Shaking Things Up

[trabka]

I recently got sent this article, and I thought it could lead to an interesting discussion, so here goes:

http://improvnonsense.tumblr.com/post/2 ... nd-bastian

How do you weigh shaking things up to try to find new magic against keeping troupes together? Is it just a case of circumstances? From your experience, should we be encouraging either one more than the other in Austin?

First and foremost, it's obvious that, in general, improvisers and theaters in Austin have different goals than NY, Chicago and LA. The last thing I want is for this to turn into a big old "City X is better than City Y because Z" discussion, which I fear it could.

Clearly, keeping troupes together is a thing that works, otherwise things like Pgraph spending a month in Scotland wouldn't be a thing that happens. But I'd be really interested to see what would happen if theaters adopted a small scale version of the UCB Harold Team model, where teams get cast by the theaters for indefinite periods of time and see what shakes out (ColdTowne's student troupe program is sort of like this, but I'm interested in applying the same model to people who've been improvising for a few years) There are plenty of opportunities for short term shake ups (jams, limited run casted shows), but to me casting people on a team (rather than a team forming out of a mutual interest of playing together)and letting them find their voice together could yield some interesting results and probably help everyone involved develop further as improvisers.

[Spots]

I have a pretty strong opinion on this. You know that apprehensive feeling most people get at improv jams? This boils down to a lack of trust, right?

"I've never played with that dude, that dude, or that lady. Ummm, I really want to be in a scene with Milo. Maybe I'll wait until-- shit. Milo is onstage now. Fuck. I'm gonna end up in a scene with that dude. He makes strange moves."

Assigned troupes end up being the same way. There are people you trust more than others. The GREAT thing about forcing yourself to play with people you don't trust is that you develop technique that much faster.

Even though it feels like work, you as an individual get more experience. Because you are gaining this empirical knowledge of how to make scenes work with different styles of play-- or perhaps even insecurities.

There are troupes at TNM who are all trust. They just fall into scenes together and make it work because they love each other.

Meanwhile there are troupes at TNM who are all technique. They learn each other's moves and find the appropriate response to make the scene work.

Spirit Desire is a good mix of both. They sort of steam roll each other & make it work. They love playing together.


Trust is great for the overall troupe. Technique is great for the individual improviser.

I encourage performers to try as many improv jams, lotteries, and shake ups as possible. The more technique you gain from varied improvisers, the more you trust any scene you walk into.

[LisaJackson]

Definitely interesting. I feel there is benefit to all the models having been in a variety of set ups, I've learned something from all of them, not just about improvising but about working with others and about what things I enjoy. I think something that makes a difference in the product is how open and active the participants are. Yes some randomly put together troupes will just click by their inherent skills but some less obvious random troupes could build an interesting product by being active in discovery.

[Rev. Jordan T. Maxwell]

i don't much care for it personally and it's never worked well for me, but i definitely know people that it has worked for and who've thrived in it. so i could definitely see a place for it in the overall Austin scene, because one of the beauties of improv in this town as opposed to most others (managed to sneak one in. ) is the diversity and inclusion of style and philosophy.

question: would this only work if the theatre/school had a set training format like the Harold? or would it necessitate that the assigned troupe, while sussing out ensemble dynamics and trust also develop their own format?

[trabka]

Jesse, I agree completely. In an ideal world everyone would go into a casted troupe with the mindset that their open to anything in order to establish that trust.

I love being in the troupes I'm in, and they're all based on the idea of trust and self-selection. The thing that's most exciting to me about the other side of that is unexpected discovery.

question: would this only work if the theatre/school had a set training format like the Harold? or would it necessitate that the assigned troupe, while sussing out ensemble dynamics and trust also develop their own format?

Honestly, I think ever would work. I just said Harold because that's what my jumping off point was. If anything the latter would better facilitate that unexpected discovery.

[valetoile]

I think being in a troupe where you've chosen to play with those people and trust and understand each other, and staying with them over years, is absolutely necessary to a troupe becoming great, and it makes the individual stronger and more confident. But it can also lead to that feeling Jesse describes, where you're comfortable and brilliant with the people you know and trust, but you feel just like a noob with anyone else. So obviously, you want the stable long term relationships as well as the variety and challenge of working with new people, and not just in one off situations. Ideally you would periodically get to play with new people of various skills and styles over a multi-week period, so you could build those muscles to develop the beginnings of the same trust and intuition that you feel with your main group.

The question most interesting to me is in the value of a top-down assignment of a shake-up. I've always had a knee-jerk negative reaction to a theatre or school controlling troupes, throwing people together and breaking them up and enforcing that by controlling the stage time. Luckily, that's not really the case here. Any group that wants to get together and try something out has an opportunity to apply for stage time at multiple venues, and I feel that all the scheduling folks are good about giving an equal chance to groups regardless of how they were formed.

I've seen some really great and unexpected combinations come out of assigned or cast troupes. I've seen people who "chose" their groups but really ended up playing with others they didn't feel totally comfortable with out of a feeling of guilt or obligation.

I think shows that are cast for a limited run are a great way to shake things up- you work with new people that you may not have known or chosen, and it's in a structured setting with a time limit.

