#ucb comedy

I'm continuing my series "You Should Be Able To Do..." where I explore some improv "rules" that are really just a place holder by teachers saying, "This is a little bit too complicated. Don't worry about it right now."

 This week, I want to talk about a super common note we're told.

 DON'T ARGUE IN SCENES

 This is like being told not to splash water in the pool. Argumentative scenes are going to happen, and to try to avoid them altogether would lead to some really boring scenes. We want our characters to react, and give emotional, honest responses, and it's natural that this may lead to some sort of conflict between our characters. So, instead of avoiding argumentative scenes, let's avoid the pitfalls of argumentative scenes.

 PITFALL# 1) You can argue, just don't argue about what is TRUE in your scene.

 I would say the #1 pitfall in argumentative scenes is that it is so easy to disagree on the facts of the scene. Any good improv scene is built on the principle of "yes, and", and if in our scene we can't even agree on what is true, we're not saying yes. Let me give an example:

  DENISE: "I am going to hang the Christmas lights up, and it's going to be so  beautiful."

 ALISON: "Ugggh. You are the worst decorator I know."

 DENISE: "What? I thought you loved my decorating?"

 ALISON: "I don't. It is ugly, and stupid."

 This is a pretty typical beginning to an argumentative improv scene. If you notice, these improvisers haven't agreed on the fundamental elements of the scene. Are we clear on whether or not Denise is a good decorator? No. No we're not. Denise says she is, but Alison says she is not. We haven't even yes'd the basics of this scene. It's a trap that so many argumentative scenes fall into. If we can't agree on the basics of our scene, how can we ever build on top of them? If one person says the sky is blue, and the other says it's red, and neither of you budge, we live in this wishy washy scene where the audience has no clue what is real, and so they don't know who to side with. Both sides are equally credible, but neither side can agree on what is TRUE.

 Let's try this again, but let's have our improvisers agree on the truth of the scene.

 DENISE: "I am going to hang the Christmas lights up, and it's going to be so beautiful."

 ALISON: "Ugggh. You are the worst decorator I know."

 DENISE: "That's true, but this time will be different."

 ALISON: "Last year it was bad, and the year before that it was bad too."

 DENISE: "Yeah. I got voted worst decorator in the city."

 ALISON: "And how's that working out for you?"

 So, we have at least agreed on the truth of this scene. Alison says Denise is a terrible decorator, and Denise accepts that to be true. This may not seem like much, but it's something I see so often in improv scenes. One character is accused of some behavior, and instead of just accepting that behavior as a gift in our scene, we try to argue that it's not true. It's a very normal human thing to defend yourself against accusations, but in improv, think of any accusation as a character gift. Say yes to it. Agree to it so your scene can move on.

 That said, in this last example, we said "yes", but we did not, "and" it. No new information was added. Denise agreed that she is a terrible decorator, and Alison followed it up with a sentence citing a non-specific example of how in the past she has been bad at it, then Denise says she was voted worst decorator, and then Alison says she doesn't expect her to change. Although we added dialogue, almost no new information was added. If you wanted to argue, you could say that we learned she was voted worst decorator last year, but that's not adding much of anything aside from just restating what we already know. Denise is bad at decorating. This gets us to the next pitfall with argumentative scenes.

   PITFALL# 2) A lack of specifics and new information.

It is so easy in an argumentative scene to stop adding new information. You want to argue about who is right, or wrong, and so we just keep circling around the same information we already have. Or when someone offers a new twinkling bit of information, we skim past it, and just go back to what we already know in the scene.

Let's do this example again, but have each new line adding information, and specifics.

 DENISE: "I am going to hang the Christmas lights up, and it's going to be so beautiful."

 ALISON: "Ugggh. You are the worst decorator I know. You decorated your car and you can't even see through the windshield."

 DENISE: "Yeah. But is it not cute? "

 ALISON: "That's true, I guess. Can you at least decorate the tree so we can still see the tree when it's done this year?"

