Austin Improv

DollarBill wrote:

York99 wrote:What do you mean by homogenized?

I guess I just mean, the way most of the group games are done here (chicago) feels so contrived and awkward.

I wish I could contrive them better. Awkward I got.

DollarBill wrote: they were just us effing around in the middle of a montage.

a) reconnect & play in them games
b) explore the theme of the show

A & B are easily accomplished by effing around!




!!

I can most certainly imagine what the worst harold teams are like (there's a whole lotta turnaround with chicago teams in general), so there's no use in naming them...

but I would be curious to know if there were any particular harolds that impressed you and what specifically you felt made 'em work.

bradisntclever wrote: Well, Jordan... clearly he's right. The name recognition means it's a better school and can meet and exceed your unique needs and connection with another, infinitely inferior theater. /sarcasm

of course! also, it costs more and thus MUST be better! how could i have not have seen it before?

DollarBill wrote: True, but like Jordan said I think I'm just more interested in seeing B&C done in a less "homogenized" way. I have nothing against the harold, just it's inflated stature. And that's just my opinion. I hate you all.

that comment better have a big mutha frakkin' asterisk next to it, attached to a footnote at the bottom of the page clarifying that "all" excludes one Jordan T. Maxwell. and also a historical reference proving such (i believe there is a clause in the Magna Carta for your totally digging the styles i throw down and even willing to put up with me when i'm lame).

York99 wrote: Is this intentional irony?

And yes, I get the compounded irony of my post.

irony...becoming...too dense...about to...collapse...in on itself! must...send...Kal-El...to...Harold free...planet! NOOOOO!!!

arthursimone wrote: A & B are easily accomplished by effing around!

Totally. I agree. I think people put too much emphasis on playing the games "correctly" and not enough on fun and effing around.

arthursimone wrote: but I would be curious to know if there were any particular harolds that impressed you and what specifically you felt made 'em work.

I guess Carl and the Passions have impressed me, but more with their improv than their ability to do the harold. I'm going to the free shows again tomorrow. I'll try and remember to post right after that when the shows are fresh in my mind.

on the size of a scene and diversity issue.

bigger does not mean more diverse. in fact it seems to mean less diverse. improv communites get bigger because someone who is performing somewhere is unhappy with the way things are being run so they start their own thing, either in another city or in the same city.

since many artists have trouble innovating and inventing totally new things, the new improv effort often has the signature and philosophy of some other style that was taught to them somewhere else. oftentimes the school that the accompanying new group creates trains its students well enough and groups of good improvisers emerge with the same philosophies and tactics of (surprise!) the people who taught them. so as the scene expands, on the whole, it is mostly expanding under the umbrella of some philosophy or school and thereby is homogenized. very few teachers tell their students to do whatever. they're telling them techniques, guidelines, or forms that have seemed to help them in the past. and in the student-teacher relationship we have bred in us from 12+ years of public school, the teacher is always right, especially if you've seen them succeed on stage previously.

people naturally do what they see succeed before them. groups, schools, theatres fall into the good and bad habits of other similar organizations and the most popular thing becomes the law of the land (short form in the 90s, harold in the oughts.)

of course there are exceptions and i'm only talking to what i've experienced, but it seems to me that as a scene expands its generally just more of the same and any slight variations are only known to the performers and not the general public.

in the bigger cities, it looks like the segregation that exists among theatres is due to brand loyalty and this idea that we can only do what we know will succeed. if you had a form called Miranda and Jim Carrey did it a few times at your theatre before he got famous, that would be something you'd want to use in publicity to maintain or increase your income. and as the brand, The Miranda, gains popularity you naturally would want to push that even more.

but i could talk about this for hours...

id love to talk about this off of a forum because i dont want to be misunderstood. it all comes down to the human condition and we're all largely out of control of what pulls us to success.

if the miranda isn't your thing, just wait it out. good artists evolve. institutions tend to stand still. any form or philosophy with any validity will have its day in the sun.

beardedlamb wrote:
in the bigger cities, it looks like the segregation that exists among theatres is due to brand loyalty and this idea that we can only do what we know will succeed. if you had a form called Miranda and Jim Carrey did it a few times at your theatre before he got famous, that would be something you'd want to use in publicity to maintain or increase your income. and as the brand, The Miranda, gains popularity you naturally would want to push that even more.

I couldn't agree with you more Jeremy. In the off chance that the following observation makes that sound snarky, I want to reiterate that I agree with you.

I'd like to add here that a lot of people are supposing that the Miranda hasn't evolved or changed or isn't evolving or changing. That's just not the case. Every ounce of Miranda instruction I've received or discussion I've had about the Miranda with people steeped in the Miranda has stressed inspiration over obligation.

beardedlamb wrote:
since many artists have trouble innovating and inventing totally new things, the new improv effort often has the signature and philosophy of some other style that was taught to them somewhere else. oftentimes the school that the accompanying new group creates trains its students well enough and groups of good improvisers emerge with the same philosophies and tactics of (surprise!) the people who taught them. so as the scene expands, on the whole, it is mostly expanding under the umbrella of some philosophy or school and thereby is homogenized. very few teachers tell their students to do whatever. they're telling them techniques, guidelines, or forms that have seemed to help them in the past. and in the student-teacher relationship we have bred in us from 12+ years of public school, the teacher is always right, especially if you've seen them succeed on stage previously.

