Austin Improv

this convo looks like it's been dead for about a month, but as someone who's also considered and tried to employ more dramatic elements into improv, i thought i'd throw a few cents into the well and see the pretty ripples.

the first time i considered improv as anything that could be "dramatic" in structure was when Jeremy started to steer the Jury away from short form and games and into longform, an area none of us were particularly familiar with at that point ("you want us to do relationship freeze for 20 minutes? that's IMPOSSIBLE!"). it was still comedic in nature, but it had dramatic structure because our concerns became more about communicating character, relationship and narrative...just with jokes too. it was when i started to think of improv as being more akin to theatre than stand up comedy.

we did a format one weekend at the Blue Theatre, wherein we took an initial suggestion on the first night. then interpreted it one night as a drama and the next night as a comedy (or vice versa...my memory gets fuzzy with old age). and the weird thing was that the drama came out better. the comedy was okay, but mostly flopped while the audience was genuinely compelled by the story and characters in the drama. we didn't avoid comedy or humor, as others have pointed out. we just dealt with the themes a bit more seriously. it's such a small perception shift between the two if you're already bringing character and narrative into your comedy because comedy IS part of drama (even Oedipus, for all the incest and eye gouging, has funny moments). the best part in my opinion was that my sister convinced a bunch of her friends to come see the show and hyped us up as these incredibly funny guys and that they'd be in stitches, etc. and then they came to the dramatic show. and they all came out saying they'd loved the show, but that it wasn't overly funny. which for what we were trying to do is about the highest praise possible.

most of that came from the fact that every member of the Jury had a background in theatre. so a lot of it comes down to acting chops. but if you can do genuine and honest comedy and keep an audience enwrapped like that, you can play good drama regardless of "acting" training because you've already got the skill set...engagement, honesty, and most importantly heart.

on another note...while prepping for it, i'd recommend going in the exact opposite direction from "reality." one of the most useful formats we ever did were our avant garde shows. you take it to this extreme and surreal almost absurdism and it yields great comedy...but it also forces you to find new ways to express and communicate emotion without worrying about "will this get a laugh?" the laughter comes from the absurdity of the situation and the odd things you're doing. which frees you up to focus on getting to the emotional truth in a very semiotic way. i remember doing and watching scenes that made little sense but were utterly heart breaking. so that was extremely helpful for me. your mileage may vary. but i thought i'd throw it out there and see if it sticks to the wall.

Maybe if you started with characters that were already very well developed by the players, and with relationships and a history that were very well established among them, then improvised from there. Probably anything can be compelling if you have strong characters and realistic relationships. Look at "12 Angry Men" (the original), just 12 guys in a room. Or "Vanya on 42nd Street", minimalist to the nth degree but strong characters.

Just my $0.02

Roy Janik wrote:Okay, all that being said...

if you were trying to do a more theatrical, dramatic, improv show, how would you go about it? what techniques, formats, structures, etc... ?

Go slow. Be simple. Play the moment. React for real. Be obvious. If people in the cast 'gag', use the 'gag police'. Use acting skills. Read the newspaper as a cast and take turns directing each other in scenes based on real stories. Watch dramatic and theatrical movies/plays/shows as a cast and then in rehearsal recreate some of the scenes practicing the techniques used to make them work.

If all else fails talk about cancer, abortion and terrorists.

Rich Ross wrote:Go slow. Be simple. Play the moment. React for real. Be obvious. If people in the cast 'gag', use the 'gag police'. Use acting skills. Read the newspaper as a cast and take turns directing each other in scenes based on real stories. Watch dramatic and theatrical movies/plays/shows as a cast and then in rehearsal recreate some of the scenes practicing the techniques used to make them work.

Great advice, Rich. I especially like the idea of the gag police. I've never tried any of the "police" type things before, save for once with Andy, but it seems useful.

Is this in the works somewhere? somehow?

