Does your improv feel a little stale? Looking for more reps? Tired of not getting enough notes? Craving exercises that target the things you actually want to work on?

I have a couple of spots left in the October 18 session of The Uncertainty Workshop, so I'm offering $100 registration (normally $150) for first-time students who'd like to join us!

The Uncertainty Workshop is a four-week online improv intensive featuring small classes (max 8), individualized feedback, and customized weekly agendas tailored to each group's goals and interests.

Fall 1
Sundays: 10/18, 10/25, 11/1, 11/8

Fall 2
Sundays: 11/15, 11/22, 12/6, 12/13
(No workshop 11/29)

Time
1:30–3:30 PM Pacific
3:30–5:30 PM Central
4:30–6:30 PM Eastern

Cost: $150 for the four-week session.
Fall 1 Special: $100 for a limited number of first-time students.

(Sliding scale also available. Please take me up on this offer if price is the sole reason you'd say no.)

For anyone joining Fall 1, I'll be meeting with folks individually over Zoom this week for a brief check-in to discuss your goals and what you'd like to work on.

Happy to answer questions about the curriculum, my teaching style, or whether the workshop might be a good fit for you.

Tim Paul
theuncertaintyworkshop@gmail.com

What Past Students Have Said

Targeted Feedback

"I've worked with Tim for over a year now, and he's truly been a godsend because he breaks down theory and technique into actionable ways."

"Immediate, specific feedback."

"He provides honest, helpful, and tangible feedback in a way that's not going to crush you."

Customized Weekly Agendas

"Instead of forcing a one-size-fits-all syllabus, he tailored the work to what the students actually wanted to improve."

"One of the most thoughtfully designed improv classes I've taken."

"You could tell how much preparation and care went into every class."

UPDATES: https://www.reddit.com/u/hungbrittwink/s/UwpxOmiNfM

Started off with me testing how much I can do of my ‘Jack the Ripper Ghost Tour guide’ accent (don’t ask why I have developed such a specific accent), I then added in other accents to try and explore and suddenly there was a plot line with individual characters. I play all of the voices and started it without any intention to form a plot line I wanted to explore in ways I didn’t know my imagination was possible.

Take it with a pinch of salt, the people on the tour definitely do. Challenging personalities represent similarities in the Jack the Ripper obsessed tour guide which is welcomed but opens the door to expanding a situation well out of your control. Is he trapped in an endless cycle of being a character for the sake of someone no one ever sees or is this part of normal human need?

This one mainly sets the scene, introduces the plot and characters. Part 2 gets a bit unhinged and the tour guide realises he is a lot more connected to the story than he realises. It is something I really enjoyed allowing myself to explore without restriction, and part 2 really highlights were my imagination is taking the story.

Characters not based on or influenced by ideas/opinions or real people; purely fictional impromptu creation based on what had already happened in the story. Fully improvised - all me and had no idea what was coming next (first time doing something like this). Opinion and criticism welcomed, reaction to art only develop its individual beauty.

Sharing working draft notes on various longforms, pulling together years of info pulled from my notes, old blogs, /r/improv, Facebook posts, etc. I absolutely invite folks to comment and add any resources, advice, links, variant/derived forms, memories, etc. in the comments to help me update my notes!

Previous entries include:

• La Ronde
• Slacker/Beer Shark Mice
• Close Quarters and related forms

JTS BROWN

DIRECTOR: originally directed by Mick Napier, replaced by Craig Cackowski
FUN FACT: named after the bourbon Fast Eddie drinks in The Hustler

---

PHILOSOPHY

Philosophy of Play

J.T.S. Brown is not a form so much as a philosophy of play:

Large Cast

Designed for a large cast (10-14 people)

Involve as many players as possible at a time

Immersive Theater Experience

Higher level of theatricality and polish than a typical improv show

Use lights and sound to accentuate and heighten

Ex: music crescendos during opening

Encourage Any Move to Be Made at Any Time

Anything that happens is the perfect thing to happen.