This is how the world works. This is how evolution works. This is how families work. This is how societies work. This is how business and industry work. This is how all art works.

It's an exception to the rule to go super experimental and do something that nobody's done before (partly because the success rate is tremendously low... and usually highly experimental things are done by people who have mastered the norm in that category). Even then, most things in art, literature, business, etc is derivative of something. I've heard arguments that every plot of every sitcom, movie, drama, etc can be traced to a Shakespearian play... which was lifted from Greeks or someone else before him.

I'd argue that it's not a lack of experimentation or any kind of fear-based choice or arrogance that points to what some might view as "homogenization." It's just that evolution is slow and things tend to work in trends and cycles (something often explored in Harolds).

Miranda is a bitch
one word: hair extentions! LOL!

Jim Carrie is soooooo funny and cute! He was in "Mask the Pet Detective!"

Jastroch wrote:I'd like to add here that a lot of people are supposing that the Miranda hasn't evolved or changed or isn't evolving or changing. That's just not the case. Every ounce of Miranda instruction I've received or discussion I've had about the Miranda with people steeped in the Miranda has stressed inspiration over obligation.

I pretty much agree with Jastroch here with 100% of my being. The link I posted earlier addresses that point - that Harold is so much more than the 3x3 training wheels version that is taught as that, training wheels to provide some guidance early on.

The challenge, as Justin alludes to, is how to innovate in an artform where you can literally do anything. Personally, that's how I see Harold as significant historically and in practice.

Historically, its significance is in going beyond merely adapting tropes and the like or being derivative of what's been written or scripted in the past (that is to say, like The Compass whose works, though, involving improvisation in the dialogue, had beats within scenes that had to be hit, and with those scenes mapped to follow a certain narrative arc).

In practice, it's a form / philosophy where the structure emerges rather than being determined beforehand. As Jastroch mentioned, inspiration to follow and explore the sway of the group mind (the sum of individual choices, what they create in relationship to everything else, the commitment of the group, etc.) takes precedent over obligations to stick to any form, all while really being able to use anything you can possibly do in improvisation (ranging from your own personal and performing experience to specific techniques, etc.).

I think that's where the problem of innovation is in Harold and in longform improvisation in general - how do you innovate in a form / artform where you can do anything and anything is possible? (Similarly, improvisors can do *anything* in their scenes and have them set anywhere. So, why do so many scenes end up being two roommates fighting over something trivial or any characters - no matter how quirky or weird - finding the same old conflicts?)

I think that is what leads to some Harold and longform performances to be more blah than awesome more so than any inherent fault with a form - what Justin said, sometimes evolution is slow ... sometimes there are leaps that raise the seas for everyone.

That's what's become weird about the sweep of this particular thread.

There was some degree of thought that the players and what they do are more important than any form or structure, which I mostly agree with, but then things kind of shifted toward finding fault with Harold as if any flaws are inherent to its (training-wheel) structure or "guiding spirit" (argh - in thinking about things off line, I thought of some metaphor for Harold and its structure in terms of the law (as written) and the spirit of the law ... I'm just remembering it now).

I wouldn't say that Harold is perfect - that's not its goal, but if anyone's to blame for being boring, I would think that goes to the performers rather than Harold. This might be mixing metaphors a bit much, but one wouldn't go to a movie, deem it horrible, and then declare this business of shooting action on film purely pish-posh. (You get the gist of what I'm saying, though, right?)

As far as being boring to perform, no form, Harold or otherwise, works without commitment to scenework. Regardless of form, the base will always be a scene or some kind of performance / interaction with other performers - how can that ever be boring?

In regards to these kinds of discussions and the preference to have them offline, I definitely understand - there's a great bit of subtlety and humor missed without the person right in front of you. So, yeah, I can't wait to see y'all soon and have this fun in person!

And that's what it is to me - fun. I'm passionate about Our Lady Improv and I love hearing the thoughts of other people who are passionate about Her, too, even (and maybe especially) when their view is different from mine in perspective and origin.

So, I wanted to lay that flat - I don't get really riled up by what people say and take it personally - why would I assume that anyone would want to poke holes in me skin?

So, I hope that, conversely, folks understand that I'm not gunning for anyone, either ... there's no bile or vomit to be cleaned up 'cause it stays in our neat, shapely vessels of flesh.

Improv is the winner!

Jose, could you be wronger across the board? Sheesh!

Brian Boyko wrote:I don't like the harold.

Well I like you, Brian.

Harold wrote:

Brian Boyko wrote:I don't like the harold.

Well I like you, Brian.

To Boyko's eternal credit, I'm glad he took our level 3 class with an open mind and a willingness to understand what the big deal was...

oh shit oh shit

ITS HIM/IT

York99 wrote:Jose, could you be wronger across the board? Sheesh!

Ashley told me iO West is STILL closed from a couple of weeks ago when an SUV smashed through the front of the place. The damage must have been pretty good for it to take this long to get the place fixed.

You know...if someone really didn't like the Harold...

Hmmmm...