La Ronde

The Lovers Format

20 min readMar 17, 2017

Note: There are different variations of the spelling of this format, I think through error not design, such as La Ronde, The La Ronde, Larounde, The Round, whatever. I will refer to it as simply La Ronde (no THE tautology, one space, two capital letters) and leave it at that.

La Ronde is popular long form format used around the world, perhaps one of the most popular. It is prized for its egalitarian structure and focus on character, and is definitely a format worth learning.

Some History

You can skip this bit if you like, but I like it. Technically you can skip any bit you like, but I don’t like it as much.

This is one of the few formats that crosses the great Close-Johnston divide, and beyond internationally, while retaining it original name to boot.

La Ronde German play Reigen, published for circulation in 1900 but not performed publicly until 1920 when attitudes to bed-hopping became less incarceration-worthy. Still, it was greeted with violent outcry and legal proceedings to the point it was withdrawn by the author from German production. [Source: Jews and the Making of Modern German Theatre by Freddie Rokem]

However, the french translation (under the name La Ronde) became popular and from the 50’s onward (with the removal of the Hayes Code) there have been dozens of cinematic adaptions (and one episode of M*A*S*H). [Source: Never Have Your Dog Stuffed: and Other Things I’ve Learned by Alan Alda. It should be noted Alan Alda was a classmate of Del Close, during the play’s heyday]

It came to improv (via Second City) , like everything, Del Close used the structure as a one-off, alongside other play types. From this class (called Del Class for the sake of a pun), Miles Stroth is generally credited with naming the exercise and using it as a tool in classes to teach story structure. [Source: Theatrical improvisation: short form, long form, and sketch-based improv by Jeanne Leep

In one of those early classes was Craig Cackowski, who took it to heart and made it the performance structure of the team (Frank Booth) he was coaching . It was there the structure was formalised, and set in stone. [Source: Long Form Improvisation and American Comedy: The Harold, by Matt Fotis].

It moved to New York largely because of Kevin Mullaney (a member of Frank Booth) who taught at the UCB, and specifically taught the format aggressively (see variations for more). [Source: Episode 14 of the IRC Podcast]

How it got to Canada, and then Australia… I don’t know. My research fails me. It’s almost as if this nitty gritty is boring to everyone else but me. However, I did manage to uncover an interesting clue: there is a chance it actually came Perth Australia first, as Miles Stroth taught Sam Longley in Chicago, the tail end of Frank Booth being active (and more or less the same time as Kevin Mullanay, who had left, was tearing it up in New York). So maybe it was taught to him, it was certainly a big time the format. I don’t have exact dates, but it’s possible!

Structure

La Ronde structurally is easier to learn by watching than me explaining. So watch this first, then I’ll fill in the gaps.

Alrighty. Effectively, as hopefully was evident, a straight no frills La Ronde (we will talk variations later) is a montage with a few key limitations.

Every scene is two characters only
Each scene is two players only (no backline support bar the hard edit)
Each character (bar one) will appear in two consecutive scenes, and no others.
Assuming you have an equal number of players as scenes, that means players will play only one character each (ie Player A is also character A, and will be called as such in this piece)
The exception to rule three is the first character to exit. They will have their second scene at the end. This creates as La Ronde’s name suggests (abstractly) a circular structure of scenes

As a result of these rules, La Ronde has one of the clearest / strictest scene orders in long form.

Character A and Character B has a scene (Scene AB). Then Character B and C have a scene (BC). Then C and D (CD), D and E (DE) and so on until the final character (character I) has a scene with the first (character A), in scene IA.

It looks like this

Structure Destructed

I’ll give it to you one more time, step by step, this time with less players (four less in fact).

Figure 1: The players, in the order they will play, fill the back-line. As the scenes are two person only and a fixed order a back-line isn’t strictly necessary. You might wait in the wings, or if it’s a bar show emerge from the audience. If only because it’s an easier visual for the diagram, let’s assume you have one. Not to open up the can of worms that is back-line vs no back-line, but I think being ready to edit on inspiration helps.

