Stashwick's Austin Praise/Jastroch's Austin Prediction

[kaci_beeler]

Brand latching. Latching on to a familiar brand to sell your own product.

Austin theaters don't have pressure to become UCB clones, that's for sure. Variation is great.

We can take it further.

For instance, I hear the term "experimentation" used frequently here although it's usually followed by a mainstream film or TV title.

So rather than deal with "UCB pressure", Austin theaters tend to appease Austin's niche film community. Any difficulties selling improv to audiences, we simply make up for by selling them film titles they're familiar with.

Explore this to the fullest but be aware that in both scenarios, theaters are chasing the nearest brand that still latches hold with audiences. (whether it's Second City or the film Beetlejuice)

In other words Austin, just like everyone else, tends to play it safe. Brand-latching is practically the opposite of being on the fringe.

Play it safe?
I hope you said all of this for some academic I-want-to-start-a-fiery-discussion reason, because if that's your honest to God opinion I think you're deluded and ignorant about the work going on in this community.

[Rev. Jordan T. Maxwell]

but i think Austin improv by its very nature thrives on that experimentation, both artistically and commercially. yeah, some shows do better than others. some more "mainstream" fodder is around, of course, whether that's an established long running show like Maestro or the Cage Match or something that uses established properties that people are familiar with like 90210 or Batman. but i think even in those, we look for and find innovative ways of structuring and presenting the shows. so, sure, Totally Improvised 90210 sold out every night (or so i heard)...but so did Showdown, an original gritty serialized Western drama. Austin Secrets, a wholly original and innovative format, was so successful it came back for a second season, got an extended run and was invited to play at the Long Center. i think there's a strong component to the Austin audience that thrives on artistic experimentation. it's that kind of town. we're fortunate in that we can draw them in with both kinds of shows. so no, i don't think if we became an Improv City we'd have to sacrifice artistry or experimentation much if at all.

[kbadr]

I have been thinking about what Todd said, and it echoed things that we've all talked about before.

I think there is going to be a point where someone from the Austin improv scene gets some degree of national "fame" and it will change the game here. I hope it doesn't. But I think fame and money tend to change the expectations of people who approach an art. It could potentially create the big rift that all the improv scenes in other cities seem to have at one point or another. I very much hope it does not happen.

It is weird to think that (yay!) we have all this artistic freedom because there aren't any preconceived notions about our scene, because it's still small and niche and very much an "improv scene", not a "showbiz scene". I kind of feel like, personally, wishing that Austin improv continues to explore and push the art for the art's sake is kind of akin to wishing continued financial struggle on all the improvisers here. If that makes sense. It probably doesn't. Money tends to distort ideals.

[kbadr]

Finally, since we all love a good semantic debate, part of me wonders whether it's simply a truism to say that experimental work will always be on the fringe. Isn't work that is experimental (and thus, not broadly accepted), by definition, on the fringe? This is not just an academic distinction: being able to marry commercial concerns with artistic concerns is the core of running a successful theatre.

I think all of the theaters are slowly finding their voice in this regard. The end product can be marketable and still incorporate experimental methods. In fact, I think it's vital and necessary to prevent a theater or scene from getting stale and predictable.

[shando]

i think there's a strong component to the Austin audience that thrives on artistic experimentation. it's that kind of town. we're fortunate in that we can draw them in with both kinds of shows. so no, i don't think if we became an Improv City we'd have to sacrifice artistry or experimentation much if at all.

I was just going to write something along these lines, Jordan. Part of our success is an accident of geography. Nothing against say, Des Moines, but we could lift the entire Austin improv scene and plop them down there and we wouldn't have the success we have here. Because the adventurous audience isn't there. Sure, we could help develop that audience, but it would be more of a struggle than it is here. Partly it's because we're a youthful town with a big university filled with students and ex-students who love to consume culture in all kinds of guises. But we shouldn't neglect the help we've gotten from our often unacknowledged partners in this whole performing arts endeavor, the Austin theater community. Well before the improv scene took off, companies like SVT, Physical Plant, and Hyde Park were creating an audience receptivity to out there stuff that we get to draw from. That the Rude Mechs are one of the best known theater companies in the US and that they are one of Austin's most commercially successful companies speaks to how good we have it here, as far as open-minded audiences go.

And of course before that came the music scene. We are all Willie Nelson's grandchildren.

[dancrumb]

Jordan,

I think you're right that the Austin audience thrives on artistic experimentation.

I went to see a new play in Chicago last week and it threw a heck of a lot of the theatre that I'd seen in Austin into stark relief... not that either was better than the other, but that the Austin theatre tended to play around with structure and content a heck of a lot. I think the same can be said for Austin Improv.

That said, as an audience member in Austin, I sat through experimental stuff that I really didn't like. I'm a 'theatre person', so I'll do this willingly. Experimental work needs room to be a failure and it's that room that I wonder about.

I totally agree that Austin has had some extremely successful shows that have resulted from experimentation. Your comment about Austin Secrets getting a second season at the Long Center, however, represents what I was trying to say in my previous post. It's now part of the establishment, no longer on the fringe. I don't know the performers in Austin Secrets, but I wonder if they'll still exercise the same freedom that they had when Austin Secrets was first created (granted, an individual improv show is, by definition, an act of experimentation; I'm assuming that, when we all say 'experimentation', we're talking about formats, tones and techniques, not the content of any given show).

