The System of Theatrical Improvisation. Stanislav Hlushko

be a contact between the first and second actors, and it can occur only as a result of careful regard for the fellow actor, what is a guarantee of success in improvisation when people listen, hear, and that somehow affects them. With changes, the plot is developing and theoretically can develop endlessly if the partners are attentive to each other.

      The second key concept can replace the first if the first one has failed. If there is no prepared idea, and it did not occur after the beginning of the scene, it can be borrowed from the fellow actor or the fellow actor's idea can be played, or one's own idea may be invented by making a start from the fellow actor's acting, or both devices can be brought into play at the same time.

      Along with this, it may happen that a contact between the first and second actors has not been established but if the lack of a contact is inherent in the idea itself the situation will benefit from this.

      The third key concept is a CHANGE.

      An actor can change only in acting – internally, verbally, and physically. Going through these three kinds of changes not only directly in respect of the fellow actor with the aim of changing the fellow actor, but also changing one's own self, the actor will indirectly affect the fellow actor, who will be obliged to change, if the fellow actor has acting experience. For example, a character that has a stage speech defect or physical disability will be more interesting fellow actor than the one devoid of any such qualities. These changes occur in plastique, a facial expression, and voice.

      It is important to clarify what constitutes an action in improvisation. A definition of this concept may be divided into two parts: 1. an Action is the change of oneself and 2. an Action is the solving of an acting problem. These two definitions can be merged, but may exist independently of each other because, firstly: you can change yourself without acting problem and your fellow actor as well, and secondly, the understanding of the acting problem may come after the actor began to act, that is, first, I appear and start cleaning a machine gun, charge the cartridge clip, and then realize that I am a professional killer and I need to kill the girl, whom I love, etc.

      Regarding the second definition, it is natural that the acting problem, as a rule, is directly related to the fellow actor(s) and, solving the acting problem, the actor's action one way or another is aimed at changing the actors. In the case where an actor acts alone, for example, lays bricks or is fishing, all his acts, one way or another, will be linked either to the prehistory of the relationship, or with future relationships, or with imaginary character's. If you are acting and the fellow actor persists in his refusal to change, the ways of influence must be changed; you must look for one that will change the fellow actor.

      Is it possible to solve the acting problem without doing anything? It is, if the acting problem is to do nothing, though inactivity must be interesting. In this case, inactivity is a dramatic device and an action intensive by contrast follows it as a rule. For example, a man is standing on the stage and gazing into space. He is motionless, silent, thinking of nothing special. A second actor appears and tries to speak to him. The first does not respond and the second makes it an event for himself to change himself because of the partner's inactivity and begins to vigorously act. Then the first says: "I'll never talk to you because you are a scoundrel." The situation gradually clears up for the second actor and the spectators. Another example: A first actor steps forward, lies down and begins to play the role of a "dead body." You would think that he does not act, but in fact, his inactivity is information and an event for other actors who can appear as policemen and start outlining the dead body with chalk, questioning neighbors, relatives, etc.

      But, if the second actor says, "Mike, why you have got drunk again?" Then the first actor "comes to life" and begins to play a drunk, or he may as well "insist" that he is a "dead body" and remain motionless.

      A dramatic device is a prolonged invariability of behavior followed by a change in contrast to this behavior.

      In the course of improvisation, everything can be turned into a dramatic device, even an unsuccessful actor's acting. For example, someone can not leave the scene for a long time – goes, comes back again, etc. Finally, returning for the fourth or fifth time – explains the reasons for his or her departures, arrivals and provides the fellow actors with an event that is in counterpoint to the previous theme, mood, tempo and rhythm.

      The most important kind of change is a change in the overall pace and rhythm of the scene. Actors need to feel it, and periodically change it when the play gets too monotonous. Typically, this is associated with bringing in new acting ideas. In the classical theater with the immutability of individual characters, this is offset by changes in light, sound, scenery, and staging. In spontaneous improvisation, an actor acts as a director during the play, and must, at regular time intervals, make changes in his/her own acting and in that of others', make improvisation interesting, anyway until the situation runs out completely. If this happens, you need to offer a new situation by doing it carefully, without breaking but attaching to the previous topic so that one smoothly flows into another. First you need to find a contact, clinging to trivial matters, detail, and then propose a new dramaturgy and, if necessary – a genre.

      Along with this, if the play came to a standstill and is no longer interesting, it is sometimes possible to break the scene sharply and immediately give a new event as the starting point for a new topic. For example, the first actor appears on the stage and begins to float in an imaginary sea. A second actor approaches the first and says: "Your Majesty, the Princess is dead!" The first actor is obliged to accept the offered new circumstances and place of action, and having departed from the event to build a scene on, at the same time justifying his own previous movements. The second actor may help the first one to justify the movements, "Sorry to interrupt your exercises," and so on. Generally, everything that was going on before the fundamental change in dramaturgy or genre must somehow be justified, bound together even if it is impossible to bind. If, for example, I went with the phrase "to be or not to be" and try to stay with it not for fun, and my fellow actor that just has appeared says – " Who let the patient from room 6?" Then I have to accept a new genre and there is nothing particular to be justified here. But if I played a mentally ill person and suddenly began a monologue of Hamlet, and Gertrude, Claudius approached me, I have to somehow give the spectators a hint about the change from a madhouse to "Hamlet," that is, to justify the change.

      Local changes in a scene must be contrasting – if the first actor is sad, then the second is happy, if the first is fast then the second is slow. The protracted comic situations are well changed to a seriously profound theme.

      An important component of improvisation is the acting against a fellow actor when an actor's question is answered illogically, the answer being not the one he or she expected. Or the statement of the first actor is in contrast to that what the second actor has said, and he (the second) must justify his or her previous remarks. For example, the first actor says, "How's your brother?" The second replies, "My brother died," the first says, "I saw him today!" Then the second replies, "He died five minutes ago," the first says, "I saw him a minute ago!" the second replies, "That was our third twin, he came today from America," and so on.