Читать книгу The System of Theatrical Improvisation - Stanislav Hlushko - Страница 3

Spontaneous improvisation is the primary foundation of an actor's skill. When children start to play, they do not need a playwright or a director – everything is happening spontaneously, easily, by itself. The same spontaneity of expression is inherent in adults, especially if they are actors. It is only later there appears someone who takes away all the "superfluous," and simultaneously makes them not free, but the essence of acting is nonetheless in improvisation.

Spontaneous improvisation is the foundation for structural improvisation, and, generally, any form of its kind. Actors, in this case, are absolutely free, there is no script, mise-en-scène, director's directions, costumes, settings – all this comes into being during the act. Music in spontaneous improvisation is also absent because its presence can prevent actors from creating and periodically changing their own tempo and rhythm of acting, which cannot correspond with that of music.

Only imaginary items are used for interior details and stage set up.

Spectators take seats around the stage so the actors are saved the trouble of having to think what part of their body is turned to them. As shown by many years of experience, the position of the stage in the center of an auditorium is a fundamental issue. Attempts to play spontaneous improvisation on stage in its classical form proved less successful. The need to control one's body and to constantly face the spectators deprives actors of indispensable freedom of mind and body, without which improvisation is impossible.

The actors are beyond the action area but the spectators can see them.

After about a moment's pause, one of the actors steps forward and initiates the play. Can two or three people start to act at the same time? They can, but there is very little likelihood of them understanding each other and justification of their behavior under the same given circumstances, while respecting their logic or being organically illogical. Therefore, it is more reasonable that a single person begins acting. In this case, the fellow actors will have time to observe and comprehend the actions of the first. This does not mean that two or three actors may not step forward at the same time at the outset if they have wide improvisational experience enabling immediate contact.

From this point on, three keys to spontaneous improvisation, or three basic principles, come into play and if used properly, improvisation becomes interesting.

The first one is an IDEA.

In this case, the meaning of this word differs from the classical understanding adopted in theater and dramaturgy.

An actor steps forward and starts doing something thus putting forward a situation, which must be an extreme situation and which must have an immediate resolution (a suicide, the struggle for survival, a monologue about an unhappy love affair, confession before one's death, etc.). Extremeness sometimes does not need to be manifest or literal – the action can be neutral – extremeness must be felt inside and be expressed in counterpoint to facial expression and plastique. The spectators should understand that "something is happening." Generally, the character's attitude to the situation makes it extreme – any situation may be portrayed as extreme, and vice versa, an extreme theme may be treated with indifference, though this can be interesting in some cases as well. Anyway, internal inertia, if it arises, could last for the rest of the acting. That is why it is desirable to create suggested "hot" circumstances at the beginning.

Can improvisation begin with a situation that is not extreme? It can if the idea, with which an actor appears, is rather interesting. Then the extremeness should be used by another actor or at least the next one. Sooner or later, the situation should be intensified, a problem of choice should be created – there must be a conflict as a catalyst for further development of the plot. Also, the original idea must contain an event ("war broke out," "she left me," "dad died," "he'll come here soon"). The event may not happen right now, it may be kept in an abstract future, but it must be offered as the necessary impetus to the development of the situation.

What can be done if there is no idea, but you have to act? Step forward and do something, in other words, act and the idea will come later. The actions can be of any kind – logical, comprehensible to others – illogical, inexplicable, abstract, but in any case interesting. If the actors get carried away, the play for a long time can be generally devoid of extreme situations and events. A simple dialogue "about nothing" could be interesting for a longer period of time if the actors believe in what they are playing. A prolonged absence of a clear understanding of that what is actually happening on stage, what it is all about, may arouse interest of the spectators and it is sometimes not necessary to "show one's cards" but ultimately desirable to justify the play by making it clear.

On this basis, a character, a place of action, the acting problem for the next period of time, and the attitude to what is going on (or has occurred) comes into the picture. The actor, who started the play, should answer the questions: "Who am I?" "Where am I?" "What am I?" "What do I want?" for himself and, most importantly, for the fellow actors and the spectators.

