matt besser quote

[Roy Janik]

Yes, I definitely think long-form translates to tv. When people video tape their improv show and say 'Oh, it doesn't translate to video,' that means their show wasn't very good, to me. If you have a scene that you improvise and it's truly funny from beginning to end, on its own merits, not just because it's being improvised, that scene should be able to be written up. That's our philosophy at our school. You should be improvising so that at the end of the show you want to write it up as a scene. It's not going to be perfect. You're going to have to rewrite it and make it better, but it should be good enough that it can be a real scene. Otherwise, it's not good enough to be seen on tv. People say 'Improv won't work because you have to be there.' That's only the improv where you're going 'Oh, it's neat to watch them fail.' That's improv that's still not good enough. That teams to get better so they don't fail a lot, and they start to improvise more scenes that they'd be proud to have written up as a sketch.

From the rest of the interview with Besser, and the one with Ian Roberts, it seems very clear that they aren't interested in doing improv where any of the enjoyment comes from it being improvised.

For me, I'm torn. I definitely don't like falling on the crutch of having the audience laugh at how we're failing, or how hard things are... but part of what I love about improv is that the audience is witnessing the act of creation.

But it does make sense that if you want to film improv and have it translate well to video, then you'd best make sure the laughs come from the scene itself and not any of the improv stuff that depends on the audience being there live.

The quote comes from http://www.improvinterviews.com, which has some amazing, lengthy interviews with famous improvisers.

[kbadr]

That's only the improv where you're going 'Oh, it's neat to watch them fail.' That's improv that's still not good enough.

I don't think that's entirely true, about the live improv experience being tied to watching someone fail. That's maybe one interpretation of the phenomena. I think a more accurate one is that a live improv experience is like any live performance. The energy of the room just cannot be captured by the camera. Same thing goes for seeing a band live versus seeing the live DVD they release. I've seen live DVDs of shows that I was actually at, and the experience pales in comparison. That doesn't mean seeing the actual live show was a bad experience. It's often quite the opposite.


Also, if this thread turns into another epic argument where we start slagging each other off, I'm going to shit in everyone's eye holes.

[Wesley]

Amen.

I've never really understood the argument that improv doesn't translate well to video (save that a lot of it is bad and shot on crappy cameras with poor sound and laughter too close to the microphone). We've all seen improvised scenes in movies that were hysterical and prove the skills can transfer into that medium.

As someone who is more focused on the storytelling aspect of my improv than the ha-ha bad pun factor, I think improv is a perfect vessel for telling amazing-to-watch stories and if the story itself is good enough, and the players tell it tight enough, then it should still work just as well on video as in person. I think some of the jokier moments do fall flatter on video (b/c they do rely more on the energy and temperment in the room), but a good story is a good story regardless.

[DollarBill]

I recently discussed this with Shannon. We agreed that staged improv with no costumes or props, even if it's perfect and hilarious, definitely loses something when it's filmed and played back. I think it has something to do with the quality of the filming, and the inability to feel the energy of the room.

I really think the energy of the room has a huge impact. I've seen plenty of movies that were so sweet in a packed, high-energy theater that were less impressive at home. I'm not sure if that means the quality of the art is lower.

And I also told Shannon that I think a high quality film shoot of improv that's not on a stage is one of my new most favorite things.

[kbadr]

I recently discussed this with Shannon. We agreed that staged improv with no costumes or props, even if it's perfect and hilarious, definitely loses something when it's filmed and played back. I think it has something to do with the quality of the filming, and the lack of the energy of the room.

Check out the Thank God You're Here thread. I had an idea for a narrative longform TV show that would be shit-tons* of fun to do.


* trying to use as many different forms of "shit" in this thread as possible.

[beardedlamb]

think of it like watching a band do a concert on tape versus seeing it live and in person. it's probably not going to be as good on tape. now add the fact that improv depends on the energy of the room and the spontaneity and spark of creation and it should be obvious why it doesn't translate to tape. there are just certain things that you can't capture in a tiny recording box, it's just the way it is.

veteran improvisers who aren't pushing themselves to fail and make mistakes aren't taking enough risks. i've witnessed far too many a veteran troupe full of talented experienced players just being witty and playing themselves. it's boring and i'm not sure why anyone would aspire to be in that zone of complacency.

[Roy Janik]

veteran improvisers who aren't pushing themselves to fail and make mistakes aren't taking enough risks.

That's a damn good point. While one of my goals is to make my scenes and stories feel as if they were scripted, I also want to always put myself at risk, and that might prevent me from ever truly accomplishing the first goal.

But I guess it's better to almost pull off Citizen Kane than to sucessfully pull off The Son-In-Law.

[Milquetoast]

Hi everyone. It's Drew the Coldtowne intern!

Those guys have been doing this stuff for a long time, and the Comedy Central UCB show was exactly what they're describing. I personally prefer live improv as well.

When editing an improv sketch I've shot, I usually leave in those little weird beats and screwups. If you choose to leave them in, the piece gets a bunch of charm and character. I think it comes from the same place that makes live improv work. It's honest, I guess.

If you take all those moments out, sometimes it's like a song where we don't hear the singer breathe.



First post!

[TexasImprovMassacre]

veteran improvisers who aren't pushing themselves to fail and make mistakes aren't taking enough risks.

That's a damn good point. While one of my goals is to make my scenes and stories feel as if they were scripted, I also want to always put myself at risk, and that might prevent me from ever truly accomplishing the first goal.

But I guess it's better to almost pull off Citizen Kane than to sucessfully pull off The Son-In-Law.

I've seen son-in-law so many more times than citizen kane. Like, soooooooo many.

[TexasImprovMassacre]

When editing an improv sketch I've shot, I usually leave in those little weird beats and screwups. If you choose to leave them in, the piece gets a bunch of charm and character.

gotta see them blood and guts

[York99]

The UCB show from Comedy Central was very Harold-like. I believe that many of those shows came from transcribing Harolds and then working them out in the writer's room.

Narrative improv going to TV/Film/etc is a no-brainer if done well (though I don't know about a sketch show; not impossible, I just don't know). It simply works well, at the very least as a jumping off point.

I am a big believer in improv-to-written material.

Of course, much of the fun of improv is the live aspect (as well as the intimate aspect, which is why it's generally not as good in a larger space). Matt was oversimplifying and I'm sure he knows the difference.

[York99]

The quote comes from http://www.improvinterviews.com, which has some amazing, lengthy interviews with famous improvisers.

That link is weird. It goes to part 3 of an interview, has no home page and only links to a couple of the intervies (not even the Besser one). Am I doing something wrong here or what?

[mcnichol]

The UCB show from Comedy Central was very Harold-like.

...so much so that the character's names in the bucket of truth scene in the first episode were Del, Charna, and Miles.

[Roy Janik]

The UCB show from Comedy Central was very Harold-like.

...so much so that the character's names in the bucket of truth scene in the first episode were Del, Charna, and Miles.

Yeah, in Ian Robert's interview he says explicitly that every episode followed the Harold structure.

[Roy Janik]

That link is weird. It goes to part 3 of an interview, has no home page and only links to a couple of the intervies (not even the Besser one). Am I doing something wrong here or what?

No, the website is terribly laid out and way hard to navigate. He's working on it, supposedly.