Austin Improv

Roy Janik wrote: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.

I just read that interview (the Besser one) and I'm not sure I understand what your sentence means above. Do you mean that they aren't interested in the process of improvising, just the outcome? Or that they don't glean enjoyment from the fact that the audience was aware it was improv (vs. sketch)? Or something else? Help a guy out here... I'm a little slow.

mcnichol wrote:I just read that interview (the Besser one) and I'm not sure I understand what your sentence means above. Do you mean that they aren't interested in the process of improvising, just the outcome? Or that they don't glean enjoyment from the fact that the audience was aware it was improv (vs. sketch)? Or something else? Help a guy out here... I'm a little slow.

This one: "that they don't glean enjoyment from the fact that the audience was aware it was improv (vs. sketch)"

Their goals, especially Ian's, seem to be to make improv indistinguishable from good sketch comedy, and that getting laughs from the fact that it's improv is the wrong sort of laughter.

At least that's what I took from it. They're definitely very interested in the process of improvising.

Roy Janik wrote:...and that getting laughs from the fact that it's improv is the wrong sort of laughter

I kind of agree with that, actually. That's probably the main reason I'm perceived as being so hard on myself/my troupe. I don't want to do shows that were good...for improv. I want to do a good show that oh, by the way, was improvised. I always feel a little cheap when laughter comes from on-stage confusion or something that I otherwise consider to be traits of bad improv (not listening, denying, etc.) Not to say that I don't do those things sometimes, but getting a laugh from it only feels to me like I've just helped cheapen my favorite art form.

Doesn't mean that I don't love an audience witnessing the act of creation, though. I think that's magical for all involved.

mcnichol wrote:

York99 wrote: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.

The intro for the first (and second?) season is voiced over by Del Close.

kbadr wrote:

Roy Janik wrote:...and that getting laughs from the fact that it's improv is the wrong sort of laughter

I kind of agree with that... I always feel a little cheap when laughter comes from on-stage confusion or something that I otherwise consider to be traits of bad improv

I remember the Double Feature from OoB this past year where they would intertwine two movies. When one scene morphed into the next, one of the challenges to the performers was to justify why they (their character in that movie's plot from before or another character) was in the scene and in that postion on stage, body position, etc.

There were many fun and funny moments watching this happen. Once the performer was on the ground for one scene and quickly had to come up with the very funny and creative move of being a cat in the next. These were funny ONLY because it was improvised and these moments were not mistakes at all, rather great improv moves.

That is an example of how improv is great for improv's sake.

There's also the daredevil aspect. The spectacle. Watching a video of someone jumping over the Grand Canyon after the fact isn't nearly as fun as watching it in person. Not exact metaphor, but similar. EDIT: A sports metaphor would have worked better.

These were funny ONLY because it was improvised and these moments were not mistakes at all, rather great improv moves.

True, but challenge and mistake are definitely different. Scene change/morph and being forced to suddenly justify a position is fascinating to watch and can get a good laugh at the quality of the justification.
However, a character clearly named Sam who you just renamed Mike because you weren't fully engaged and then you try to cover for by saying "I mean, Sam-Mike" often gets a laugh, but it isn't the type of laugh I think most of us are truly aiming for.

That's when they are laughing 'because it is improv' and not because it is quality comedy. I want to do shows where the audience doesn't believe it was improvised, because it was of such high calibur and quality that they feel it had to be scripted. Learning it was truly improved should amaze them after the fact more than during. During, I don't necessarily want them thinking about it at all.

Wesley wrote:However, a character clearly named Sam who you just renamed Mike because you weren't fully engaged and then you try to cover for by saying "I mean, Sam-Mike" often gets a laugh, but it isn't the type of laugh I think most of us are truly aiming for.

That's when they are laughing 'because it is improv' and not because it is quality comedy.

I agree with that, to an extent.

To be clear, I was pointing out that there is extremely obvious merit in improv for improv's sake in some instances.

