Spontaneity
Awareness
Transformation

Where Did Hollywood Rep

Improv: Where Did You Come From & What Are You Doing in My Living Room?

From the Hollywood Reporter Comedy Special Report.
January 26, 1988

BY BRUCE BEBB

The improvisational theater movement began in Chicago in the summer of 1955. A bunch of young people started a project called the Compass. Led by a couple of young directors with offbeat ideas, David Shepherd and Paul Sills, they put on shows that were different each night. Shepherd wanted to work in a manner distantly related to the commedia dell’arte of Renaissance Italy and France, doing topical satire without a set script. Sills brought a background of years of playing theater games under the tutelage of his mother, Viola Spolin.

Sills went on to form the Premise and Second City, which spawned the Committee, which gave birth to such troupes as the Wing and the Synergy Trust. Together these companies helped shape hundreds of’ performers, among them Mike Nichols, Elaine May, Alan Alda, Barbara Harris, Dick Schaal, Valerie Harper, Del Close, Severn Darden, Stiller and Meara, Shelley Berman, Joan Rivers, Lewis Arquette, George Segal, Howard Storm, David Steinberg, Gilda Radner, Peter Bonerz, Henry Jaglom, Paul Mazursky, Robert Benedetti, John and Jim Belushi, Robert Klein Ron Liebman, Shelley Long: Harold Ramis, Avery Schreiber, Martin Short, Betty Thomas John Candy, Bill Murray, Carl Gottlieb, Richard Libertini, Rob Reiner, Felton Perry, Howard Hesseman and many, many more.

Sills’ mother, Viola Spolin, didn’t set out to foster any sort of, new movement in the American theater, let alone one that would eventually surpass Stanislavski’s influence. (“The first time I met Viola,” Howard Hesseman a former Committee member and current star of ABC’s “Head of the Class,” recalls, “was after a show, and she told me she liked my work. That was such a stroke it was like Zeus reaching down and saying, ‘You’re pretty good.’ “) Spolin started in the 1920s, working with a Northwestern University sociologist, Neva L. Boyd, who founded a school at Chicago’s Hull House. According to Spolin, Boyd’s teachings provided “an extraordinary training in the use of games, story-telling, folk dance and dramatics as tools for stimulating creative expression in both children and adults, through self discovery and personal experiencing.

After the Depression hit, Spolin went from Hull House to a WPA payroll, teaching theater skills to people who would, in turn, become teacher-directors in neighborhood work. In the ’40s, she moved to Hollywood, where she still lives today. She established a group called the Young Actors Company and continued to refine and expand her concepts and techniques for developing stage skills. New ideas came out of practice, and a new vocabulary. For years she used the method simply prepare actors for traditional stage plays. Then, on a trip back to Chicago, she saw how her son wits using theater games combined with suggestions from tire audience to create professional entertainment.

Spolin had had a book drafted for publication for years. It took Second City’s success to prompt her to revise the manuscript into a final draft. “Improvisation for the Theater,” published by Northwestern University Press, has since become the bible of the movement.

But it isn’t the only force at work, and like; my classic it can be interpreted from a variety of’ perspectives. “The improv that is the way for me is the idea of support,” says Felton Perry, who performed with Second City’s touring company and later was a member‑ of the Synergy Trust; today fie co-stars on ABC’s “Hooperman. ” Perry adds, “It probably helped tire to deal with whatever kind of big ego I would have had, you know, ‘I’m a star, I’m a star.’ It’s the idea of’, ‘If I’m a sky, then I can be a star.’ I can support. Once you’ve go (trust going, and everybody feels good, you start going into areas that you never would get ‘into if you were operating off’ of’ that ego trip or star paranoia. “

Perry says not all improvisers work according to Spolin’s theories, ”I’ve been told, ‘OK people, let’s improv the scene,’ and I’m ready to improv as I’ve been taught with support, to give to the other person, and a lot of times improv seems to a lot of people to be hostility. They operate off Plenty of “Me-me-me.’ What happens on stage will never get past a certain point because there’s not a whole lot of trust up there.” Hesseman agrees. “I frequently find it disturbing, particularly in Hollywood, ” he says. “Over and over I see people sacrificing a scene for the sake of maybe getting a job from someone who might be out there in the audience. I see them trash a scene in order to get focus for themselves to show how clever they are. They leave their fellow actors in the lurch and the scene just sort of disappears. ” What has improvisational training done for their work in television and films’ “The awareness that improvisation requires just seems to sort of form a checklist in your head, ” Perry says. “You look around and check things off’. Your awareness is heightened. Which makes what we’re doing with the show so great. You know Barbara Bosson (co-star of” Hooperman’) was with the Committee. I just love to watch Barbara work, because the support makes everything else possible.”

Hesseman says the fundamentals carry through to all of his work. “One value is the absolute necessity of learning to really listen when another actor is saying something, and to really see what another actor is doing in front of you. Allen Myerson (director of the Committee) used to talk about being able to have a sensory impression of 360′, all the way around you. You gotta know what the actor’s doing behind your back. That stuff is really helpful, because it keeps attuning you to the myriad possibilities that any moment offers you in life and as an actor.

“It was Viola’s contention that rather than stand and act and emote and indicate all of this stuff, that in life you generally have a task at hand that you are trying to complete. In other words, we are really doing something while we’re talking to people, and our objectives are not always right on the surface. With theater games training, you start learning there are ways to free yourself so that there is some spontaneity in what you do, and it’s the truest you that is in the scene — not some concept of what people will like and what will get you a job if you do this well.”

The seeds planted by Viola Spolin, and by David Shepherd and Paul Sills, went deep. Nobody can say just how far they spread, but the scores of improv groups all over the country are their direct descendants, and many of the best TV series, such as “Cheers” and “Barney Miller,” are closely related as well. The ideas in “Improvisation for the Theater” are not simply different from familiar notions; in many cases they are contrary to hallowed educational practices. Anybody who reads the book and tries to put its lessons to work will never be the same.

From the Hollywood Reporter Comedy Special Report. January 26, 1988

"Make the invisible VISIBLE!" - Viola Spolin

“…when intuition enters into our work we must know how not to interfere.”
- Constantin Stanislavsky

"The integrated human being will come to technique through experiencing, for the creative impulse makes its own technique--and that is the greatest art. When a child has the creative impulse to paint, he paints; he does not bother about technique. Likewise people who are experiencing, and therefore teaching, are the only real teachers, and they too will create their own technique."
- J. Krishnamurti
from Education and the Significance of Life.

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.