Stashwick's Austin Praise/Jastroch's Austin Prediction

[Jon Bolden]

I wasn't there, but I can only assume someone meant...

I didn't see any of these things, but I think probably...

Stop doing the above. Don't make super bold comments on a show you never saw or assume someone meant something when you didn't hear it.

[mcnichol]

I think this is an interesting thread. I had two thoughts to contribute while reading it so far:

1- "experimental" and "safe" are subjective terms. one man's etc...

2- the established stuff in different places mentioned throughout the thread was once experimental and fringe. what made it change to safe? will that or has that already happened here?

[kaci_beeler]

I can't speak for all the shows based on popular TV or film series, but I know for a fact that Lauren Zinn LOVES the 90201 television series, that Shana Merlin honestly and truly LOVES Twilight and the associated books and films, and that I love Batman and Robin so much that if I ever have a kid (and he's a boy) that his name will be Robin.

The fact that these concepts have commercial appeal is just the icing the on the cake. I don't know about everyone else but I certainly couldn't produce a show based on a concept that I didn't have a deep love, appreciation, or enjoyment for.

I don't sit down and think, "What concepts will sell really well with audiences?"
I more often think, "How can I sell the concepts I love and want to explore to audiences?"

Create the work that speaks to you. Period.

[shando]

I can't speak for all the shows based on popular TV or film series, but I know for a fact that Lauren Zinn LOVES the 90201 television series, that Shana Merlin honestly and truly LOVES Twilight and the associated books and films, and that I love Batman and Robin so much that if I ever have a kid (and he's a boy) that his name will be Robin.

The fact that these concepts have commercial appeal is just the icing the on the cake. I don't know about everyone else but I certainly couldn't produce a show based on a concept that I didn't have a deep love, appreciation, or enjoyment for.

I don't sit down and think, "What concepts will sell really well with audiences?"
I more often think, "How can I sell the concepts I love and want to explore to audiences?"

Create the work that speaks to you. Period.

This.

[shando]

I think this is an interesting thread. I had two thoughts to contribute while reading it so far:

1- "experimental" and "safe" are subjective terms. one man's etc...

2- the established stuff in different places mentioned throughout the thread was once experimental and fringe. what made it change to safe? will that or has that already happened here?

Also, this!

I've never lived in Chicago, but Dave Razowsky (contrasting it with LA) once told me that Chicago was the kind of place where people will say to you "Well, that show stunk. When can I see your next show?"

[arthursimone]

let's take Buddy Daddy.

Experimental form? You betcha. Who else in the country does an improv show with their dog? Fun show? Damn straight! But I perform it rarely with good reason.

As a performer, it's sometimes boring. I rehash bits because the audience came to see me do funny things with a cute dog. The suggestion and content may be unique, but they're the same physical bits. There's not a lot of artistic truth in knowing exactly what it will take to end the scene (usually cheese). As a performer, I am NOT experimenting.

I like to think I'd say the same to anyone playing the story, playing dress-up, playing mood, playing the game or game-of-the-scene, playing beat #3, because I usually don't feel people are really truly PLAYING. They're performing what they think the audience wants to see or expects to see but that's just the starting line.

If you think a basic Hero's Journey makes for a satisfying conclusion, hey, more power to you because the audience probably agrees, and that's a good thing.

[shando]

let's take Buddy Daddy.

Experimental form? You betcha. Who else in the country does an improv show with their dog? Fun show? Damn straight! But I perform it rarely with good reason.

As a performer, it's sometimes boring. I rehash bits because the audience came to see me do funny things with a cute dog. The suggestion and content may be unique, but they're the same physical bits. There's not a lot of artistic truth in knowing exactly what it will take to end the scene (usually cheese). As a performer, I am NOT experimenting.

I like to think I'd say the same to anyone playing the story, playing dress-up, playing mood, playing the game or game-of-the-scene, playing beat #3, because I usually don't feel people are really truly PLAYING. They're performing what they think the audience wants to see or expects to see but that's just the starting line.

If you think a basic Hero's Journey makes for a satisfying conclusion, hey, more power to you because the audience probably agrees, and that's a good thing.

