I’m trying to run an exercise in classes lately of what I’m calling “no bullshit” Harolds. It’s tricky, mostly because I’m working out how to describe what I’m looking for.

(I think every teacher has a version of this. I’d like to hear how other people achieve this in class! What do you call it? What do you say?)

It’s roughly that I want to see scenes where people are not worried about making a game, or making a pattern, or doing anything at all where it seems like they’re doing it because they think they SHOULD. No shoulds. This is slightly different in my mind than the related “don’t be funny” exercises. I just mean, forget the rules of what you think you SHOULD do, and instead just be in the scene for real and tell me what the person would really say.

It’s okay if it breaks the scene, or if you leave, or if you fight, or if you ask questions, or if it’s not funny, or if you walk away from a chance to repeat a pattern. We’re going for reality.

GET BACK YOUR INSTINCTS

Improv students have so many rules thrown at them, and the Harold is such a demanding structure that by the time you see people in an Advanced class, they no longer sound like real people. They’re being so diligent, to an impressive degree, to make active choices and say yes to every offer and find a game and to be specific, that everything sounds false and fake. Usually in the manner of some old 1940s move where everyone is hammy and big and everyone is speaking exposition in every line.

I mean, I know this happens for a good reason. Level one students are so scared of improv that the only choices they can ever think of are to say no, to reject, to run away. So we spend all this time forcing them to overrun those instincts that improv students inevitably enter a phase where they’ve stopped paying attention to their natural instincts at ALL.

So I’m trying to run “no bullshit” Harolds, meaning no SHOULDS. These are not true Harolds by anyone’s definition. There’s no games, there’s lots of indecisiveness. Inevitably some scene is brought to a standstill. BUT if they are done right they achieve something that has been sorely lacking: a world that feels real. Which is ingredient number one of compelling improv.

Overly detailed examples after the jump!

WHAT WOULD YOU SAY?

To try and explain what I’m looking for, I’ll have a discussion with the class where I give them a scenario and ask what they would say.

1) Like “Okay, you’re in a scene where you and your boyfriend/girlfriend are in a hot air balloon ride, which you’re doing for your anniversary. What are you talking about in this scene?”

The first bunch of ideas are generally high-stakes, highly emotion problems. “I’m too scared to go up.” “I’m mad at the person for making me do it.” “I realize I left the dog in the car.”

All high stakes, active. Also all very fake and contrived.

So I say to assume that there are no problems. You’re a bit nervous but you can handle it. You both wanted to go on this ride and your relationship is in a generally good place. And then again: “What are you talking about in this scene?”

So then the students start saying things like “We get philosophical about the view and our lives.” “I tell her how much I love her.”

Better, but I still don’t buy it. Still feels forced. Feels like people who know they are being watched talking about what they think they SHOULD talk about.

So I say. “No, picture it happening. What would YOU be talking about. Ten minutes into the ride, after you’ve exclaimed how beautiful it is, What would you talk about?”

Last time I did this, someone said at this point “We’d talk about the last episode of Game of Thrones.” And I laughed. THAT feels true.

Other suggestions: Talking about where you’re eating later. Talking about a mutual friend. Checking your phone for messages.

That’s what I want. What you would really do. That’s where we need to start in scenes. You have to be in touch, right away, with what would REALLY happen, so that things don’t sound fake.

WHAT WOULD YOU SAY, ASSUMING YOU WANT TO BE THERE?

2) Then I say: Okay, new situation. The scene starts and the other person in the scene tells you that you’re in a scuba suit and you’re about to dive in the water for your first solo swim with the tanks. What are you thinking about?

First bunch of answers: I’m terrified! I’m don’t want to go! I refuse to do it!

And I say no, that’s not what you would do. And the students argue: YES. We are picturing it, and that’s what we would do.

But you have to assume that you took this class on purpose, and you want to, and you finished the class and you’re ready. Given all that, what are you thinking about?

Last time I did this, a student said “Well, I’d be checking over my equipment and making sure I remembered what I was about to do.” I agreed with that. And then someone else said “I’d be excited to do it.” And then someone said “I’d just jump in the water and go.”

Those all feel true. You’d probably just take a beat to consider, then jump in the water and go.

A WHOLE HAROLD LIKE THAT

I run a whole Harold like this. No opening. Anytime anyone does anything that feels to me in the audience like they’re just doing it to do it, I say: “Would you really do that?”

A few admittedly confusing constraints:

1) Make a few choices before going into “no bullshit” mode. Say yes to the first few choices so that some world can come into being.

And 2) Still try to make things happen, as long as it doesn’t break the “no bullshit” rule. But when in doubt on any decision, side with “no bullshit.”

The second beats aren’t true second beats, though it’s interesting to see what the students bring back! And they are funnier than people expect. They DO find certain realistic behaviors which naturally repeat.

The scenes tend to be passive and a bit obstructionist. But not too bad. And they are more interesting. The people look and sound real. I trust them to be good judges of what is worth paying attention to.

I’LL TAKE THE COTTON CANDY

I am reminded of a scene that happened in my level 3 grad show. My classmates John Gemberling and Rob Lathan were playing two guys who heckled people, based on something in the opening. Specifically, they were two guys heckling a tightrope walker at a circus.

They were saying things like “Come on, fall!” ”You can’t do it! Get over yourself!”

Then someone from the backline walked on to the scene as a concession worker, saying “Cotton Candy! Slingshots!”

And Gemberling went “Uh, I’ll have a cotton candy.”

Some would say that was a denial of the intention of the walk-on. But I think it was just that Gemberling was respecting reality, and very in touch with what he would really do. He doesn’t want to kill this guy on the tightrope, just heckle him. And he likes cotton candy.

A whole Harold like that.