I think your outlook is optimistic, but not naively so. I think you're right that the Austin audience has eclectic taste and has a lot more of an appetite for experimental work. However, I'm not sure I believe that this is compatible with significant commercial success.

I hope I'm wrong, I truly do. Austin has a body of artists who truly deserve broader recognition, without having to abandon a city they love. Some have had success outside of the city and, indeed, outside of the country. Maybe the solution is to make sure that the growth of Austin into an Improv City is not something that just happens to us, but is brought about by the community of improvisers and theatres coming together and building a brand for the city as the home of fresh experimentation at a consistently high level.

[Rev. Jordan T. Maxwell]

and Bob Wills is still the king.

[arthursimone]

I see lots of truly experimental shows
With very few experimental performers

[shando]

I see lots of truly experimental shows
With very few experimental performers

How can we know the dancer from the dance?™

[Marc Majcher]

I don't know the performers in Austin Secrets, but I wonder if they'll still exercise the same freedom that they had when Austin Secrets was first created.

We did, and we will.

[Rev. Jordan T. Maxwell]

That said, as an audience member in Austin, I sat through experimental stuff that I really didn't like. I'm a 'theatre person', so I'll do this willingly. Experimental work needs room to be a failure and it's that room that I wonder about.

oh, absolutely...and i think it does have that freedom to fail here. but where some towns would get gun shy and say "well, we're never doing that again!", i think Austin improvisors on the whole approach it more from a "so...what did we learn?" standpoint. we adapt, instead of perish.

I totally agree that Austin has had some extremely successful shows that have resulted from experimentation. Your comment about Austin Secrets getting a second season at the Long Center, however, represents what I was trying to say in my previous post. It's now part of the establishment, no longer on the fringe. I don't know the performers in Austin Secrets, but I wonder if they'll still exercise the same freedom that they had when Austin Secrets was first created (granted, an individual improv show is, by definition, an act of experimentation; I'm assuming that, when we all say 'experimentation', we're talking about formats, tones and techniques, not the content of any given show).

of course. and i can only speak for myself, but i don't plan on letting it affect my performance in the show or that anyone else plans on taming it down or safing it up. i certainly didn't see that on the part of the returning original cast members when i joined in the second season. so yeah, the show has broad appeal and "mainstream" success here in town...but my essential point is that what would be fringe in other cities IS mainstream here. So Secrets can play at the Long Center, Confidence Men can win a B. Iden Payne award and play at the State, etc., and not only maintain what would make them "fringey" elsewhere but have that strengthen what they're doing because it's what earned them that recognition to begin with.

I think your outlook is optimistic, but not naively so. I think you're right that the Austin audience has eclectic taste and has a lot more of an appetite for experimental work. However, I'm not sure I believe that this is compatible with significant commercial success.

only time will tell. but especially after being in another scene and seeing how its dynamics work, i think there's plenty of room for Austin to thrive artistically and commercially.

I hope I'm wrong, I truly do. Austin has a body of artists who truly deserve broader recognition, without having to abandon a city they love. Some have had success outside of the city and, indeed, outside of the country. Maybe the solution is to make sure that the growth of Austin into an Improv City is not something that just happens to us, but is brought about by the community of improvisers and theatres coming together and building a brand for the city as the home of fresh experimentation at a consistently high level.

i agree with this entirely, and it feels like the path that we're on. we've developed it ourselves. we've grown it ourselves. Out of Bounds started because some stupid cocky high school friends decided to start a festival once they were in college. Coldtowne and the Institution started because wonderful creative artistic minds came to this city, loved it and decided to stick around and add their own flavor and style to cultivating what was growing here. i think that's fantastic. i think it's something this city and this scene has had going for it for a long time and i think it's definitely where our future and growth lie as well.

so sure, i'm optimistic...but only because i've already seen how much we've grown until now.

[arthursimone]

I see lots of truly experimental shows
With very few experimental performers

How can we know the dancer from the dance?™

They're the ones honoring an audience with the truth of the moment rather than the choreography I've seen over and over and over again.

[Rev. Jordan T. Maxwell]

I see lots of truly experimental shows
With very few experimental performers

this is interesting. i demand you expand upon it. DO SO NOW!

[Nancy]

I think there is going to be a point where someone from the Austin improv scene gets some degree of national "fame" and it will change the game here. I hope it doesn't. But I think fame and money tend to change the expectations of people who approach an art.

I think I witnessed this to an extent during OOB. I had never heard of or seen Greg Proops before in my life, but because of his notoriety and 'headliner' status, my expectations were huge. But, in my opinion, Jill, Jeremy and Shana took way more risks and had way more fun and gave the audience a much better time than he did.

[shando]

I see lots of truly experimental shows
With very few experimental performers

How can we know the dancer from the dance?™

They're the ones honoring an audience with the truth of the moment rather than the choreography I've seen over and over and over again.

You answered a how question with a who answer.

I'd also say when these kinds of questions arise in my own head, whatever they may be, I'd rather address them with my own work rather than saying "Here, you be what I want you to be."