Improvoker

Dear Improv Diary,

As I’ve talked about earlier, Improv 201 at UCB is a very different change of gears from Improv 101. I believe this is mainly due to the move from single scenes toward the linked long form “Harold” scene work. 201 is a lot more cerebral than 101.

The other day while exploring second beats, our teacher, Jon Daly, said something which resonated with me that I thought I would share with you. A second beat in long form, is a continuation of the game from a first group of scenes, not a continuation of the plot. Confusing? How about an example?

Last Harold night one team, T.R.U.C.K.S., had a very clear game in the scene, which I will try to relate as accurately as possible. A couple sat down for dinner and the woman starts the scene off by explaining that a few months back a tryst they had together, had gotten her pregnant. Her partner started in with a game, basically not paying attention, or connecting to what she was saying. As much as she tried to tell him that she was pregnant, he would always interrupt her and talk about his rough work day and ordering a drink. The second beat of this scene, she was the director of a movie, but everybody asking questions at the premier asked them to the stunt man (The man from beat 1) and ignored her responses, finally ending in an interviewer (from what I remember) interrupting her to talk about his day.

I had a few drinks, so my recall is a little shaky.

The game of the scene is key, not the plot. Del often talked about the relationships between people in improv being important. In it’s purest form improv is the relationship of 2 improvisors on stage. Finding the beat is the beginning of moving towards the Harold.

After reading this entry, it appears I may have to flesh it out a bit more. Does this explanation make sense to anyone?