... and therein lies the heart of the matter. The Fancy Pants players have already been inspired by something in their closet. That's what's so cool and special about this show. Why not take full advantage of that?Ryan Hill wrote:I have never rocked the red shirt and Kermit tie before.
Improvisers are accustomed to ignoring each other's actual appearance. We are taught to create characters through posture, movement, voice, emotion, POV, etc. and to address appearance (when it comes up at all) through endowments. The Fancy Pants Mashup provides a truly unique opportunity. Here's a show in which the players have already made a strong character choice, through their attire.
I'd love to see the Director take a look at each random pairing, then either:
1) ask the audience for a suggestion inspired by "who" they see on stage; OR
2) give a starting direction for the scene, based on the potential that the Director sees in the pairing.
For example:
- Where would you expect (or not) to find these two people?
- These two people are stuck together in a small place. Where are they?
- These two people have personal mantras. What are they?
- What occupation does one of these characters have?
- In what style of movie would you likely (or not) see these two people?
or
- You're two hit men at the opera. Go!
Then - boom! - when the lights come up . . . we see "these two people," dressed like the players we see on stage, come to life.
Note: what a person is wearing doesn't have to limit a player's choice of age or gender. Little kids play dress-up. People dress eccentrically for their own personal, often fascinating, reasons. They even cross-dress. And the players can still f*ck with audience and Director expectations, as they desire.
This kind of setup does several good things. It makes the transitions go quickly and smoothly. Players don't have to negotiate a decision or "give up their choice" (since their choice -- their attire -- has already been made, and will always be used). Audience suggestions build on something they actually see, for a change. New players get to work on valuable character skillz, and they don't have the pressure of creating scenes "from nothing." And the Director learns to help players find starting points with good comic potential.
Of course, you don't want scenes to be just about how funny someone is dressed. But what struck me as ODD in last Friday's show was how often a player's choice of attire had no bearing on the scene at all. I wondered: what was the POINT of dressing Fancy if we just improvise like it's any other show?
Just for example, one couple played a "plumber scene." At the top of the scene, I looked forward to seeing what happened when the door opened and this lovely young lady (the plumber) was standing there in a satin dress! So what happened . . .? They proceeded to talk about the plumbing problem (focusing on the activity), as if nothing was out of the ordinary. I so wanted to see the "customer" react to this unorthodox, girly plumber! Would he doubt her credentials? Would he hit on her? Was she a transvestite plumber? (Did that cost extra?) How about him in his suit - was he late for an important event? Was he in love with the Lady Plumber and contriving an excuse to see her? et cetera. This could have been a very interesting character-driven scene, if only they had acknowledged each other's Fancy appearance.
Overall, as an audience member, I would have been disappointed in, if not confused by, how the show didn't fully incorporate our fabulous attire.
Yes, the director could always throw in some game elements, especially if the pairing happened to be two veteran performers and s/he wanted to up the degree of difficulty. But why make a scene difficult or complicated, when you already have such rich material to work with?
