Hey Everybody!

So this past Harold season at IB the higher ups allowed me to break a bit form Harold tradition and allowed me to try a new form for IB: The SPOKANE.  I had been a long time fan of the form after seeing it at UCB NY a bunch of times and really wanted to see it done at IB in a professional setting.  Here I will share some of the lessons we learned and overall strategies we developed in case anyone out there is also interested in trying out this awesome form!

Just so we're all on the same page, the Spokane is a longform structure in which there is a central source scene that the whole show revolves around (like the center of the wheel in the picture above).  From that source scene, other scenes can be started and continue down a series of tag out scenes (like going away from the center of the wheel down one of the spokes).  Eventually the tag outs will find their way back to the source scene.  Then you can just repeat the process.

Below are some points about various aspects of the spokane that we learned.  These are in no way ment to be the absolute only way to do the spokane.  As with any art, do whatever you want and change whatever you want... that's art baby!  These are the observations I learned that were specific to the Saint Brad cast:

0)  The Opening
For Saint Brad we opted to get a unique location from the audience.  Obviously you can just do this 100% organic and just get a word, but I liked getting a unique location because it just sped things up and got everyone on the same page.  This may offend some purists, but I think anything that gets everyone focused in the same way (a location) really helps with group mind.  I noticed unique locations with known "characters" tend to be the most successful.  One of the best ones was "backstage behind some theatrical production"  You can get fun characters like the dramatic main characters, the paranoid show producer, technicians, side characters, etc etc.  The more specific and unique a location, the better, as it's more fun for the performers to think of new characters they've never done before. 

1)  The Source Scene
The first scene of the show is the source scene.  These should be treated with the same mentality as a monoscene.  Meaning, this scene will probably always only exist in 1 location.  However, characters are welcome to leave and new characters are welcome to enter.  The first scene should be like the first beat of a harold: long, slow, and organically finding games, characters, and relationships.  I recommend about 3-5 minutes for the first scene.  DO NOT tag out too early as you will find it difficult to tag back in with any sort of momentum.  Really let the first scene breathe.

As in the monoscene, it's really important to establish characters with strong and simple points of view.  Such as "the mom who is overbearing", "the daughter who wants to party", and "the dad who is overprotective".  Really try to keep it simple, if you can't boil down your character's point of view in a simple sentence, then he/she is probably too complicated.

We also noticed it's nice when there's about 3-4 people in this scene, so that we have a lot of different characters we can tag out to explore.  With 2 people, you just have fewer ideas to explore.

2)  The "Spokes" scenes
So when I first started with the spokane I thought there was 1 main way to do it, which was just when a game was found in the source scene, tag out to another scene that heightens the game.  But as we dove deeper into the form, we noticed there were different kinds of tags that people could do.  I am a pretty analytical person, so we actually made labels of the different kinds of tags.  Because of the temporal logistics of always coming back to a source scene right where it left off (no time jumps), I thought of the edits in terms of time.  So we can cluster the edits into 3 main groups:

EDITS INTO THE PAST

1. Game Based Edits - This is the basic one where a game is found in the source scene, and then we tag out to another scene that heightens that game.  Just like the second beat of a Harold.  Let's say you're in a source scene and there's a game that the father is overprotective of his daughter.  We can tag out to a scene in the past when he also flipped out about someone doing slightly negative towards his daughter (like accidentally bump into her).  These scenes will probably be very premise heavy (meaning you start the scene with a strong initiation line that specifically hits this game). 
2. Exploratory Edits - These are edits that are more organic in nature than the game based tags.  Meaning, maybe there was some sort of funny half idea that was mentioned in the source scene, but it's not a fully flushed out idea (like the overbearing dad is a fully idea).  For example, in the source scene, someone could mention that the AC was broken at work all day.  Then an exploratory edit could go to the hot office scene, where everyone is on the floor, half naked, and sweating like crazy.  Improvisors should treat this like an organic scene, finding new games and new characters.  I say the broken AC is a "half" idea, because there's nothing really comedically funny about a broken AC unit, so there's still work to do in the new scene to find new games.
3. Off shore edits -  These are kind of similar to exploratory edits, but the main difference is that these edits do not contain any of the characters from the source scene.  For example, if in the source scene someone says "you know in Cuba they would kill to have your job!"  Then we could edit to a scene in cuba where people are clamoring to get that job.  Clearly the scene in Cuba will have nothing to do with the characters in the source scene, hence the "off shore" title of this kind of edit.

EDITS INTO THE PRESENT

1. Parallel world edits - All of the edits I described before occured "in the past"  You can also do an edit of a scene that is occuring "at the same time" as the source scene.  One example is if the source scene is a bunch of kids playing on the playground, we could jump to the parallel world of the teachers watching them from afar.  These are really fun as it's a joy to watch these two parallel worlds interact.

