Does Everyone In Your Show Need To Have The Same Motivation For It To Work?

Linda and James debate whether an improv show can still be successful if the players have different motivations. 

Have a question or Improv related topic you'd like to hear us discuss? Send a short email to LindaTellsJames@gmail.com

A new episode every Tuesday! 

Transcript

Linda 0:06

James is over there. Hi. And I'm over here. And I'm Linda. Um I'm James. And uh this is a podcast called Linda Tells James He's Wrong About Improv. Firstly, James said, don't do an introduction. At which point I said, wrong. I'm gonna do one.

James 0:24

I have. Well, I mean, that's the number one rule of improv, isn't it? Is is wrong and wrong.

Linda 0:30

It's wrong and I'm gonna do whatever. Try again. Do better. Read the script. Yes, etc. Anyway, welcome everybody. Um, this is literally a podcast where James and I talk about improv and uh we pose questions to each other and I tell him he's wrong. Um, although I love him dearly, and I occasionally tell him he's right. Um that wouldn't make a very good podcast, would it? Uh I will just be honest with you, James. That's all.

James 0:56

Yeah, I think that's I think that's that's the least and the most we can do.

Speaker 1:01

That's right. Um uh we will be discussing things that hopefully are pertinent to those of you who love improvisation, improvised theatre, the whole kooky cookie world of improv magic.

Speaker 1 1:15

Yeah, and maybe and maybe I mean I I I do think though that a lot of these improv rules can be applied to everyday situations.

Speaker 1:24

Wrong. No, I'm joking. He's absolutely right. They can be, of course. Because we all know uh assuming that I'm talking to improvisers, uh you may not know. You may be I don't know, someone on the bus who accidentally chose a random podcast. Yeah, there may be I don't know. There's a Spotify shuffle or something. Uh that's right. Surprise podcast of the day. Um the rules, rules, so not really rules, but what what would you say they are? Heuristics. Heuristics of improv, listening, um, accepting, um building, building, uh, plumbing, bricklaying, all the things. Improv improvement, home improvement.

Speaker 1 2:09

Um that was the other that was the other potential title for the podcast.

Speaker 2:14

No, we crossed that off because that's wrong. All right, James. Now I have a question to pose to you.

Speaker 1 2:21

Cool.

Speaker 2:22

Um, as we will be doing every episode. Uh, I'll kick it off because I had a thought the other day that um uh people's reasons uh for doing improvisation is is different, right? Everyone comes to improv for a different reason. So I'm wondering how important do you think it is for everyone to have the same motivation when you're doing a show? If you have a cast who have of improvisers who are coming to it for completely different reasons, when you're doing a show, how do you think that um uh reflects in the show or is relevant to the outcome of the show?

Speaker 1 3:04

Yeah, I think I mean I I I think it's paramount. I mean, I think that setting up what the um playing field is beforehand is is one of the most important things you can do. But it does make me think of when I think of situations that require that, like a director in a play, or you know, you're you're a project manager and you're running a project, that always there always is a clear leader. So then it kind of comes back to my then then my question, I guess, for you is can you kind of do improv without a leader? Like can you have truly egalitarian improv?

Speaker 3:44

Yes, you can do improv, but can you do a show successfully only if everyone's on the same page? And that's that comes to the show. That's what you mean by success. Well, see so just to clarify for people, so when I say that people come to improv for different reasons, we're talking about some people may and and I'm also asking this question because improv is a small world, and when you're casting for shows, particularly here in Sydney, you draw from whoever usually is available and interested and and ready to invest their time um in doing creating this thing. So you'll have people who are just have come to improv and um because it's their um release from work, um, it's their fun playtime and they don't have to stress about life or anything. You'll come to improv for people who want to um uh explore their acting abilities, or are actors who want to um uh increase their skill level, or you'll come to people will come to improv because they um uh really like the art form and want to be playful and want to see what they're capable of doing, like the idea of creating something out of nothing, etc. So if you have those who let's say have a more of an artistic um angle that they've they've you know they've come to improv with this more artistic creative angle, and then there are those who have come to improv for a more um uh everyday, you know, de-stressing um angle. Um when you put them all in a show together, it's gonna affect the outcome of the show, yeah, isn't it?

