A simple blog

The Paper Street Theatre co. is preparing for our second installment of fully improvised theatre with An Improvised Samuel Beckett. If you’re not familiar with Beckett, he was a poet, novelist, and theatre director, although most well known as a playwright. He’s been called the last modernist, and the first post-modernist. For more information read Waiting for Godot.

In short, Paper Street is improvising in the style of Theatre of the Absurd and so far it has been interesting to say the least and contradicting to say the most.

Improvisation is about telling stories and connecting ideas, whereas Theatre of the Absurd is more about dissonance, and nothingness – a world with no god in which language, and eventually everything else, breaks down into meaninglessness. Beckett was famous for making the audience watch a play where nothing happens in act I, and then making them watch it again in act II. It’s been a very strange experience listening to your scene partner only to bring an idea in from left field, or setting up a scene only to have it simply go in circles. We’ve had to take most of our improviser impulses and override them. So, how do we do it? If not from our partner, where are our impulses coming from? Well, we look to the man himself, Mr. Samuel Beckett.

In preparation, not only did we read plays by Beckett, but we read essays and articles on the author himself. To understand an author, you need to understand his life and his motivation. Beckett is what should influence our choices on stage. So I ask myself “What would Beckett write?” and go from there. So far, it’s been working great. Whenever I find myself lost — which isn’t a terrible thing when improvising Beckett — and act upon an impulse that I think Beckett would appreciate, my fellow improvisers love it, and comment on how “Beckett” that moment felt.

The show opens on Thursday this week and I can’t really get into how excited/nervous/curious I am to see how it turns out. When a Beckett show would open, half the reviews would say it was terrible, and half would say it was incredible. I expect similar results. Half our audience will probably not enjoy the show, but they’d have to admit that it felt like a play by Samuel Beckett. If you’re around Victoria, you should come. If you’re not, I’ll let you know how it how goes.

§283 · November 15, 2011 · Improv · (No comments) · Tags: , , ,


Last night was the opening night of Paper Street Theatre’s “An Improvised Tennessee Williams.” It was great. Our goal was to create something that felt and tasted like the work of Williams and we did. We had the southern drawl, the grey un-moral characters, the overly poetic language and the rich metaphor and symbolism Tennessee loved so much. I’m very very proud of our cast.

We didn’t just try to recreate Williams though, we also aimed to recreate theatre in general. That was just as difficult to learn, or should I say, it was easy to learn but hard to actually do. When performing improv that looks like theatre, everything has to seem directed, all of your actions have to look rehearsed, there needs to be silence and stillness, props can’t disappear and reappear during scene changes, the fourth wall can’t have any set pieces on it (or you’ll block the actors), not to mentoin that sets are expensive, so you don’t have the luxury of changing locations. All of this, in conjunction with Williams’ very specific style, made last nights show look like a written play.

Here’s what I find most interesting about that. Since it looked and felt like a play, certain attributes of improvisation stood out a little more then they normally do in your standard improv comedy show. For instance, none of the offers last night were blocked, but if one wasn’t perfectly accepted it felt like a block. No one broke character on stage, but even the slightest smile looked like a full breakdown. The story made sense, but the simplest moment of confusion made it feel like the whole story was falling apart.

Why? Is it because we are bad improvisers? Not at all.

Then why? It’s because the audience was buying into the theatre of it. So much so, that after the show some of them asked us how much of it was written, and even after we explained that none of it was, they still left thinking it was written. And so, because they believed it was theatre, when something seemed a little off, or unaccepted, the question wasn’t “why did they make that up?” it was “why would someone have written that and let it get past the second draft?” See the difference?

If you’re not making it up on the spot, the audience’s tolerance of little mistakes goes down. The same goes for if you’re making it look like you’re not making it up on the spot. You need to be aware of that lower tolerance when attempting a theatrically improvised piece. You need to make sure every offer counts and every scene matters, because if it isn’t important to the script, it would have been cut out of play during the editing process.

That said, I think what we did last night was excellent, and a step in the right direction. Bringing improvisation back to a place of theatre. A place where you get more then a laugh, you get a story, perhaps some sadness, and at the very least, a night of entertainment. We have one more show tonight, and I’m looking forward to it more then any other improv show I’ve done this year. Maybe I’ll see you there.

 ¶ 

§150 · June 30, 2011 · Improv · 3 comments · Tags: , , ,


It’s official, I have a new improv company: the Paper Street Theatre co. We have a website and our first show, An Improvised Tennessee Williams, is booked for June 29th and 30th.

I am very excited. Let me tell you why.

Firstly, it’s nice to have a company with a theme and mandate again. It’s been a long time. Lately all I’ve been producing is Theatresports (or TheatresHorts as we call it), who’s mandate is to be inclusive to all improvisers, and help individuals performers grow. Which is great, but in the artistic vision department, it’s kind of blind. With Paper Street, it’s quite the opposite. My vision is there right from the start: To create improvisation that feels like theatre. I’m not going to debate whether it is better or worse then the having-fun-showing-the-seems improv, it’s just the goal of this company, so that everyone knows what we’re aiming for right from the get go.

Secondly, we’ve booked a show, and it’s a two night run. Which I think is an important part of the concept. Performing a run of a show adds an element of theatre. As oppose to a one off performance, which is more improv-like. A run give you the opportunity to give notes after the performance, and then put them to use the next night instead of just forgetting them because you’re never going to revisit that show again. I hope in the future to book a full season of shows at the beginning of the year.

Thirdly, and most importantly of all, it’s nice to be challenging myself again. Sometimes I get complacent, I start doing what I’m good at, and sticking with the same styles and games. Tennessee Williams is a little safe I guess (as I worked on it in Berlin with Randy Dixon), but it’s still one step up from what I’m used to, and it’s something I’ve never had to teach before. The next show we’ll be starting from scratch. Which means having to research the style (or author) of choice and find the elements on our own. Challenging and educational. A perfect mix. I’m not sure what styles next for Paper Street, but it will be something awesome. If you have any ideas, I’d love to hear them.

For now, take a look at the site, I’d love to hear your feedback on that too.

 

§50 · May 22, 2011 · Announcement, Improv · 1 comment · Tags: , ,