to make something great.

Written by curtisfrye

April 12, 2012 at 9:06 pm