---

RULES

No set structure, but a few rules to abide by:

Every Edit is a Transformation

i.e. no Sweep Edits

Transformations can come from within or without

In a 2-person scene, an improvisor can abruptly change character, initiating a new scene with the same partner

Edits and scenes can come from anywhere

Entrances and Exits Are New Scenes

i.e. no Walk Ons

If someone joins or leaves a scene, it becomes a new scene

Multiple performers can enter or exit at once

Ex: If someone knocks at the door to enter a scene, it becomes a new scene the second the door opens

Anyone in the previous scene should instantly choose to:

• exit
• become a new character
• become some inanimate object
• become an expressionistic element

No Sidelines

Anyone not in the scene is watching from backstage.

Anyone the audience can see is in the scene.

NOTE: If the space does not allow from watching from backstage, have a designated non-playing area clearly off-stage

The Space Is Your Stage

The playing area is not limited to the stage

The whole space is used.

Any Scene Can Recur At Any Time

Scenes do not have a particular schedule

Be fine with a scene being edited after 10 seconds, because you can bring it back whenever you want.

Worlds Within Worlds

Nested scenes: Scene I transforms into Scene II into Scene III and spiral back out and have III become II and then I again

Similar to 1-5-1 aka Onion Peel

Gimmicks

Rehearsed devices that can be used at any time (full details in SHOW - GIMMICKS):

• Hemingway
• EdTV
• The Third Degree
• Shadows
• Shapeshifting
• Amorphous Blob of Ultimate Knowledge

Create / discover your own gimmicks

Emphasis on Physicality, Sound, & Environment

Players are encouraged to be architecture, inanimate objects, animals, weird shit, etc.

Eliminate weirdness for weirdness' sake.

The idea is that the form is crazy, but the content is solid.

It is an interesting package for good scenework.

Emphasize gift-giving and relationships

Use sound to augment scenes from sidelines or create an aural soundscape

---

FORM

Opens with a communal monologue built one player at a time until entire cast is onstage. Crescendos into sonic chaos and then moves into a freeform flow of scenes that have a 'dream logic' feel to them.

---

OPENING - Shapeshift Monologue AKA "Morphalogue"

• This is not a Harold opening.
• Not an overture or information generator for premise
• Sets tone, mood, and context
• Allows audience to meet cast members one at a time
• Introduces concepts to audience:

Staging: ideally the cast is hidden backstage before they enter for the opening, but if that’s not an option, just staying out of the light is good enough.

• Monologist starts monologuing center stage.
• A player comes in from sideline and takes over monologue
• They are taking over the character (i.e. transforming into the character or "morphing") and continuing the same monologue
• Departing player takes a spot on stage, still holding onto physicality & emotion of character, mirror the current monologist's physicality
• They may "echo" dialogue snippet, repeating a word or a short phrase
• This continues until everyone has entered then planted around stage
• When all players are out, All solo folks come to life
• Multiversal echoes build to a crescendo
• 2 players engage and snap into new scene, unrelated to previous echoing/mono--A definite shift between chaos and first scene. That engagement into new scene is as if responding to echo/mono in a new unrelated scene
• Everyone else disperses backstage

MONOLOGUE TIPS

• Talking mostly to yourself
• Give some light context
• Should look like David Byrne in Utopia
• The idea is to keep mirroring and stay in sync as much as possible

ECHOES TIPS

• Echoes punctuate monologue
• Aural spice
• Quality over quantity
• 2-3 words is ideal
• can be longer phrases if someone is so moved

Echo group staging

• Aerobics class mentality
• Spread out, effect like surround sound
• Recognize rhythm of the piece
• Content less important then energy
• Embrace the presentational
• Effect is wall of sound

---

SCENES

In General

• Only do scenes you have to be in or want to be in
• Scenes are driven by physicality
• Establish physicality first / have a physicality from get go
• Every scene is clearly in its own territory
• Instantly identifiable vibe
• No wrinkles or gimmicks for first 2 scenes
• The more people on stage, the simpler it needs to be
• Serve the needs of the scene
• Craig Cackowski scene notes: "don't let the spice become the main dish" and "don't break your new toys on Christmas morning"

---

First Scene

• Emerges from opening
• Definite shift between chaos and first scene
• As if responding to echo/mono in a new unrelated scene
• We're joining it already in progress
• No wrinkles or gimmicks (or in second scene either)

---

Spotlight Scene

• At some point in the middle of the show, try to have a "spotlight scene"
• A 6 or 7-minute 2-person scene that is not fucked with in any way.
• In the middle of a fast-moving, constantly evolving show, it is a nice to have a little scene oasis and to take a deep breath.

