Format Breakdowns

[beardedlamb]

If you're like me, you nerd out on why formats work and what makes for good shows when you're supposed to be working or someone annoying is talking to you.

I've probably talked about this format before but each time I perform it, I'm invigorated by it's potential. For the newbies, All In is an improv format that I invented where I at first appear to be doing a one man show except during the intro I explain that I will be performing with each member of the audience by bringing them up on stage with me. I explain the importance of support while in the audience and how this will make your life better when you have to be up here with me, too. Everyone must play. This is a very important rule. I also explain that improv is about apparent risk. It appears as though the improviser is walking across some dangerous tightrope that could toss him into an abyss of disfavor with the audience but that's not really the case. (I'm not sure of the validity of this statement, but it is important to set the audience at ease before they go up on stage.)
Here is a bulleted list of what's good about this format:

- It actually means less work for me in a one man show format.
- It allows people the chance to come out of a shell and surprise themselves with things they didn't know they had.
- It creates an even larger level of sympathy from the audience. They sympathize with the audience member on stage because they know better what it is like to up there, and when the audience member is being difficult for me, they sympthize with me having to deal with a challenge. Either way, the audience is on my side.
- Because each scene or game is only around 2-5 minutes if something is not going well, it is soon gone and something completely new starts with a fresh audience member.
- It might get someone hooked on improv by realizing that they can actually do it. As you know, anyone can do this. It's simply a matter of unlocking part of your brain. Any human can improvise.
- It is the TRUE meaning of the words "audience interaction."
- The audience is, in a small way, put through a traumatic event together. Psychologically, this bonds people. People like to be connected to other people so this format creates kind of a bonded group for an hour or so, and my hope is that as they're leaving they have discovered something about themselves and something about total strangers who they would otherwise never look at twice.
- I have the option to bring up single people who on my first read can handle being up there with just me or I can bring up multiple people if time is running short or if they appear to need some extra support from people near them in the audience.
- There is a certain pedagogical aspect to the format that sneaks its way. Everyone is learning how to better improvise and to communicate better with strangers.
- It makes them appreciate improv more. Once they get up there under the hot lights and experience the judgement an audience can put on you, they're hopefully more willing to enjoy and support improv in the future. People who have waited tables leave better tips. They've been there.

Things that are bad about this format:
- It is forced interaction. An audience member is showing up to watch and enjoy a show. If they wanted to participate, they would have taken a workshop, right? I'm not a fan of coersion or even persuasion. I don't like to tell people what to do. This is my biggest hangup for this format but in order for it to work, some persuasion is needed.
- For some, it shows them how easy improv can be. I don't want everyone thinking that improv is super easy, improvisers would lose all our credibility. It wouldn't be seen as a skill, which is unfortunately where it is in most cases anyway. As a practitioner of the art form, I need to maintain a small amount of mystery and status, lest we all be improvisers and end up with no audience.
- It only works with a small audience. I need around 3 minutes per audience member on average to make this show happen so depending on how long I have, larger audiences are going to be difficult to squueze in completely. This show, no matter how successful, could not be played at Carnegie. Unless some kind of random seat selector pulled up random audience members, but that's kind of a different show altogether. Or even more different, a random seat catapult that would launch them toward the stage.

Even though it is flawed, so is anything, and I think the good points outweigh the negative ones. I like this format a lot.


41 year old virgin and day trader awkwardly tries to pick up Meredith, a lady who works in the Loop, as they ride on the El in Chicago. Meredith had never improvised before but was very good at it nonetheless.


Jennifer, a practiced Shakespearean actor broke the ice with the first scene of the night, a classic Shakespearean wooing scene. She had never improvised in front of an audience but had much success, even in the language jungle that is improvised Shakesp.

Give people room to succeed with the illusion of support and risk and they will almost always surprise themselves and the audience.

i need to write about improv more.
b
thanks to kbadr for a great gaggle of pictures from Friday night.

