Dave wrote:Just because the scene asks for it and it seems justified and you really want to go for realism in your shows...should a paying audience have to be subjected to your every whim?
That's what they pay for, right? And, if it seems justified and the scene is asking for it, how much of a whim is that?
You don't have to include sex, but I don't really see a good reason to exclude it if you feel its the right choice. Maybe I'm missing something?
Dave and I once did a j while we listened to people having loud sex from outside of their hotel door. This is one of the greatest memories of my life...and its made even better by the fact that Eric Seufert is super jealous of that story.
When I was in New York a few years ago, I heard about a troupe, Foreplay, that focused on sensual/sexual comedy.
Here's their description from the IRC improv wiki: Foreplay was a New York City based team that performed regularly at The Peoples Improv Theater beginning in 2005. They were known for exploring erotic themes in their scenes and pushing the boundaries of traditional improv. With sensual lighting, costumes and settings, and a pre-show "salon" where they served wine and grapes to the audience (while soliciting suggestions for the show), Foreplay set a mood of expectation and desire. Foreplay incorporated monologues with slow-paced, patient scenework.
Fun fact: Directors: The group was directed by Kevin Mullaney. Other directors included Asaf Ronen.
I didn't see their show and I think they are now defunct, but they have some videos: (Obvious warning, there is sexual content)
Kevin Mullaney invented the Improv CageMatch as it exists now in almost every improv city.
Props.
CRUMUDGEON ALERT:
As far as sexual situations go on stage... i just meant that we promise the audience a comedic show.
and the combination of comedy and sex is rarely pulled off well, in an entertaining way.
(Even the term "Sex Comedy" is usually a euphamism for "Below Average Teen Gross-out Comedy")
If you promise the audience an evocative exploration of grown-up sexual situations, then by all means, have at it.
But if they walk in thinking they are seeing comedy and we explore sexual situations in a grown up manner and expect the audience to respond positively...
I would expect that audience to sit on their hands and withhold their laughs, not because what they're seeing isn't compelling or funny, but it wasn't what they were promised when they bought the ticket.
I would loved to be proved wrong, though.
If you disrespect your character, or play it just for laughs, it will sell some gags, but it's all technique.
It's like watching a juggler-- you'll be impressed by it, but it's not going to touch you in anyway. "
-Steve Coogan
On a related note, we handle violence about as realistically as we do sex, on stage. We're just so desensitized to it as a culture, that we don't flinch when someone get's shot in the head in an improv scene.
That's basically what PGraph tried to tackle with Villainy. We introduced the show by telling the audience that it would be dark, and bad things would happen. While preparing for the show, we re-discovered the idea that what gives any action (whether it be having sex, committing acts of violence, or biting an apple) weight is how the other performers on stage react. The most violent or sexual activity can be dismissed by a fellow player who doesn't respect it.
Patience. Commitment. Action. Reaction.
You work your life away and what do they give?
You're only killing yourself to live
Dave wrote:
But if they walk in thinking they are seeing comedy and we explore sexual situations in a grown up manner and expect the audience to respond positively...
I have to admit I don’t see any contradiction here. Some of my favorite improv scenes are those in which you realistically play something that isn’t funny in real life (a breakup, a funeral, confronting a stalker) but which becomes funny because it’s onstage, i.e., safely distanced and slightly heightened. I don’t see why sex should be any different.
A lot of hilarious things happen during any sexual encounter, but usually it won’t be called out (unless you’re with your longtime partner), because it kills the agreed-upon mood. By the same token, most people agree not to laugh when someone farts during a funeral service. Is it funny? Of course it is, but in real life we often decide that honoring the conventions of the occasion is more important than enjoying the comedy that emerges. (Funerals are sad, tax audits are serious, sex is . . . sexy.) Dave’s right that onstage the formula gets inverted, but I don’t see how that excludes sex from potential material, unless you think nothing funny ever happens during real-life sex, in which case I never want to have sex with you.
"I'm not a real aspirational cat."
-- TJ Jagodowski
kbadr wrote:While preparing for the show, we re-discovered the idea that what gives any action (whether it be having sex, committing acts of violence, or biting an apple) weight is how the other performers on stage react.
EXACTLY. If you tell me you want to have sex with the dog watching, I can play it very broadly or completely realistically, depending on how emotionally invested I am in what happens. Neither is wrong, but I think one reason that sex scenes almost always turn into cartoons is that nobody wants to be that vulnerable about something so personal.
Referring to Dave’s point, I would guess that it’s even harder to play violence realistically and still make it work as comedy. Real sex is funny a lot more often than real violence is.
"I'm not a real aspirational cat."
-- TJ Jagodowski
ratliff wrote:Referring to Dave’s point, I would guess that it’s even harder to play violence realistically and still make it work as comedy.
I think it can work brilliantly, not as comedy per-se, but as a build-up of tension that will make the next bit of comedy hit that much harder.
Yeah, Liz Allen calls that the sine wave: the deeper you go emotionally (especially if you go for a while without getting a laugh), the bigger the next laugh will be.
"I'm not a real aspirational cat."
-- TJ Jagodowski
No matter what this husband did in bed, his wife never achieved an orgasm. Since by Jewish law a wife is entitled to sexual pleasure, they decide to consult their Rabbi.
The Rabbi listens to their story, strokes his beard, and makes the following suggestion:
'Hire a strapping young man. While the two of you are making love, have the young man wave a towel over you. That will help your wife fantasize and should bring on an orgasm.'
They go home and follow the Rabbi's advice. They hire a handsome young man and he waves a towel over them as they make love. It does not help and the wife is still unsatisfied.
