How to Start Your Own Improv Comedy Group

Table of Contents
Sample chapter
Sample Game Staging Suggestions
About The Author

What if all the theatre books in the world taught people how to rehearse but not how to perform?

Nothing on presentation.

This odd situation exists in the genre of improv theatre books, where there are quite a few published tomes providing improv training, but nothing, really, on how to perform it in front of a live audience.

This book gives all the tools that a reasonably competent adult would need to understand improv theatre, train others, form a performing group, and keep it together as long as possible. The unique element of this book is it’s focus not only on improv concepts and games but on practical guidelines for creating a viable performing group and staging improv games for live audiences. The book includes an extensive game list with staging comments.

You can order the book here

Table of Contents

The goals of improv training
Getting yourself going
Basic Agreements/Scene Rules
Understanding Games
Workshop #1: Basic Agreements
Workshop #2: Exploring the Group/Space
Workshop #3: The Character in The Scene
Workshop #4: Introduction to Performance
Organizing the troupe
Organizing the show
Show rehearsal
Showtime
Ongoing Workshops and Rehearsals
Musical Improv
Long Format
Contact Improv
Keeping It Together
Nowhere To Go But Up
Whither Improv?

Appendices:

List of games explained in the book
Other games and staging suggestions

Sample chapter: Chapter 3, Understanding Games

A game is a simplified world. There are clear guidelines. There are boundaries. There are tasks to perform and positive feedback to be had simply for trying to achieve those goals.

Everything is clear-cut, unlike most of life.

What theatre games do is occupy the mind while training the individual in a number of presentation skills. Any particular game may emphasize one or another presentation skill. If we play a mirror game we are learning to watch other people onstage, and to physically duplicate that behavior. The growth of mind-body integration is obvious. If we play a game where two players are dubbing the voices of two other players, you train the physicality of the non-verbal players and the quickness and observation powers of the second group, plus increasing cooperation among all.

But the main value is the freedom that game playing brings to the player. They improv player gets absorbed in the game challenge and is no longer worried about the audience. This turned Viola Spolin’s shy children into assertive theatrical performers, because it was all (presented as) a game.

The underlying scenework

Onstage games almost always involve some kind of scenework. It’s analogous to a track meet where the athletes’ overall strength, flexibility, endurance and cardiovascular efficiency provide a basis for all the running, jumping and throwing events.

The games are really just vehicles to get the players in and out of scenes. It’s important that your players feel totally at home in doing scenes so that they are at ease when the game lands them there.

The workshop games tend to develop scene skills, such as group agreement, give and take, stage picture, saying yes, making statements, etc. If the players remember these things when they are onstage, you will have good scenes and good games and a good time will be had by all.

How Many Balls in The Air?

It would not be unlikely for a particular player in an improv game to trying to give reality to an imaginary pencil while moving with the body image of a stork with a legato (fluid, smooth) internal rhythm in a floating imaginary atmosphere while constantly searching for tiny imaginary objects while playing the role of a bed bug stuck on a piece of toe jam on an Australian aborigine.

That may seem like a lot to be carrying around, but most of it would just be starting points from which a certain physicality and bits of onstage business would result.

Let’s unpack the situation where such a pile of elements could be carried around by one person. First of all, giving reality to imaginary objects is a fundamental skill in an environment where we typically have no props. Looking at and playing with the prop in a studied way can give a greater sense of reality to the object. This is object work which needs to become second nature to an improv player, so, since it is automatic to our imaginary skilled player, let’s cross it off the list of balls in the air.

When the player is waiting for her scene assignment, or just after it begins she may decide to take on the body image of a stork, and the floating atmosphere. This is an instant way into creating a physicality that translates into a particular kind of movement. Once she has made this choice she is in it, and it should take little attention to keep it going if she has a history of doing animal/people work.

The game itself may be Tiny Objects, which requires a player to constantly discover tiny objects in her environment, so, since that’s the main focus of the game, it shouldn’t be too difficult to continue. The toe jam location and the bed bug persona was probably given by an audience member, and that is simply who she is.