If the first actor could not do it quite persuasively, that is, he or she appeared with no idea and could not answer any of the above questions, then the second or third actor should do it, and the other actors should support this idea as the most interesting. The difficulty is that neither the scene nor the attitude to the proposed circumstances, and especially the acting problem, can be in most cases retained through the entire play without any changes, – fellow actors will not let you do that. But answers to the above questions should be known at any time.

Coming up with an idea, an actor must have a general understanding of what part his or her fellow actors could play and how could they step forward, i.e., to act as a playwright and director, with the rest of the actions reserved for other characters to step in. To mean such a locale and circumstances, into which nobody can step except the first actor, is not a good practice, with rare exceptions.

It is important not to overload the Idea with other ideas and to explain everything. The essence of that what is going on must be made clear in an intelligible way – other actors will tell the rest. If, for example, the first actor says to the second, "Come tell me," then the second has a wide range of ideas that can be chosen – almost any scene and any character – a teacher-student, boss-employee, father-son option, etc. If the first actor says "Garrison, today I called your parents to school after you broke a window last night in the staff room and burned the front door, so your dad, being a major industrialist, will renovate the whole of our school and make present me with a car.", the other actors do not have such wide choice. It is feasible to narrow the realm of the play as much as possible if there is a novel idea prepared and the actor knows exactly what he or she will do next. In most cases it is impossible to predict the development of the action, so it would be correct to keep the latitude of the action as wide as possible.

Though there is a combination of an actor, a director and a playwright in one person, that person on stage must hold a slight lead as an actor, but offstage, a playwright and director must prevail when he or she is watching the action and is deciding on options for advancing the scene.

Offering an idea, an actor must decide on its genre, other actors entering the action must naturally support the actor or change the idea radically if the situation as a whole might benefit from this, or create a mix of genres.

The second key concept is a FELLOW ACTOR.

Once the second actor steps forward, there must be a contact between the first and second actors, and it can occur only as a result of careful regard for the fellow actor, what is a guarantee of success in improvisation when people listen, hear, and that somehow affects them. With changes, the plot is developing and theoretically can develop endlessly if the partners are attentive to each other.

The second key concept can replace the first if the first one has failed. If there is no prepared idea, and it did not occur after the beginning of the scene, it can be borrowed from the fellow actor or the fellow actor's idea can be played, or one's own idea may be invented by making a start from the fellow actor's acting, or both devices can be brought into play at the same time.

Along with this, it may happen that a contact between the first and second actors has not been established but if the lack of a contact is inherent in the idea itself the situation will benefit from this.

The third key concept is a CHANGE.

An actor can change only in acting – internally, verbally, and physically. Going through these three kinds of changes not only directly in respect of the fellow actor with the aim of changing the fellow actor, but also changing one's own self, the actor will indirectly affect the fellow actor, who will be obliged to change, if the fellow actor has acting experience. For example, a character that has a stage speech defect or physical disability will be more interesting fellow actor than the one devoid of any such qualities. These changes occur in plastique, a facial expression, and voice.

It is important to clarify what constitutes an action in improvisation. A definition of this concept may be divided into two parts: 1. an Action is the change of oneself and 2. an Action is the solving of an acting problem. These two definitions can be merged, but may exist independently of each other because, firstly: you can change yourself without acting problem and your fellow actor as well, and secondly, the understanding of the acting problem may come after the actor began to act, that is, first, I appear and start cleaning a machine gun, charge the cartridge clip, and then realize that I am a professional killer and I need to kill the girl, whom I love, etc.

Regarding the second definition, it is natural that the acting problem, as a rule, is directly related to the fellow actor(s) and, solving the acting problem, the actor's action one way or another is aimed at changing the actors. In the case where an actor acts alone, for example, lays bricks or is fishing, all his acts, one way or another, will be linked either to the prehistory of the relationship, or with future relationships, or with imaginary character's. If you are acting and the fellow actor persists in his refusal to change, the ways of influence must be changed; you must look for one that will change the fellow actor.

