Print Page Email a Friend

Improvisation

 

 The Cape by Vivienne Plumb

Does improvisation have a place in a workshop of a scripted play? Or are actors being exploited?


(Grateful thanks for any feedback on the following, either here or to scripts@playmarket.org.nz )

Below is an attempt to clarify briefly the purposes of the various forms of improvisation I'm aware of. I think they often get dangerously muddled.

1. There is a tradition of 'Improvisation As Performance' that has built up over the last few decades, has certain rules, and attracts performers with very particular skills. They make up the script as they go, usually (if not always) with a comic aim.

2. There are methods of writing a script/making a play based on group input and improvisation - 'Devising'. This usually continues well into the rehearsal process. (However, the final script often still ends up being the responsibility of one person, and dissension about copyright is common. Playmarket does accept requests for assistance from groups devising shows, but needs to be certain that the group has a solid agreement on authorship.)

3. Improvising during rehearsal of an already finished play is completely different. It has nothing to do with writing script, but is a rehearsal tool used to help actors enrich an already written character or onstage relationship, specifically to enhance their performance. As long as it's in the hands of skilled directors it can be very useful.

4. Improvisation as a teaching tool, or game, to encourage students of all kinds to free up their imaginations, explore issues and gain confidence. It usually involves developing a character or situation spontaneously around a few facts or character traits.

So - for a workshop of an already scripted draft, clearly 'improvisation as performance' and 'devising' are irrelevant; we already have a playwright. 'Improvising in rehearsal' and as a teaching tool are also irrelevant because this is not a rehearsal process; we are not preparing actors for a performance from a finished script, or teaching anyone, or playing games.

So when we ask actors to improvise in workshops of existing scripts, what is actually happening?

When we ask actors to improvise in this situation, what we are actually asking them to do is 'devise' - i.e. provide the playwright with new dialogue, new script ideas etc. They become (uncredited) co-writers. I think this is inappropriate and exploitative, and playwrights should not be led to expect this sort of input from actors. Actors are exploited quite enough. Just by bringing the playwright's characters to life for the first time they are already contributing enormously to the final draft.

Another common danger is that improvising can lead to actors feeling ownership, taking over the script and pushing it in all sorts of directions never intended, falling into 'Improvisation As Performance' more often than not, and feeling an obligation to entertain the room rather than explore the work in front of them. This can leave the playwright baffled, depressed, furious or all three. (And you can't blame the actors - 'entertaining the room' is their job!) Couple this with a director hanging out to explore a 'concept' and you have a potential suicide on your hands.

My view is that the actors' job is simply to act, not co-write the play - to make the script they have in front of them work as well as they possibly can, however unfinished, rough or uninspiring they may find it. If the actor has prepared well and has done their best with the material, every question they ask, every difficulty they have is then really useful to the playwright, indicating what 'works' and what doesn't, immediately. Nothing helps a playwright more than seeing their script performed well - 'coming off the page'. A couple of straightforward moved readthroughs guided by a good director/script advisor and a bit of discussion should provide the playwright with all the stimulation they need to prepare the next draft.

So furthermore: - Playmarket can provide a two-day 'workshop', and though two consecutive days is very useful for devising groups or when preparing for a public reading, for a private reading two one-dayers separated by as much time as the playwright needs to prepare a new draft, are a much better use of the time and more helpful for the writer.

Too often everyone is wondering what on earth to do on the second day (leading frequently to "I know! Let's improvise!") while the playwright is quite often just longing to get away and rewrite, overwhelmed with new ideas and quite incapable of absorbing, or offering, any more. If the playwright needs more guidance straight away, spending time alone with a script advisor helping them to organise all the new information would almost certainly be preferable.

(from the Theatreview Forum, 2008)

Jean Betts