Upright Citizens Brigade and ColdTowne March 12-13

[Justin D.]

Also, my philosophy is that you CAN mix philosophies, so suck it.

Yep, same here.

I went to one of the Matt Walsh workshops and took some notes too. A lot of what he said echoes what Andy wrote, but here are a few other comments I jotted down.

Find a personal connection to the scene. Don't be afraid to draw from personal experiences to enhance or create a scene or character. Example: If the scene is in a restaurant and you've worked in one, use that experience.

Deal with interesting things when they happen. This came up a lot and is pretty self-explanatory. Don't ignore the interesting things when they happen or push ahead with the plot of the scene when something interesting is introduced. It can seem disingenuous and could miss the opportunity for some good laughs.

Play to the top of your intelligence. Even if your character is dumb, you're not. Hopefully.

Do characters, not just accents. I thought this was a particularly cool and simple piece of advice. Justin York and someone else (sorry, I forget) were doing Cajun accents because they were cooks in a Papadeux's. Walsh commended them on actually being the characters and not just doing the accents. It's one thing to come on stage with a different voice and mannerisms than your own, but it's an entirely different thing to be the character who has that voice and those mannerisms.

Space work is good, but people are better. While space work is certainly important, someone on stage should never pay more attention to it than his or her partners on stage.

Scenes need an anchor. Basically, there was a lot of talk about making sure to provide the ability for the audience to suspend disbelief. "Even crazy people can build logic." Making sure to give specifics and details can help a lot here.

Edit decisively. Even a mediocre show can look like a good one if the scenes are clearly and cleanly edited.

React honestly. This was again about being the character on stage. React as that character would react. "Play it realistically."

[York99]

Also, my philosophy is that you CAN mix philosophies, so suck it.

I don't think it's as black and white as Matt stated it, but I understand his point.

If you put someone who comes from the idea of "slow, patient scenework" with someone who comes from the philosophy of "find the game asap; play it; heighten the poo out of it very quickly; then move on" then you can see where there might be a breakdown.

[Roy Janik]

If you put someone who comes from the idea of "slow, patient scenework" with someone who comes from the philosophy of "find the game asap; play it; heighten the poo out of it very quickly; then move on" then you can see where there might be a breakdown.

Good point. I was thinking more about the fact that I believe that I can personally mix improv styles and philosophies in my own improv... not about people from dramatically different styles playing together.

I guess that's the danger of reading someone else's notes totally out of context.

[York99]

I was thinking more about the fact that I believe that I can personally mix improv styles and philosophies in my own improv... not about people from dramatically different styles playing together.

That's an interesting angle, too. Different philosophies have a lot of crossover, obviously. But to mix some of them would necessarily mean using different techniques at different times. For example, in some scenes you can take the approach where you need to get out the who, what, where, etc. out at the top of the scene. In other scenes you can take the Annoyance approach of "screw it; if that stuff comes out it comes out, but there's no need to force it at the top of the scene." But you couldn't mix those at the same time.

I feel like this is a point that didn't need to be made because it is pretty obvious. Sorry for wasting everyone's time.

[Roy Janik]

That's an interesting angle, too. Different philosophies have a lot of crossover, obviously. But to mix some of them would necessarily mean using different techniques at different times. For example, in some scenes you can take the approach where you need to get out the who, what, where, etc. out at the top of the scene. In other scenes you can take the Annoyance approach of "screw it; if that stuff comes out it comes out, but there's no need to force it at the top of the scene." But you couldn't mix those at the same time.

I feel like this is a point that didn't need to be made because it is pretty obvious. Sorry for wasting everyone's time.

Not at all. I've been thinking about this a lot, lately. Like how pulling from different schools/philosophies can be really good for the shape of show. Sometimes in a narrative, even if I'm trying to do patient scenework, an obvious game will present itself at the top of the scene. If I can switch tracks and hit the game REALLY hard and get out of the scene quickly, it varies up the pacing, the scene-types, and provides some necessary catharsis. Just like plays or movies will have comic relief characters whose scenes have a very different feel.

[slappywhite]

Yeah, I think his one of the times he was talking about mixing philosophies he added "on stage" and mentioned something about doing one style one night and another on another night but if you mix and mash you'll just confuse everyone... Much like this post probably does, sorry in a meeting.

[acrouch]

That's an interesting angle, too. Different philosophies have a lot of crossover, obviously. But to mix some of them would necessarily mean using different techniques at different times. For example, in some scenes you can take the approach where you need to get out the who, what, where, etc. out at the top of the scene. In other scenes you can take the Annoyance approach of "screw it; if that stuff comes out it comes out, but there's no need to force it at the top of the scene." But you couldn't mix those at the same time.

I feel like this is a point that didn't need to be made because it is pretty obvious. Sorry for wasting everyone's time.

Not at all. I've been thinking about this a lot, lately. Like how pulling from different schools/philosophies can be really good for the shape of show. Sometimes in a narrative, even if I'm trying to do patient scenework, an obvious game will present itself at the top of the scene. If I can switch tracks and hit the game REALLY hard and get out of the scene quickly, it varies up the pacing, the scene-types, and provides some necessary catharsis. Just like plays or movies will have comic relief characters whose scenes have a very different feel.

This kind of thing has been hugely effective in Shakespeare the few times it has happened.

[acrouch]

Also, after Matt Besser's extreme emphasis that they want improv that cannot be distinguished from sketch, that it should be so flawlessly funny and expertly executed that it looks and feels scripted, I asked why we're doing improv instead of just doing sketch. And I didn't feel like I got a satisfactory answer.