EDITS INTO THE FUTURE

1. No Future Edits - We actually purposfully did not do future edits, because it caused a sticky situation when we would do scenes in the future.  The biggest hurdle was that we couldn't really use any of the information learned in the "future" scene when we tagged back into the source scene, which kind of defeated the purpose of them.  Just to keep things simple, we chose not to do these edits.

EDITS INTO FANTASY

1. Story mode edits - These were a huge hit within Saint Brad.  These are kind of like based on the movie "The Princess Bride" in which the grandfather begins to tell a story, and then we cut to that story.  This is probably the most narrativy of all the edits, but it allows you to go super insane because at any point you can just tag back to the source scene and just react with "The princess killed the prince?!?!" 

4)  Some High Level Tips

1. No fast tag runs - The spokane is a longform structure where each edit is meant to be used to explore, find more games, and then explore some more.  To allow this to succeed, as a general rule of thumb don't tag out of a scene under 2 minutes.  Meaning, always give time to each scene!  Some teams may be tempted to jump from scene to scene after just 1 or 2 lines.  This may get a quick laugh, but you will find that you will run out of steam since no characters or relationships were developed.
2. Chain the edits together! - So a spokane can go as many scenes away from the source scene as you like.  Feel free to mix and match the edits, even within a single "spokane" thread.
3. Trust that you'll find your way back - We sometimes found that during our "spokane" thread run, we would get so far away from the source scene, we'd have no idea how to get back.  Here you've got to have a little faith.  Just keep on going until someone sees a great opportunity to connect the "spokane" scenes back to the source scene in a hilarious and awesome way.  Gotta trust each other!  Don't try to force it back to the source scene just because you feel "it's about time"  You should only go back to the source scene, when you have an awesome idea.
4. Reference the edits when you cut back to the source scene - There should be some reaction when you cut back to the source scene, even something simple like "Oh, so that's how that pizza got up there" will get a huge laugh.  You can basically pretend that someone was telling the "story" of whatever the tag run is.  You should try to use the information learned in the spoke scenes to heighten whatever is going on in the source scene.  You group just did all this awesome work in the tag run, don't waste it! 
   
5. Slow Ramp Up -  Just like any longform show, the energy, pace, fun, and crazyness should always be ramping upwards towards some crazy explosive ending.  Always try to make choices throughout the set that "level up" the intensity of the overall show, try to avoid going down in energy.  For example if halfway in the show someone says "oh man, grandma is going to be pissed!"  It's better to choose the rump UP response "Oh SHOOT!  SHE's GOING TO KILL US!" versus the ramp DOWN response "Nah, she doesn't care, she's just sleeping". 

Okay that was pretty long!  I'll stop here for now, but hopefully this will help some people out who were interested in trying out the form.  LIke I said above, these aren't hard rules, just things we observed.  Feel free to do whatever you want, that's improv baby!  (as Andrew says)

Jeff

We're excited to announce our new Friday show "Your Terrible POLITICS."  It's still improv, it's still free, and it's still crazy funny.  We're going to go over the week's crazy events, chat about it with the audience, and then do some fun improv off of it.

So if you've been tired with the election, c'mon out and vent about it here.  Then we'll make even more fun of the absurdity that is our government.  We'll be even more groundbreaking than Anderson Cooper, but probably not as silver foxxy... no one out silver foxes Anderson Cooper.  NO ONE.

Sup Peepz!

Big news in naffy-land!  This week we welcome 2 ridiculous new players to the team:

At a recent practice Ben mentioned that we had stronger monoscenes when we had a "hot start."  Usually that means coming in with a big emotion or point of view right at the top of the show.  This is in contrast to the more slow build style.  For example:

Slow Build:
Person 1: "Hey"
Person 2: "Cold these days huh?"
Person 1: "I might put on a jacket.. yup... you were right..."

Hot Start:
Person 1: "I forgot to file the report!  Ms. Johnson is going to kill me!"
Person 2: "OH SHIT.  YOU ARE SCREWED"
Person 1: "I am SO FIRED.  You were right!  I am an idiot!"

The improv purist in me says that both approaches are fine.  In fact, the first one may feel more organic and less dependent on a "high energy" gimmick to start a show.   I think it's clear to see why an audience will be more entertained with that second hot start.  But then I begin to wonder if it's too formulaic to come out with a big emotion every time, and I hate shows where I know what's going to happen before it even starts.   Longform improv should be a surprise at every show, it's what drives the thrill of it all.

