Austin Improv

i did comedy sportz WITH A FUCKING "Z" for a year.

i can never get that year back.

"Micetro: Yeah, it's short form, but at least we don't have to wear goddamn uniforms"

see? the dead eyes?

look at dan & chris. we were bankrupt.




and wow, kareem. you have a formidable arsenal.

taminelson wrote:and wow, kareem. you have a formidable arsenal.

Yeah, Kareem, how did you find such an amazing picture, which, if I were the owner of, I wouldn't let anyone see, ever?

shando wrote:Yeah, Kareem, how did you find such an amazing picture, which, if I were the owner of, I wouldn't let anyone see, ever?

Hey, I gave her the chance to buy my silence months ago.

Google reveals all. Be afraid.

Thank God there's nothing about me on there.

kbadr wrote:"Micetro: Yeah, it's short form, but at least we don't have to wear goddamn uniforms"

In large part because of a disagreement between the owner of ComedySportz NOLA and me regarding the duechebaginess of those exact uniforms, I quit for two or three months.

The only thing that brought me back was that I missed the involvement with the other improvisers.

I will say this about CSZ over Micetro: you don't have to sit out as many scenes, so I did find it more enjoyable to perform. Personal preference.

Comedy Sportz at ColdTowne Theater!

York99 wrote:I will say this about CSZ over Micetro: you don't have to sit out as many scenes, so I did find it more enjoyable to perform. Personal preference.

Play gorilla. You'll be in almost every scene.

As for everyone else: Well Said!

I feel that this long form of improv is fairly unengaging for the audience. Instead of heightening the experience for them it relys on the audience to be committed to the long program.

I would disagree with you on the statement that it is unengaging, but wholly agree with you on your later statement that it is all in the set-up.
I think stories are universal and stories sell, but I think people have to expect to be told a story. I think stories have the inherent potential to be far MORE engaging than a game ever could (along with the inherently greater risk of disengagement if the story isn't compelling). I also believe that the best games are the ones that are built around telling a story, even a rudimentary one. (For example, ANYONE who knows the alphabet, improviser or not, can make it through the Alphabet Game...but if you can make it through while telling a contained story arc, you'll blow the audience away every time. You are giving them what they didn't know they actually wanted.)
Most people come in off the street only knowing improv from Whose Line Is It? and that's all they know of improv and all they expect (or in some cases want) to see. To give them something else can be either satisfying or disappointing, depending on how you introduce it and set it up. As others pointed out, there are many long-forms that sell (Trekkin', Cops and Lawyers, After School), but in each the person knows what they are getting into. I'm a fan of a short introduiction, but one that does say what we will be doing with the suggestion you give us.
And, like Roy said, I think there is room for it all. I'm personally very proud of my troupe for not finding one style and falling into it. Just last week we did an all gamey set at Carousel, a long-form story at ColdTowne, and a montage at the Hideout. I don't like abandoning one for the other and I think practicing each type of improv strengthens the other skill sets as well.
As for engagement, I think in long-form you need to engage on a different level is all. You need characters that grab them and that they want to keep watching. You need a compelling story. You need good recall so they can't ever turn away or they'll feel they might miss something. You hook them in with the initial suggestion, but then you truly get them engaged in other ways. It's like a movie you didn't want to watch, but 5 minutes in you are hooked and captured by it. (And if you get a few suggestions tossed out at the start, you can always throw them a bone by working in secondary suggestions throughout the show.)


but has anybody thought about what the audience wants to see?

Indeed. As a personal policy, everytime I watch a show, I spend at least 50% of it watching the audience and how and what they react to. I think it is crucial and it has allowed me to make suggestions to my troupe and in other shows on how we ask for suggestions, make edits, etc. If we want to grow and mature this artform, we can do nothing less.

Another tip:

I stole this from the Cupholders but recently You Me & Greg tried this ourselves at College of Santa Fe.

When presented with a longer slot in which to do a show, and an audience that might be new to improv. Why not start with a couple of games and then move on to a long-form piece. In Santa Fe, we performed two shows and did this both times and it went over well. We chose heavily audience involved games (Good-Bad-Worst Advice with an audience member supplying the good advice, Hesitation Debate, Twin Pillars, etc). Then after performing three games, we moved on to a deconstruction that was slightly narrative and slightly montage. It was a lot of fun to perform different styles within in the same show, and also I think it worked well to engage the audience.

We also did this last night at Coldtowne (because we didn't have any sketch and had given up the projector to the banquet). Starting with games is always a great transition into longer pieces.

I would agree somewhat with Sara F that if I was running a slot (for example, the Threefer), I would try to start with faster-paced audience intensive style, and move into the slower bits. (Although I don't think it's absolutely necessary to end with games).

I've seen several troupes perform two styles within the same show and it made for a very interesting time. (Mod27's show at Out of Bounds 2006 anyone? The ninja format was brilliant.)

That's my eight-cents.

Alijandra! Rachel Ball! Sean Patton! Jastroch pretending to be an audience member!

UNGH.

penelope butterbean wrote: has anybody thought about what the audience wants to see?

Having experienced Boom Chicago (which mixes short form games and sketch) I can affirm that as far as audience reaction goes nothing in long form comes close to a well executed short form game as far as a paying audience in concerned. They hoop and holler loudly. If it's a musical game. forget about it. You will never hear sustained applause in improv like that.

However, it leaves me as a peformer feeling emptier, like I just ate McDonalds or Food Court Chinese food.
Long form feels good on the inside...for me. Which is why I do it. It's more challenging.

If I want guaranteed hopping and hollering. I'll go play Micetro. Which I do. And enjoy thoroughly. Every time. Thank you Andy Crouch for the many softballs you've tossed my way (and the harder grounders )

That said, Penelope, I highly highly highly encourage you to schedule you and some friends together for a short form show for some 3fers in January and February. I will start collecting Friday availablilities in two weeks. I wish every 3fer opened with a games set. The newer audience members would laugh harder earlier and the long form will be much more easily digestible.

Dave

Dave wrote:I can affirm that as far as audience reaction goes nothing in long form comes close to a well executed short form game.

Wow, I have to disagree, Dave. Respectfully, of course. I have been blown away by the power one can exert over the audience by having a well developed long form. I've had to hold for laughs for litterally minutes while the audience delighted in the culmination of some long-form circumstances. I've seen audiences EXPLODE from the mere reappearance of an earlier established character. I've seen scenes where the performers didn't speak simply because you wouldn't be able to hear it over the audience laughing through the whole thing. I've also seen audiences cry, for real, tears of sadness over the plight of characters in a story. In all the cases the audience reaction would have been way less pronounced without the well constructed, well acted long form improvisation leading up to those moments.

Not to say that you can't elevate short form to nearly the same level. I just think it'll always be a step behind in the power department. But... I am often, often, often wrong.