---

COMMON PITFALLS

• Not being physical enough and/or too talky
• Needs to be grounded enough that we believe it, but room for surrealness

---

TRANSFORMATIONS

• First few transformations introduce the form to the audience
• If we know what something is, you can edit
• Once it's call-backable, then it is valid for an edit.
• Any time we change casting is an edit
• Someone always stays on as point of transformation
• Instantly make drastically different character / choice
• turn animate to inanimate or vice versa
• Stage picture: bold physical choices
• Tonal shift is just as important as physical change

Elements you can transform:

• Energy
• Emotion
• Genre / Style
• Tone / Vibe
• Voice

Enter with complement to any element

• When in doubt: symmetry or clump around an energy
• Where is your eye drawn?
• 15-20 sec window max to join a scene
• the thing in one scene becomes a similar thing in another
• character transformation - new person takes over
• how can I help them do it better
• group ownership of the material
• original person returns to take on all the new gifts
• sonic and aural transformations (gives multiple points of transformation)

---

GIMMICKS

AKA "wrinkles" -- Rehearsed scenic devices that can used at any time:

Hemingway

The players narrate their own scene as well as playing it (i.e. "write" and play at same time using the 3rd person past tense). Descriptions are as though it were a book. Scene is approximately 2/3 narration. Palate cleanser.

The Third Degree

The players come out and ask 3 rapid-fire questions of a character at any time. These were the sort of questions that you might ask while sidecoaching a scene ("How long have you known this person?", etc.)

leave with energy from last answer

Shadows

A character is "shadowed" by a another improvisor playing their essence, or id, or subtext. The 2 characters' shadows would then have a scene of sorts in the background, presenting a more representational version of the original scene.

Shapeshifting

Any improvisor can play anyone's character at any time. Every character is owned by the group, not necessarily the improvisor who created it.

Amorphous Blob of Ultimate Knowledge

Clump of performers telling story as one thing (e.g. tribal elder)

EdTV

A scene can return to a pivotal moment at any time, presenting an alternative outcome. Usually done in threes. (This was named after Ed Goodman, not the Ron Howard film).

> "The most difficult gimmick to execute > > Basically a more sophisticated version of New Choice except that more time passes between the re-sets > > The re-set point needs to be a particularly memorable line > > Ideally with an identifiable stage picture that the players can scramble to re-create > > Ideally it’s a pivotal moment in the scene from which multiple possible futures could exist (think Choose Your Own Adventure) > > Think rule of 3s (i.e. 2 re-sets) and probably 30-60 seconds for each alternate timeline > > Ensembles are encouraged to find or create their own gimmicks."

---

ENDING

JTS Brown ends with a Run Out.

Or potentially a "carousel of callbacks"--a literal rotating circle of scenes circling past

---

NOTES AND BEST PRACTICES

The more people on stage, the simpler it needs to be

---

EXAMPLES

Dreamwave 6/14/2025 Show starts about 2m40s

In the Lab October 2017

JTS Brown Workshop / Craig Cackowski workshop (2021 Camp Improv Utopia Yosemite)

Scene from High Fidelity which exemplifies EDTV gimmick

A JTS Brown Variation -- opening is the same, all players remain onstage during opening sequence of scenes but frozen if not playing. Step/Sisters Improv Comedy JTS Set

Note: broken link, I'm searching for alt link/source: Vancouver Improv Festival - JTS Brown - Festival Ensemble

---

SOURCES

• CRAIG CACKOWSKI IRC POST
• CHRIS GEORGE'S JTS BROWN NOTES FROM IMPROV CAMP
• SAMMY'S NOTES FROM CACKOWSKI MEETING
• ED GOODMAN'S BLOG ON JTS BROWN
• CHICAGO READER REVIEW
• JASON SUDEIKIS INTERVIEW

