What’s in your backpack?

George Schaller is an American conservationist and writer and is recognised as one of the world’s preeminent field biologists.

In 1959 he travelled to Central Africa to study and live with the mountain gorillas and his groundbreaking research was continued by Dian Fossey who wrote Gorillas In The Mist.

George was renowned for being able to get closer to the gorillas that anyone else. As a result, he was able to observe behaviours that no one else saw.

Once he was asked: “How is it that you get closer to the gorillas than anyone else?”

His answer was simple: “Unlike the others, I don’t carry a gun in my backpack.”

Carrying a gun in improv

There are parallels with improv.

At the top of a scene I see a lot of people go for immediate problems, disagreement and conflict. In other words their character plays AGAINST the other.

This feels like a field researcher carrying a gun, and it limits the possibilities for closer relationships and deeper discoveries between characters.

Playing AGAINST the other character is a well-worn routine that probably feels like a safer choice for those who make it. But there are problems with it. People don’t want to be the improviser they are playing against, no one really wants to see it on stage, and we don’t get invested in characters who do this.

NOT carrying a gun in improv

Can we have improv without conflict?

I know some people see this as essential to improv, but I think the answer is YES – we can have improv without conflict if the characters are FOR each other.

Playing FOR each other means being there for the other character. It can range from loving each other to liking each other, and it sets a ‘depth limit’ because the characters (ultimately) have good intentions towards each other. They value each other in some way and want good things for each other.

Playing this way is all about being seen and heard in a relationship – taking the risk of wanting or needing the other person in your life. It’s theatre in it’s original sense from the Greek theatros of ‘being seen’ or ‘making visible.’ When people play FOR each other and are willing to be seen it’s intriguing to our curious mammal brains. We want to know more about these people – what circumstances brings them together? what do they love about each other? what will keep them together? what drives them crazy about each other? what (if anything) could drive them apart?

I learned this idea of playing characters who are FOR each other from Chris Mead recently and I think it solidifies something I’ve felt for a long time.

It’s something I’m keeping in my improv backpack.

Will it be boring if we are FOR each other?

I don’t find it boring to watch a relationship that feels real. I find it compelling.

So as improvisers, why don’t we play with characters who are FOR each other all the time?

I think it’s because we fear that it will be boring, and lacking in drama and that we will be judged for doing bad improv.

I find Bill Arnett’s positively-framed improv assumptions are a really handy way of countering this negative assumption.

Here are a few of Bill’s assumptions:

  • A truthful, reasonable and clearly played scene will hold the audience’s attention
  • The audience would rather a scene or show start slow and end strong than start strong and end slow
  • The more deeply an audience understands a scene, the more likely they are to be emotionally affected by it
  • The audience will enjoy a funny idea, premise or concept when it is revealed, but their enjoyment of the rest of the scene depends on how well it is played 

I find that rather than being boring, playing characters who are FOR each other creates fascinating, funny, unpredictable improv where the characters get to play with the subtle tensions between them like an elastic thread.

And if you want to pull laughs that works too. They will be rich, rewarding laughs because the audience will care.

What makes it work?

I think being FOR each other works because everything the characters say and do, every subtle move they make, is held by the container of their relationship.

If you are romantic partners, siblings, colleagues etc then certain types of behaviour or conduct are expected or allowed. Watching these expectations being meet, upended or taken to an extreme is compelling to watch.

Exploring human relationships and playing with social conventions in this way doesn’t have to be worthy, earnest or boring. All sorts of quirky behaviour, odd points of view, character changes and patterns of comedy can arise, and they do so because they take place within the container of the relationship. There’s structure to uphold or subvert.

I think one of the key distinctions about playing FOR other characters is that there is no need to engineer conflict. The opposite is true – when characters have a sense of existing over time with a past and future then like real people it’s generally in their interest to avoid, delay or resolve conflict.

It’s a spectrum

It helps to think of ‘playing FOR’ as spectrum ranging from “Sure, that’s fine neighbour” to “I would do anything for you my darling” – with every shade in between.

When you play anywhere on the positive spectrum – from 1% to 100% FOR the other person – it puts some moves off limits. The spectrum doesn’t go even as far as minus 1% AGAINST so characters can’t hate, reject, ignore or objectify each other. And they can’t be too dominant and controlling because they have stakes in the continuation of their relationship. They have to listen, interact, adapt and give each other affordances – indulging each others peccadillos and turning a blind-eye to certain character traits or views.

So if two characters are playing FOR each other, and one asks the other out on a date they won’t be shamed by disgust, or objectified by a high-status block. The response will be far more nuanced. The interplay of status will be fine-grained and finely balanced. The relationship matter so the person being asked out on a date might respond with genuine gratitude but a polite decline, a white lie or a promise for something else.

When you are ultimately FOR the other person, and you keep on that positive spectrum, there are always options for finding a move towards them. And seeing those moves is the rich, complex dance of being human and in relationship with yourself, others and the world.

So what’s possible?

I think the answer is most things you would want to see in a story are still available.

Characters who are FOR each other can of course encounter obstacles, get into trouble, discover wrinkles in their relationship, complete a hero’s journey and find any number of character games to play.

And villains and baddies aren’t off limits. But if a character is playing AGAINST then it becomes a deliberate choice, rather than a default habit, and it can be played intelligently.

Another big benefit of playing this way is that it delays conflict. And if conflict does come then it will have been earned. When we know what and who the characters are FOR will care enough about them and their situation to be invested in their highs and lows.

Playing FOR mean being taking the risk of being closer to other people so. Improv is a kind of ‘live public experiencing’ which actually sounds terrifying but we create a container in a workshop or on the stage where that is OK. In any case, it means more vulnerability and higher stakes.

But here’s a little nugget from Liz Allen, one of my favourite improv teachers: “Emotional vulnerability refuels improvisation.”

See what happens when you don’t carry a gun in your improv backpack.

See how close you can get and what you discover.

The gorillas are friendly.

Things to try

Try this in improv

At the start of any scene you could use the mantra “My character is FOR your character.”

That might be 10%, 50% or 100% FOR them – but it can’t flip over into being even 1% AGAINST.

If your go to emotion at the top of a scene is anger, resentment etc and you can feel that bubbling up, then channel that away from the other player and onto your circumstances, or a higher power.

A couple of good exercises for playing FOR the other character:

You are my best friend (Hoopla)

Good morning (Susan Messing/ Chris Mead version)

Try this at home

I’ve started using this idea in everyday interactions. We all have those moments when we find ourselves pulling away from someone else in conversation, contracting into introspection or just getting distracted. When I’ve noticed this happening lately I’ve been saying to myself “I am FOR you” to come back to my good intentions for them rather than get snagged by self-doubt or distrust, and from that more spacious sense of presence try to figure out how we connect and what matters for both of us.

“”

“No one who looks into a gorilla’s eyes – intelligent, gentle, vulnerable – can remain unchanged, for the gap between ape and human vanishes; we know that the gorilla still lives within us. Do gorillas also recognise this ancient connection?

– George Schaller, National Geographic

Hat tip to my daughter Izzy who wrote a book when she was about 7 called ‘Clementine Quack Quack What is in Your Backpack?’

The possibilities are endless!

Another hat tip to Kelly Leonard from Second City Works for sharing the George Schaller story at a workshop.

Photo by Danka & Peter on Unsplash

A few more ideas

Yes, another newsletter.

But you won’t want to miss this one.

Our monthly newsletter is all about a joyful and mindful way of improvising.

Each month has a few ideas and details of what’s on.