[acrouch]

nerd out on why formats work

Holla!

All In

I love this format idea. I've only seen it once in practice and it seemed to struggle, but I have complete faith in its potential.

I think improv is at its most potent when it's empowering the audience, which is what All In is all about. It seems like your best bet with a show like this is to either have a crowd of people that know what they're showing up for, or some incredibly powerful tools for coaxing an unwitting audience across the spectator/participant line.

It actually means less work for me in a one man show format.

Is it really less work? It seems like guiding/playing with all those vastly different personalities and fighting to keep the quality of show up (quality in terms of content and not just the pleasure derived from watching novices expereince improv) would be pretty exhausting in its own right.

For some, it shows them how easy improv can be. I don't want everyone thinking that improv is super easy, improvisers would lose all our credibility. It wouldn't be seen as a skill, which is unfortunately where it is in most cases anyway. As a practitioner of the art form, I need to maintain a small amount of mystery and status, lest we all be improvisers and end up with no audience.

Demystifying improv and popularizing it can only lead to greater success and popularity. The absolutely worst thing we can do in the struggle to raise the profile of improv is portray it as a virtuoso art form that only the wittiest of mortals can participate in. Improv's power is in its accessibility. Anybody who can let go of their shit and have fun failing on stage can do improv. We should all be improvisers. If we could sell that truth, we would never want for audiences.

- It only works with a small audience...This show, no matter how successful, could not be played at Carnegie.

If you could come up with some huge group games/scenes, you could play a stadium. Speak in one voice that you lead so masterfully that 1,000 people can hold a coherent conversation with you. Breaking people up into pairs to play scenes in their seats with each other. Etc. Not everyone would get onstage, but everyone could play.

Love this format. Love Jeremy Lamb.

[the_orf]

Demystifying improv and popularizing it can only lead to greater success and popularity. The absolutely worst thing we can do in the struggle to raise the profile of improv is portray it as a virtuoso art form that only the wittiest of mortals can participate in. Improv's power is in its accessibility. Anybody who can let go of their shit and have fun failing on stage can do improv. We should all be improvisers. If we could sell that truth, we would never want for audiences.

With all due respect and cordiality, I must vehemently disagree with this viewpoint. Well, not all of it--I agree that anybody who can let go and have fun failing can do improv, and that we should all be improvisors. But the notion that demystifying improv and empowering the masses to do it themselves will lead to greater success and larger audiences, well, I think that's hooey.

I tend to regard "improv" by its unabbreviated name, improvisational theater. The emphasis is on the theater; the improvisational part is just a qualifier. To perform theater requires work, and practice, and talent. Sure, anybody can do it--that's why every town no matter how small has a community theater group or a church variety show. But how much of that do you really want to see? How much do you want to PAY to see? People pay upwards of $100/ticket to see Broadway shows because those performers are doing something most of us can't do ourselves. Hence, Broadway has a high profile, while the Topeka community pageant does not.

Anybody can play sports, too. If you can physically hoist a ball towards a 10-foot high hoop, you can play basketball. Millions of kids and adults play basketball, be it in their driveways, on the street, or in a gym. But how much of that do you want to watch? And what are the chances you would actually pay to watch it? Audiences pay big bucks and turn out to see the pros play, and they pay a bit less to see quality college or high school kids play. The minute you tell me that I should pay 10 bucks to watch some street ball because it's fun to watch those kids try hard and fail, is the minute I spend my 10 bucks on beer and watch an NCAA game on TV.

The reason audiences show up for theater, be it scripted or improvised, is simple: quality. The fact that I know I can perform improv does not make me want to see any ol' random other person do improv. I believe I am not alone in this viewpoint. When I go to the theater, I want to see somebody skilled and well-rehearsed and playing at a very high level. To watch people stumble and stall and look embarrassed at their own lack of fluidity on stage is, to quote a harsh and cynical friend of mine, "like watching dorks at summer camp." That's just not enjoyable. In fact, I personally find it downright painful. But if you show me a quality group that invents theater on the spot and makes it look so easy it's magical? That's where my admission dollars are going. I believe that this is the only thing that will draw in steady, sizeable audiences.

