Hey. So, if you’ve not already heard I’m running Improv as a part of NTW TEAM from Nov 6^th, and have been attending a  Improvisation course in Bristol run by the lovely Tristan Hancock, and telling you all about it. As best I can.

Week 2 – Thursday 11^th October

This week I’d overcome my cold, so was instead faced with battering winds and rain throughout my journey, but protected by my extremely fashionable Mac and waterproof trousers I came off okay. My feet were soaked, but everything else was fine.

            Anyway, on to the actual workshop. We begun by telling each other how we were feeling, which again sounds hippy, but is so simple and productive. Straightaway you know if someone is having a crappy day, why, and so can be a bit sensitive and avoid any areas that are likely to make things worse. At the same time it allowed Tristan to reaffirm that if you engage with the work he guarantees that you’ll feel better. Also, sometimes it’s just nice to be honest and not have to put on a smile if you’re having a bad day. If you admit your having a rough time, then you can be cheered up. If you pretend to be happy, no one’s going to know.

            First exercise was ‘Yes, lets’. Everyone gets up on stage, somebody makes a suggestion about what to do, we all shout ‘Yes’ and do it. But here’s the catch: if the suggestion doesn’t make you excited, and for any reason you just don’t want to do it, you sit down. This can be a bit controversial amongst improvisers (we can be very particular about our methods) as it means saying no to an idea. But in this particular exercise it’s all about finding what your group likes and doesn’t like, and what works in a chain of ideas, and is a useful way of seeing how an audience reacts to the series of events in a story. The important thing is for people to remember when they sat down and why, so that when the exercise ends we can discuss what works and what doesn’t (we found that very different ideas or activities with very different energy levels – kneeling in a power pose to being a monkey – often put people off).

            After that we proceeded to ‘What comes next’. The idea here is an actor stands on stage, and you split the group into two halves – one as the audience, the other to supply the actor with ideas. So all the actor has to do is ask his team, ‘What comes next?’, they have a minute to find an idea, they then pitch it to the audience, who Yay or Boo, if it’s a Yay we proceed, if a Boo they must find a new idea. Once again we’re working out what doesn’t work and what does. In our group (I was the actor) we began with A Russian Gymnast doing his routine. After a few suggestions got Booed, we proceeded with the Gymnast ripping his costume, feeling embarrassed, and going to the changing room to cry. Now, this has the typical ingredients for Improv Melodrama, playing it outwardly and trying to make the audience laugh. But Tristan did some wonderful coaching here by having me stop and make myself feel very vulnerable, and adjust the scene as it progressed. First I opened the door to the changing room and went for feeling distraught, but Tristan stopped me and asked ‘What would I do if I had just fucked up 20 years of work?’. So I went back, slammed open the door, got angry and cursed and then cried. Crazy fun. It really affirmed what I believe Improv should strive for, comedy can arise from many sources, but we should never force it, we should always try to act truthfully, and shouldn’t be afraid of improvising the serious, the natural drama of life. After all acting is about allowing yourself to be vulnerable onstage, and is especially important in Improv.

            Then we pretty much played ‘Gibberish Interpretation’ until the end of the session. An absolutely awesome game. On a table onstage you have three people, two gibberish speakers at either end of the table and an interpreter in the middle. Each gibberish speaker uses a different language, and can only understand what the interpreter relates in English. So just to summarise, person 1 speaks in gibberish to the interpreter, the interpreter tells person 2 what person 1 said, and person 2 replies. Essentially what the games does (amongst other things) is confine the gibberish speakers to communication by emotion, and gives the interpreter the substance of the scene, but the interpreter must still take leads from the implied meanings of the gibberish. It is amazing how well it works in practice, and is so enjoyable to watch. We each took a turn in all positions and by the end must have spent over an hour on the exercise, but it whizzed by. (Apparently no one uses the word Whizz anymore, but I just don’t care).

            And finally, we ended by partnering up, looking into each other eyes, and telling each other the emotions we were sensing from the other person. We did this for about ten minutes, and it is really fascinating the subtle changes you note in another person, and just tuning yourself into connecting with somebody else.

            Wow, again long, I apologise, but there are lots of details for people to mull over (including myself).

Until next time, peace out

Charlie Hammond