Austin Improv

B. Tribe wrote:The director interprets the script, oversees the production, guides the actors, and keeps the vision of the show intact. A coach trains performers.

When I've directed improvised plays at the Hideout Theatre, this is exactly what I've done. Except instead of a script, there is the goal of what the end result should look like. Ex. A story told in the world of Charles Dickens. A melodramatic after-school-special style story.
The cast comes into the production with a certain expectation of what these sorts of stories would look like, improvised. I have in my head a very firm idea of what I want them to accomplish. Then we head towards that vision, making discoveries along the way. Sometimes things have to be changed or dropped because the style gets in the way of good improv happening. And sometimes the improvisers really have to be pushed to try for a stylistic execution that is rare for improv.
I also oversee the set design, costume design, improvised sound design (either by doing these things myself or delegating) and more.
I don't want to spend much time talking the specifics of good scene work or creating a character. I don't want to take too much time to train them. I bring improvisers in with an expectation that they can perform the basics well already, and now we're going to get them working together in this style, with each other, in a matter of a month or so.

But, I can see where you're coming from with this. And yes, I agree, some rehearsals are definitely more drill-like as to make them more akin to training than rehearsing. For instance, if you're working on different kinds of scene transitions, or on making scenes start in the middle of something. You're just going to drill those elements and the style and content of the improv isn't what is important. You're not going to stop and talk about character or shape-of-show if you're drilling transitions.

Rehearsal: The act of practicing in preparation for a public performance.

The word rehearsing works for me because, regardless, I'm just practicing doing improv to prepare to do improv again in front of an audience. The definition is open enough. Though of course, the word "rehearsal" is reserved more for fine arts talk. You never hear, "We're rehearsing for the big football game!"
So I guess if you like to look at improv as "the big game", then training for it is appropriate.
(That's pretty cute, actually, "We're training for Wafflefest!")

kristin wrote:I don't think I'm firmly in either the coach/no-coach camp anymore. It depends on the mix of people and the situation...

Meanwhile, on a kind of related note... reading all this made me wonder about a pet peeve of mine, when fellow players are obviously judging each other in the middle of shows. When on stage, I don't want to look in somebody's eyes and see their note-taker out, I want them to be engaged in the moment and responding to what's happening. Improvising with me, not directing me. Maybe the habit of self-coaching could lead to some of that note-taking not being able to turn off as easily?

Asaf talks in his book about "director's disease" - directors who do shows with their teams often play in a corrective way. The moves that they make are notes in and of themselves. I can only imagine that can happen to whole teams that are self-coached.

jillybee72 wrote:

kristin wrote:I don't think I'm firmly in either the coach/no-coach camp anymore. It depends on the mix of people and the situation...

Meanwhile, on a kind of related note... reading all this made me wonder about a pet peeve of mine, when fellow players are obviously judging each other in the middle of shows. When on stage, I don't want to look in somebody's eyes and see their note-taker out, I want them to be engaged in the moment and responding to what's happening. Improvising with me, not directing me. Maybe the habit of self-coaching could lead to some of that note-taking not being able to turn off as easily?

Asaf talks in his book about "director's disease" - directors who do shows with their teams often play in a corrective way. The moves that they make are notes in and of themselves. I can only imagine that can happen to whole teams that are self-coached.

JD Walsh used to have fun with this expectation when he'd "sit in" with troupes at Ultimate/Improv Space in L.A. (and for all i know still does. ) since the audience knew ahead of time he was the director/coach/owner, he'd step out into scenes or comment within them ("hey, you guys, is this gonna be a love scene between you two? why do you think you two always wind up doing love scenes?" "there had better be a huge reveal coming that affects me personally in some way, Dad!") in a very mischievous prankster-y kind of way. but he loved getting a bit meta with first and second reality type stuff and we all kind of thrived in that playful environment, i think. because, to my mind at least, it was always clear, "oh! we're gonna fuck with each other tonight. sweet!", moreso than "crap, JD's giving notes onstage. i'd better not fuck up!"

which is more the exception that proves your (and by your i mean Asaf's) rule, i suppose, because if it had been the latter, i would not have wanted to get onstage with him.

kaci_beeler wrote:Everything she said.

