Harold Openers

[millerjake30]

Let's hear about some particular favorite ways to open a Harold. Of cours ethe Draconian by-the-book structure usually features a little bit of a gimmick to it, but I've seen some very successful groups (e.g. Carl and the Passions) use no opening at all, just start right off with a two person scene.

What do you think about how to start the Harold?

What's your favorite way to do it?

Seen any great Harolds lately, or at least great openings?

[Run]

I saw a great one where everyone listed their favorite adjectives whose etymology can be traced back to Ancient Greece.

[Schoolyj]

We see a thread languishing without any serious replies.

[Chip]

A wind blows...whoosh!

[AndyC]

Openings only seem successful when they have a point. Too often folks are freaked by the group mind that isn't occurring an then a whoosh! happens.

My favorite opening style is when it looks like the group is having fun exploring ideas derived from the suggestion.






Wow, that sounds like a really smarmy answer to a simple question.

[Ldub]

One of my all time faves - a few months ago by the Reckoning. They started out describing a room. Someone began their description saying (not word for word) "If you don't mind I'd like to point out the chair.......". Someone continued by saying "If you would be so kind to let me talk about the...." until it was heightened to "I don't want to be a bitch but let's talk about the lamp....." and everyone was yelling at each other about what they were describing. Really good stuff. I'm always a fan of Deep Schwa's opening group scenes too.

[benjohnson]

Like most shitty improv, the shittiest openings are usually second or third rate copies of something another group has done better. And then, if one group is out there doing something really well, like how the Reckoning is great at scene painting something but also paying attention to the patterns in their scene painting to the point where they get angry about describing a lamp, then a lot of other people are going to start doing that sort of thing.

Less well.

Like they just describe the room. And say "uh" a lot. And they start to sweat as if describing this room is the single most important thing, like it's work. Like you couldn't just say "you guys, I don't want to describe this room" and have it be a great opening. Everybody instead decides for some reason that they have to describe this fucking room at any cost.

But they're not really into it so they don't add anything interesting to the details of the room, like one guy will just say "TORN WALLPAPER" really loud like that's inherently funny. It's not. "Torn brown wallpaper with clown design wallpaper underneath" (or something like that, I'm not trying to get all Tim O'Malley here) is more interesting, and will provide more fuel for later in a way that's exciting to explore. But groups generally don't do that. They more often just mimic the surface aspects of a good scene painting opening as if what was working for that other genius group was just the fact that there was scene painting. In other words, without the fun, salient details. And then when halfassed scene painting without the fun salient details doesn't work, the group gets confused and they panic, and the one guy who yelled "TORN WALLPAPER" has to say something else that's kind of funny in order to get the fuck out of the room that they're describing and get on to the unfun scenes that will be bourne out of that "oh no, we have to do this" energy.

Repeat a million times until "scene painting opening" becomes such a bad improv cliche that not even the Reckoning can do it anymore without a major league eye roll.

So listing Harold opening types on the internet is like assuring that there will be certain types of Harold opening that cannot ever be fun again.

I'm not gonna fall into that trap.

Andy's right. Just go out there and have fun. Do six fart jokes in a row and then sweep into a scene if that's your style. That would actually be more interesting at this point.

Love,
THE KING OF IMPROVISATION FOREVEREVER AMEN.

[davec]

My favorite opening is three fingers of jack and two bumps in the greenroom.

[millerjake30]

I agree with you. Too many times the opener ends up being done with that "we have to do this" energy. Being in a very young improv troupe, I can see that happening frequently. Let's just get free and have fun, eh?

[Cooperweb]

But they're not really into it so they don't add anything interesting to the details of the room, like one guy will just say "TORN WALLPAPER" really loud like that's inherently funny. It's not. "Torn brown wallpaper with clown design wallpaper underneath" (or something like that, I'm not trying to get all Tim O'Malley here) is more interesting, and will provide more fuel for later in a way that's exciting to explore.

