Para las Mujeres! Women in Improv!

[jillybee72]

Hey, no-one has answered my question as to whether the word "comedienne" is as out-of-fashion as "actress" seems to be, and if so, why that is.

There's been a push since the 70s to get rid of words where the feminine form is a diminutive. Waitress, Stewardess, Actress, Watercress, etc. Diminutive implying diminished of course, for example a Stewardess is implied to be a cute fluffy version of a Steward that you can pay less for the same work.

[mpbrockman]

Hey, no-one has answered my question as to whether the word "comedienne" is as out-of-fashion as "actress" seems to be, and if so, why that is.

There's been a push since the 70s to get rid of words where the feminine form is a diminutive. Waitress, Stewardess, Actress, Watercress, etc. Diminutive implying diminished of course, for example a Stewardess is implied to be a cute fluffy version of a Steward that you can pay less for the same work.

Yes, I get that (watercress?) but the suffix -enne is simply feminine, not diminutive. I would think that given the current push to have women recognized more widely in the comedy world that "comedienne" would be a term women in comedy and even staunch feminists might embrace as it correctly identifies them as women and is a lot less clunky than "female comedian".

Of course, in a perfect world men & women could all just be "comedians" like they now are generally "actors"; but since it seems there are still some hurdles to clear before women are perceived as being on an equal footing with men in comedy might not "comedienne" be a useful term and perhaps even a badge of honor - a way of saying, "I'm a woman and I'm funny, dammit. Get used to it".

[Spots]

I just think it looks like a stupid word. Comedienne? "Comedian" is good copy. Let's stick with that.

[mpbrockman]

I just think it looks like a stupid word.

Hmmm... I think it looks rather classy, myself.

[Spots]

I know how it's supposed to be pronounced, traditionally. But English is all screwy thanks to the Norman conquest. This is how my eyes naturally read both words:

comedian: cuh-meed-ee-en

comedienne: co-meh-dee-en (or "coma-dian")



The final syllable throws everything off.

[Katherine]

Wow! There are so many great ideas on this thread, and there’s so much to respond to. Thanks everyone for such thoughtful comments. I’ve wanted to chime in several times, but have wanted time to respond well.

A lot of people pointed out that women and men can put both women and men in these stereotypical and/or misogynistic roles. I think that’s true, and I have to point the finger at myself here, for sure. I’ve definitely endowed my own characters with traits I’m not actually excited about. This highlights the need to hone those improv chops that help me get what I want out of a scene while still yes-and-ing and listening and responding. In the heat of the moment, I’ve seen myself fall back on a character I actually didn’t want to be or want to play in a particular way (and there was no particular reason to make that character choice). The ability to patiently, calmly and collectedly discover and create the characters we’d most like to be in a given scene seems to be a real art. As a very new improviser, I’m still learning a lot of these basics, and still needing to log that “flight time” that has been mentioned in other threads.

Jason mentioned a scene wherein he and Peter were to play two women in a realistic manner. Every time they did something unrealistic, a woman from the adueince would ring a bell. Jason said he started out as very supportive, but the woman clearly was hoping for a bitchy type. Sigh... It may be that this woman equates manipulation with feminine power. She may own one of those ridiculous “51% Sweetheart, 49% Bitch. ...Don’t Push It!!” t-shirts. (I usually translate that to “Is my bravado loud enough to drown out my piss poor self-esteem?”) On the other hand, if you were to ask that woman - outside of the realm of a comedy show - how women act around each other, she might have a more nuanced, less cyincal/vapid response. I wonder if she, as a participant in the scene, felt pressure to make the funny stuff happen. Perhaps, like some new improvisers (I include myself here) she jumped straight to sitcom style, broad stroke characterizations because that’s what she has in her head somewhere as “what people think is funny.” (Also, speaking of stereotypes and sitcoms and what the zeitgeist says is funny, I wish there were more ways for sitcom husbands to be than dumb and incompetent as shit. I wish there were sitcom wives who had high status for something other than pointing out their idiot husbands’ idiot actions. And that’s why I don’t have a tv.)