I'm curious about the progress after this lengthy discussion.

based on this and one or two other posts as well as conversations had with others in the community, sounds to me like people are itchin' to try something like this. i firmly believe that when people go on stage and react honestly to one another, take their time to think and feel, react honestly, and not shy away from any of the issues we tend to shy away from, then something more beautiful than just "comedy improv" can take shape. i have always tried (while not always successfully) to simply be honest on stage. i do not generate a laugh a minute, but i know that i generate the occasional hearty laugh, the shocked gasp, and general intrigue. one of my private goals through improv is to generate a response that is cathartic and tear jerking. my belief is that a group of improvisors who are comfortable with each other and commited to moving beyond the "humor-only" approach, stand a chance at creating something fresh and vibrant. something that people would NEVER expect to experience in an improv setting. there are many other thoughts about this swimming in my head. ask me about them when you see me around. i'd love to discourse with you about it.

bilbo wrote:based on this and one or two other posts as well as conversations had with others in the community, sounds to me like people are itchin' to try something like this. i firmly believe that when people go on stage and react honestly to one another, take their time to think and feel, react honestly, and not shy away from any of the issues we tend to shy away from, then something more beautiful than just "comedy improv" can take shape. i have always tried (while not always successfully) to simply be honest on stage. i do not generate a laugh a minute, but i know that i generate the occasional hearty laugh, the shocked gasp, and general intrigue. one of my private goals through improv is to generate a response that is cathartic and tear jerking. my belief is that a group of improvisors who are comfortable with each other and commited to moving beyond the "humor-only" approach, stand a chance at creating something fresh and vibrant. something that people would NEVER expect to experience in an improv setting. there are many other thoughts about this swimming in my head. ask me about them when you see me around. i'd love to discourse with you about it.

This shows what I think to be a big problem in looking at improv. Think about most conversations you have; most situations. Are you expressing inner feelings or are you joking around? Do you live in mostly a melodramatic atmosphere or a lighthearted one? For me, it's mostly the latter for both questions. Is that real life? Yes!!!

The whole point in "Truth in Comedy" (regardless of the million flaws that can be found with the book) is that being truthful leads more often to comedy.

I think the most ridiculous and furthest-from-reality shows on TV are soap operas. There's never any joking around like in real life.

If you want to do dramatic improv, have at it. But don't think you're doing something that's more "real" or "honest" than comedy. In fact, there's a great chance that you're going to slip into soap opera land. People love soap operas, so you might end up with a popular show.

The best improv I've seen combines the comedic and the grounded/dramatic. The movies/plays I end up falling in love with do the same.

Eliminating one or the other produces something that is, for me, far too narrowly focused, and I think makes it harder to connect to as a performer or audience (I think this is what Justin is getting at).

My point being, I think it is wrong-headed to expect that an improv show should only contain comedy, or that every line should be a joke. And that, in order to do "dramatic improv" you have to eliminate anything lighthearted or, god forbid, funny. The two sides, for lack of a better term, feed into each other and make the other more resonant. You can only achieve those really hearty, from-the-gut laughs -- you know what I'm talking about -- when there is enough REAL stuff going on.

If you want to bring drama into improv, why be an extremist? Bring it in to what you are already doing!

The improv you see -- the sutff you really like -- is it all laughs? Are the characters all Sir Yucksalot? Or are the scenes you remember the ones with depth, with real and often tragic scenarios, relationships, and characters? For me, it's the latter.

mcnichol wrote: My point being, I think it is wrong-headed to expect that an improv show should only contain comedy, or that every line should be a joke. And that, in order to do "dramatic improv" you have to eliminate anything lighthearted or, god forbid, funny. The two sides, for lack of a better term, feed into each other and make the other more resonant. You can only achieve those really hearty, from-the-gut laughs -- you know what I'm talking about -- when there is enough REAL stuff going on.

If you want to bring drama into improv, why be an extremist? Bring it in to what you are already doing!

I TOTALLY agree with this, but I still believe that in the wide spectrum of possibilities, improv is by and large falling in a very narrow band.