CRAIG CACKOWSKI IRC POST

> J.T.S. Brown was not a form so much as a philosophy of play. It was designed for a large cast (10-14 people), to involve as many players as possible at a time, to have a higher level of theatricality and polish than a typical improv show, and to encourage any move to be made at any time, with the idea that anything that happened was the perfect thing to happen. We didn't have a set structure, but we had a few rules to abide by: > > 1. No sweep edits. Every edit was a transformation. Transformations could come from within or without. Even in a 2-person scene, an improvisor could abruptly change character, initiating a new scene with the same partner. > 2. No walk-ons. As soon as someone joined the scene, it became a new scene. Anyone in the previous scene should instantly choose to either exit, become a new character, or become some inanimate or expressionistic element in the new scene. If someone knocked at the door to enter a scene, it became a new scene the second the door was opened. > 3. No sidelines. Anyone not in the scene was watching from backstage. Anyone the audience could see was in the scene. > 4. The playing area was not limited to the stage...the whole space was used. > 5. Any scene could recur at any time, so the players were fine with a scene being edited after 10 seconds, knowing they could bring it back whenever they wanted. > 6. There were "worlds within worlds". If, for instance, Scene I tranformed into Scene II into Scene III, it was fun to spiral back out and have III become II and then I again (similar to the shortform game "Spacejump" or "5 to 1" or "7 to 1" or whatever). > 7. We had a number of "gimmicks"--devices that we had rehearsed that could be pulled out at any time. They included: > - Hemingway: The players narrate their own scene as well as playing it. > - EdTV: A scene can return to a pivotal moment at any time, presenting an alternative outcome. Usually done in threes. (This was named after Ed Goodman, not the Ron Howard film). > - The Third Degree: The players could come out and ask 3 rapid-fire questions of a character at any time. These were the sort of questions that you might ask while sidecoaching a scene ("How long have you known this person?", etc.) > - Shadows: A character was sometimes "shadowed" by a another improvisor playing their essence, or id, or subtext. The 2 characters' shadows would then have a scene of sorts in the background, presenting a more representational version of the original scene. > - Shapeshifting: Any improvisor could play anyone's character at any time. Particularly effective in cross-gender scenes. This fostered the idea of group ownership...every character is owned by the group, not necessarily the improvisor who created it. The show began with a shapeshifted character monologue, which allowed the audience to meet the cast members one at a time. > 8. There was an emphasis on physicality, sound, and environment. The players were encouraged to be architecture, inanimate objects, animals, weird shit, etc. All this probably sounds crazier than it actually played. We tried to eliminate weirdness for weirdness' sake. The idea was that the form was crazy, but the content was solid. It was an interesting package for good scenework. We worked hard to emphasize gift-giving and relationships in the scenework. In fact, we tried to, at some point in the middle of the show, have a "spotlight scene", a 6 or 7-minute 2-person scene that was not fucked with in any way. In the middle of a fast-moving, constantly evolving show, it was a nice to have a little scene oasis and to take a deep breath. > > -Craig Cackowski

PAM VICTOR INTERVIEW WITH CRAIG CACKOWSKI

(This is an excerpt from a full interview)

*PAM: You directed and assisted the cooperative creation of J.T.S. Brown. My first real introduction to that structure was during [_my live interview with John Lutz and Scott Adsit at CIF](http://pamvictor.blogspot.com/2013/04/geeking-out-withscott-adsit-and-john.html). Lutz was explaining the pretty complicated structure and rehearsal process, and Adsit’s face during the explanation was hysterical. He was…I guess the best word might be “agog.” I am completely fascinated by it. (I mean the show, not Adsit’s face – though Scott has an exceedingly pleasing face, worthy of fascination.) I hope to learn it some day if only to get my wee mind blown to smithereens. Can you tell me about your history with your show and the J.T.S. Brown philosophy?*

CRAIG: J.T.S. started as a rehearsal group founded by Jason Sudeikis and Ike Barinholtz. They got a bunch of young players together who were hungry and wanted to rehearse and experiment. There was no immediate goal of doing any shows. At first, they rehearsed with Mick Napier, but then they brought me in when Mick got busy with Second City.