Speaker 1 5:29

Yeah, no, I I no I would totally agree, but but I think that then my question is well whose show is it? Because I think if if it's the group's show and they've come together, then they all have an equal say on how the I guess even then though it's kind of requires a um agreed upon idea. Right. Could you do I guess is another question, could you Peter Brooks it and kind of throw a whole bunch of different improvisers from around the world into a show?

Speaker 6:00

And could they all Which is what they do at a festival often. You'll get a bunch of improvisers who who only know each other for 20 minutes and they're all lumped in a show and they come from different areas of the world.

Speaker 1 6:12

Um fundamentally, right, if they're if if they're obeying the core tenant of being open to offers, in theory they could be open to every offer. Right. And then it could work, in theory, right? But I don't think it does.

Speaker 6:29

Wait, wait, wait, back back back up a bit. Okay.

Speaker 1 6:32

Sorry, I'm playing the advocate for the devil's devil's advocate.

Speaker 6:36

Wrong. Um so it okay, so elaborate on that a little bit a little bit more. Break it break that down a bit.

Speaker 1 6:46

Um which one?

Speaker 6:48

The last thing you said.

Speaker 1 6:50

Do we need to rewind because I've been it so we could like the idea that we could throw like a whole bunch of uh improvisers from different training backgrounds and um worldviews of improv into a show, yeah.

Speaker 7:10

And if they all were open enough, right, because they still have to be in the show because they want to um fulfill the d the director or show leader's vision of what they they want the show to be.

Speaker 1 7:22

But I mean that's my question. But but I mean I would say then is there a director? Or does there have to be a director? Because then that kind of because I don't think that's necessarily then pertains to improv, right? Or only improv. Because then that's kind of any project, right? Like if a project manager, if people aren't gonna do what the project manager wants to do, or they don't set up a good enough vision that it'll implode. But I think with improv, because people one of the fundamental tenets is to be open to offers. I'm now wondering if that's actually the only uh venture that would be possible where everybody comes from different places, there's no leader, and they um all have different goals, and it still could work.

Speaker 8:07

Okay. Um yeah, I think you're right. Oh my god, I think you're right. Quickly have to rename the podcast. But I mean I don't know.

Speaker 1 8:16

I mean, like, what's the wrong thing about Yeah, it's the whole thing about the like the the world's worst improviser kind of thing. Like if you do a scene and you're like, oh hey, hey, Greg, I love being in your candy store, and then they reply with, I'm not Greg, I'm Daniel, and we're on a plane. You can work, you have you can work with that, right? And you can make that a thing. So even if you had someone sabotaging the show, it would still be able to go ahead. Yeah, yeah. Like it it could could it? I mean, would it be successful?

Speaker 8:47

Would it be successful? Now that's a loaded word because what's successful? Yeah, yeah. But would it meet the idea the um expectation of the creators of the show? I guess is what I mean by successful.

Speaker 1 8:59

This is interesting because you keep on coming back to creators and director and stuff.

Speaker 9:02

Well, this is what I'm because I think there needs to be um, even if there's not one person telling everyone what this their vision of the show is, for example, we're doing let's let's keep it basic, we're doing a a film noir style improvised show. You've all got to have an agreement as to what that means. Oh, we're doing a film noir show. Oh, yeah, we know what film noir is. Okay, you can't have someone do there's got to be an agreement about something. Yes, unless the show's agreement simply is we're just gonna do anything, we'll get a word from the audience and we'll just do whatever, you know, if we break into song or whatever, whatever. If but the agreement is that that's what the show is. It's an open show where you do anything. It's still an agreement.

Speaker 1 9:48

Yes, but you still could have people Don't But Me. That's the new name of the show. Um Don't Bummy. Um, but you but you could still have because so there's you you you we've talked about like the game, right? The game of the scene. Oh god. And you got kind of yeah, you you not being on board. See what it so what if you had an improviser who is only searching for the games in each scene? No, and then you had another improviser who's purely kind of I don't know, character-based, right?