Let’s say our player is Louise and that she has a partner named George, who has decided to have the body/movement image of a whale (even though he is a bed bug), also in a floating atmosphere, and he is playing the same tiny objects game.

The scene might go like this:

Louise: George, darling, I believe that we are in some unusual feeding grounds [flicking some dust off of her clothing]
George: Yes, precious, I believe that we have arrived in a rather gooey state. [Leaning over slowly and picking up a bit of goo to eat].
Louise: I suppose that we should add it to the list.
George: Oh yes, the list of putrid dining spots.
Louise: Quite. I do believe it will be a best seller [pulling out her pencil and inspecting it for sharpness].
George: So, I suppose you’ll be needing the back, then [licking some residue off of his fingers as he turns his back for her to write on].
Louise: Yes, indeed [pushing him to the ground and sitting on his behind]
George: I love this part [laying on his stomach, picking up tiny morsels and popping them into his mouth as he kicks his feet playfully in the air behind Louise]
Louise: I know you do, darling, I know you do [starting to write on his back].
(BLACKOUT)

That is a perfectly believable improv scene, with physicality, bits of business, and characters that emerged out of choices of atmosphere and animal archetypes. The primary game was the tiny objects assignment. But there’s nothing stopping a skilled improviser from adding a few more elements at the onset to give the scene more texture.

In most improv games, however, there are one or two major game goals under focus, with the whole set of guidelines for scenework as an underlying framework. You’ll notice that the aspects of the Australian Aborigine, the floating atmosphere and the legato quality have hardly any effect on the story. The latter may have given rise to the slightly effete, upper society dialogue. And the aborigine element might come into play later. It doesn’t really matter that all the elements get woven into the scene. They are a point of departure for what is really happening, i.e.- a scene in which a believable relationship can be explored, in character, where dialogue that is appropriate for the situation can emerge with minimum effort.

Game focus evaluation

If you are leading an improv group you will have to guide the players in what constitutes good improv. Beginning players will often complain that what they did wasn’t funny. Extroverts without an improv background may be searching to find some joke that they can insert to make it funny, to get attention, or to “carry “ the scene for all of the shy people.

It’s your job to explain what we are really looking for. The first question is, did we fulfill the demands of the game?

The game may be something like Phone Bank. In Phone Bank individual players enter, at different times, a space with an imaginary row of phones such as you might find at an airport. Each player picks up a phone, dials a number, and starts talking. When one player starts to talk, the other players reduce the sound of their conversations to a whisper. Any player can retake the focus by bringing up the sound of their conversation, at which time the previous speaker will fade out. Players keep going with their conversations, chronologically, even when the audience does not hear them. Then, one by one, the players take focus, make final comments, hang up, and leave the stage.

This game, when done properly, can create a fascinating collage of character types passing each other in a public place, having their little moment on the phone, and then leaving the space empty.

Evaluating the success of the game would include mean asking if everyone understood what they were supposed to do, whether they faded out effectively when the next person spoke, whether they continued their conversation believably, and got off stage within an effective period of time.

Scene rules evaluation

The same scene, considered from the perspective of scene rules, takes on another flavor. Of course, the Give and Take structure of the game is a fundamental scene rule, and so that analysis is relevant in both environments. But there are also considerations of object work, in believably dialing and holding the phone, opening doors, if any, on the phone booths, and putting the phone handset back in the same place you picked it up. There are also considerations of volume that side-coaching statements such as Share Your Voice are designed to address. This is just a start.

Personal evaluation

You also want your players to be able to evaluate how they felt doing the scene. We are, after all, hoping that this will be “play” for the players. We want them to feel that their experience of the game is important. Were the game rules clear to them? Did they retain their focus or get lost in the presence of an audience? Hopefully the comfortable familiarity of being on the phone gave them something secure to hold onto onstage.

Entertainment evaluation

Finally we evaluate how entertaining we thought the piece was. It may seem surprising that I put this one last, but it is intentional. Not that we don’t care about the entertainment value. Just that if we do the first three things properly the fourth will typically come along. The games are intrinsically interesting. Most people would be fascinated to hear other people’s phone conversations, even if they are imaginary. So if you play the game right, creating a believable scene, and you seem to be having fun, the audience will be right with you, listening in.

