Para las Mujeres! Women in Improv!

[jillybee72]

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?

I will always advocate for things like LAFF because something amazing happens when women are left alone to improvise for which I will never apologize. Plus we like to be together, it's an amazing uplifting experience, and the fact that it's good marketing as well is just a side-bar for me.

The rest of the time, my policy has always been to just do really good improv and not worry about it.

[ejbrammer]

my policy has always been to just do really good improv and not worry about it.

Word.

[Alex B]

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

This question has bothered me a lot.

In one sense it's impossible to walk on stage with literally nothing. We all walk on stage with a personality, memories, etc. (I mean, the improviser does).

But taking your question more charitably, we can ask whether or not to walk on stage with ideas that inform the character or the (scene as a whole).

I say either approach is valid:

*Walk on with zero*: I know nothing about my character or the scene. I walk on listening and watching and hearing (and etc.) everything. Then I can (subconsciously, b/c to do it consciously would be brain-kill) ask myself: How did I walk on the stage (fast? slow? purposefully lazy?)
What am I feeling? What thought popped into my head? What is my scene partner up to?

Of course, I might not have intended any of that stuff to happen. (After all, I initially walked on with zero ideas in my head) But when I walked on stage, I walked on stage in a certain way, intentionally or not. Or a certain idea crossed my mind or a certain expression overtook me. And that means something. Or, it can if I want to let it.

*Walk on with something*: An idea, a character trait, knowledge of who my scene partner is, knowledge of something else about the scene.

Either way is valid. Or better yet: both ways are right. The great thing about walking on with nothing is that it's more self-evident that my job is to listen and watch (and, etc.) and respond accordingly. Walking on with something is great too, but it doesn't absolve me of the responsibility of listening (and watching, and etc... why do improvisers always focusing on the auditory sense?)

That's how I think about that stuff.

[Rev. Jordan T. Maxwell]

indeed. there aren't too many things i think you can declare as hard and fast "rules" in improv. it all comes down to style and philosophy and theory, and even that can all go out the window depending on what works best in the moment. versatility and adaptability are the best skills we can develop.

[Jastroch]

I will always advocate for things like LAFF because something amazing happens when women are left alone to improvise for which I will never apologize. Plus we like to be together, it's an amazing uplifting experience, and the fact that it's good marketing as well is just a side-bar for me.

Not to sound all white male, but I feel like if I made the inverse statement that people would find it off putting or offensive.

I'm not insinuating that as a male improviser there's any sorts of "oppression" going on a la reverse racism. I just think if we have a standard, it should be uniformly applied.

Seriously -- and I don't mean this to be confrontational so much as engage in discussion out of genuine intellectual curiosity -- what if I said:

Something amazing happens when men are left alone to improvise for which I will never apologize. Plus we like to be together, it's an amazing uplifting experience, and the fact that it's good marketing as well is just a side-bar for me.

How do you think the boards would react, outside of this context?

[kaci_beeler]

Seriously -- and I don't mean this to be confrontational so much as engage in discussion out of genuine intellectual curiosity -- what if I said:

Something amazing happens when men are left alone to improvise for which I will never apologize. Plus we like to be together, it's an amazing uplifting experience, and the fact that it's good marketing as well is just a side-bar for me.

How do you think the boards would react, outside of this context?

When I was little, I would ask my parents, "Why is there a Mother's Day and a Father's Day, but no Children's Day?"

and they would answer, "Because everyday is Children's Day."

Not that everyday is majority male improv day, but in most troupes and shows, the cast IS majority male.

These are shows I have played in lately where the majority of the cast was male:
Available Cupholders
Victrola
Violet Underbelly
Batman
Hitchcocked!
The 40 Hour Improv Marathon
The 42 Hour Improv Marathon

These are the shows I have played in recently that were majority female:
Girl Embassy World Team

And when I think of the rest, they are more-or-less equal, or slightly more in the direction of majority male. In most cases, more men than women.

I know I have to make a conscious effort in most cases to cast an equal or greater-than-usual number of women in my shows. It's really hard to do. More men with experience come out than women with experience.
Usually, I wish more women would come out to the auditions that are held for the Hideout shows (especially the ones I'm directing).
We have a really good crop of newer ladies coming out of our classes lately, so I'm super excited for what's to come, but right now it's not ideal (for me).