Listening to the Chekov play Uncle Vanya the other day made me think more about this. Although it definitely had comedic elements strewn throughout (it's even called a tragicomedy on wikipedia), it definitely was morose, tragic and contemplative in its tone and mood, and it ended in thwarted hopes, a botched homicide, and the only glimmer of hope being that once death came, the characters could rest.

But it didn't seem like a soap opera, and it didn't seem like any improv I'd seen.

And I'm not belittling the improv I've seen/done at all. I love it. I just feel increasingly like the we're in a very small spot on the overall map of what's possible.

In short, I need to see more movies and plays.

mcnichol wrote:Eliminating one or the other produces something that is, for me, far too narrowly focused, and I think makes it harder to connect to as a performer or audience (I think this is what Justin is getting at).

That's more or less what I'm saying, but I prefer an approach that is less clear and easier to argue against.

Seriously, though, there's an attitude that getting a laugh is selling out the honesty or reality of a situation on stage and some people have even expressed regret over it. In "reality" I've laughed a whole lot more than I've cried... not counting today.

Roy Janik wrote:I TOTALLY agree with this, but I still believe that in the wide spectrum of possibilities, improv is by and large falling in a very narrow band.

If you feel that way -- and I don't disagree -- I feel that including the elements you want to see, rather than exluding all else, is a way to achieve it. The analogy all of this brings up in my mind is someone who eats poorly -- all fried foods, sweets, sodas, etc. -- and, when told to go on a diet, only eats salads, or only eats meat. The key is balance and striking the right one for you.

Also, we are only aware of what we've individually seen, and for many of us that's limited to things here in Austin. Find out what other groups have done past and present in other places. There are groups who already do strictly tragedy, or focus on very long grounded stuff, or one I remember who used an obituary as their inspiration for the show (which would definitely have been a dramatic show and did not "go for" laughs). Rather than reinventing their wheels, use them as a starting place to push improv further. These supposed boundaries of having to be funny (that seem to be implied in some of these posts) or whatever just don't exist, as far as I'm concerned. Just incorporate it and find that balance.

I have to mention this: I always feel weird replying to this stuff -- stuff I'm not personally pursuing but have some opinion about. I feel out of line or something, but I certainly hope I don't come off that way. I can't tell anyone what to pursue artistically, but since we are discussing it in a forum, I'm offering my opinion.

mcnichol wrote:I have to mention this: I always feel weird replying to this stuff -- stuff I'm not personally pursuing but have some opinion about. I feel out of line or something, but I certainly hope I don't come off that way. I can't tell anyone what to pursue artistically, but since we are discussing it in a forum, I'm offering my opinion.

You've not been out of line at all, and I thoroughly welcome your thoughts and opinions.

Yes, I definitely need to see as much as possible. In lieu of traveling the country to see more improv (something I'd love to do, save for the expense), I think I definitely need to see more plays. Of course, improv gets in the way of that.

mcnichol wrote:These supposed boundaries of having to be funny (that seem to be implied in some of these posts) or whatever just don't exist, as far as I'm concerned. Just incorporate it and find that balance.

I would be massively impressed if I saw a longform improv show conclude with an ending as dramatically stark and sobering and lump-in-my-throat-inducing as the end of Uncle Vanya. What I've seen of improv doesn't make me think I'm likely to witness a show with that particular kind of an impact really soon.

The Brigadier wrote:I would be massively impressed if I saw a longform improv show conclude with an ending as dramatically stark and sobering and lump-in-my-throat-inducing as the end of Uncle Vanya. What I've seen of improv doesn't make me think I'm likely to witness a show with that particular kind of an impact really soon.

This is my last post, I promise.

If you want to see more of that, DO MORE OF THAT. At the very least, you will have satified yourself. At the very best, you will have inspired someone else to pursue improv to similar ends they didn't know were there.

I haven't seen Uncle Vanya, but I've seen the improv show you are talking about and you can do it.