As to your other point, there is good in failure. One of my favorite improv quotes comes from Paul Vaillancourt and I use it often in classes: "In improv there is no such thing as a mistake; it's a zen gift." When a "mistake" happens -- like calling Sam Mike -- that can be the start of a game. Make it work. That's a huge part of improv. It's not a cheap laugh when you justify the "mistake" in an intelligent way.

To use my sports analogy now (let's go with golf): It's more exciting to see Tiger Woods make a comeback after falling way behind due to some "mistakes" than to watch a round where he dominates on every hole, gets his novelty check and goes home. That's a better story line.

At the risk of provoking Kareem to shit in my eyeholes, I think the idea of wanting to do improv so "well" that people think it's sketch is based on a false premise, namely that the only possible difference between the two is "mistakes." It ain't so, in my experience.

Turn it around: You could just as easily say that the goal of sketch should be to look as much like improv as possible, so that the audience experiences a real sense of immediacy and discovery instead of a bunch of actors saying lines that they have clearly memorized with the intent of delivering them in order to get a laugh. That's very different from improv, where since neither the actors nor the audience know what's coming next, the reaction is just a much a part of the process as the material itself.

And in this sense, sketch has to bow to improv, since a sketch can't respond to changing conditions. It's not pandering for everyone in the room, onstage and off, to suddenly realize what the funniest thing in a scene is and have that become more important as a result.

Yes, in its cheapest form, this can be reduced to pandering for laughs, but show me an art form that can't be reduced to pandering and I'll show you an art form nobody wants to see.

If I didn't feel like improv had its own unique and intrinsic entertainment value, then it would be self-indulgent for me to do it in front of an audience. If I feel that scripted material is the gold standard for entertainment, then why not actually perform scripted material instead of trying to replicate it with a form that is dangerous and prone to "mistakes"? Both forms are valuable and entertaining, but why would you judge one by the standards of the other?

I guess for me what he's saying is you don't want to get the audeince in the habit of approaching improv as something that one needs to make allowances for--"that was pretty good, for improv" or "not bad, considering they were making it up." The end result of what's onstage, the process of getting there should be irrelelvant. Improvising certianly allows one to go places one might not go otherwise, but you don't want that to be what people are thinking about. You want them to be thinking about the place you're taking them. In other words, when you're listening to Coltrane play saxophone, you should be thinking about the music, not the fact that he's making it up on the spot.

shando wrote:In other words, when you're listening to Coltrane play saxophone, you should be thinking about the music, not the fact that he's making it up on the spot.

He was making it up?

I keep thinking about Matt Besser almost purposely refusing to talk about improv when he came to town to do his "one-man show", which was kind of like an extended stand-up routine.

In the question and answer period Dave Buckman asked, "When is there going to be a UCB Austin?"
and Matt answers, "uh....This place right here is pretty cool that you guys have got!"
We were at the Alamo Drafthouse by Lakeline Mall.
I wanted to say, "This place is a fucking movie theater, jackass!"

And since then I harbor a sort of resentment for the guy.

kaci_beeler wrote:I keep thinking about Matt Besser almost purposely refusing to talk about improv when he came to town to do his "one-man show", which was kind of like an extended stand-up routine.

In the question and answer period Dave Buckman asked, "When is there going to be a UCB Austin?"
and Matt answers, "uh....This place right here is pretty cool that you guys have got!"
We were at the Alamo Drafthouse by Lakeline Mall.
I wanted to say, "This place is a fucking movie theater, jackass!"

And since then I harbor a sort of resentment for the guy.

I don't get it. You're mad because he didn't know what kind of venue he was playing? Or because he was dismissive with Dave?

These are mutually exclusive?

Here's another quote from a different Besser interview:

[quote="Matt Besser"]We look at improv as just coming up with a sketch in the moment. If you look at it that way, it’s just another sketch show. People traditionally look at improv as, “Part of the fun is the failure and watching them sweat.â€

I can't disagree with that second quote -- though I'm not sure if quoting him implies that you or anyone else does disagree. Don't we all strive to make every scene as funny as possible? Should we be satisfied with failure?

To put his words in context though, he was responding to a question about putting improv on television.