He said that if the goal of improv is to generate comedy, then take the quickest route, which is their method of generating sketch in the moment. But if that route leads to something that is ideally indistinguishable from sketch, why not just do sketch?

I didn't want to push it in the class, but I really am curious what the possible answers are.

[Jastroch]

I'm pretty sure he also said something to the effect that you're till making discoveries in the moment and it's still exciting and new, just more polished as a comedy show. That it doesn't take away from the sponteneity.

[ESeufert]

I think some of the specific points that Besser made in his workshop could easily be taken in the wrong context (i.e. not as components of a year-plus-long curriculum but as fundamental tenets of improv, such as when he said "an improv scene should = a sketch scene"). I tried really hard to avoid putting too much emphasis on the specifics; instead, I focused on the broader points he made in his workshop. Here's what I took from it:

-in order to perform consistently good improv with a troupe, each member needs to be on the same page as far as what they want to achieve in an improv show, and, more importantly, HOW they want to go about achieving that.

-a big part of being on the same page as far as technique and goals go is making a conscious effort to make your troup emates laugh. I interpreted this in the same way that I interpret the "party your dick off on stage" mantra of Coldtowne's.

-a scene needs to be grounded in reality; otherwise the game of that scene isn't a game but the "norm" in a crazy universe. To that end, the person that initiates the game should be given the freedom to define that game in a normal world. A pattern has to be distinguishable from its background; if everything is its own pattern, then a scene is nothing more than a collection of arbitrary statements. Therefore, the objective of the scene partner that did not initiate the game (and initiating the game and initiating the scene are not one in the same) is to a) respond honestly to his/her scene partner, b) explore each step of the game that is currently in play. One comment that he made that resonated with me was, “nothing is funny in crazy town because everything in crazy town is crazy.â€

[austinflower]

If your destination is a well-constructed narrative, so be it; if your destination is a collection of tight, really funny scenes (as I'd guess that Besser's is), then don't deviate from the method that you've perfected in achieving that. But can you have really tight, funny scenes that put together a narrative and rely heavily on game? I don't think I've ever seen that.

I want to see that. Hell, I'd like to do that. Sounds challenging, rewarding and fun.

[TexasImprovMassacre]

If your destination is a well-constructed narrative, so be it; if your destination is a collection of tight, really funny scenes (as I'd guess that Besser's is), then don't deviate from the method that you've perfected in achieving that. But can you have really tight, funny scenes that put together a narrative and rely heavily on game? I don't think I've ever seen that.

I want to see that. Hell, I'd like to do that. Sounds challenging, rewarding and fun.

I don't see any reason why you couldn't do that.

I think that's what a good harold is supposed to be like. Though, the narrative is nonlinear.

[ESeufert]

If your destination is a well-constructed narrative, so be it; if your destination is a collection of tight, really funny scenes (as I'd guess that Besser's is), then don't deviate from the method that you've perfected in achieving that. But can you have really tight, funny scenes that put together a narrative and rely heavily on game? I don't think I've ever seen that.

I want to see that. Hell, I'd like to do that. Sounds challenging, rewarding and fun.

I don't see any reason why you couldn't do that.

I think that's what a good harold is supposed to be like. Though, the narrative is nonlinear.

I guess my point is that I wouldn't want to pay to see a troupe try to pull it off.

[Aden]

Also, after Matt Besser's extreme emphasis that they want improv that cannot be distinguished from sketch, that it should be so flawlessly funny and expertly executed that it looks and feels scripted, I asked why we're doing improv instead of just doing sketch. And I didn't feel like I got a satisfactory answer.

He said that if the goal of improv is to generate comedy, then take the quickest route, which is their method of generating sketch in the moment. But if that route leads to something that is ideally indistinguishable from sketch, why not just do sketch?

I didn't want to push it in the class, but I really am curious what the possible answers are.

I wish I could have been at this workshop now.

I agree 100% that an improvised show should be so well done that it looks and feels scripted. I do think it's important during the show however, to leave little clues that it's made up on the spot, to keep that on-the-edge-of-failing vulnerability thriving.

I just saw a performance like that in Edmonton, Canada at the Rapid Fire theater. It's an improvised soap opera called Die-Nasty that they've been doing since 1991. They had costumes, props, and a musician scoring the show. Their lighting imps were amazing, and never pulled the lights at the wrong time or too late. The improvisors on stage gave stunningly, brilliantly hilarious performances. Give-aways that it was improvised, were the occasional "slips" by the performers, that allowed you to see that they were still human, and still making it up on the spot. I believe that those slips were on purpose. The polish and sheen of the show made it feel professional and worth spending a MONDAY night in a theater. They had a sizeable audience in a space three times the size of the Hideout.

So why improvise to the point of it looking and feeling like a sketch without it being a sketch?

You don't memorize lines, so you don't forget lines. I think improv is actually funnier then sketch. You achieve a finely tuned level of performance, without the problem that SNL often runs into where the comedy feels stale.

I could go on and on about this. I'm not going to.

[arthursimone]

Give-aways that it was improvised, were the occasional "slips" by the performers, that allowed you to see that they were still human, and still making it up on the spot. I believe that those slips were on purpose.

If the slips are on purpose, I can't help but wonder what the point is. If you're doing a short-form game, how often do you have to 'throw' it to get the audience on board with you? If you're doing long-form, how many times do you have to essentially wink at the audience?

I think with the UCB model, they balance out the polished feel of the scenework with either audience interaction/personal banter, or, in the case of their Harold teams, the group-mind opening and refresher games. There's got to be some self-indulgent sloppiness to sell it as improv.

I see no such stylistic balance in top-notch improvised musicals or shakespeare. there! I said it! Where's the sloppy?