This is Tim, isn't it? :p

[Spectac]

the harold starts with a group opening. If you don't do a group opening, your not doing a harold, your doing something else. Instead of how do I do an opening, I ask you: what do you hope to get out of an opening? why does anybody do one at all? I think they are hard to do. Let me rephrase that, i think there is a high skill level involved in pulling off a successful group non-scenic opening.

[Edison]

the harold starts with a group opening. If you don't do a group opening, your not doing a harold, your doing something else. Instead of how do I do an opening, I ask you: what do you hope to get out of an opening? why does anybody do one at all? I think they are hard to do. Let me rephrase that, i think there is a high skill level involved in pulling off a successful group non-scenic opening.

Technically correct. If there is no opening it's not a Harold. And the intent of the Harold opening should be to inspire ideas for show/scene content. That's I.O.s method. Any deviation from that is creative license. I think everyone learns at least half a dozen classic Harold openings while going through I.O., all of them serving pretty well, but can often seem stale simply because they've been done to death.
Maybe I've seen too much of them because it doesn't even seem to matter how good the team is. If I see an 'invocation' or some sort of organic Buzby Berkley 'human clock / amoeba' ballet, ..I wince.

The opening for our I.O. shows took the suggestion of any phrase. One of us would come out front-center, face the audience and begin talking (as if to an imaginary person), using the phrase in a specific context, investing some emotional content, etc. After several seconds, another player would walk out and stand next to them and begin talking, simultaneously, using the same phrase but in a different context with a different emotional charge.

This is repeated a few more times until 5 or 6 people are standing in a line, creating a cacophony of different monologues using the suggested phrase. But they also begin to share other phrases, subtly cross-pollinating more and more of these new borrowed phrases. The ruckus boils town to one emotionally charged word or phrase (not necessarily the suggested phrase, maybe an emotional response to it) that is arrived at organically. Each person ends their monologue using this ending phrase and walks back to the side-line, until there is one person left. Ending it as it began, bookended.

The key to making it work is in the give-and-take while it's being heightened, as well as keeping the transition to the final phrase subtle and organic. But it was a fresh and workable opening for an aspiring I.O. team.

Noah liked it a lot, anyway. And that said something to us.

The main problem with it? While it offered lots of ideas for show content, it was almost impossible to pay attention to succeeding monologues after you hit the stage. Consequently, the first people out for the opening ended up coming away with little more than their own rant. It all looked cool, explored the suggestion well, and generated ideas (like a good Harold opening should), but the folks on stage weren't really sharing what they were creating with each other. They were 100% invested in selling their monologue. The ones who really benefited were the people on the side-lines who were able to selectively listen through the noise for ideas.
........

International Stinger doesn't really do organic Harold-like openings. As a troupe we don't feel they're necessary. We have done scene painting for some of our forms because we've found it useful. Our Houseboat form uses the suggestion of a location and the entire show takes place in one environment, so scene painting is not only integral to show content but done with some careful thought and creativity.

[Bowman]

I was always a big fan of Piero-era Johnny Roast Beef openings. That team seemed to jump on "mistakes" and incorporate them into a pattern instantly. I loved that. Total support, no questioning or criticizing. That led to extraordinary bravado. Why not go with your first impulse? You know your team is going to catch it and run. It was like they had a cheat code on or something.

[benjohnson]

The harold starts with a group opening. If you don't do a group opening, your not doing a harold, your doing something else.

If you don't use an apostrophe, your "your" is possesive, and not a conjunction of "you are." Your wording should be: "If you don't do a group opening, you're not doing a Harold, you're doing something else." Or you could try: "Your choice not to do a group opening will result in your Harold being something else." There are still issues with commas, but at least this way we're getting closer.

You know, since you want to get all blustery and call-y out-y about shit.

It's just improv, you guys.

[benjohnson]

That's more like it.

[Spectac]

You're an opening!

bluster bluster blust're