Several people mentioned coming onto the stage with an attitude or a voice or a particular physicality that helps you create a character. This rule of thumb makes for good improv at any time, but it is a particularly good technique for negotiating scenes wherein you are given a “gift” that doesn’t thrill you. It’s also good to come out with an idea of your character’s goals or desires. Keeping internal motivations in mind will help deepen a scene and drive it forward.

I have a follow up question that concerns these ideas. ...Is it completely, utterly, absolutely true that we are to come on stage with NOTHING, or does “come on stage with nothing” actually mean “come on stage with a little something, but not with a fully developed plan for the next ten minutes of this show?” In other words, bring something to the stage with you, but that something should be something that allows you and others to develop the scene together. In spite of the fact that it has worked so well to bring some emotion, internal goal or physicality to the stage, I keep wondering if that’s cheating in the improv world. How do you find a balance between (Is there a thread about this already? If so, please direct me.)
*
“If you ask me to play a stripper, I will always play an openly weeping stripper, sadly taking off her shirt, because that's what I find hilarious and it will make you look like an asshole.” Damn, I’m glad you have the confidence and talent to do this. I can only remember one scene where I played a stripper. I just cringed and got past (avoided, didn’t acknowledge) the fact really quickly, and went on to make some ambiguous scene that wasn’t really influenced by that occupation. This comes back to the idea of practicing how to calmly, patiently get what you want out of a situation. Really, even now, I can’t say what I would want from being endowed as a stripper, prostitute, nag, etc.

Sara’s comment about being forced to fight for your fun on stage resonated with me. That’s the key here! In my mind, it’s not funny to play these characters. I‘m irked that I need to think of a strategy for negotiating these moments, and that I need to telegraph My Official Message of Dissent in the middle of a show.

Someone suggested to me that we might be pushed in classes to play characters that make us uncomfortable. Fair enough, and in general, that sounds like a good idea. That said, just because we’re in Improv World doesn’t mean we don’t need to heed each others’ boundaries and comfort levels. I’m not willing to say that in the realm of improv where so many boundaries are loosened, ALL boundaries HAVE to be loosened, and all to an equal degree. Also, I think many improv students (myself included) need baby steps to learn how to negotiate weird boundaries. Teachers use the term “zone of proximal development” to describe the level of difficulty and uncertainty where learning and growth take place for a student. The zone of proximal development is that area just beyond comfort level and just beyond ease. If you have students do work below the zpd, they won’t learn anything new; they won’t be challenged. If you push a student to learn something beyond the zpd before they feel confident with some of the ideas that fall between what they know and what the you want them to know, they give up in frustration. I guess I’m arguing for an awareness of fellow improvisers’ Comfort Zones of Proximal Development. We should be pushed to do what is slightly out of reach and slightly uncomfortable, but not pushed to do what we’re fully not willing to do yet. We should try to stretch ourselves, and not beat ourselves up over things we’re not yet doing the way we would like. Baby steps.

Several people have talked about successfully and realistically portraying the opposite sex. Kathy Rose suggested a video of VA-ROOM as a good example of a man playing a woman. I liked that clip. ...It seemed that the womanhood of the character was made concrete because the improviser was extremely specific. His body language didn’t simply convey “female.” It also convened “elderly, plump, grandmotherly, limping, busy-bodyish.” Specificity and attention to detail are key.

My contribution to this portion of the discussion is to consider size of anatomy. In class one day Chad and I had a scene together and we were both playing men. At some point he decided to pee (Were we in a field? In a restroom? I have no clue.), so I yes-anded by walking up next to him and following suit. The scene continued with a relatively casual conversation - nothing zany or bizarre, but afterwards I was told that that was the biggest Johnstone anyone had ever seen. Apparently my hands seemed to be holding something the size of a wine bottle. Nice. So thinking about size is a good idea. ( :

And on that note, it’s 3:30am; time for bed!