After one rehearsal, I was like, "You have to let me direct you in a show. You could be the next Jazz Freddy!' I encouraged them to do a rehearsal process similar to what we'd done with Close Quarters, three 3-hour rehearsals a week for 6 months.

Everyone was on board. We tried a lot of different things during the process, but the end result was basically a show that followed dream logic - no hard edits, all transformations. Scenes bleed into one another and come back at random times. They also were a big ensemble, 12-14 people, so I wanted to design a form that allowed all of them to play balls-out at all times, rather than being polite. The philosophy was that anyone could try any move at any times, and the group would instantly support it.

PAM: For those readers who didn't get to see Jazz Freddy - or at least read my recent piece of the group - tell me what you meant by "the next Jazz Freddy"?

CRAIG: Jazz Freddy was the other group that influenced me the most, along with The Family. They were another big ensemble of 12 people and they played in a theater as opposed to a bar or cabaret. They focused on character and relationship. Some of those people were Noah, Pete Gardner, Dave Koechner, Brian Stack, Jimmy Carrane, Rachel Dratch, Theresa Mulligan, Carlos Jacott, Pat Finn, and Kevin Dorff.

PAM: Who were some of the players in that original group of J.T.S. Brown?

CRAIG: Ike founded the group, but left to do Boom Chicago and never did a show with us. Jack McBrayer and TJ [Jagodowski] also started with us, but dropped out when they got cast in shows at Second City. (TJ later came back to do shows.) The rest of the ensemble was Sudeikis, Pete Grosz, Rob Janas, John Lutz, Jed Resnik, Ed Goodman, Case Clay, Bumper Carroll, Jen Bills, Christina Gausas, Sarah Gee, and Gillian Vigman.

PAM: Umm....yum.

Jay-sus. I just registered the idea of three three-hour rehearsals a week for six months! First of all, in diction stolen from ee cummings via Susan Messing, ohmygodyespleasemorepleasehorny. Second of all, I want to do that so badly. I would even trade in my copy of “The Flying Yak of Romania” for the chance to rehearse a show like that with such a talent-pack cast and director. Oooh, baby.

Having seen 2 Square, I can see why that much rehearsal would be necessary.

CRAIG: It took a while to get that groupmind going, where everyone could anticipate and recognize the transitions when they occurred.

PAM: In the show I saw last week, John Lutz and Peter Grosz were doing some fast and subtle stuff. I couldn't figure out how they knew what was coming. Tell me how you helped the group prepare for the fluidity of transitions. It seems like mind reading.

CRAIG: It helped to know that there were NO walk-ons, so any move coming from outside would be recognized as a transformation. But you can also transform from within, so you're looking to be perceptive in ANY change in the scene, like someone using a different voice, a different physicality, etc. When a transformation happens, you must immediately decide whether to a.) exit, b.) stay as a new character, or c.) stay as environment.

PAM: Were there exercises that you used that seemed to help most to strengthen that level of listening and attention?

CRAIG: A lot of give-and-taking focus. First, we did a sound and movement exercise where everyone is frozen around the space, except one person who has the focus. Then anyone can take it at any point. Get to the point where the focus is being handed off every two seconds without anyone stepping on each other. Then, do a two-person version, with ten people frozen and two people who have the focus. They could do the same thing or two opposite things. Then, when a third person grabs focus, one or both of those people have to defer.

But spending that much time together as an ensemble working on ANYTHING is helpful and is going to promote awareness and groupmind. And familiarity with how everybody plays.

PAM: It seems like the players would have to be trained to make strong choices reflexively. (I mean, of course we all are supposed to be like that; but in that structure, those moves had to be popped into on a dime. Or smaller. Like one of those really teeny tiny, foreign coins.)

CRAIG: Absolutely. Politeness and vagueness don't help anyone in that situation.

PAM: You seem to enjoy complicated and strong improvisation.

CRAIG: The two main types of improv that I love are big, group clusterfucks that are chaotic and dreamlike, and slow small group shows that are simple and elegant, so I'm kind of pulled in two directions there.

PAM: That's a great dichotomy.

It seems to me that a show like J.T.S. Brown would risk getting players stuck in their heads at a time when they most need to be improvising from their nerve endings. Let’s talk more about that stage an evolving improviser goes through when they’ve learned so many rules that they’re stranded in their heads. Is there an exercise or a mindset to help them get out of their heads?