I'll just say you should've taken Stashwick's workshop. And by that I mean he dealt with how to truly discover and play and be inspired in the moment irrespective of the content and form of the show. As he said, the physics of the work is liquid and it can pour into any vessel you want.

[tstashwick]

To clarify my statement about fascism of community.

The intention was not to insult Chicago (a city I adore, in which my own improv seed took root) , just to say, from my experience, the presence of Second City(of which I was a member) creates a goal, an ultimate prize, THE reason many pilgrimage to Chicago in the first place. That being the case, I witnessed many non-Second City troupes attempting, understandably, to ape the Second City model in hopes of ultimately being hired. It's not an insult, it's a fact of economics. I chose to follow that model myself. When I moved to NYC in the mid 90's there was no centralized model, no defining troupe. Many islands. The topography was open for a UCB to land and define. My own troupe, Burn Manhattan did well for itself as well.
My statement is not to say NO experimentation can happen in a city with a defining model. Chicago and Second City itself are experimenting. It's just with a complete open playing field (like Austin, at least from what I've witnessed there and with talking to folks in the Austin community) it creates an opportunity for complete experimentation, nothing to ape. I do believe experimentation can also be financially viable. Look at Blue Man, Shockheaded Peter, De La Guarda etc...I think if something risky is executed well people show up. Trial and error.

Two cents

[Rev. Jordan T. Maxwell]

I think this is an interesting thread. I had two thoughts to contribute while reading it so far:

1- "experimental" and "safe" are subjective terms. one man's etc...

true this. it can also be filtered either from the audience point of view, or the performer...i guess a lot of it comes down, if we want to try and quantify such notions (and we don't, or we shouldn't, lol), to intent. are we playing it safe in our comfort zones or trying to stretch, grow, evolve, transcend, innovate, discover, imagine and (my new favorite word, from Todd's workshop) ILLUMINATE?

2- the established stuff in different places mentioned throughout the thread was once experimental and fringe. what made it change to safe? will that or has that already happened here?

hmm...wonderful questions to ponder. i'm not sure on the first one (i guess when people became comfortable enough doing them that the forms and structures become more or less static?). but as for the second...i don't think it has, and i hope that it won't. i think we certainly have our comfort zones, as individuals, as troupes, as theatres and maybe even as a town...but it still feels more like we use those as sign posts or anchor points that allow us the freedom to explore and discover with less fear because we know there IS something safe to return to if needed. they give us our bearings instead of weigh us down.

i'm going to try to think of one more metaphor to mix in there...come back to me later...

I can't speak for all the shows based on popular TV or film series, but I know for a fact that Lauren Zinn LOVES the 90201 television series, that Shana Merlin honestly and truly LOVES Twilight and the associated books and films, and that I love Batman and Robin so much that if I ever have a kid (and he's a boy) that his name will be Robin.

The fact that these concepts have commercial appeal is just the icing the on the cake. I don't know about everyone else but I certainly couldn't produce a show based on a concept that I didn't have a deep love, appreciation, or enjoyment for.

I don't sit down and think, "What concepts will sell really well with audiences?"
I more often think, "How can I sell the concepts I love and want to explore to audiences?"

Create the work that speaks to you. Period.

absolutely. passion speaks through the product, and the process. like i said, the thing i appreciate about those shows is that on the surface they're just playing with these established properties (improvised fan fic?)...but when you look at the form and structure, there's a lot more going on. we're not content to just coast on the IDEA of a thing in Austin..."well, people will come see a Batman show. good enough!" we look at what works and what doesn't, we look at what we can do with the mechanics of it to make it improv, to make it comedy, to make it theatre.

one of my favorite things about Live Nude Improv was that, for all the obvious marketing ploy (NEKKID PEOPLE!) that put asses in seats (or...well, where ever they could sit with the theatre set up like that. :p)...every audience member i talked to or people i met who had heard about the show from others said we had created theatre, we had created art. it's an easy enough gimmick to say "we're doing a show naked!" you'll get your coin from the rubes and do the funny-funny bits with your...funny-funny bits. but to take on the challenge of trying to create something deeper with that, something honest or beautiful or vulnerable or volatile...that's a very Austin improv attitude to me. and admittedly, i feel like i personally fell short of my artistic goals/desires with my performance in that show. but i was consistently blown away by the rest of the cast and the audience loved it...so what the fuck does it matter if i fell short?