DENISE: "To truly decorate something is to obscure it completely." ALISON: "Yeah, I guess that's true." See how much clearer of a scene we have now after adding more specifics? Now we know more of what makes Denise a bad decorator. She is the type of person who just adds tons of crap on top of something and calls it decorating. She believes to truly decorate something, you need to cover it completely in something new. This is a very specific point of view for her character. I said it in a previous blog, but as a scene goes on, we need to know what THIS scene is. It's like the genus, phylum chart in science. We have broad vertebrates, then mammal, then ape, then human. As our scene goes on, we need to know what exactly THIS scene is. It may start as something we've seen a million times, like a couple making dinner, but as we go on, and add specifics to the scene, we narrow it down so we know exactly what separates this scene of a couple making dinner from all the other ones you've seen before. There is only one real pitfall I have left with the last scene about decorating. PITFALL# 3) Giving into the unusual character beliefs. For an argumentative scene to be good, there needs to be this healthy back and forth of allllmmmooooosssttt being convinced by the other person's logic, but defending your side. If you are the character with the unusual point of view, you want to argue for it in the most rational way this irrational behavior could be argued for. If you are the non-unusual character, you want to find the holes in the other person's logic, and point them out. You want to be a scanner for BS in your scene. This is how the scene can sustain arguing for long periods of time, and not just seem stagnant. If you don't call them out on their BS, you make their unusual behavior normal, and your scene has to find something new to be about.   In the previous iteration of this scene, Alison says, "Yeah, I guess that's true.", when Denise said, "To truly decorate something is to obscure it completely." No. That's not true. That's not true at all. Now, maybe Alison didn't call it out because she realized she was arguing in the scene, and a coach told her not to argue so much. Maybe she did it because she wanted to move onto something else in the scene. Maybe she just wasn't listening well enough, and thought that Denise's logic wasn't flawed.  No matter what, Alison needs to poke holes at Denise's logic. It gives Denise a chance to defend her rationale, most likely in some equally unusual way, and then Alison can call BS on that too. When we are doing this scrutiny of the other person's unusual behavior, and adding specifics, and agreeing to the base reality, there is so much kindling for the fire, that it doesn't matter if these characters are arguing or not. Let me give one last example where they are doing all three things at once. It'll start just like the last round, but here Alison will push back on Denise's logic. DENISE: "I am going to hang the Christmas lights up, and it's going to be so beautiful."

 ALISON: "Ugggh. You are the worst decorator I know. You decorated your car and you can't even see through the windshield."

 DENISE: "Yeah. But is it not cute? "

 ALISON: "Who cares if something is cute if it's a hazard to their health?"

 DENISE: "Fashion over function."

ALISON: "You're telling me that if you were scuba diving, you'd rather have a cute tank with no air than an ugly tank with air?" DENISE: "I would rather die than to be tasteless."

ALISON: "You WOULD die! You would definitely die from that!"

DENISE: "Then at least I'd die gorgeous."

This scene could continue this little repartee for a surprisingly long amount of time. Of course, at some point in argumentative scenes, say we're in a monoscene, you may want to find something else to discuss, and get away from this whole subject. That is totally fine. Let's just make sure we don't let these unusual points of view, and opinions go by in our scenes. Let's make sure we are constantly adding specific details about everything to our scene, especially specific emotions we are feeling, and thoughts we have when we hear BS. Let's agree to the base reality of the scene while still disagreeing on the behavior or logic of our scene partner.

Star Trek's Tim Russ Explains Star Wars Day | by Pocketwatch

MORZOUKSNICK

Blank Check with Griffin & David is a movie podcast that reviews directors' complete filmographies episode to episode. Specifically, the auteurs whose early successes afforded them the rare ‘blank check’ from Hollywood to produce passion projects.

BUT in the beginning, the podcast was devoted to the Star Wars prequels. Exclusively.

That means there are 30+ episodes of Griffin Newman (actor/comedian) and David Sims’ (critic for The Atlantic) picking apart their love and hate for George Lucas’s Star Wars prequels in ridiculous detail. Ultimately, they found that they were the most fascinated by Lucas himself. Once hailed as a genius, later universally reviled, but given the platform to make creatively unfettered blockbusters, Lucas is the first of many ‘blank check’ filmmakers the podcast has covered exhaustively.

So on this #MayThe4thBeWithYou, we asked the hosts to reflect on their passion for Star Wars.

Q: What is your favorite Star Wars character?

Griffin: TC-14.

Dave: Boss Nass, because I like big bosses.

Q: You guys went super in depth in your 30+ podcast episodes dedicated to Star Wars prequels, but is there anything you didn’t get a chance to say about Star Wars?

Griffin: I like TC-14.

Dave: Boss Nass is the biggest boss of all. 

Which Star Wars character are you the most attracted to?

Griffin: TC-14.

Dave: Gragra.

If May the 4th was a national holiday, how would you like the nation to celebrate? I.e. traditions, foods, presents, rituals?

Griffin: I would fuck TC-14.

Dave: Everyone gets one million dollars tax free from the government to spend on whatever they want.

Say it’s May the 4th, 2037, and a new theme park opens in Orlando, FL called Star Wars Universe what ride would they absolutely HAVE to have? Also, will you be at the theme park’s grand opening?

Griffin: TC-14. 

Dave: Probably some kind of “tour” through the stars, like a Star Tour or something? Anyway I'm never going, theme parks are too crowded.

If Disney approached you tomorrow and asked you to write a character for yourself in the next Star Wars movie, what character would you write?

Griffin: TC-14’s husband.

Dave: A renegade herobot called Mr. Coolio 5000.

If George Lucas let you have a prop or costume from any Star Wars movie, but you could only choose one, which one would you choose?

Griffin: A chance cube.

Dave: A Jedi poop chair.

How will you celebrate May the 4th this year?

Griffin: Taking TC-14 out for pasta.

Dave: Same way I celebrate every day-- by being the chillest dude around.

Listen to Blank Check with Griffin and David’s 30+ episodes exclusively about Star Wars here: bit.ly/blankcheckpodcast