Two people up.
Player A makes an accusation.
Player B deliberately acts like a supervillain or mastermind in response.
Player A must then sympathetically disagree (otherwise, Player A will often get too angry).
Player A: Jeremy, did you use all the conditioner?
Player B: Bwa ha ha, yes, I did! Now your hair will look stringy and flawed! And I shall look more beautiful by comparison!
Player A: (sympathetically disagreeing) Look, I know that I can be arrogant about my hair, but this is really going too far.
PROS: Player B practices being the “bad” character while still taking full ownership of the accusation. The sympathetic disagreement prevents Player A from attacking too aggressively. It lets Player B catch their breath and fully digest this position they have been gifted. The exercise is silly and entertaining and fun. It’s clear and easy to measure if you’ve done it right.
CONS: Resulting scenes are kind of dumb.
OWN IT
Same thing, but now Player B must admit to the accusation and explain why as a “normal” person, not a supervillain. Player A still sympathetically disagrees.
Player A: Jeremy, did you forget to invite anyone to this party?
Player B: I did it on purpose. I wanted the party to fail, because I’m jealous of you having friends besides me.
Player A: Yes, I know I’ve been ignoring you, but you’re acting like a child!
PROS: As an exercise, it’s still easy to follow. It makes Player B use the accusation as a way of learning more about his or her character. In an improv scene, this strategy will actually work very often.
CONS: Although more natural than the supervillain one, this one can still feel forced and contrived, and the scenes all take on a similar feel.
A REAL REASON
Same set up, but this time Player B tries to feel why they would have done such a thing for real.
Like, in real life. The only condition here is that you have to accept without argument that you really have done the thing: you can’t change it so you didn’t do it, or say that you didn’t do it on purpose.
For example, if Player A says, “Sir, we found these knives and excessive liquids in your luggage. Why were you sneaking these onto the plane?”
If you were doing supervillain approach, you might say, “So I can take over the skies!”
If you were doing the “own it” approach, you might say, “Because I plan on using them to bully other passengers up there.”
I actually think both of those responses could work. But if you take a moment and try to feel why you might really have done it, I bet you’d take a moment to consider, and then say something like this:
“You know, I was just hoping you wouldn’t check. I thought I could get away with it. I think the TSA policies are kinda dumb. I’m not planning anything bad, and I just didn’t care to follow your rules.”
PROS: The answers are rich, specific, and have the ring of truth that makes improv compelling. This is what the best improvisers often do when endowed with a strange situation. It is the best approach in actual scenes.
CONS: It’s hard to measure, from the student’s perspective, if you’ve done this right.
Students don’t necessarily know what truth feels like on stage. And since there are so few restrictions on how you respond, many students will inadvertently deflect: “I don’t know!
Someone else must have put them there!” or “Ach, I took the wrong bag by mistake!”
The exercise basically says “be good actors and be interesting people,” which is not the most helpful instruction, but this is the best approach in a scene. Give a “real” answer