Figure 2: Player A and Player B have a scene with their characters Agatha and Beatrice (credit to John-Paul Fitzgerald for naming characters in alphabetical order for clarity). This is scene AB (so named as it contains characters A and B). In AB, little old ladies Agatha (A) and Beatrice (B) discuss running a nursing home bingo ring.

Figure 3: When that scene has done it’s duty (run it’s course, or inspired another responding scene), player and character A are replaced by player and character C. This begins the second scene, scene BC, where Beatrice is shaken down by big a horse bikie Clyde (C), whose gang wants to muscle in on her betting racket.

Figure 4: In scene CD, player B has left, and Clyde confides in his therapist Dr Hydrate(D) that ever since a little old lady beat him up, he’s been lacking confidence in his shake-down abilities.

Figure 5: In scene DE, Dr Hydrate explains his unique worldview on whistling as a form of therapy with Eastwind, a spirit of the air who can now use his air-abilities to whistle and communicate with his spouse.

Figure 6: Scene EA reveals that Eastwind is married to returning character little old lady Agatha, old as the wind itself, and will sometimes help influence her betting results (mostly in football performance). It therefore also features player A, from the first scene, back for their second scoop.

The Players

By and large, the roles and positions of improv are fluid; less positions on a chessboard and more positions within an threesome. If you see a hole, plug it. However, since in La Ronde you know when you are going out (player order) and where in the format (scene order), you at least have the opportunity for some kind of dirt-field strategy.

Or not. Structure is structure, it can’t by be changed without changing the nature of the enterprise, and the nature of La Ronde is this scene order. The rest are only guidelines,the paths that have been trodden before. Walk where you like.

Player A

Perhaps the hardest position on the team, it’s at least an unusual one. Player A actually has two distinct roles: one to launch the ship, one to bring her to port.

This final scene is often, although not strictly, shorter: not only is it in the final position and so has to be squeezed in whatever time is left, but often functions as tying it all together in a pretty bow, rather than a present in itself. A comparison might be to the MC: you don’t want them doing time after the headliner. That final scene is often the thematic kicker, and perhaps is best suited to the headiest of the improvisers.

One of the easier aspects, perhaps, is in your choice of scene AB character, as theoretically all your efforts can be in setting up character B. The trap is still making sure the character has recognisable enough to come back at the end. To that end, perhaps a clear occupation you can arbitrarily shoehorn later (salesman, policemen, shrink) for a quick tie in.

Player B

Player B is in an odd potion. There is a chance, uniquely, that they didn’t start any scenes themselves as they never enter a scene nor call an edit. There is a real chance, for better or worse, that they are simply acted upon in two straight scenes. You could be an inanimate rock, and that would be fine. But, ideally, you are not. Player B should have a clear, strong character base as it is the first point of inspiration for the scenes that follow, and potentially for the actual entire run. Note: I would be wary of this latter category: do it right and the payoff is bigger, do it wrong and suffer scenes were folk talk about the past and characters that can never come back.

Player C

Player C has two things going for them. One, they get to choose the first narrative development, which anecdotally is often the cleanest (we only know characters A and B from one interaction, so it’s the clearest source material). Two, Player C is the only one who gets to choose which character to follow: who is the A and who is B. Everyone else is forced into step.

But it is not without it’s dangers. It is very easy to have a scene commenting on the first with adding anything to the future, as you are encouraged to take the game directly from the interaction. You also need to show a modicum of restraint, as your narrative responsibility requests your move is only one step further to avoid gluttony of choice down the line. Also, you are still teaching the audience the format so it needs to be tidy.

Player D

I won’t lie, this was my key position for a long time, so I have a real soft spot for it. This is where, a few scenes in now (we’re up to the third scene i.e CD) you can start expanding the world both in detail and tone. If character C was a lawyer, then character D could be 400 pond gorilla. Really let the line reel out for a while. This is not just a golden ticket to silliness (if you’re that way included), but its also a great service for the rest of your troupe to see a variety of acceptable things to try.