Evaluation can take place in a workshop setting, or even post-performance. Ideally post-performance evaluation will take place with a video replay, if time allows.

By establishing these guidelines for evaluation, we redirect the attention of the new player to where it belongs, on the technical elements of onstage games and scenework, and on their own enjoyment. Letting go of the worrying about entertainment value puts the focus on the elements that will create the entertainment value. The less they worry about how they look, the better they look. It’s a great load off of the player, and a win-win for their future audience(s).

The Role of the Audience

The audience, therefore is a secondary consideration for the improv player, just as the sports audience is not (usually) part of the game in a sporting event. The audience’s attention adds excitement to the event, but their entertainment is a by-product of the improv activity.

We do ask the audience for suggestions for our improv games, such as settings, occupations, relationships, etc., but that is to a large degree only to help assure them that the material that they are seeing is truly improvised and not planned. We could just as easily make up these elements ourselves, and indeed, in games such as Scene from Nothing (see Appendix B), we do that very thing.

It’s interesting to note the types of suggestions that we solicit from the audience, since the topic illuminates some fundamental principles of improv and some practicalities of improv performance.

Viola Spolin described three aspects that need to be decided onstage, i.e. - who, what and where. We need to know who the players in a scene are, where they are and what they are doing.

When we solicit a “where” we are looking for a location, which I narrowly define as a location that will fit on the stage. This is a crucial distinction when getting suggestions from a live audience. When asked for a location for two performers in an upcoming game, audience members will sometimes make suggestions such as “France“ or “New York City.” At that point the emcee must ask for clarification, by saying something like “Where in France?” until there is a suggestion that is specific enough to fit onstage, such as, on observation deck on the top of the Eiffel Tower.

This is mandated because we want the players to be able to find and use physical specifics of a believable environment. Of course, it is possible to run a scene where France would fit on the stage, but then the players would have to be enormous giants and it would be very destructive to the French landscape, which could be interesting, at least. Still, for most scenes we want a specific, localized “where.”

When we speak of “who” we are generally looking of a relationship, e.g. - co-workers or blood relations, such as father/daughter, brother/sister, etc. Soliciting a relationship tends to bring elements of relative status into the scene, which were explored in depth by Keith Johnstone’s Impro and continue to form the basis of games such as Status Switch. In any case such suggestions get the ball rolling and the scene players can pick it up and run with it.

What we don’t really want from an audience is the “what” of the scene, i.e. - what are they doing. Sometimes an audience member will spontaneously suggest something like “they are getting married,” or “she’s dumping him.” If we give the players the who, what and where of the upcoming scene, they will have nothing to do other than recreate the audience’s suggestions. We don’t want that. We want them to discover something new, surprising and fresh without any real prompting.

In some ways we don’t really care what the audience comes up with, other than as a starting point. The suggestions just give a set of initial conditions, and the players move into the new and surprise everyone, themselves included.

Sample Game Staging Suggestions

Game: Foreign Expert

One player speaks gibberish and the other translates into English (or whatever language you are performing in).

Staging Suggestions

The emcee plays a crucial role in “packaging” this game for the audience. She explains “we have a special guest tonight,” and assigns a gibberish/nonsense name to the Foreign Expert. She explains that the Foreigner doesn’t speak English, but is an expert on every other topic, and asks the audience to suggest a topic for the expert to discuss. The emcee also points out and introduces the “translator.” Once the audience chooses the topic, the emcee repeats it, and then the translator “translates” the topic (in gibberish) to the Expert. The expert may dialogue in gibberish back to the translator in an apparent attempt to clarify the question, and them will launch into a lecture. The translator should be animated and gesture dramatically. The translator should be more understated and take a background role, even though they, of course, are the one making the whole thing up. The translator of course gets ideas from the gestures of the speaker, and the speaker may get ideas from the translator’s stuff, too. One crucial element is that the translator must listen carefully for a sort of concluding statement by the speaker. Even though the speaker can’t actually conclude, of course, they can fairly clearly indicate the end of the speech with body language and tone of voice.\

Game: Foreign Poet

This game shares many elements with the previous game, but there are subtle differences in presentation.