Is it possible to solve the acting problem without doing anything? It is, if the acting problem is to do nothing, though inactivity must be interesting. In this case, inactivity is a dramatic device and an action intensive by contrast follows it as a rule. For example, a man is standing on the stage and gazing into space. He is motionless, silent, thinking of nothing special. A second actor appears and tries to speak to him. The first does not respond and the second makes it an event for himself to change himself because of the partner's inactivity and begins to vigorously act. Then the first says: "I'll never talk to you because you are a scoundrel." The situation gradually clears up for the second actor and the spectators. Another example: A first actor steps forward, lies down and begins to play the role of a "dead body." You would think that he does not act, but in fact, his inactivity is information and an event for other actors who can appear as policemen and start outlining the dead body with chalk, questioning neighbors, relatives, etc.

But, if the second actor says, "Mike, why you have got drunk again?" Then the first actor "comes to life" and begins to play a drunk, or he may as well "insist" that he is a "dead body" and remain motionless.

A dramatic device is a prolonged invariability of behavior followed by a change in contrast to this behavior.

In the course of improvisation, everything can be turned into a dramatic device, even an unsuccessful actor's acting. For example, someone can not leave the scene for a long time – goes, comes back again, etc. Finally, returning for the fourth or fifth time – explains the reasons for his or her departures, arrivals and provides the fellow actors with an event that is in counterpoint to the previous theme, mood, tempo and rhythm.

The most important kind of change is a change in the overall pace and rhythm of the scene. Actors need to feel it, and periodically change it when the play gets too monotonous. Typically, this is associated with bringing in new acting ideas. In the classical theater with the immutability of individual characters, this is offset by changes in light, sound, scenery, and staging. In spontaneous improvisation, an actor acts as a director during the play, and must, at regular time intervals, make changes in his/her own acting and in that of others', make improvisation interesting, anyway until the situation runs out completely. If this happens, you need to offer a new situation by doing it carefully, without breaking but attaching to the previous topic so that one smoothly flows into another. First you need to find a contact, clinging to trivial matters, detail, and then propose a new dramaturgy and, if necessary – a genre.

Along with this, if the play came to a standstill and is no longer interesting, it is sometimes possible to break the scene sharply and immediately give a new event as the starting point for a new topic. For example, the first actor appears on the stage and begins to float in an imaginary sea. A second actor approaches the first and says: "Your Majesty, the Princess is dead!" The first actor is obliged to accept the offered new circumstances and place of action, and having departed from the event to build a scene on, at the same time justifying his own previous movements. The second actor may help the first one to justify the movements, "Sorry to interrupt your exercises," and so on. Generally, everything that was going on before the fundamental change in dramaturgy or genre must somehow be justified, bound together even if it is impossible to bind. If, for example, I went with the phrase "to be or not to be" and try to stay with it not for fun, and my fellow actor that just has appeared says – " Who let the patient from room 6?" Then I have to accept a new genre and there is nothing particular to be justified here. But if I played a mentally ill person and suddenly began a monologue of Hamlet, and Gertrude, Claudius approached me, I have to somehow give the spectators a hint about the change from a madhouse to "Hamlet," that is, to justify the change.

Local changes in a scene must be contrasting – if the first actor is sad, then the second is happy, if the first is fast then the second is slow. The protracted comic situations are well changed to a seriously profound theme.

An important component of improvisation is the acting against a fellow actor when an actor's question is answered illogically, the answer being not the one he or she expected. Or the statement of the first actor is in contrast to that what the second actor has said, and he (the second) must justify his or her previous remarks. For example, the first actor says, "How's your brother?" The second replies, "My brother died," the first says, "I saw him today!" Then the second replies, "He died five minutes ago," the first says, "I saw him a minute ago!" the second replies, "That was our third twin, he came today from America," and so on.