I think we're on the same page, more or less. I'd say that a coach serves the team while a director serves the production.

When putting up a genre improv show, a director is necessary. A 'normal' theatre director doesn't train the actors. Hopefully the actors have had training from a teacher. When a troupe is regularly performing a non-genre improv show, they are relying almost solely on their training. They don't require a director to shape their show (even in a form like The Harold). A coach keeps them sharp and ready to perform. Both lead to a public display in the end. The first displays the production as a whole. The second displays the learned skills of the actor.

I do have to admit that I almost always use the term 'rehearsal' when a troupe meets. It's more of a philosophical delineation than anything practical. I don't think it's merely semantics, though; rehearsal and training are two different beasts.

I LOVE TALKING ALL SMART!

B. Tribe wrote: I do have to admit that I almost always use the term 'rehearsal' when a troupe meets. It's more of a philosophical delineation than anything practical. I don't think it's merely semantics, though; rehearsal and training are two different beasts.

i guess for me (and reiterating Jeremy's earlier point regarding how strongly we tend to adhere to our initial improv experiences) they were the same thing. since i never took any formal classes or training in improv before the Jury formed, rehearsals WERE my training (heck, performances were my training (heck, they still are!)). so it's difficult to differentiate between the two in my head. if you're training together AS a troupe, aren't you rehearsing the skills and formats you'll be taking on stage together? if you're rehearsing a format (either as a troupe or a cast), aren't you training in both general improv skills alongside those skills that are format specific?

i'd also have to say that, regardless of the presence or absence of genre trappings in a show, most shows/troupes/casts/performers tend to at least have a format no matter how loosely or tightly defined. and that creates a theatrical presentation, the final product we show an audience. i've very rarely seen a show take on the actual form of an improv class, workshop or training session...and if it did, wouldn't that just be another format?

the_reverend wrote:JD Walsh used to have fun with this expectation when he'd "sit in" with troupes at Ultimate/Improv Space in L.A.

JD's doing a bit, on purpose. If it's accidental and you don't even know you're doing it, that's distinctly different.

jillybee72 wrote:

the_reverend wrote:JD Walsh used to have fun with this expectation when he'd "sit in" with troupes at Ultimate/Improv Space in L.A.

JD's doing a bit, on purpose. If it's accidental and you don't even know you're doing it, that's distinctly different.

exactly. one of my favorite things studying with him was his tendency to call out improv tropes (both in performance and habits of performers offstage) in a way that called attention to those habits without making you feel targeted, called out or oppressed so it kept things playful while also challenging you to do more. "okay, you do this. a lot of us do this. can you do something different or are you just going to stay in that comfort zone?"

we had a show in Wisconsin where he came out as a very high status presentational "master" type character, which is something he worked with me on a lot to overcome...so i jumped up in the next scene and went WAY over the top playing the same kind of character to mess with him a bit, to which he jumped into the scene: "Ah, i see you are a master as well! So am i! Do you speak in a loud booming voice and make large sweeping gestures?" pretty soon it became a game of one upping, calling each other out and poking fun at that archetype. it was entirely in-jokey, to a certain extent, but we were having fun with it and thus so did the audience.

this is apropos of nothing, i suppose, other than i love anecdotes and miss playing with JD.

This is a very intriguing thread. Some thoughts:

1. People are incredibly sensitive about their art. Art is humanity trying to represent itself to the world, and the potential of getting rejected in that setting makes people very vulnerable.

2. I think it's incredibly difficult to find people you share an artistic sensibility with. I think we've all played with people we are inspired by, delighted by, or otherwise admire the heck out of. But that doesn't mean you're interested in creating in the same way, or creating the same thing, or sharing the same thing.

3. I think it's even harder to find people you have an emotional understanding with, that you can connect with in an honest way. In his workshop, Craig Cackowski said people tell the truth as a last possible resort. That stuck with me.

