Finding the game is BS?
Not so long ago, someone said something rather provocative to me: “Finding the game is some BS they teach at Second City in Toronto.”
In short-form improv, we often call the scenes games. For instance, speak-in-one-voice is a game in which two players speak at the same time.
In improv, we often talk about “finding the game”, that is, creating a pattern out of something interesting or funny that we discover, and then repeating the pattern in different ways according to the rules we’ve made up. In long-from improv, the game can often become a sort of universal theme that we can wrap in different specifics. In shorter scenes, the game might just be a playful pattern. For instance, in a scene, you might have long-lost twins reunited who discover that they… speak in one voice.
If “finding the game” seems like a nebulous concept, just peruse any list of short-form games. All those familiar games are just examples of the types of games you might find on your own in a scene. Sit-Stand-Kneel? That’s a game! Old Job/New Job? Such a game!
If you grew up on short-form games, the game is under your nose! If you’ve played and enjoyed short-form games, then clearly, finding a new game can’t be BS!
10 Comments
Other Links to this Post
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI
contact [at] withoutannette.net
By gilbonzo, July 29, 2008 @ 9:42 am
Actually, I don’t think that IS the BS they teach at Second City, Bryan. You are conflating “a game”, as you correctly describe in short form, with “THE game”, from long-form.
THE game is finding what’s funny in a scene and then repeating and heightening it. Yes it involves patterns, but no it does not involve “a game” like speak in one voice.
Finding the game is something I never saw in Montreal. It simply isn’t the prevailing idea of how improv works. I think finding the game is dumb, personally. It’s a cheap way of creating comedy. You find something that makes people laugh then just repeat it. Boring.
I had some experience with finding the game in my time at the University of Maryland, where Chicago style improv is the name of the game (excuse the pun). I also was talking about comedic improv with my troupe here in New York, and about how comedy comes from emotions and relationships, etc. and they said, “No, comedy comes from playing with the game of a scene.” I thought it was BS.
By b.j.swank, July 29, 2008 @ 10:13 am
Thanks for replying, Gil. THE GAME, as I see it, can be many different things. It can be a small diversion in a scene, it can actually be the story, or it can be a wider theme. In Harold terms, I believe THE GAME usually refers to the wider theme.
Take, for instance, a scene where two long-lost twins meet. If they share a moment where they speak in one voice, that is a small game they found in the moment, a diversion. If they find that for every good thing one twin has done in their life, the other twin has done something evil, they have just found a game that might be the story behind the scene. If you take that game to mean “All good and evil in the world are balanced, every ying has it’s yang”, then you’ve found a broader theme that can be applied to other scenes.
To me, short-form games are just examples of smaller games that can be found within a scene. For all I know, speak-in-one-voice was a game that was discovered in a straight scene, and the players thought, hey we should re-use this game all the time.
Some people feel that short-form games are parlour tricks. Some people think finding the game are BS. I think there is a clear link between the two. Maybe they’re both dumb?
I will try to use a bit of judicious editing on my initial post to clarify my meaning.
By hbc, July 29, 2008 @ 4:02 pm
Gil: Being in New York, do you watch/enjoy UCB? Because their core philosophy seems to be finding the game. “Finding the game” is kind of a nebulous phrase that’s understood more intuitively than analytically. It’s more than just finding the button that makes people laugh, and then pushing it repeatedly. It’s a framework for discovering the structure of the scene from within the scene itself.
By hbc, July 29, 2008 @ 4:06 pm
Oh, and games aren’t just for performance, we also create them effortlessly in real life without nec. being aware of it. I don’t see how THAT can be bullshit.
By gilbonzo, July 29, 2008 @ 11:15 pm
Yo HairBeardCombo,
I do watch and oft enjoy UCB. But I always leave feeling a little off. It is easy for me to laugh in the moment when they do ridiculous things, but when I think back on it I am dissatisfied with the lack of character, story, emotion, truth. Maybe that’s just me, maybe that’s just my hoity-toity intellectualist improv attitude, but it’s the truth, baby.
Being in New York, I enjoy pizza. Mmm mmm mmm.
By Brendon, July 30, 2008 @ 1:31 am
I think it’s a mistake to approach every scene with the same set of tools.
Like cookies, ‘finding the game*’ is a sometimes food. As is whatever other techniques there are for generating scenes (narrative I guess).
*I’m assuming a fairly narrow interpretation of ‘game’, rather than an ‘everything is a game’ approach.
By marc, July 30, 2008 @ 4:26 pm
I agree with Brendon. I like variety.
By b.j.swank, July 31, 2008 @ 1:59 am
Were you insinuating, Gil, that Second City teaches a different kind of BS? I couldn’t quite tell what your capital letters meant. I know next to nothing about SC.
Oh, and variety is nice.
By vinnyfrancois, August 1, 2008 @ 1:14 am
http://www.withoutannette.net/blog/?p=261
By b.j.swank, March 16, 2011 @ 6:35 pm
Ian Roberts (UCB founder) agrees with me that the game in short-form is just one of many games that can be found in long-form: “I think anyone who has skill at long-form can do short-form. It’s a game with one rule that’s predetermined.”
http://www.improvinterviews.com/2007/02/ian-roberts-part-1-21607_19.html