Speaker 10:18

That's what I mean. And that's what I mean. That's my question. Because I do not think that that would work. Right. Why not? Uh uh okay, so let me backtrack. It wouldn't work in that I wouldn't be able to it wouldn't be the the the show would not fulfill the um what I would want it to fulfil. Okay, because there'd be someone who's I'm the creator, uh the creator, the you know, uh I'm more than that, I'm a visionary, a genius. Um no, but uh but you know what I mean. It wouldn't fulfill it wouldn't fulfil that because if someone's sole purpose is to find the funny constantly, not sole purpose, but but they're driving, you know, thing is raison d'être raison d'être is to that's French, everybody, look it up, um is to find the funny and everything and to just constantly go for the game, then they're gonna be interfering with the narrative, and they're gonna be interfering with other stuff that you m that might be more important in this type of improv. Then do you get me? Yeah, you're just asking questions just to play the devil's advocate of the devil.

Speaker 1 11:36

No, no, no, not at all. Um no no so I agree, but then I kind of would just say that, but isn't that the case for any endeavor? That if if there's someone in charge who kind of sets the the goals, the mission, the values, and if anybody doesn't agree to that, then they're essentially a saboteur, right?

Speaker 11:59

Any project, like a play or a film or a you know, oh well let's just clarify agree to that, meaning agree to to uh aim for the the same outcome. Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah.

Speaker 1 12:12

Um yeah, but because I'm interested, I guess, and I because I think improv is slightly different in that regard, is that you are encouraged to accept offers and be open to other people's contributions. Whereas in those other let's let's I guess maybe just pick theater, like the director, it stops at the director. Like the director is the final say. So they don't have to be open to everything, and the actors on stage don't actually shouldn't. I mean, I would argue as a director, they shouldn't be open to any every suggestion that other actors make of them. It has to go by the director.

Speaker 12:51

Yeah.

Speaker 1 12:52

So that I would but so isn't that kind of fundamentally almost anti-improv?

Speaker 13:01

No.

Speaker 1 13:01

Why not?

Speaker 13:02

I don't know, I just feel like I should say that. Um is what specifically anti-improv?

Speaker 1 13:13

The sorry James. No, no, no, that's good. The the the intolerance of offers.

Speaker 13:24

Of of yes. Uh yes, it it is. But we're not talking about rejecting offers or saying no to offers. Where I guess we're talking about whether those offers are actually useful and helpful in this show. Or in this do you know what I mean? So so but it's a great point. Well done. You may stay. I will not say wrong to you very loudly right now. Um the the I I guess what for me what's and what's anti-improv is if that's a thing, but we'll just pretend it is.

Speaker 1 14:12

Um look, it's very un-improv.

Speaker 14:15

It's I improv. If someone is um uh if someone is coming to the stage with anything that's ego-based, and that is the I look, I just and and and I I say this also without wanting to be mean, because I think sometimes we do it without realizing that we do it. Um uh the fact that the mere fact that you're putting yourself on a stage means that there is some there is definitely an ego need there saying that's that says I'm putting myself out here because I want people to like me, love me, think I'm great, whatever, whatever. That's you know, no one's coming on stage and going, I just don't want anyone to notice I'm here. Yeah. Um so anyway, but if you're if that need is so strong that it means that I really want to get as much as many, I only feel noticed if I get lots of laughs or if I make big, outrageous characters, or do stuff which in a format such as a theatre sports games show or some sort of um uh USB show or something would would be hilarious and will would fit in and be great. No one would question it. It would serve that type of show, maybe even then I'd question it because you'd be pretty much roller coaster over everyone else's idea. It would not serve a show if it's going for something that's more lyrical, more narrative-based, more story, more I don't know, character-driven. Um then sorry, go ahead. No, let's see. That'll do.

Speaker 1 15:53

Yeah, okay, okay. Okay well then, yeah. So it's kind of up to and I guess yeah, it doesn't have to be a creator or director necessarily, right? It's the group itself creating. It's the group itself, yeah. Agree.

Speaker 16:04

But there has to be agreement of something.

Speaker 1 16:05

Yeah. Yeah.

Speaker 16:07

Of what the outcome's gonna look like.

Speaker 1 16:09

Yes. So I guess then the question is really, are the improvisers in the group able to uh like focus or limit their offers or their style or their the way they've been trained in order to properly take on board the overarching outcome.

Speaker 16:36

Hmm.

Speaker 1 16:37

I mean, I'm not saying that's a bad thing at all. No, I mean I mean it sounds like that's a good thing.

Speaker 16:40

I think it's it's all I mean we've we have done shows like this with cast like this. Everyone has it before. Um it just means it could mean this. Um, their experience of performing on being on that show is not what they thought it was going to be, and they might be unhappy about it, or the experience of being on that show was not what they thought it might be, and you've opened their eyes to something new, and they'll go, Holy shit, I didn't realize I could do this. Um yes, expectations are important. Setting those up before you do it project is important.