[mpbrockman]

The final syllable throws everything off.

Yah, it's subtle. I see them the same way except "comedian" ends in more of an "un" sound in my head whereas "comedienne" ends with more of an "en". I rather want to move the accent from the second to the fourth syllable, too.

OK - enough of the linguistics sidebar. Back to the thread!

[Rev. Jordan T. Maxwell]

the truth is, there's no such thing as "coming on with nothing." even in a perfectly Zen state of mu, with the mind serene and filled with nothingness, you will still come into the situation with a gesture, a facial expression, a voice, a lifetime of behavioral conditioning, muscle memory, etc. so yeah, "enter with nothing" really means more "enter without a plan." with all of that at your disposal when you have "nothing," what else do you need? though i think if you want to come out with the notion "this is a rowboat scene" or "i'd like to do this with a German accent," go for it. if an audience suggestion triggers something in your mind, don't feel like you have to discard it to enter with "nothing." it's the "nothing" that lets you respond to the suggestion more clearly.

a couple of correlating thoughts to the gender discussion...

1) do you think that such misogyny is more prevalent in improv scenes/communities that have sprung from and are more closely related to the comedy/stand up world than to the theatre world?

2) in talking about endowment, we seem to be going to profession a lot (stripper, prostitute, teacher, etc.). this would seem to my mind to indicate a more premise heavy focus that would lend itself more towards the gaggy. do you think such misogyny would be more or less present if the focus were more on endowment of relationship than occupation/premise? ("you're my mother" versus "you're a stewardess") I'd think it would be more difficult to objectify someone and easier to generate empathy if you had to already know them and establish that connection. or are assholes just always going to be assholes?

So thinking about size is a good idea. ( :

fodder for the Context thread.

[Marc Majcher]

I can’t say what I would want from being endowed as a stripper... etc.

While noting that is kind of a douchey endowment most of the time, it might be interesting to play with the fact that the vast majority of a stripper's time (or enter demeaning role/occupation here) is spent not at work, off-stage, not stripping. What's she like in class, at her day job, with her circle of book club friends, dropping her kid off at school, at the gym, visiting her mom in the hospital, hanging out at the park, volunteering at the museum, going through her morning routine, etc?

(Also useful for non-douchey, but totally boring other occupations, men and women alike...)

[Rev. Jordan T. Maxwell]

I can’t say what I would want from being endowed as a stripper... etc.

While noting that is kind of a douchey endowment most of the time, it might be interesting to play with the fact that the vast majority of a stripper's time (or enter demeaning role/occupation here) is spent not at work, off-stage, not stripping. What's she like in class, at her day job, with her circle of book club friends, dropping her kid off at school, at the gym, visiting her mom in the hospital, hanging out at the park, volunteering at the museum, going through her morning routine, etc?

(Also useful for non-douchey, but totally boring other occupations, men and women alike...)

yeah, i dated a girl for a couple of weeks in college who happened to be a stripper. but that's not the context i knew her in. to my mind, she was a good actress, a fantastic musician, a lovely dancer, a formidable carpenter, a wonderful friend, a fan of pear cider, veggie sandwiches, horror movies and animals, passionate and kind and a little insecure but tough enough to hide it from most everybody...and for a few hours a week, she showed her breasts off to strangers in a dark room to loud music so she could pay for college.

nobody is "just" anything. everyone has worlds inside of them. performance blesses us with the gift of exploring those worlds, inside ourselves and others.

[jillybee72]

I have a follow up question that concerns these ideas. ...Is it completely, utterly, absolutely true that we are to come on stage with NOTHING, or does “come on stage with nothing” actually mean “come on stage with a little something, but not with a fully developed plan for the next ten minutes of this show?” In other words, bring something to the stage with you, but that something should be something that allows you and others to develop the scene together. In spite of the fact that it has worked so well to bring some emotion, internal goal or physicality to the stage, I keep wondering if that’s cheating in the improv world. How do you find a balance between (Is there a thread about this already? If so, please direct me.)