Staging Suggestions

The emcee announces that the famous poet (give gibberish name) is here, and endows the audience with the quality of being the poet’s ardent fans, saying, “so, you all know her work, so please pick the title of one of your favorites among her poems, and the translator will translate.” At this point the audience makes up a title, and the translator “translates” the title to the poet, and away we go. The translator shouldn’t try to rhyme. Just a free verse version of the gibberish poem will suffice. One thing that we try to do in my troupes is to amaze the audience by going for the production of a poetic statement that actually has wonderful feeling and insight.

Game: Mr. Know it All

This is a fun game that works apparently like magic, but is actually quite easy to do if the players maintain certain agreements (see staging suggestions). There is one narrator and three players. The players are seated in a row, facing the audience. The players answer questions posed by the audience, each contributing one word at a time, in order, until an answer has been created.

Staging Suggestions

The players should not look at each other or appear to touch each other in any way, so that it is clear that there are no signals between them.

The narrator plays a crucial role here, in introducing the three players as if they were one entity, e.g. - Mr. Know it All or Ms. Know It All (or “The Know It All” if the group of three is a mixed group of men and women). Narrator explains that the Know it All knows everything and can answer any question. The audience poses questions and the Narrator repeats them for the audience and the Know It All. The narrator also repeats the answer for clarity, sometimes making a humorous comment of some kind about the answers (which are not always brilliant, fully grammatical, or complete).

The players should try to answer the question in as few words as possible. Yes or no or short, cryptic answers are best. If any player whose turn it is to speak feels that the last word given could possibly serve as the end of a sentence that answers the question, that player should not speak. Once or twice in a session the players should break this mold and answer in a long rambling way, just for contrast.

The narrator can play an “editing” role here if she feels that the three players have assembled a complete answer by restating the successful answer to the audience, with a sense of triumph, before another player can speak.

Ms. Ask A Lot

This is a group of three players lined up as in Mr. Know it All with the sole difference in their behavior that they come up with questions one word at a time.

Staging Suggestions

This is a companion or conclusion piece to Mr. Know It All. By adding this group of three to the first group of three you get six players onstage and the groups simply ask and answer questions of each other one or both ways. Can work well if the two groups are women vs. men

About the Author

Paul Stokstad.......

is a former class clown who once upon a time gave up his drama major for literature and twenty years later rediscovered his onstage performing talents after a traveling troupe of Second City performers passed through his home town, gave a show, a workshop and left a curiosity for more. Several books, rehearsals and years later he collaborated with another player to create a a highly popular performance group, The Bedtime Snack Theatre. This group specialized in improv game performances as well as musical and skit elements derived from improv material and song parodies. And they served a snack at the break.

That group eventually morphed, split up, reorganized and emerged as a number of other groups, such as 7000 Clowns, The Lucky Ducks, High Moon Musical Improv, Brand X Improv, and Friday Night Live

The Lucky Ducks performed a number of live TV shows on public access TV, with viewer input, and several of the later troupes explored and presented the long form and musical improv genres in the local market, based on an all-day seminar given locally by Charna Halpern of Improv Olympia fame.

Paul is a creative and friendly type, with an extensive background in professional writing, teaching and web marketing. He has been active in advertising copywriting and print publication management for 25 years, taught ad copywriting on the graduate level for ten years, and was an early adopter of web technologies, founding a web consulting and design group in 1996.

He writes poetry, essays, ad copy, movie reviews, stand-up comedy, fiction, literary journalism, a humor column, a web marketing/design column, etc. He has many interests other than improv, including tennis (he's a USPTA P-1 pro), Transcendental Meditation, poetry writing, and performance-oriented partner dance.

He now mainly consults in web marketing and design, website structures/usability, and search engine optimization/pay per click advertising.

You can also order the book here