Spontaneity
Awareness
Transformation

PAUL SILLS

PAUL SILLS 1927-2008
Paul Sills was the son of Viola Spolin and through his urging and vision, he persuaded his mother to come to Chicago and work her magic on what would become the company that brought Improvisation into being.

Without his unyielding insistence that his players stay focused and true to the possibility of real spontaneity, there would have never been the Second City or Story Theater or Spolin’s “Improvisation for the Theater”.

He truly understood the philosophy his mother created and he tirelessly sought to bring it into the theater and the lives of so many.

The work will continue through his students and family and myself.

Gary Schwartz 2008

Comments (1)

Joana

November 10, 2012 at 11:11 pm | #

I as taught the Yes and tehqcinue years ago in an Imaginuity workshop taught by McNair Wilson. It was deep insight into how the Disney people used the process to keep ideas flowing. I incorporated into my Youth Ministry Team meetings to the point that while we were brainstorming ideas if you didn’t begin you sentence with yes and you had to contribute $1 to our Compassion Jar. It really does work in most every aspect of life! Great article!

Reply

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.

Comments (1)

Leave a comment