The Backline E159: The Johnstonian Dictionary

Here are some notes and interpretations I took while listening to Toronto improv podcast The Backline. This is from Episode 159: The Johnstonian Dictionary. Click the links on the times to be taken to an audio version of the note.

8:40 – “When you introduce a new term, or a term that is different, or different way of looking at improv, often people take it as a criticism of a deeply held belief that they have. And I think that’s a mistake. So you know, we may say something like “oh you know, here’s game of the scene, it replaces this part of Johnstonian improv.” And people go “Why trying to replace that, that’s awesome, we need that!” And no-one in improv is trying to erase section of improv history. Like the concepts that are valuable to you are still valuable, but this is just another tool, this is another way to look at it, and they exist, they can exist both in your toolbelt.”

9:48 – “I think the goal is always, is this clearer? Or does this help anybody? And I think that’s what renaming something or finding an alternate phrase to discuss a certain topic, anybody who talks about that, their goal is hopefully, “does this make more sense then what we previously held?” or “does this help clear up something you had a hard time you a hard time digging your nails into?”

11:34Relationship vs Dynamic:

  • Relationship (Johnstonian): How you and the other person you are on stage with someone, e.g. customer and barista. Often goes hand in hand with the “no stranger” rule.
  • Dynamic (Modern): How you are treating someone, e.g. bully and victim.

14:54 – “If you feel a certain way towards someone and you’re treating them in a certain way, we actually have enough meat to make a scene out of it. And the thing that a relationship doesn’t actually give us, it doesn’t give us reproducible results.”

16:27 – Relationships can result in players acting out stereotypes, where as dynamics can provide playable feelings towards each other.

19:47Who/What/Where vs The Behavior: Both of these are considered the labelled context of the scene.

  • Who/What/Where (Johnstonian): Things that the audience will never see, e.g a forest.
  • The Behavior (Modern): The labelled dynamic between the two people in the scene that can live anywhere.

21:44 – In modern longform, we’re taking characters from one location and putting them in a different context. Taking large amounts of time setting up who/what/where is wasted time, as it’s unlikely to be reused in later beats. Instead, paying attention to the behavior allows us to bring something in that the audience has already identified with and can heighten.

23:40 – “If the location is the star of your scene, it’s not going to be a great scene to play or to watch.” The transition from neutral exposition (e.g. about the environment) to passionate emotion is hard!

25:48: Playing Status vs Playing Game of the Scene: Surprisingly similar!

  • Playing Status (Johnstonian): The belief that all characters exist in hierarchy. Relates to how you character is treated, how you are seen by other characters, and how much weight your words have. e.g. the president (high status) over a homeless person (low status).
  • Playing Game of the Scene (Modern): Involves dynamics. Finding situations to affect the characters in the scene in a certain way. Status can be apart of a scenic game.

29:34: Surrender vs The Right to Play:

  • Surrender (Johnstonian): The idea that someone in the scene has to win or lose, e.g. a fight. Solves the problem of conflict in scenes.
  • The Right to Play (Modern): “You get to choose one thing. And the one thing is, what do you step into the scene with? What’s your first emotion, the first object work, your first line of dialogue. Whatever that first thing is, you are entitled to pursuit that for the rest of the scene. And anything that I [the improviser] do that helps you pursuit that more is good for the scene, it benefits us it creates laughter. And anything that I do that stops you from pursuing that behavior is a a bad thing.”

31:48Surrendering and Moving On vs Surrendering and Reinvesting:

  • Surrendering and Moving On: Giving up on conflict and moving to something else in the scene.
  • Surrendering and Reinvesting: Taking a break from that conflict and coming back to it with more intensity.

32:57 – Conflict doesn’t need to be solved. Sit in it. “The business is experiencing feelings on stage in front of people for no money.” By solving conflict, you’ve removed the dynamic established in the scene and need to find something new to play with.

35:20 – There’s a big difference between stopping someone’s play (e.g. the medicine you’re giving these kids is poison, stop giving it to them) and having a feeling towards someone’s play (e.g. I hate kids and you giving them medicine makes them better, therefore I hate you).

39:01Establishing a Character vs Establishing a Deal:

  • Character (Johnstonian): Who you are, your name, how you move, your job.
  • A Deal (Modern): The one thing you bring into the scene (see the right to play).  The emotion, line of dialogue, object work.
  • A deal is a thing that you’re doing in this moment. It is something that you are present for. Your character is how your deal is received by your partner.

41:36 – “Who we are ultimately is something we discover by what we’re doing in the scene.” If we’re coming in with a pre-established character, we’re expecting a certain reaction from the other characters in the scene.

42:50 – “When I step on stage with a full character that’s pre-established, I turn the person I’m playing with into my puppet. Either they do what I say and do what my psyche demands of them, or we get into a conflict. And that’s a bummer of a feeling. It’s a bummer of a feeling to either go “okay I’m just doing what you want me to do here.” It’s also a bummer to be like “I don’t want to drop my deal ’cause this is who I am but you won’t let me play the thing I stepped on stage with because it interferes with how the scene is supposed to go with your fuckin’ Jorje the Spanish waiter, you know?”

Got Your Back E24: Roy Janik

Here are some notes and interpretations I took while listening to Austin improv podcast Got Your Back. This is from Episode 24 with Roy Janik of improv group Parallelogramophonograph. Click the links on the times to be taken to an audio version of the note.

4:50 – Interesting things about the Keith Johnston approach:

  • Be obvious above everything else. If something occurs to you and it’s really stupidly obvious, that’s what you should be doing.
  • Don’t try so hard, don’t get in your own way.
  • Teaching yourself to trust your very base instincts

7:08 – “You’ll probably discover some fun thing along the way if you just start doing it.” Creating something from scratch and communicating it to 3 to 10 other people without talking about it ahead of time will probably create its own problems.

7:46 – These issues that people give themselves come out of fear.

9:01 – “It’s not just managing failure, and it’s not just being ok with failure. It’s actively perusing failure and celebrating it.”

9:48 – “That’s an easy thing to say but truly a tough thing to believe. But if you can get to the point on stage where you make “a mistake” and not only are you ok with it but basically you laugh it off and turn it into something beautiful, the audience sees that you’re at that level of comfort and confidence, basically half your job is done.”

12:58 – “Be average! Be more boring! Do less!”

21:38 – Narrative is taught to focus on one single character and follow their journey.
Tools: Once upon a time there is a thing, and every day they did this, until one day something happened that shook it all up, and because of that all these things happened, until finally this climax happened, and ever since that day it’s been like this.
“There’s a world, something happens to upset it, we go through a bunch of shit, and something happens to create a new normalcy”

24:20 – Difference between Johnstone style and Chicago style: character change.
In Johnstone style narrative, a platform tilt will result in change of status or relationship and a character might have a change of heart, status, or change of philosophy.
Chicago style means that we play with character and heighten that relationship/status/philosophy, but not necessary change it.
Same want, same character, different environment.

30:45 – “What does this show want to be? What makes sense for this show?”

34:00Mindsets: “Completely serving the show, to a point where […] trying not to worry about being polite, accepting the fact that we have this level of trust where I can put motivations in other character’s minds, or I can endow them as having done things in between scenes, and vice versa. Or where I can tap them out and take over their character, and mess with them in that way.”
Full commitment, zero risk.

43:40 – Narrative can work on instinct rather than sticking to structure – work on impulse, move when inspired. “In a perfect show, I’m never thinking ‘right now a mentor needs to come in’ but I will know a mentor needs to come in.”