Perplexed, they go back to the Rabbi.
'Okay,' he says to the husband, 'Try it reversed. Have the young man make love to your wife and you wave the towel over them.'
Once again, they follow the Rabbi's advice. They go home and hire the same strapping young man. The young man gets into bed with the wife and the husband waves the towel. The young man gets to work with great enthusiasm and soon she has an enormous, room-shaking, ear-splitting screaming orgasm.
The husband smiles, looks at the young man and says to him triumphantly,
'See that, you Shmuck! THAT's how you wave a towel!'
What is to give light must endure burning. - Viktor Frankl
Good, interesting, and stimulating thoughts from everyone. This thread is something that I've been ruminating about over the past few days ...
To clarify (for my purposes more than anything else), Ratliff was asking about sex and intimacy being portrayed realistically / quasi-realistically (which while not exclusively so, might include the depiction of sexual acts) and why it doesn't seem to pop up all that often.
That's a fair question, especially in light of the fact that we often say and accept that anything can happen in improv. So, when we notice a trend of abundance (roommates arguing about something) or dearth / avoidance (realistic sex & intimacy), it's natural to wonder why.
If someone overly gravitates to sexual content (or to anything really), it might mean that their fear isn't allowing them to explore other areas.
If someone is hesitant to do realistic / quasi-realistic scenes that concern sex and intimacy, then I tend to also think that there's an issue of fear there.
One of my favorite things that I ever heard was from TJ: "The sum of your work as improvisors is to become more fearless."
That, to me, means challenging yourself to do things on stage that we sometimes fear, ie. the things that we sometimes don't dig, that we don't think people (either on stage or in the audience) will understand, and the stuff that makes us feel uncomfortable (like realistic sex and intimacy) - thus, Del's "follow the fear" and Mick's "fuck your fear," which are just different sides of the same coin, I think.
Some of that fear comes from us judging ourselves and judging other people's ideas. Some of that fear, though, comes out of fearing the judgment that others, especially the audience, might think about what we do or say, or how they'll receive it.
Personally, I believe that there's a gulf between what *we* think the audience wants and what audience actually wants.
The size of that gulf might vary, but regardless of its size, it's significant enough that I think we should stop worrying about what the audience thinks.
That's doesn't mean "fuck the audience," as some might interpret it, as much as it means that I'm not going to presume to know what an audience wants. That to me underestimates the audience's intelligence. Personally, I think if what's done on stage is done with commitment and integrity, audiences will totally go on that ride with you.
That doesn't mean that the audience will enjoy every little thing that's done, but, at the very least, you've given them the opportunity to react to it as they will - as intelligent human beings capable of processing things intellectually and emotionally.
As far as improv and not wanting to shock audiences with a super-graphic depiction of sex or really blunt talk & behavior, I can kind of see that, and yeah, things done merely for the sake of shocking folks is annoying, usually ineffective, and probably off-putting.
Unless you're advertising something as family-friendly, though, I think that improv implies (if not jumps right out and says) anything could happen. That, I think, includes dealing frankly with real things that happen in real life (which happens to include sex and intimacy) as much as it includes weird, abstract scenes and scenes with ninjas and robots and dragons and stuffy British judges and whatnot.
My friend Bob and I do a two-person show called Umlautilde. Our shows are usually single, real-time scenes (aka monoscenes or one long scene). Last month, we played a john (him) and a call girl (me), who ended up having a great conversation about each other's hopes and dreams.
That said, the john was there for sex. There was also a 13 year old girl in the audience. When the time came, I, as the call girl, started giving the john a blow job. We never put up any warning that there would be adult themes, but at the same time, we never advertised what we do as family-friendly. I could have squashed what was going on in the moment to avoid what was going to happen, but really, I only have to be around the audience for the duration of the show; I have to be able to look myself and anyone I play with in the eye and know that I've given myself and them the best I possibly can. I can't do that if I don't fully trust what's going on in the moment that was forged by what we've been creating for the entirety of the show.
It's really awesome when new audience members take a chance and catch improv shows. That someone, in the age of a million television stations, DVRs, DVDs, and the internet chooses to go outside their house and take in a live performance alongside some fellow human beings - that is amazing!
All that said, if someone went to an improv show and was made uncomfortable or was offended enough to the point that they'd vow to never come back ... well, first off, that's hard to believe because I can almost instantly call up something online that's way more shockingly offensive than most things that can be conjured up on stage. Secondly, people's overreactions often tell much more about themselves than what they're reacting to.
My main point, though, is that if someone makes the silly choice to swear off an improv group, a show, or improv altogether after feeling thrown by something they saw on stage ... well, then, (and I can't say this without sounding like a dick) maybe they'll be happier staying at home and watching some three-and-a-half star romantic-comedy that was focus-grouped specifically to achieve maximum acceptability by the broadest demographic of people.
If you're an improvisor (along whatever stripe or qualifier you align yourself with - artist, comedian, actor, etc.), you're interested in bring truth to the light. Whether the purpose of that is as an artistic pursuit that's theatrical, comedic, or whatever you consider it, verity is what shines through. Universal truths will ring true whether it's coming from something that's fantasy or more realistic. It's why even stuff as unrealistic (or at least, fantasy-based) as Star Wars and Lord of the Rings are compelling - because there are truths there about humans and the human condition.
That said, one might have a preference to improvise within the bounds of fantasy. I think that's fine and fun and I've seen some great shows that have done so. To do so at the exclusion of reality (which includes sex and intimacy) and expect that of others, I don't understand that.
Anyway, my final and most important point of all of this blather: Yes, Valerie, I will totally have sex with you on stage.