But I think a "hot start" can be more than just coming out with a big emotion.  I think "hot start" could be expanded to just mean have an "engaging" start.  For example, I think even the first example (slow build) from above could be converted to a hot start without reverting to yelling.  For example:

Slow Build #2:
Person 1: "Hey" [tense pause, stares intensely at Person 2]
Person 2: "Cold these..." [break the stare, begins to cry] "days... huh?"
Person 1: "I might put on a jacket..."  [pauses, regret begins to seep in] "you were right..."

Obviously this new version requires a lot of commitment and a good amount of acting skill, but if done well, I'd say it would be a very engaging beginning and any audience would be sucked in.  So we don't have to always rely on screaming and cursing to suck in an audience, we can do it with just pure commitment as well.  Knowing this, it really expands on the idea of all the different kind of "hot starts" we can have.

In summary I think the beginning of a show is so important, especially for a non-improv audience.  If you don't have their attention after the first 2-3 minutes, it will be hard to gain it later.  So I recommend try starting your show with "hot starts", filled with energy, commitment, and strong points of view.  Or you can just curse and yell a lot... something i do way too much...

jeff

A consistent and high quality presence in the Boston Improv scene, Bodega is home to extremely talented, funny and diverse improvisers. Currently performing in their second season as a member of ImprovBoston's Studio 40, a showcase for Boston's best indie improv, Bodega has become a home for very funny comedy. They've performed at Harold Night, the Hartford Improv Festival, opened for the Con Men, and the world famous Del Close Marathon. This week opening for the Naffy show you will get the chance to see Rosena, Romain, Nency, Jo, Somaliyah, and Quentin tear up the stage. Reserve your FREE tickets now and we know you won't regret it.

The freakn' Harold.  The cornerstone of longform improv.  Created by the legend himself, Del Close.  Of course, I was never, ever even remotely close to learning the original Harold from Del himself.  And I think at this point it's probably safe to say the Harold has taken a life of its own.  Depending on who you ask, from what city, and which school they learned it from, each person remotely vested in longform improv has their own thoughts on the Harold.  

For me? I learned the harold at UCB.  And it may come as a surprise, but I am actually not a super fan of the harold taught at UCB.  Well, to clarify, I am not a huge fan of it now.  The UCB harold is actually quite dry and stiff, and pretty mechanical.  I am specifically talking about doing the Harold that they teach in their classes.  Their basic formula is do a pattern game (Boston translation: clover), extract 5 premises, then use 3 of the premises to start the first 3 scenes, and 2 of the premises to start the group games.  Each successive beat continues the game in either analogous or time jump manner.  That's basically it.  

Although I don't personally like doing that kind of a Harold now, I definitely see why they teach it and I agree with it.  That kind of Harold is like a longform set on training wheels.  With an exact structure and formula that you must follow.  It really teaches you how to hone in on a scene, and then how to continue a comedic game idea down the road.  This basic concept is so important for any kind of longform structure and beginning improvisors should definitely learn it.

Maybe some of Boston has been rubbing off on me, but as of now, I am definitely digging the more organic discovery kind of loose Harold.  I still like game, and second beats, and all that UCB stuff, but fusing it with an organic mentality is really where I am at.  Especially with the way Rabbit plays, it's ultra organic, yet we still hit those strong games.  It's also why I love monoscenes so much, it's basically a super organic Harold.  I do think that without strict training of the UCB harold style, I would find monoscenes to be very unmanageable and difficult.  Ironically, it's that strict Harold training that gives me the control to be so loose with the Harold.  So in the end, I think the UCB Harold is a great training tool that everyone should do, but for actual shows... I prefer to loosen up a bit!

​Jeff

Naffy is happy to bring you ImprovBoston Resident Cast Rabbit, fresh off their Harold Night March Madness victory! This collection of amazing talent has been around in some form or another at Harold Night for years. In its current iteration, Rabbit has been a consistently excellent Harold Night team, and has also won the Improv Boston Cagematch Finals and the Harold Night March Madness Tournament. They perform a Harold, but lean hard into organics and letting the show go wherever it needs to go, so you're always bound to see something fresh, exciting, and new. Composed of Tim Hannafin, Ryan Kiessling, MaryBeth Dekara, Katie Pentedemos, Jeff Chou, Andrew Barlow, Brendon Bates, and Conor Allen, this team is a collection of some of Boston's best talent. Be sure to reserve your FREE tickets to check them out this Friday as they open for Naffy!

Back for a third time, to help Naffy start April on a good foot, is Summer Boyfriend! These titans of Boston improv comedy have had one of the longest and most consistently excellent running shows in the area. Supported by the Fine Line comedy network, Summer Boyfriend has performed at ImprovBoston, The Riot, The Milky Way, and at festivals across the country. Check out some photos from their previous shows, and then be sure to reserve your FREE tickets now!