I like to think I'd say the same to anyone playing the story, playing dress-up, playing mood, playing the game or game-of-the-scene, playing beat #3, because I usually don't feel people are really truly PLAYING. They're performing what they think the audience wants to see or expects to see but that's just the starting line.

yeah, i'm trying to push myself more in this direction...my story brain clearly knows what the next plot beat should be. my actor brain clearly knows what my character's arc should be. so what happens if i do something ELSE? i'm not as fearless as i'd like to be with it yet, but i definitely understand what you're saying...

and Shannon is correct. it would've been a blast to have you in that workshop, man.

[Rev. Jordan T. Maxwell]

also, Kaci, Robin is a girl's name too.

now i'm done.

[hujhax]

Loving this discussion! -- two hand-wavey points about genre work that might be neither here nor there:

1.  In genre-based work, or even work that "latches on" to a specific book/movie/play, there's still a difference between what the audience sees, performance-wise, and what we're doing, technique-wise.  It's possible that, in order to create a very familiar effect onstage, you have to strike out in some bizarre direction w/r/t technique.  For One More Night, for example, we had to get good at telling Russian-doll-like stories that nested six or seven levels deep.  Anybody who's read The Arabian Nights would know and expect that, but improv-wise, it required us to learn something new.  This is actually the main attraction, for me, of genre work -- I love it when the format I'm aiming for forces me to do something that seems impossible.

2.  Most of the genre shows I've done haven't really had a chance to settle into something rote.  Most often, by the time we properly figure out what the show is, we've hit the end of the run.



--
peter rogers @ work | http://hujhax.livejournal.com

This is a movie about characters who have more important things to do than be characters in an action thriller.
      -- Roger Ebert, reviewing The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo

[shando]

This is actually the main attraction, for me, of genre work -- I love it when the format I'm aiming for forces me to do something that seems impossible.

This.

[Rev. Jordan T. Maxwell]

This is actually the main attraction, for me, of genre work -- I love it when the format I'm aiming for forces me to do something that seems impossible.

This.

yeah, that's become the big draw for the shows i've wanted to do this year..."well, i've been doing this 13 years and the though of doing that scares the shit out of me. HUZZAH!"

[beardedlamb]

these are exciting times for austin's improv and comedy community, no doubt. if we are going to attract "industry" lets remember what is attracting them in the first place. i'm hesitant to name exactly what i feel it is because someone will be insulted or some such, but i genuinely feel the two (industry ladder climber performers and no fame end-game goal performers) can coexist, feed off each other, work together, intelligently feud, and continue the EVOLUTION of the whole thing. obviously, there are going to be hiccups and occasionally whole groups will be ostracized due to their own desire to be "counter" or by their caustic actions, but i think we can really stick together and EVOLVE, basically, as a unit.

what i felt this past week durign OOB was an unprecedented good-natured, respectful, altruistic vibe in the community. my hope is that it will stick around and the community will take care of itself rather than taking shots at each other or tearing down someone else for their own gain. if we're reaching a flashing point where someone gets famous and it funks up the scene, let's at least go into it with some perspective and damage control so these inevitable growing pains can be mitigated.

and i dont think one group or person going for the mainstream audience necessarily has to effect the whole scene. esther's follies is arguably the most mainstream comedy in austin and it existed before anyone was doing improv as performance here. plenty of alternative improv institutions thrive in Chicago, despite their being many mainstream ones. and check the history of how that evolved to exist. 1 theatre got famous, a person thought it could be more, went somewhere else, got famous, someone thought it could be different, left, got famous. the same can be said for ucbNY and the pit and the magnet, etc. etc. in new york.

take of yourself and take care of your own. i'm hoping the "own" here represents the austin community.

[beardedlamb]

also, if anyone knows any agents, get me their contact info so i can invite them to oob next year and have someone discovered at the festival. thx.