Dominant tradition identifies the written play script as ‘the starting point and basis of British theatre production’ (Oddey, 1994, p.4). It ‘dictates the plot or narrative line, the number of characters, the setting, the scene directions, and the length of the piece’(ibid, p.7). It is a blueprint for performance; it empowers the director who oversees the task and transforms the actor into a vessel of interpretation as they bring the playwright’s work to life. Theatre culture glorifies the script, this text that informs performance. Jennifer Wise (2000,p.3) even goes as far as to suggest that theatre requires a written text, and that ‘without the existence of writing and literacy, there can be no theatre’ (Scott, 2014, p.58). Theatre culture values the scripted over the unscripted. This dissertation will challenge this view, and contemplate what happens when the script is removed from the equation; taking a step into the unknown.
Improvisation has had a long-standing history in the theatre and yet is rarely acknowledged. This is partly due to its ambiguous nature. Improvisation transcends genre, making it increasingly difficult to define. This dissertation deals with improvisation as performance. Even as we focus our attention to improvisation in this capacity, it still resists clear definition. It is simultaneously ‘the spontaneous creation of something from nothing’ (Parker, 2019), ‘an invitation to awareness’ (Simpson, 2019) and ‘a collaborative art form in which performers co-construct unscripted narratives’ (Barker, 2016). Amidst a myriad of definitions, there are a number that misleadingly contribute to the stigma surrounding improvised theatre. We offer two examples: ‘true improvisation is getting on stage and performing without any preparation or planning’ (Halpern, Close and Johnson, 1994, p.13) and improvisation ‘is getting on stage and making stuff up as you go along’ (Napier, 2015, p.1); definitions from successful masters of the craft themselves. Mary Jane Pories (2014,p.7) explains ‘in our effort to be accessible, we’ve downplayed the effort required to master the skills’, and in response, this dissertation hopes to reveal the intricacies involved in mastering improvisation for what it truly is; an Art.
It is not just ambiguity that renders improvised theatre undervalued. Despite being ‘a powerful source of dramatic invention and discovery and an influence on dramatists through the ages’, Cecily O’Neill (1995, p.17) contends that for many academics ‘the word improvisation seems to signify everything objectionable in alternative forms of theatre’ (ibid). Improvisation is a term that implies ‘a sense of deficiency or a makeshift reactive methodology to be employed only when more rigorous, planned or secure approaches are unavailable’ (Charles, 2003, p.5), that carries with it ‘a definite connotation of second best’ (Fox, 1994, p.94) to that of its scripted counterpart.
Seemingly in keeping with the negative attitudes attributed to improvised theatre, there is also an apparent lack of scholarly discourse both into its practice and performance. This dissertation will address both of these elements of improvised theatre, hopefully contributing positively to the relatively small pool of academic writing at present. As it re-emerges as a recognised form of theatre, we argue that there is great value in the unscripted; that there is a beauty in abandoning text. Improvised performance allows for a living, breathing script that dances on stage before our very eyes.
A Brief History of Performed Improvisation: A Disappearing Act?
Before the script, there was improvisation. Providing a full history of improvisation, however, is an impossible task. Its essence resists such an overview. It is crucial to our understanding of improvisation’s role within the theatre. Improvised performance is ‘largely ignored or downplayed in modern historical accounts of theatre’ (Charles, 2003, p.vii). The absence of improvisation in theatrical historical record renders the task of a ‘brief history’ even harder. However, this form has played a persistent role in the history of mankind and its theatre and here we attempt to chase its existence through the ages.
The earliest examples of improvisation can be found in Shamanism of the Palaeolithic era. The Shaman assumes the role of ‘performer: doctor and priest, story-teller and clown’ (Frost and Yarrow, 1990, p4) simultaneously. It dates back to Greek Theatre, preceding the script, improvisation was present in the dithyrambs that Scott explains were (2014, p.55) ‘responsible for the birth of drama’; Aristotle himself noting how both tragedy and comedy were ‘at first mere improvisation’ (Aristotle, 2008, p.55). It then appeared and dominated the Italian Renaissance stage in the form of Commedia Dell’arte for 300 years, ‘influencing many major playwrights: among them, Shakespeare, Moliere, Marivaux, Gozzi and Goldoni’ (Frost and Yarrow, 1990, p.8). Hazel Smith and Roger Dean (2013, p.11) comment that Commedia ‘was also a way of adapting to different dialects in different places: this would have been virtually impossible through scripted drama’. Commedia is arguably the most prominent example of improvised performance in theatre history.