All that is prologue to saying: It's very difficult to cultivate an environment where people can be honest about the art they're creating together. If you can find that, well, I bid you hold onto it for all it's worth. If you want to work with people and don't have it, well, perhaps having someone in a supervising capacity can help.

I do think that troupes without coaches might have a more likely chance of hiiting on something new and interesting ala Malcolm Gladwell's Outliers.

Maybe not everyone here thinks of improv as an artform or as being in a troupe as akin to being in a band or a writing group sharing and collaborating and creating, but I do, and I strive to get that out of any group I'm a part of, for better or worse.

Avimaan

B. Tribe wrote:I was in a short-form improv group for 4 years in college, and I have to say, we were pretty damn good. We never had a coach, we followed the basic rules (Say yes, avoid questions, don't create an object without naming it), and we'd occasionally discuss comedic ideas. We didn't give notes. That lead to a kind of 'sink or swim' learning curve for new members. We were popular, we were getting paid, we started writing and filming sketches, we were known across campus. We were good...as far as we knew.

Then, in my 3 1/2 year with the troupe, we played a college comedy festival. They booked the UCB travel team. The UCB'ers held 2 3 hour workshops for the performers. I learned more about what improv REALLY was in that 6 hours than I had in over 3 years of constant rehearsals and performances.

I wonder what it would have been like if we actually had a coach?

That, to me, is what it comes down to - How much better might a group or show be with the benefit of an outside eye whether for a session or an extended period of time?

In general, I think most groups, teams, troupes and show come together because they think it would be awesome to work with each other and do their thing, but that enthusiasm coursing through a group's veins (which is good - who wants to be without that enthusiaSM?) can also cause them to overestimate how great they are as a group, in my opinion.

An outside eye (whether for a one-shot, a series of sessions or longer) is helpful in the goal of become as great as possible.

I know there is some sentiment or worry about an outside eye cramping an individual's or even the group's style, but I think there's more possibility that it can lift the burden of worrying about how the show looks like in execution, allowing for performers to just play.

If someone's coaching/directing style doesn't suit the group or show, then by all means, dump 'em. You wouldn't keep going to a dentist who is an asshole and who makes you feel like a jerk. I think the same holds for coaches.

So maybe, what I'm saying is that you're doing a fine job at brushing and flossing regularly, but it's okay to visit a dentist once in a while and not entirely distrust them.

Also, if anyone is offering any coaching on similes and metaphors, let me know!

jose wrote:Also, if anyone is offering any coaching on similes and metaphors, let me know!

I'd do it but there's no place to rehearse these days, and I refuse to use RLM.

B. Tribe wrote:I'd do it but there's no place to rehearse these days, and I refuse to use RLM.

You're not the first person I've heard recently taking this stand against RLM. Has something changed, or are people just sick of trying to find parking?

majcher wrote:

B. Tribe wrote:I'd do it but there's no place to rehearse these days, and I refuse to use RLM.

You're not the first person I've heard recently taking this stand against RLM. Has something changed, or are people just sick of trying to find parking?

Yeah, what's up with that?

Yeah, RLM played a big role in Austin Improv's resurgence. Don't be hatin'.

majcher wrote:

B. Tribe wrote:I'd do it but there's no place to rehearse these days, and I refuse to use RLM.

You're not the first person I've heard recently taking this stand against RLM. Has something changed, or are people just sick of trying to find parking?

Maybe it was the rash of muggings a while back.

Justin D. wrote:

majcher wrote:

B. Tribe wrote:I'd do it but there's no place to rehearse these days, and I refuse to use RLM.

You're not the first person I've heard recently taking this stand against RLM. Has something changed, or are people just sick of trying to find parking?

Maybe it was the rash of muggings a while back.

Those were my favorite campus e-mails in a while, better than "there's a bat in a box on campus - don't touch it!". The mugging e-mails were essentially, "This guy is clearly targeting skinny male Asian engineering majors. Not one? Don't sweat it."