Player E (and/or beyond)

This is either the final player (as in our example) or it could go beyond. Either way, I believe, the role is relatively rote: creating a context initially to explore an aspect of the character (their history, their nature, their timeline), then switch to a context to explore yours. Of course this second responsibility is not yours alone (very few functions in improv are), but I believe it’s good to have the Paul Valincourt 100% attitude (you and your scene partner are responsible for 100% the scene, not 50% each). Screw it, let’s explore this concept of the switch deeper.

The Switch

Laronde could be seen as an exercise in shifting the bag of straight man: likely the character entering will be straight manning the first, then gradually has to switch to be weird themselves.

It is also, therefore, an exercise in character dynamics, and character depth.

Character Dynamics

Where the character is changes the character.

Are they in a church, or burning in a witch fire, lit by the church? Does the character your bringing in come with a location?

I’m not the man they think I am at home. Oh no, no-no. I’m a rocket man
- Bernie Taupin

Another kitchen rule is the concept of Work, Home, Play. That scene showed the character in their workplace? In the next scene, lets see what they’re like at home. Or, frankly, at the doctors or meeting the president.

When the character is changes the character

This might be historical society norms, but it might also be simply the time of day or whereabouts in the scene being battered by stupidity they are. Both of these are relationships with the surroundings.

I like the term relationships, as it implies how you were interact AND your emotion on top of that interaction i.e happily respecting the king, angrily storming the jungle.

However, when we (people) think of relationships, we usually think of relationships between beings.

Therefore

Who the character is with changes the character.

If a character (Tony the Baloney) is interacting with a witch, both the witch and Tony would act differently than if Tony was talking to his sweetheart Toni the Rigatoni, or the witch was interacting with her sweetheart Toni the Rigatoni (oooh, drama brewing).

Characters (and people) are more likely to speak up, act out, or even break the law while they are in different cliques. Falling into the wrong crowd, so to speak. This is not over time, but hour by hour. Sociologist Mark Granovetter goes into much greater (much much greater) specifics in his 1978 paper Threshold Models of Collective Behavior, which I’ll let you google on your own if you’re interested.

Mob Mentality makes homer go something something.

Character depth

Who the character is might not be as they appear. This is as common a trope in fiction as it gets, but executing this in improv it’s an altogether trickier undertaking.

Improv is improvised, making it up as we go along. Lying is making it as we go along also. Therefore an improviser playing a character looks exactly the same as their character lying. So unless you make it super obvious (putting on a classic lying voice, which I can’t demonstrate in the written word but trust me you know what it is), we the audience can’t tell a character is lying, and neither can their partner (which is terrible in improv, because you are relying on them to sell the repercussions of your lie).

We can’t tell when your in disguise, because we’re already imagining your characters look (and for that matter, everything else). You can’t alter your voice really, because we’ve already seen you play several characters and us (or your team) might assume it’s one of those. Not least of all, it’s hard enough to think of dialogue for your character without thinking of additional secret dialogue. Furthermore, improv pushes credibility already: if you’re asking is to believe there is a crocodile with a human penis, you are asking too much to introduce the idea that these characters could be lying about that. In general, with some exceptions (straight men trying to be polite for instance), improv characters are notably forthright and honest about everything. It’s called Truth in Comedy for a reason.

However, there are ways around this. You can establish lies with narration (narrators rarely lie) and most commonly, with secondary scenes. In one scene we see a character commit a crime, and in another scene we see that character claim they tried to stop it. We see a character bragging about their sexual conquests, and in the next scene we see they are Raif Douthwaite. Classic. La Ronde invites this sort of contextual positioning.

Warning: Of course, you still want your scenes to be able to stand alone as pieces of entertainment. As it’s the only confirmed ‘correct’ answer, it’s temping for improviser’s to only reference what we already know instead of being gutsy and making fresh unproven choices. You end up with a string of scenes just talking about what happened before, like Chinese whispers without the fun bit where things change. This can be a criticism of Game down poorly, flogging that dead horse. Don’t stress about it, just ask yourself: If you plucked the scene out of the line up, could it stand alone? The answer should be…pretty much, but it’s better alongside the others.

