The Harold: a Revolutionary Form That Changed
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
THE HAROLD: A REVOLUTIONARY FORM THAT CHANGED IMPROVISATIONAL THEATRE & AMERICAN COMEDY A Dissertation Presented to The Faculty of the Graduate School At the University of Missouri In Partial Fulfillment Of the Requirements for the Degree Doctor of Philosophy By MATT FOTIS Dr. M. Heather Carver, Dissertation Supervisor MAY 2012 © Copyright by Matt Fotis 2012 All Rights Reserved The undersigned, appointed by the dean of the Graduate School, have examined the dissertation entitled THE HAROLD: A REVOLUTIONARY FORM THAT CHANGED IMPROVISATIONAL THEATRE & AMERICAN COMEDY Presented by Matt Fotis A candidate for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy And hereby certify that, in their opinion, it is worthy of acceptance. Professor M. Heather Carver Professor David Crespy Professor Cheryl Black Professor Cornelius Eady ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This dissertation would have never happened without the help, support, and encouragement of numerous people. First and foremost I want to thank my committee— Heather Carver, David Crespy, Cheryl Black, and Cornelius Eady—for their guidance, questions, epiphanies, and good humor, without which I would not be writing this thank you. I want to thank Ann Haugo, John Poole, and Liz Mullenix for first beginning this journey with me. Of course many thanks go out to Charna Halpern, Ted Flicker, and all the generous improvisers who agreed to be interviewed for this project, as well as the countless improvisers who simply took the time to informally discuss improv with me. I would be nowhere without the teachers that taught me how to improvise and the students who continue to teach me. My beautiful wife, whom I first got to know through improvisation, thank you for your love, support, and patience…and for usually laughing at my jokes…and for telling me when I’m not funny. My kids, who cannot yet read, thanks for taking your naps on a regular schedule so that I could write this, and sacrificing some Daddy time so I could see shows and talk to improvisers. My parents, who exemplify the support your partner ethos at the heart of the Harold, thank you for supporting me in every way. My in-laws, thank you for your support…and for letting us stay with you during the summer that I laid the groundwork for this project…and for staying with us whenever I had to go out of town to work on this. And my brother Mike, thanks….I guess. ii TABLE OF CONTENTS ACKNOWLEDGMENTS……………………………………………………………….ii ABSTRACT……………………………………………………………………………..vi CHAPTERS 1. INTRODUCTION…………………………………………………………….1 Method Literature Review Chapter Organization 2. BEFORE THE HAROLD: HOW DID WE GET HERE?.............................35 Commedia dell’arte Viola Spolin The Compass Players The St. Louis Compass Players The Second City 3. THE TRAINING WHEELS HAROLD…………………………………...…75 The Nascent Harold—The Committee ImprovOlympics ImprovOlympic and The Early Harold The Independents iii The Family The Harold Moves Beyond iO 4. THE FLEXIBLE HAROLD………………………………………………..127 A Home & A Book Unrest in the Ranks Frank Booth & Jane The Harold After Close TJ & Dave Experimentation in the New Millennium The Reckoning Perform a Harold The Harold at 25 The iO Training Center & The Harold 5. POST HAROLD: REACTIONS, TRANSFORMATIONS, & COMBINATIONS……..……………………………………………….172 The Annoyance Theatre Upright Citizens Brigade Improvised Shakespeare Company Octavarius 6. IMPROV BEYOND THE THEATRE: THE HAROLD’S INFLUENCE ON TELEVISION & FILM…………..……………………………………..234 The Harold and Dramatic Writing The Harold and The Writer Improv and Television iv 30 Rock and The Harold Stephen Colbert, Brecht, and Improv Improv on Film Conclusion BIBLIOGRAPHY……………………………………………………………………....282 VITA………………………………………………………………………………...….303 v ABSTRACT The Harold is widely regarded as the foundation of long form scenic style improv. First developed in the late 1960’s by the San Francisco group The Committee, work- shopped by Del Close in the 1970’s, and transformed into a repeatable structure by Close and Charna Halpern at ImprovOlympic (now iO) in the 1980’s, the Harold reinvented the possibilities of what could be done with improv on stage. Using the form’s core principles—yes-and, make active choices, and support your partner—the Harold has become one of the most important and influential forms of performance. The comic philosophy of the Harold has ushered in an era of comedy marked by support, trust, and collaborative creativity. Despite its vast influence on contemporary performance the Harold has been largely ignored by the scholarly community and thusly pushed to the margins. Therefore, this study will tell the story of the Harold, beginning with the development of improvisational theatre and the tensions and evolutions that led to the Harold’s creation at iO, up to its use in contemporary comedic filmmaking. I will be tracking the form’s historical development by analyzing its deployment