On March 23rd, Naffy got the chance to perform the "Your Terrible Ex!" show at ImprovBoston's Comedy Lab. We interviewed Max Kreisky and then were able to do a show set at Comic-Con with three card sellers, Pokemon, Yu-Gi-Oh, and Digimon trying to sell their wares. We met Neil, the annoying comic con fan, Hugh Jackman, Ryan Reynolds and George Lucas. Check out these photos now and keep an eye out for our upcoming shows at IB including our show this Saturday opening for the Con Men, and next month as we perform on Harold Night!

​-Ian

For the improv nerds out there, everyone has probably at least heard of "the game" of the scene.  Most readers of this probably know that the UCB really focuses on "the game" of the scene.  However, I've noticed in the Boston scene the, the Boston definition of "game" and the UCB definition of "game" are slightly different.  Hopefully I can explain this subtle difference.

First disclosure, I am not trying to imply that one definition is better than the other, I just want to clarify what is UCB "game."  Of course improv is an art form, and one could argue how could anyone define a term that is open to interpretation.  I completely agree, and hence the first sentence of  this paragraph.  OKAY, on to the good stuff.

The Boston "Game":  Well, I am not even sure if there is a formal Boston definition of game.  That might be the first problem.  From what I've gathered, it seems to be a very high level definition.  One definition I've heard in Boston is it's akin to finding the pattern in the scene.  ANY pattern can become a game.  In principal, I loosely agree with that definition, but I think it's too broad of a definition and can lead to poor scene work and understanding.  For example:

Person 1: "Hey, I'm a dummy"
Person 2: "Uh, sir, you're at McDonalds, what would you like?"
Person 1: "Hey, I'm a dummy"

Bam, the pattern is saying "I'm a dummy"!  The game is found!  Scene is over!  This was a humorous, over simplified example meant to express a point.  Yes, there was a pattern there, and if you go by above's definition, then that is the game.  And if you like to live in that world, then everything makes sense.  Is this a good scene?  Does simply repeating something make something funny?  Do students gain any understanding at making good scenes?  I'd say no to those questions.  I am not a fan of this definition as in my opinion can lead to weird, unfocused, and lazy scenes if it is taught poorly.  Obviously the pros in Chicago have mastered how to teach this method and know way more about it than I do.

The UCB "Game":  To be fair the UCB definition of game has also changed a bit, but the best definition I've head is "The funny thing about the scene".  Notice there is no mention of pattern or repetition.  It's simply trying to pinpoint the single funny idea of the scene, and we call this idea "the game."  Now the question is, what is funny?  The UCB formula is to first find the unusual thing about the scene to at least get you started.  Finding the unusual thing and justifying it can usually lead to a funny concept.

Let's go back to the simple scene above.  Is there anything funny in those 3 lines of dialogue?  I would argue no.  All we know is that we have a person saying "i'm a dummy" a lot, but what if this persona has a learning disability, or is a stutterer, then there's definitely nothing humorous here.  It's just a real life scenario.  NOTHING unusual has happened, mostly because we don't know what "normal" is yet for these characters.  Let's look at another scene in the same location:

Person 1:  "Hello, I would like a big mac, large fries, vanilla mcflurry, 12-piece chicken mcnuggets and a diet coke please - I'm trying to watch my weight"
Person 2:  "Of course.  I should say your order's calorie count is triple the normal recommended for a single adult meal"
Person 3:  "Hah.  Obviously.  That's why I ordered the diet coke you silly goose"

What's the unusual thing here?  Answer: someone thinks ordering a diet coke can nutritionally justify the rest of the high calorie count meal.  What's the overall, boiled down funny idea here?  That a single "good" thing can justify for a whole bunch of "bad" things.  That is the game of the scene.  That is the funny idea that we want to visit 2 more times.  Those are your next beats of the Harold.  It has nothing to do with finding a pattern.

Summary
The UCB game definition refers to more of a concept, specifically the funny concept of the scene.  The pattern definition refers to mechanically doing the same thing more than once.  These are two very different things.  The UCB perspective on a basic 2 person scene, is the entire purpose of the scene is to find that one funny game.  It is very much so a hunting based mentality.  Other schools in Chicago and Boston tend to teach improv as more of a free-form exploration, in which patterns may emerge and disappear seamlessly.  In this context, the pattern definition makes more sense. 

The goal of this blog post was just to highlight the subtle differences that exist in the improv world, and that they can all be potentially great.  I just find it dangerous when we sloppily mix up the definitions and try to apply one to the other and then everyone gets confused.

Jeff