Scene Dynamics

Your scenes can be any length, to your taste (or time allotment). Maybe you’re going for speed as a challenge, and opener, or a warm-up. Five scenes in a two minutes is still a solid 24 seconds each. Maybe you’re looking to do this as a festival length show (50 minutes), with weighty 10 minute scenes to start working those two-hander monoscene muscles. Hell, give me a half an hour with each, make it into a mini-series. For what it’s worth, the real thing is 10 scenes in 95 minutes.

Phht. I could do it shorter.

Of course, different scenes demand different lengths. I like my La Ronde like my woman: two heavy bits at the front, a smooth middle and a tight end. But mostly whatever makes me laugh. Okay the analogy fucking sucks and I suck, but its still true. Your first scene is an anchor, and therefore it should have a bit of weight. Be patient and clear wih your characters are your surroundings, because we will need all the nutrients and specifics we can get. If perchance you’ve played a deconstruction, I would say same rules apply: slow and specific wins the race. The rest of the scenes should have a faster clip, because now the pattern has to seem like a pattern. We are also exploring a series of events, not one off scenes anymore. They might not gain speed, but its a common option.

To the surprise of nobody, I favour a quick show, so let’s assume the first scene is a good minute and a half, two minutes, three even, and the rest are 20 to 50 seconds long. Any faster and I’d wager you’re not giving the next scene much to go on (exception of course if you’re following a running joke, but even then I would’t blow through any more than three or four in a ten scene chain because you’ll end up several locations and characters away from anything concrete and you can’t cut back). Any slower and you risk losing that greater-than-the-sum-of-it’s-parts momentum.

But hang on dickhead, your tired sexist analogy doesn’t work then, that’s only one heavy bit and a smooth middle. That’s a tadpole not a woman. You’re right, there are two exceptions to the 20–50 second rule.

The first exception is the second scene (BC), directly after the opening scene. I believe it too should carry a bit of weight. This is partly to ease the format into the faster pace, but also to ensure you are doing your groundwork and character. If your second scene is too fast, there’s a good chance it’s a one off joke that you’re passing down the line like a sucky buck. Give the scene some meat, and now we’ve got three good characters to play with (you can play with characters without actually playing them, by exploring their community and actions).
The second exception is in the final scene, the kicker as I described before. Do want you want, but I belive this scene needs to be very short. Basically one line if you can help it. It makes the connection, it puts a cherry on the desert, and then fucks off. It’s like the MC doing material after the headline, we’re done. If you like, think of it as the final scene in the movie, coming after the big victory and parade (often in the middle of the credits these days, where the villain is trapped on a tropical island looking glum). Keep it short, it’s a kiss not a kid in nine months.

Hot tip: Since everyone in La Ronde knows at least two people, why not make them all interconnected and know everyone in the line up? Maybe you want make them all one family, or in one location like a circus. Just a thought. It gives you something to talk about, let’s you share history. It’s not a rule, but it can be helpful.

Related to length is The Edit. Don’t over think it, as you and the audience know who will be swapped out anyway. If you want to tag out, or you want walk onto a scene, or leave a scene indicates the cut. You might choose to have real doors and all the interactions take place in one room (almsot like a farce). Decide if the entering person is not always responsible for the cut, they are responsible for the platform and their character. Remember remaining player to hold onto your character, and you may need a simple physicality or tic to jog their memory (especially if we montage later).

Variations

I’m sure there are more, but here are mine. Some are common, so I admit are theoretical.

Deconstructed La Ronde

One of the most common variations is the add of a montage at the end. So any character can know interact with any character. For instance, character B interacts with character E.

This might go on for some time, or it might be a series of bonus lines.

If you have a player per character, and especially if you set your La Ronde in a fixed location with lots of exits, this should be quite straightforward. If not, this could be an exercise in tight introductions.

By adding a montage, you go from a fixed scene number format (such as Harold or Evente) to an open format (such as Pretty Flower). This might me jack squatt to you, or it might make it harder to time or codify (if your teaching it, lining up several in a role, or using it an audition piece).

A version of this, where La Ronde itself is actually an extended opening to a show with these characters (much like townie), was pioneered by Kevin Mullaney. This was so La Ronde could be a full-format.

La Ronde et rond

It’s meant to be a play on round and round, but bilingual humour is hard for a mono-lingual man.