So for us laydies, it's nice when most of the stuff we do is majority male, to bask in what majority female is like for a little while. And while being treated like an equal onstage isn't really an issue in Austin, it IS an issue elsewhere in the US (especially in the Stand-Up community), and we can talk about those things with the out of town ladies, and share resources, and inspire each other.

You could say that phrase about playing with men, and then you could point to it happening anytime you've done a ColdTowne show.

[Rev. Jordan T. Maxwell]

yeah, it strikes me as the same argument as "why don't we have straight pride parades?" or "why isn't there a white history month?" because there's not much need for them. having events and organizations where groups who are typically oppressed or maligned in some way helps consolidate a feeling of tribal identity, which is a natural instinct when it sometimes feels like not only is everyone ganged up against you, but the world itself is actively structured to keep you silent and powerless.

so, yeah, there's a double standard there...but it's not one of their making, they're just responding to it to compensate for the disparity in opportunity or recognition. and there's nothing wrong with that, in my mind. no, it's probably not the best idea for me to organize a straight pride parade or white history month or all male improv festival...but i've never been treated as a lesser person and no doors have ever been closed to me because of the color of my skin or the fact that i wear my gonads on the outside. so until there's true social equality, we can at least settle for social justice.

...or, um...improv. yeah. cough.

[PyroDan]

Katherine wrote:

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


This question has bothered me a lot.

In one sense it's impossible to walk on stage with literally nothing. We all walk on stage with a personality, memories, etc. (I mean, the improviser does).

But taking your question more charitably, we can ask whether or not to walk on stage with ideas that inform the character or the (scene as a whole).

I say either approach is valid:

*Walk on with zero*: I know nothing about my character or the scene. I walk on listening and watching and hearing (and etc.) everything. Then I can (subconsciously, b/c to do it consciously would be brain-kill) ask myself: How did I walk on the stage (fast? slow? purposefully lazy?)
What am I feeling? What thought popped into my head? What is my scene partner up to?

Of course, I might not have intended any of that stuff to happen. (After all, I initially walked on with zero ideas in my head) But when I walked on stage, I walked on stage in a certain way, intentionally or not. Or a certain idea crossed my mind or a certain expression overtook me. And that means something. Or, it can if I want to let it.

*Walk on with something*: An idea, a character trait, knowledge of who my scene partner is, knowledge of something else about the scene.

Either way is valid. Or better yet: both ways are right. The great thing about walking on with nothing is that it's more self-evident that my job is to listen and watch (and, etc.) and respond accordingly. Walking on with something is great too, but it doesn't absolve me of the responsibility of listening (and watching, and etc... why do improvisers always focusing on the auditory sense?)

That's how I think about that stuff.

I like to think it is both. Improv in performance is a contradiction all the time, i.e. 'don't do a transaction scene' or 'know each other' are rules, but you can do what ever you do and it works, or you can do what ever you want and it falls flat. It's fleeting and wonderful.

[jillybee72]

Not to sound all white male, but I feel like if I made the inverse statement that people would find it off putting or offensive.

Almost every time I say it there's a guy who is offended. My gender has not elevated it out of that realm. No one likes to feel excluded.

Seriously -- and I don't mean this to be confrontational so much as engage in discussion out of genuine intellectual curiosity -- what if I said:

Something amazing happens when men are left alone to improvise for which I will never apologize. Plus we like to be together, it's an amazing uplifting experience, and the fact that it's good marketing as well is just a side-bar for me.

How do you think the boards would react, outside of this context?

If only we could look at it out of context! We will always have this context. This context started at the beginning of civilization.

But let's say this: There are plenty of all male troupes and no one is trying to disband them. People like them and are happy that they're happy. Whether they say out loud that gender is part of their happiness, they are giving non-verbal communication that indicates it. The fraternity of men, boys clubs, rat packs, these are enjoyable things that exist in our culture. You don't have to say it. It's already said.

I am so sorry to be saying so much on this thread about Austin, I feel like I'm taking more than my share of the conversation. It's just so very interesting, isn't it?

[PyroDan]

Personally I enjoy being a man. Improv or no improv. Possibly because I don't know anything else, but overall there are very few negatives other than more often than not being led around by libido from about 12yrs old to... now.

No offense ladies. I really enjoy a good 80% of what your bringing (non-improv wise) how great you are as a performer probably will fill in the rest of the gap. I have dated a good share of women I wasn't initially attracted to, but after seeing them improvise or perform in some manner (non-sexual here) I was enamored.