by the many as of yet undocumented house teams, as well as exploring the many ways that it has been used both within iO and in the greater improv community. Furthermore, I will be examining the ways in which the Harold has helped transform American comedy by reshaping it to follow the principles and philosophy of the Harold. vi CHAPTER I—INTRODUCTION “Life is a slow Harold.”1—Del Close The first time somebody asked me about improvisational theatre I had no idea what they were talking about. And like many others, once I started training and performing improv I suddenly understood its fundamental relationship to theatre and creativity. Now the shoe is on the other foot and over the past fifteen years most of the people I talk to about improvisational theatre have no idea what I’m talking about, including people that make theatre for a living. Because most people are unfamiliar with the history and practice of improvisational theatre they tend to place it on the fringes, where it has been “percolating near the edge of being the next big thing for years.”2 Its ostensibly never ending “percolation,” however, may stem from the misunderstanding of scholars, practitioners, and audience members about the art form. Many artists and scholars still only recognize improv as a rehearsal technique or character building tool and not as a legitimate performative art. Even within the improv community there is tension about what exactly is true improvisation: is it the games of short form, the scenic style of long form, or sketch comedy derived from improv? In part because of its muddied meaning, everything from mainstream commercial theatre to the avant-garde has had an uneasy and sometimes unacknowledged relationship with improv. Yet when we examine the philosophical tenets of improvisational theatre it quickly becomes 1 Charna Halpern, Art by Committee (Colorado Springs: Meriwether Publishing, 2005), 126. 2 Pat Craig, “Improv is a Great Way to Enjoy Raw Theatre,” Contra Costa Times, 27 August 2004, 42. 1 apparent that improv is not at the fringe of theatre, it is at the very heart of theatrical practice, pedagogy, and theory. I didn’t grow up in the theatre—I thought I would be teaching high school history and coaching baseball by now. My first real exposure to theatre was through improv as an undergraduate student. Its main theoretical concepts—support your partner, agreement, yes-and, make active rather than passive choices, collaboration, etc.—shape and permeate the way that I view, teach, and practice theatre. Yet it wasn’t until I began to formally study theatre that I realized two things: 1) the core principles of improvisational theatre form the bedrock of theatre training and practice in virtually any setting and can be applied to nearly any creative project; and 2) the general ignorance about improvisational theatre results in it being pushed to the margins. Despite all evidence to the contrary, many see it as something done for fun, or to make silly jokes, but not something central to “real” theatre. After I had formally trained at iO (formerly ImprovOlympic) and The Brave New Workshop and been performing improv in Chicago and Minneapolis I went back to school to get my Master’s. While there I began coaching and performing with the campus improv troupe. When I first arrived many members of the troupe were dismayed because the school’s most venerated acting teacher was urging them to quit improv because all it did “was teach bad habits.” He suggested that they’d be better served spending their time “focusing on real acting.” Luckily those students stayed in the group and during my two years at the school the eight members of the group were consistently cast in leading roles during the university’s mainstage season over the hundreds of other students who were only focused on “real acting.” They have all gone on to successful performance careers in 2 Chicago, New York, and Los Angeles. How was it that other people didn’t see what I was seeing? Why weren’t they making the connection that being in a group that preaches ensemble, collaboration, and trust was making the students better actors and artists? I wish that the erroneous assumptions about improvisation were limited to this one example, but for the past fifteen years I have routinely fought the same battles that improvisation is not a silly side-show, but that its principles are fundamental to creating art. I routinely find myself making the argument that training in a form entirely dependent on collaboration and creativity is central to an art based on collaboration and creativity. Training in the creation of theatre helps students and artists develop the ability to think creatively and theatrically—to deeply understand the creative process, storytelling, and performance. It helps them become better listeners who are more understanding and supportive ensemble members. It not only makes them better spontaneous performers, but it also allows them to be better prepared to interpret and interact with scripted drama.