Based on my dumb understanding of Nietzsche’s Doctrine of Eternal Recurrence, this is a La Ronde that loops back, perhaps infinitely. No montage, original order, forever. It forces you to make real relationships between characters, ones that can sustain multiple meetings. Or maybe it doesn’t. Maybe you make a big deal out of running into the same guy twice, or shoot a woman in one scene and visit her grave in another (she better be a ghost or something because someone else has to talk to them too)

Here’s an example, from a simple four-character stand point.

A and B are on their first date. They are going ice skating. A is very talented, B isn’t very good, but they have a good time anyway because A is considerate and B is impressed by A’s skill.
B and C are talking about their dates. C’s date hasn’t been very nice to her. He’s always yelling at her. B is sympathetic and listens to her friend.
C and D are on a date. D is very demanding, and C doesn’t have a good time.
D and A are talking about their dates. D’s date was whiny and complained a lot. A’s date was awesome.

Then

A and B are at dinner a few months later. They’re talking about C and D, and how C and D seem unhappy together. They’re surprised C and D have lasted this long, but are happy to still be with each other.
B and C are having a girl’s night. B and C gossip about their relationships. B is impressed by how gentlemanly A is. C implies that things with D are volatile.
C and D are out together. D is condescending and aggressive. C tries to calm him down, but isn’t very effective.
D and A are having a guy’s night. They talk about their girlfriends. D doesn’t like C all that much, but doesn’t want to break up with her. A is pretty happy about things and is starting to think long term.

Then

A and B are married. It’s some years later, and the relationship has lost a lot of its spark. They still get along, but they aren’t as happy as they used to be.
B and C have a lunch together. They talk about their marriages. B expresses her concerns about the lack of passion in her relationship with A. C bemoans that in all this time, D hasn’t started treating her any better.
C and D are at home. D is yelling at C about the way she keeps house, her weight, how she cooks, everything. C is despondent and quietly accepts his criticism.
D and A are at the bar. Both are dissatisfied with their relationships. A wants to repair things with B. D is contemplating divorce.

Then

A and B are at home. A is distant and uncommunicative. B has taken up baking to distract herself from her marriage. She says she makes cupcakes when she’s sad.
B and C are sitting in B’s kitchen. C is distraught that D has decided he wants a divorce. B offers C some of her cupcakes because both of them are sad.

Mirror La Ronde

You perform one round of La Ronde. You then perform another round, with new characters. Then each character from one wheel pairs up with a character from the other wheel.

Flywheel La Ronde.

After your initial round, a player (not character) can become a new character, and interact with any already-established character. They only get one each, and it is intended to show a dropped )(or if needed invented) aspect of their character. Therefore each character in the initial wheel has three scenes to show (potentially) three sides of their personality. On the other hand, it also allows the additional characters to be less dimensional as they serve only to showcase a facet of the original character. Why is it called a flywheel? It’s a stopgap while a think of a name, which I will by the time you read this, which I haven't. The Stop Gap La Ronde?

Blow Out La Ronde

Except each character gets a blow out of scenes to explore them. The blow out ends when one added character is deemed strong enough to be repeated in another scene, with a new character. Confused? Yeah. But I’m interested.

Layered La Ronde

Do a La Ronde all the way through, but each/some of the scenes has a different layer to them added by the exiting player eg. Shakespearean or serious or one person silent or one person has a deep secret never revealed or Al Pacino and Robert De Niro from Heat.

La Ronde a L’Laronde

A La Ronde where we do La Ronde the play. I don’t mean word for word, I mean we actually play lovers bed hopping, exploring the social and moral mores of the day. If it aint broke.

Less Players than Characters

If there are 10 scenes, we need 10 characters. Two characters per scene, two scenes apiece, that’s 10. If, for instance, you have two players, that would mean each player would be responsible for 5 characters. Would that mean one person has to play two characters in the same scene? No. If you are alternating, it won’t happen.

More Players than Characters

Then I guess some miss out. This seems less variation, more miscalculation. I suppose, if each character gets at least two scenes, they could have different actors in either. But this would only be a training exercise, or your trying to win an arts grant.