Speaker 1 17:14

Yeah, setting that common ground. Because I mean, even I mean, I would I mean, it just kind of as a bit of a film nerd as I know you are as well, film noir in of itself is very specific. It's not just black and white detective, yeah, you know. So it's it's more than that, I think, yeah, then it would require the improvisers who are coming together to be well, I mean, yeah, to set to set kind of the boundaries of well, how how specific? How what what are the parameters, you know? Um, I think uh when we did the Sydney Fringe last year, and we did um the Six Sided Stage, I remember James and I were in a show last year.

Speaker 17:56

Yeah.

Speaker 1 17:57

Sydney Fringe.

Speaker 17:57

Yeah, and um if you're curious about it, it's too late.

Speaker 1 18:00

Yeah, we might come back, hopefully. But um, yeah, I remember in one of the rehearsals, I think pretty much everyone was like, Oh, this is what you were going for, James. This is the style we're allowed. It's it is you know, because I think I hadn't made it clear about how loose I was happy to make it, like how fourth wall breaking, how um yeah, how how happy I was for us to be openly uh open with the audience, you know. So that was my uh yeah, I think I'm glad we got to that point in rehearsals. But yeah, that's something that I could have or that yeah, was was really necessary to set up front.

Speaker 18:39

Yeah.

Speaker 1 18:40

This is the style, this is what I'm happy with, this is acceptable or whatever.

Speaker 18:44

Um well I'm gonna add to that is in I didn't even think it necessarily was that you needed to make it clearer. I think it's that we needed to ex to experience how far we could go with being l loose with the the play. Um and also I think because we that bunch of people are very much um uh generous players and they don't want to overstep anything, overstep what you want or overstep each other's ideas, and so we were cautious, yeah. So we needed to keep um rehearsing and playing until we and pushing how far we could go, until we went, all right, I think I'm now in a really loose place. And then James would smile at us and go, Yes, you crazy little geniuses, that's what I want. Yeah, and and then we'd go, Oh, and then we'd be up. So so we had to actually live it to be able to understand it.

Speaker 1 19:43

Right, right, right.

Speaker 19:44

And I think it's just the nature of human beings who are uh working on a show for the first time with each other that we were a little bit more cautious about those steps. Does that make sense, James?

Speaker 1 19:56

No, it does, absolutely.

Speaker 19:57

Are we wanging on about stuff? Is anyone still listening?

Speaker 1 20:02

Um well, if they are, then yes. But if they're not, they wouldn't have heard.

Speaker 20:06

So let's summarise. So I think in general, what we're saying is that you yes.

Speaker 1 20:11

Yeah, yeah. No, I know. I actually no, you're right. No, we did I have come to a conclusion. Yeah. I think I would have I think I've kind of changed my mind now a little bit. So what's your what have you concluded? Well that yeah, you can have people, you can have I guess the caveat is that the improvisers need to be uh good faith. They need to come in with good faith and go, I'm interested in making the show great, and I'm happy to be open to to things and change or adapt with people. But as long as basically people can people from very different improv backgrounds or styles or um desires or can can totally work together in a coherent way as long as I think the expectations are really clear, whether that's that's set up by a group or a creator or director, but then everybody can kind of agree upon and then yeah, point back to and go, hey, this is what we're looking for. This is the outcome we're gunning for. And then everybody can kind of be like, yep, that's where that's what we're going for. And and then I think people have to be open though to I guess course correction then. Yeah. Because I don't I I think that yeah, I I definitely have seen people who who unintentionally let their ego kind of you know go for that kind of, oh, you know, oh, there's a gag here, I really want to go for the gag. So I think a gentle kind of oh hey, you know, that was great, but we're a uh the outcome we're looking for is kind of more like this. I think yeah, that's also necessary.

Speaker 21:39

Absolutely. Wrong! Uh I think we'll call it quits there. Okay. I love you, my friend. Uh, until next episode. Now you you can say you love me. Back. You can say I love you too. Yeah, great. Did you mean it?

Speaker 1 21:54

Okay.

Speaker 21:54

What? Alright. Okay. Okay. Goodbye, everyone. Goodbye. Till next we meet.