7th
Guest Writer: Ian Parizot (Paris)
Here’s the third guest piece in our new weekly series. Each Monday we’ll have a new guest dropping by with some thoughts on improv. So, ladies and gentlemen: Paris’s Ian Parizot.
Ian Parizot is our guest this week. He is a member of the French improv troupe “Eux” (which “imported” a bunch of formats in a Match d’Impro-dominated France), an improv nerd and a Johnstone enthusiast. As any good Frenchman, he likes theory and ideals a little too much. He blogs (sometimes in English) his impro thoughts and rants at http://improviser.fr/blog
Main differences between the Keith Johnstone and Del Close styles (in my opinion) – Or why I think it’s important to focus on one style
Like many improvisers, I try to learn from as many teachers as I can. Looking to learn more, but lacking teachers, I delved in as many improvisation and acting theory books as I could. For better or worse, I became an improvisation geek. I am now aware that there are different “families” in improvisation, and that they are more or less related : the heritage of the Commedia Dell’Arte, Jacques Copeau and his work on movement and improvisation, Jacob Levy-Moreno and Psychodrama, Viola Spolin and Theatre Games, the Second City style, Del Close and the Harold, Keith Johnstone and TheatreSports, Augusto Boal and Forum Theatre, Robert Gravel and Match d’Impro, The Annoyance Style. And by no means is this list exhaustive.
Many improvisers today are encouraged to learn and explore as many different styles as possible, and even to cherry-pick things from the various improvisation families and create their own “personal style.”
Yet is that possible? Although some argue that the basis to all improv theory is the same – take for example the ‘yes-and’ rule – and that improvisers from different styles will always manage to improvise together at, say, international festivals, I have actually found it very difficult to bring together the teachings of different styles. Of course there are contradictions between styles. This seems natural. Improvisation theories often even contradict themselves.
But are these contradictions superficial or are they actually more profound? My personal opinion is that yes, they are very deep. Irreconciliable, even.
The Keith Johnstone style is most popular in Canada, England, Eastern and Northern Europe and Oceania. The Del Close style is most popular in the United States. Yet, I am finding that more and more groups from the Keith Johnstone style are turning to long-form improvisation and starting to perform Harolds. Conversely, I know that a lot of American groups are very well aware of Keith Johnstone, often quoting his status theory.
Given that these styles are bound to overlap, is a synthesis actually possible? Is it beneficial to the performer? Or should he dedicate himself to one style? I am by no means an expert in either styles (merely an apprentice), but for the purpose of discussion, I’ll lay down the main contrasting points in my opinion. A lot of this is based the various maxims and principles that one style or the other encourage, and these, however partial or truncated, often constitute the basis upon which improvisers base themselves to evaluate their work and monitor their progress. I apologize in advance if this seems reductive, but these accounts are based on my readings (books and blogs) and my talking with performers at workshops, shows and festivals. Here are the five main points on which I believe the Keith Johnstone style and the Harold style go in opposite directions.
- Dealing with content and narrative
The Keith Johnstone style clearly puts an emphasis on storytelling. Scenes should first and foremost be stories. A lot of the learning process actually consists in learning how to tell a story, how to set up a platform and how to interrupt routines. Scenes achieve “point” through reincorporation. Action is defined by the “change” the characters experience. The theory doesn’t simply insist on structure but it tends to develops the performers sensitivity to “what the scene needs” which requires performers to balance being in the moment and asking themselves what the story needs. On the other end, Harold performers put the emphasis on character relationships and heightening the specificity of this relationship. Point is achieved by finding the truth that a particular relationship expresses through its own peculiarities. They are also told that they shouldn’t focus on plot.
- Dealing with failure
Failure is by definition an important part of improvisation. The Keith Johnstone formats tend to underline failure (by giving a “bad” scene a low score or requiring “forfeits”) and teach performers to fail gracefully. Harolds seems to focus on integrating “mistakes” in the show following the saying that “there are no mistakes in improv” and reinforcing the necessity of having a “Group Mind.”
- Dealing with structure
Can you improvise structure? I often heard in Chicago the quote (attributed to Del Close), that “each suggestion should generate its own form.” Improvisation is more and more seen as something that should be “organic,” meaning that it should generate itself from the smallest inspiration and with as little outside input as possible (“manufacturing”). On the other end of the axis, the Keith Johnstone formats are more structured (though you could argue the 3 x 3 Harold is, too), and tend to focus on variety within the different scene units as opposed to variety in the show structure.
- Dealing with spontaneity and creativity
Keith Johnstone is famous for yelling out “Be obvious” to his performers and for defining the notion of “circle of probabilities”. Harold improvisers are taught to “find the first unusual thing” and “play at the top of their intelligence”.
- Dealing with laughter and feedback
I have often heard Harold performers judge themselves and their partners by how “funny” they are. Yet at the same time, “do not try to be funny” is a common advice. Laughter is considered an important part of feedback. On the other hand, Keith Johnstone style advocates that a laugh (gag) often kills the story and that “laughter misleads.”
In the end, these five points constitute core points on which each style actually makes important statements. These statements have a major influence on what each style is trying to accomplish through the presentation of improvised bits on stage in front of an audience. With different goals and different means to achieve them, I think that establishing a common reference in a group is necessary. Although I love performers who are open to different styles, I find it actually easier and more satisfying to improvise with people who share a common culture. The process is shared, and the product gets better.
Notes :
- On the specific KJ vs. DC debate, you might want to check this old post on the Austin Improv website which makes a good summary of the main differences (probably doing better than this guest post).
- These short interviews can also give an interesting insight on what different styles focus on.
Previous guests: Rachel Klein, Dave Morris, From the old blog