If you want to raise the profile of improv, raise the quality of the improvisational performances. Don't put a bunch of novices on stage and run what is essentially a workshop of children's games for them in front of a paying audience, and try to call this "empowering" because it is "accessible." It's bad theater, is what that is. It hurts the profile of improv because any audience member who sees it will walk away thinking, "you know, that reminds me of the way we killed time on the bus during grade school field trips."

A format like Jeremy Lamb's All in works because (a) there is always at least one talented person on stage; (b) it shows the people how difficult it is to improvise well; and (c) as Jeremy pointed out, it plays on the sympathies of the crowd in his favor. I guarantee you, if you put an audience member up there without a highly skilled improvisor like Lamb to anchor the show, it would turn ugly and silent and make most audience members run away very quickly, never to return.

Love Jeremy Lamb.

Now on THAT we can agree.

[kbadr]

I agree that anyone can try improv, and it's a great way to get past certain mental blocks, but I don't think *anyone* can get good at it. And I'm going to stand by that for my own selfish reasons. My personality is already such that I'm not particularly pleased with anything I do, and if what little successes I do grant myself can just be achieved by anyone who decides to try, well...that makes me not so happy.

And why should improv be any different than any other art form? Sure, anyone can pick up a guitar and play C E G , but not everyone's going to sound like Stevie Ray (primarily because that'd mainly make you sound like Johnny Cash...but that's beside the point...) I think you do yourself a disservice by over-stating the accesibility of improv or ignoring that there might be some element of inate...something...that will help you succeed as an improviser.

If everyone's remarkable, then no one's remarkable. Or something.

[kaci_beeler]

Almost no one* is going to pay to watch someone make a peanut butter sandwich.


*My stupid boyfriend claims he would.

[phlounderphil]

because that'd mainly make you sound like Johnny Cash...but that's beside the point...

Kareem, as I read this, I thought this. And then you typed it. Thank you. This made me happy.

A couple of things, if you made a peanut butter sandwich in a creative way (like that guy that does it with his feet), people would willingly watch it, because it's a twist on such a simple thing.

I think improv is a lot like that. All people basically improvise every day. They hold conversations, they express desires, they make shit up to entertain themselves, they read stories and imagine things, they watch other people and become interested in their dramas. Those are all elements of improvisation.

I do think that anyone could POTENTIALLY be talented at improv. Just because it tends to be a hobby for 20-to-30-something computer programmers does not mean that only certain people can do it. I firmly believe in everyone's power to be funny and intelligent, and I walk around everyday trying to get other people to make me laugh. Those moments are beautiful. Not everyone would be good at it IN FRONT of an audience, that's because we've been conditioned to be embarassed and passive when placed in front of crowds of strangers. If you break that block, I think that essentially anyone could be pretty skilled at improv. Sort-of the, you can do anything if you put your mind to it - phrase, but the opposite of that. Anyone who can get their mind around it, could probably be good at some sort of improv.

Furthermore, the ALL-IN format rocks.

I remember one time that I got to do a spoon river onstage with Jeremy during an all in format forever ago, it really inspired me, and only served to make me MORE interested in improv than I already was.

yay.

[shando]

Not sure where the peanut butter sandwhich thing came from, Beeler, but there's a pedigree for even making things like the assemblage of a peanut butter sandwich exciting and watchable.

I highly recommend this book to find out when and how people did it:



And also

[valetoile]

...anyone can play sports, anyone can do theatre, and a lot of people do etc....

...people pay a lot of money to watch professionals do these things....

Seems to me the things that seem at least somewhat accessible are the areas where people appreciate the professionals and those with real talent all the more. Letting people experience it makes them uderstand it more, and wish more that they were one of those people up there who is so awesome.