After Commedia, Frost and Yarrow (1990, p.9) suggest that overtly improvised performance then ‘disappears with the development of the enclosed, plush and decorous theatre space’ during the eighteenth century. It also coincides with the Stage Licensing Act of 1737 (Swindells and Taylor, 2014) which gave the Lord Chamberlain ‘absolute statutory powers to censor all plays as he saw fit’(ibid), and of course, ‘improvisation has always been the censor’s nightmare’ (Frost and Yarrow, 1990, p.146). Up until 1968 when the law was abolished, improvisation on stage was illegal. It was perfectly acceptable to employ as a tool during the rehearsal process or in actor training; but performing improvised theatre was forbidden. In fact, any performance that even slightly departed from the Lord Chamberlain’s approved text would result in legal battle. Joan Littlewood, a ‘pioneer of improvisation’ (Frost and Yarrow, 1990, p.147) and her Theatre Workshop were prosecuted in 1958 for ‘a very wide divergence’(ibid,p.148) from the authorised text in the actual performance. Improvisation became assimilated with ‘subversive politics’, Littlewood’s Theatre Workshop was ‘avowedly left wing’(ibid). Although there is nothing adversely ‘left or right wing’ about performed improvisation, it does challenge ‘the dominant cultural assumptions about what is ‘the basis of the actors art’’, it ‘de-emphasises the individual writer’ and instead ‘privileges the creative ensemble’, allowing the actor creative freedom; this ‘becomes a political act in itself’(Ibid). The battle against the censor ‘reached its climax at the Royal Court in the mid-1960’s’, with artists finding new ways to perform improvisation. Keith Johnstone’s Theatre Machine performed their ‘Clowning show for the Royal Court Studio’, through a loophole that declared the performance officially ‘a lecture demonstration’ (ibid, p.49). Since its legalisation, improvisation in the theatre is slowly on the rise.
Frost and Yarrow suppose that ‘improvisation in our own era is different from that which precedes it’ (1990, p.9). Writing almost 30 years ago, we look to see the way improvised theatre has changed. We will address key principles from the main improvisational texts and its contemporary practise, explore the challenges faced in the current improv climate and finally, end with two striking examples of improvised performance that demonstrate its value and significance.
Chapter One: More Than Just Winging It
The study of improvisation and its practise is relatively young in comparison to other areas within the arts (Simpson,2019). As aforementioned, although present in many different capacities across theatre and performance history, the ability to perform unscripted, uncensored material only became legal in the United Kingdom in 1968. It is since then that improvisation has become a recognised form and practise within the arts. In considering its youth, perhaps it comes as no surprise to find that there is a ‘deficiency in the exploration of the inner workings of improvisation’ as well as ‘the analysis of improvisation through a theoretical lens’(Scott,2014, p.1). This limited pool of study is perhaps a contributing factor towards the lack of recognition within the field. Despite a lack of ‘inner workings’(ibid) there are two key figures who have each produced iconic texts within the field; Viola Spolin and Keith Johnstone. Unlike the majority of texts tackling improvisation within this context, (most being of the ‘How To’ variety), Spolin and Johnstone have worked to develop in depth methods supported by their own theories, and have paved the way for improvisors and improvisation today. Assuming improvisation is ‘an art that has to be learned’ and ‘acquired and perfected by study’(Jacques Copeau, cited in Frost and Yarrow,1990, p.25), Spolin and Johnstone provide the means to do so.
In an interview with Lee Simpson, artistic director of Improbable Theatre, he remarked that Viola Spolin and Keith Johnstone are the two ‘fountainheads of improvisational practise, for anyone’. Comparing their influence upon this theatrical field to the likes of Elvis Presley and The Beatles for their part in shaping popular music, explaining that they were both ‘there at the start’. He states that their work has ‘influenced everybody’s’ in improvisation; and we can identify these tropes in the work and practice of contemporary improvisors (Simpson, 2019).
This chapter aims to identify the key principles of improvisation from the methods of Spolin and Johnstone. It hopes to demonstrate the malleable nature of improvisation, an ever-changing form, and will serve to demonstrate to the reader that ‘there is no set formula or rule-of-thumb technique for approaching improvisation’ (Hodgson and Richards,1974, p.31). Ultimately, this chapter seeks not to teach the reader how to improvise; but instead explores the theories and methods offered by different practitioners in order to both illustrate that improvisation is more than a case of getting on a stage and ‘winging it’, as well as hoping to provide context and grounding for discussions in the following chapter.