Austin Improv

Close enough. (We had all been drinking for a while)
Miles' arguments are pretty strong though - Jastroch can shed more light on that area.

I hereby posit "Cynical vs Sweet Improv"

I will explain more in my book that no-one will read.
which will probably be just a rehash of Allan Kaprow's Artlike Art vs Lifelike Art philosophy. but fuck it.

kaci_beeler wrote:I'm with TJ!

Same, except that nacho scene was not fascinating in the least.

Way to go, Cody.

I think some of these arguments come from what you want out of improv. UCB are very explicit about the fact that their only priority is comedy and have come up with a way to get to the laughs as quickly and efficiently as possible. So reducing everything to a game or a math problem or saying that there's always one straight and one absurd are just good ways to simplify what you're doing and get to the point . . . if in fact that's the point.

But if you go see TJ and Dave or The Frank Mills, there's a lot more going on than just the jokes, so efficiency is sort of moot. These shows would be worse, not better, if they went straight from one funny part to the next funny part. It's not that there's not comedy happening, but it arises naturally out of a larger, more realistic context.

I love how these discussions always seem to be based on the idea that everybody has to pick one way to do improv. If I'm playing a fast montage show like Stool Pigeon, I'd follow Miles. If I'm trying for longer, more grounded scenes, I'd follow TJ. Depends on the show.

(Also, in the workshop I had with Stroth he was a little less doctrinaire: he said that ten percent of the scenes you play will be grounded realistic scenes, ten percent will be competely what-the-fuck zombies-from-space scenes, and the remaining 80 percent are straightman/absurd scenes. He didn't seem to be prescribing so much as describing.)

i really want some deep fried cinnamon rolls from sonic

bilbo wrote:i really want some deep fried cinnamon rolls from sonic

You remember the way the Codeman on Step by Step would make chocolate milk in his mouth by squeezing chocolate in, then adding milk, and finally he would shake his head around? ...i'm doing that but with whiskey and soda.

A TJ Jagodowski interview I found: http://www.geocities.com/paradoxjon28/tjint.html

It's pretty long and seems to be transcribed directly from tape, but it's good for getting a sense of the guy. And it's from right before TJ and Dave started, I believe (he talks about starting a two person show with Dave Pasquesi, I'm assuming that's it; it's from 2002, don't know when they started).

I prefer to play scenes as a straight man who was once absurd and now his past haunts him.

shando wrote:My guess? Evil or good, which is stronger. Just like in this episode:

That test was flawed, everyone knows Kahless was not evil.

Do over.

HerrHerr wrote:I prefer to play scenes as a straight man who was once absurd and now his past haunts him.

funny.

ratliff wrote:I love how these discussions always seem to be based on the idea that everybody has to pick one way to do improv.

I totally disagree. I HATE how these discussions always seemed to be based... [bail on the obvious joke because everyone gets it]

Different shows and different scenes call for different ways of playing. It's not right or wrong in my opinion. It's simply variety. I love both of those guys' shows and both of their approaches.

I'm with Ratliff!

kaceysamiee wrote:I'm with Ratliff!

uh oh.

"Learn the principle, abide by the principle, and dissolve the principle. In short, enter a mold without being caged in it. Obey the principle without being bound by it. LEARN, MASTER AND ACHIEVE!"
-Bruce Lee

Go to any website and read quotes from Master Lee about martial arts. Just replace "martial arts" with "improv"... Pretty soon you will understand that you must be like water. Maybe the Annoyance would let me develop an elective based on his teachings.

Probably among all of my teachers in improv, Miles was the most math/logic based teacher. After having Charna Halpern for Level 1 who was a big bowl of warm fuzzies and anecdotes of past students, he was a definitely a bucket of cold water. For us in Level 2 he was a stern task master, who drilled us constantly on tactics and technique. At the time I hated his class since I was grounded in a more thematic/open possibilities approach, but it ultimately served me well in the long haul. Especially when I ended up teaching a few years later, and would have students who responded much better to such an empirical approach.

At the heart of his teaching, I find that there's a real desire for groundedness. Sure, his approach is somewhat mechanical, but everytime I would see a Miles Stroth scene, there was no doubt that I could identify with it. It's kind of Mamet-like in that sense. (Defined parameters of technique and economy of energy).

On the other hand, I've always wanted to play like TJ.