[beardedlamb]

I personally would never participate in a forced casting situation where my ability to perform where i wanted hinged on playing with strangers for a few months at a time. this sounds like a great way to have groups that don't gel on a repeated basis and this is generally what you see in these models. occasionally groups will squeak out of the mold, usually with half or less of the original members, to become a great long-standing group.

its just a matter of how you get to the same end. do you want to have the power to pick your fellow actors which might increase your chance of success, or do you want to put that labor on someone else who may know better what types of players will work together best, so you can focus on being a better improviser?

from what i've seen the house team and monthly casting committee model doesn't work as often as the longevity troupe model.

[Spots]

Supporting sweetlamb's comment, I had a bad experience being cast in a troupe. Actually I was put through the gauntlet. My coach was ambitious & we decided we wouldn't sweep edit. Meanwhile I hadn't even learned the other edits (tap outs, french edits, etc.) & was about to be thrown headlong into new territory. It was a challenge, and I survived because I recognized it as such.

The troupe didn't gel BUT I was able to go on a 10 city tour with all the technique I got out of it. That was my experience. It wasn't always fun. But I feel that there's a sweet spot for beginning improvisers where you can never go wrong.

An improviser who's been at it for 6 months will become a better improviser no matter what. They will gain that empirical experience and learn to trust their own technique. You, as coach or casting agent, will still need facilitate their needs when it comes to trust issues. Take them out for beers and respond to their emails. Listen.

Let that member who struggles with less skilled improvisers know that they are learning all kinds of ninja moves which will only make them better.

I would be completely against a scenario where you cast troupes and then just let them fight their way to the top. That's how you create dispossessed & dejected improvisers.

[hujhax]

I know gnap! casts troupes periodically out of the mixers.  How do y'all feel about that?



--
peter rogers @ home | http://hujhax.livejournal.com

I always have a quotation for everything -- it saves original thinking.
      -- Dorothy L. Sayers

[Spots]

Peter:

Regarding Coldtowne troupe casting, New Movement troupe casting, and then all 5 theaters by way of Merlin mixers.

I think this is a necessary step. Students going through classes won't always have the initiative to reach out and form troupes on their own. I agree that there's greater potential when they do because they trust each other more (presumably).

Nudging students into troupes is fantastic. It helps get their feet wet.

[SamM]

The thing I found interesting about that post wasn't so much the idea of casting troupes vs. self-built troupes but rather the choice between sticking it out vs. shaking it up

"Best way to get the most chemistry MIGHT be to just roll the dice more often....
That sounds right, except that improvisers — myself DEFINITELY included — have a tendency to instantly sentimentalize the teams they’re on — take pictures, having bonding trips, etc. All great things! But that allegience makes it more emotionally tough to break apart and try other combos."

I don't have much experience with this, but I've seen each side.

I quit one troupe I was on for over a year. It took me a while of thinking about it to actually do it. I didn't want to seem flaky and was afraid of how it would be received. I eventually realized it was the right thing for me and, ultimately, the troupe . It just wasn't growing and needed a change.

On the other hand, there was a period where I was kind of disenchanted with a different troupe I was on. It wasn't as fun as it had been in the past, and I wasn't sure if it was what I wanted to be doing. That turned out to just be a plateau, though, and it has since been extremely fun and rewarding, and the quality of our shows improved significantly.

There are always a lot of different circumstances involved in personal experiences, but does anyone have an opinion on the balance between shaking things up vs. sticking together in general for troupes ? How much of troupe quality is gained through chemistry vs. experience? And how do you find that those things affect each other?

[trabka]

The thing I found interesting about that post wasn't so much the idea of casting troupes vs. self-built troupes but rather the choice between sticking it out vs. shaking it up

Yeah, that was kind of a tangent that was borne out of you and I emailing back and forth about it.

To your questions, I had pretty much the exact same situations as you with two different troupes. One I quit after a year after a lot of personal handwringing and finally concluding it would be best for everyone if I moved on, another I stuck with and have continued to actively develop with and do good work with (collectively).

To kind of dovetail with the other thread of discussion in here, the troupe I ended up leaving was cast, the troupe I ended up staying with was self-selected, so there's that.

I'm also on the shallow end of the experience pool, so I don't think there's any specific correlation between yours or my experiences, and truth be told my main experience with the major cities' programs is via friends currently working through them, so I'm definitely interested in how everyone else perceives them.

[PaGeN]

It is so wonderful that you are all sharing this information.

Thank you for the thread and all the conversation around it.

This thread has illuminated some of my thoughts borne over the last few months of being in multiple new troupes while being so new to Improv (performance).

[Rev. Jordan T. Maxwell]

It is so wonderful that you are all sharing this information.

Thank you for the thread and all the conversation around it.

This thread has illuminated some of my thoughts borne over the last few months of being in multiple new troupes while being so new to Improv (performance).

while some of us old timers are barely in any. gather ye rosebuds...

[Spots]

It is so wonderful that you are all sharing this information.

Thank you for the thread and all the conversation around it.

This thread has illuminated some of my thoughts borne over the last few months of being in multiple new troupes while being so new to Improv (performance).

Where you lack trust, step up and challenge yourself. Give yourself a goal to accomplish for the night. One night you can focus on walk-ons that heighten the scene. One night you can focus on making fun choices to your partner's initiations. Regularly watch improv that inspires you and bridge the gap between your work and theirs. You can get alot done in the absence of trust.