I remember being in the boys club of my college improv troupe, and really enjoying that, and then getting the fantastic opportunity to perform with some wonderful women. It made me change my thinking when we held auditions one year, and I really pushed to have some more females on the troupe, because I not only enjoyed them, but how they affected my play onstage.

Then we chose a young woman on my urging and didn't pick up a guy that would have made it, if not for my campaigning. However that became a huge mistake as she never developed and actually regressed and caused a lot of frustration. I realized right then we were working on a 'product' at the time and we should have taken the best candidate.

So I try to be 'sex blind' when casting/coaching/teaching unless it is necessary for the product.

ps The guy we turned away came to the next audition, even better, made the group and is in Chicago now doing improv, and married to a beautiful lady awaiting their first child (I made it up to him by introducing the two)

THE FOLLOWING IS IN REGARDS TO GENDER
As a teacher you can't help but notice that sometimes there are things, probably brought on by developmental social pressure from peer groups, that men and women will do. ( I have a long winded theory about play style as children I will save for another time)
It becomes necessary then to address these things to enable either gender to succeed in maturing their talent. Not really changing them as much as it is getting to recognize that generally there are differences, but they can be easily navigated with the understanding that we are all human, and each individually have our own style of communication, that somehow we can all understand communally.

In short at the start, GENERALLY speaking, men treat woman like chattle and women treat men like oafs. Oh and men like to make farts(jokes or otherwise)

[Jastroch]

You could say that phrase about playing with men, and then you could point to it happening anytime you've done a ColdTowne show.

Well,

Making ColdTowne an all male troupe was never a conscious and deliberate thought process. It just happened that way.

That's not what I'm talking about, though.

I'm talking about the relative reaction to me declaring that I wanted to have some male bonding time on stage. Or that something magical happens when it's only dudes.

I think it might cause a froo frah, or worse yet a kerfuffle. Am I wrong? If I said that, what would go through your head? Would you be angry? Annoyed? Roll your eyes? I'm sure you'd have a reaction, right?

And anyway, for my part, I'm of the mind that something magical happens when improvisers come together -- male or female -- without judgement or baggage.

[Jastroch]

re: this whole thread.

Of course I don't feel discriminated being a white male. That'd be just plain dumb. The world is my playground, my oyster and my oyster playground.

That said, nothing bothers me worse than double standards. If you expect others to be cool and support your right to feel more comfortable playing with women, I think you have an obligation to be cool and support someone having the same sentiment.

[Jastroch]

But let's say this: There are plenty of all male troupes and no one is trying to disband them. People like them and are happy that they're happy. Whether they say out loud that gender is part of their happiness, they are giving non-verbal communication that indicates it. The fraternity of men, boys clubs, rat packs, these are enjoyable things that exist in our culture. You don't have to say it. It's already said.

Are people trying to disband all-female troupes? In Saudi Arabia, for certain.

Honestly, though. How awesome it is being on an all-male troupe is the last thing on my mind in an all male troupe. When I'm on an all male troupe (or any troupe for that matter), I'm usually concentrating on having fun and playing pretend.

[Spots]

Seriously -- and I don't mean this to be confrontational so much as engage in discussion out of genuine intellectual curiosity -- what if I said:

Something amazing happens when men are left alone to improvise for which I will never apologize. Plus we like to be together, it's an amazing uplifting experience, and the fact that it's good marketing as well is just a side-bar for me.

I think the message is jumbled. Any time the majority uses the minority's viewpoint as a theoretical, everything gets all jumbled. Sean Hannity does this all the time when he claims that white people are being discriminated against. You simply laugh it off.

Because it isn't one simple theoretical. It's thousands of complex theoreticals rolled up into one. As long as there is a minority (whether it be race among college-admitted students or gender among comedians) there will be two distinct viewpoints.

[valetoile]

I'm talking about the relative reaction to me declaring that I wanted to have some male bonding time on stage. Or that something magical happens when it's only dudes.

I think it might cause a froo frah, or worse yet a kerfuffle. Am I wrong? If I said that, what would go through your head? Would you be angry? Annoyed? Roll your eyes? I'm sure you'd have a reaction, right?

If you said that in all sincerity, and didn't mean it as a reaction to someone else saying they wanted and all (blank) troupe, but as a real expression of the appreciation of what it is to be male and the energy that you share with other men, and as long as you didn't want to play only with men, then I would be pleased. I think it's great for men to be able to be happy and proud to be men, and not have to be on the defensive about it. I think everyone should get to be proud and happy to be who they are, and be happy that everyone else is who they are.