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?”

It’s All About The Where→

I teach my students to enter scenes with a strong activity, which helps in the exploration of the where.Surprisingly, I have to provide them with examples of what an activity is. Most of them come up with passive choices – watching TV, texting, reading. When I ask for suggestions for an activity that two people can do together I get fighting, sleeping and intercourse.

It’s not a mistake on an improv stage as long as you recognize what happened and in some way react to it, right? Your pure reaction to someone walking through an improv table that you just took a minute to set up, is justification enough that they walk through the table. You don’t need to call somebody out and say “You just walked through my table!” You know that’s going to alienate them and alienate the audience likely, and then you’re going to spend the rest of the scene trying to dig yourself out of that callout. As opposed to just go over, pick up the table, set it up again, patiently, diligently, and then when somebody else walks over, don’t even mention a word, just go pick it up again and do the same thing. That’s going to create laughter from the audience because you’re respecting the environment and showing that there are no mistakes. That wasn’t a mistake they walked through the table, that’s a gift that’s an opportunity.
Bill Kullhan on accepting mistakes from Improv Nerd E225.

The Effect Of Time On Improv and Life→

Great improv is making a circle in as close to zero seconds as possible. Removing the fear-based delay we build in to avoid making a choice that may or may not be foolish or “incorrect.” Great improv is when you create with alacrity and focus and joy. It’s not about nailing the perfect idea (or making a perfect circle). And yet, it is amazing the lengths improvisers will go to avoid the present moment, be it living 3 seconds, or ten seconds, or a minute, or 15 minutes ahead of what’s going on right now. This stems from a need to control and protect themselves from failure. Ironically, this fear-based way of playing only decreases your ability to be funny, and the audience can see your avoidance a mile away.

If it’s all improvised, why does it often look the same?→

“Doing better improv” is equated with “learning how to improvise better” as opposed to having a unique viewpoint or insight. Improvisers frequently say things like “that was good improv,” “that was a nice scene,” or “I liked that move.” There is less of “I thought the show was about y.” Does this differ from how you would talk about a movie you’ve watched? This is partially an artifact of how improv is taught. Many improvisers do not have a formal background in the arts. They encounter improv first as a hobby. Usually they are taught by improv schools with a hierarchy of levels and explicit idea of progression. Improv generally has to be taught in person, with personal feedback, from a more experienced improviser. This establishes a strong master/student hierarchy, even at performance level, with the implicit assumption that becoming “better” means becoming more like the master. Many improvisers also stick with the same school or teacher they started with. If they form teams often they use formats they have been taught by this school.