CRAIG: The group support was the thing that prevented people from being in their head. And the thing I say to any group working on J.T.S. today is that I don't want you to be worried about "doing the form right." I want you to play free and take risks.

For getting out of your head, I encourage people to think character-thoughts rather than improvisor-thoughts (Improvisor-thoughts being: “What's the game?” “How do I heighten this?” “Why aren't people laughing?”) Anything that's going to get them to trust their energy and follow emotion rather than headiness.

ED GOODMAN'S BLOG ON JTS BROWN

https://egoodnessimprov.blogspot.com/2011/11/jts-brown.html

> For me, the best improv I ever did was with JTS Brown. To me, it was a perfect show that incorporated short form's speed and playfulness with long form's patience and freedom. What the show rejected from both schools was form. Devoid of form, free of structure, the show was endlessly open to change. We practiced moves we never performed because once they were named, they felt "formy." I loved having to keep track of 12 people for 45 minutes, constantly asking "what the fuck is going on?" It was complete fear, hard listening and moving without hesitation. Every night, a lot of us were convinced we were the one who "fucked it up." > > I was surprised when after a successful (in my mind) six month run the group was lukewarm about continuing on. I remember being shocked. Jimmy Page once said of Led Zeppelin "It would be a criminal act to break up this band." That's how I felt about JTS Brown. And while I never figured out how I fit in socially with this pack if high profile Chicago improvisors, I did relish the rookie-walk-on aspect of playing with a such a team. When it was all over, I was more confident than I'd ever been about being onstage. LESSON! You wanna get better? Play with the best. > > After the dust settled and I started making my way out of Chicago, I had the opportunity to talk with most of the people who made up JTS Brown. I was shocked to hear that some people really didn't like it. They hated the fear, the not knowing, the lack of structure. All the things I loved were what was wrong with the show for them. People spent time off stage, not being involved, "just getting through the show." They were happy when the run ended. They'd signed on for different reasons than I had and reaped very different results. > > I don't expect to ever have an experience like JTS Brown again. And I must say, I had nothing to do with the production or politics surrounding the show (I've found people often spare me these things, for better or worse). So, I just remember being involved in something awesome, unstoppable, and bigger than me. Finding out my experience was (for the most part) unique is just par for the course. > > The fact that our formless, theater-less show is now taught at one theater as a "signature form" is par for the course as well.

CHICAGO READER REVIEW:

https://chicagoreader.com/arts-culture/j-t-s-brown/

> J.T.S. Brown, Detonate Productions, at ImprovOlympic. The great thing about Chicago improv is the way the scene constantly renews itself. A few years ago a whole generation of young improvisers–the ones responsible for making long-form improv hip–moved to New York or LA, seeking fame or at least a regular paycheck. I thought long-form improv here would never recover. But as one generation passes, another rises to take its place. > > J.T.S. Brown, a group founded by Mick Napier but now directed by Second City member Craig Cackowski, performs long-form improvisations at least as rich and resonant as any the Ed, Jazz Freddy, or Lois Kaz cohorts ever cooked up. The night I caught the show, J.T.S. Brown used the audience suggestion of “corn” as the jumping-off point for a playful hour-long piece that touched on many topics: loss, growing up, thwarted relationships, all the usual subjects improvisers consciously or unconsciously choose. > > What made J.T.S. Brown special was how carefully they listened, building on one another’s work. Instead of going for the quick laugh, they created multidimensional characters and interesting situations that really pulled us in. Most impressive were the occasional cubist improvisations–sublime, dreamlike sequences created by two or more company members who literally repeated the same five or six lines of dialogue several times, changing the emphasis with each repetition. – Jack Helbig

JASON SUDEIKIS INTERVIEW

https://web.archive.org/web/20071219114617/http://www.theapiary.org/archives/2007/12/jason_sudeikis_1.html

Rando blog

https://forwardfailing.wordpress.com/2013/09/10/best-improv-form-ever/

https://wiki.improvresourcecenter.com/index.php/J.T.S._Brown

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sh1h9Yrn3jc