Yes, just a little kernel that you grab as you go onstage, inspired by the present moment. Bring a brick, don't bring a house.

nobody is "just" anything. everyone has worlds inside of them. performance blesses us with the gift of exploring those worlds, inside ourselves and others.

Yes! This is all very true. Every character has an adjective. The smartest cop, the laziest teacher, the happiest pope, the saddest neighbor. And that adjective leads to their insides.

[mpbrockman]

1) do you think that such misogyny is more prevalent in improv scenes/communities that have sprung from and are more closely related to the comedy/stand up world than to the theatre world?

I would imagine so. Whenever LAFF is on, I listen to the women (especially the ones from New York) talk about the "boy's club" that is stand-up. They're quite jealous of the scene we have down here. I know personally it's true in music. I know more uncomplimentary "chick singer" jokes than I know knock-knock jokes. Some of them are deserved, though. "Chick singer" here is usually referring to the non-musician-type of singer; doesn't really know music but feels free to tell everyone how to do their jobs, pulls diva stunts on a regular basis etc. Even females with real musical knowledge and skill have to walk in the shadow of their diva sisters and work harder to be taken seriously.

So thinking about size is a good idea. ( :

fodder for the Context thread.

Still a good point, though. I've seen a lot of men mime having breasts as if they were Dolly Parton in zero G.

[jillybee72]

I would think that given the current push to have women recognized more widely in the comedy world that "comedienne" would be a term women in comedy and even staunch feminists might embrace as it correctly identifies them as women and is a lot less clunky than "female comedian"

I think once you see me you'll know I'm a female comedian, and beforehand, why is the distinction important?

This is a side note that seems related in my brain - I personally dislike it when a group is advertised as an "All-Female" group with no further description of their style, as if gender is all they've got going on. I've never seen an All-Male group advertised thusly.

Also on the stripper/whore thing one last time. I personally haven't been labeled a stripper/whore in YEARS. It's not the everyday thing the compression of this thread makes it seem it is.

While noting that is kind of a douchey endowment most of the time, it might be interesting to play with the fact that the vast majority of a stripper's time (or enter demeaning role/occupation here) is spent not at work, off-stage, not stripping. What's she like in class, at her day job, with her circle of book club friends, dropping her kid off at school, at the gym, visiting her mom in the hospital, hanging out at the park, volunteering at the museum, going through her morning routine, etc?

This is what I'm talking about! If I have to do one more scene where someone shoves a single in my panties while I'm at book club I'm really going to explode. Kidding, kidding.

[Rev. Jordan T. Maxwell]

This is what I'm talking about! If I have to do one more scene where someone shoves a single in my panties while I'm at book club I'm really going to explode. Kidding, kidding.

i meant it as a compliment, damn it!

[mpbrockman]

I would think that given the current push to have women recognized more widely in the comedy world that "comedienne" would be a term women in comedy and even staunch feminists might embrace as it correctly identifies them as women and is a lot less clunky than "female comedian"

I think once you see me you'll know I'm a female comedian, and beforehand, why is the distinction important?

Keep in mind that I agree with you, in a perfect world there shouldn't be a distinction. Nevertheless, women are still (unfortunately) working towards perceptual equality. Thus we have LAFF, WCIF and SXSW panels on women in comedy et al where the point is to draw attention to funny women. Hopefully we can dispense with this in time, but for now I think making the distinction is helpful.

Hey, I'm pretty sure anyone on this forum will agree that women can be effing awesome actors/comedians/improvisors, so I'm preaching to the choir here; but the reality is that there is still a perception among some of the general public - that "women aren't funny" - that needs to be overcome.

This does beg the perfectly valid question: better strategy - highlight the "women" in "women in comedy" or just keep performing until the perception disintegrates under the sheer weight of quality and numbers?