Austin Improv

1) In his workshop, Todd Stashwick mentioned how fortunate Austin is that there is no dangling carrot that people are chasing, there is no Second City that is a path to stardom so everyone's shows become the same trying to look like that. ("Facism" he kept saying). Everyone can create different amazing things all over town.

2) Jastroch had a nice newspaper quote: “We really want to show the rest of the country what’s happening here in Austin,” said Jastroch. “Right now we’re more of a training ground on how to become to be a really great performer, but I think there’s a huge explosion of attention coming"

Shall we rub these two ideas against each other?

jillybee72 wrote:("Facism" he kept saying).

"The fascism of community," was the phrase he used repeatedly.

Brand latching. Latching on to a familiar brand to sell your own product.

Austin theaters don't have pressure to become UCB clones, that's for sure. Variation is great.

We can take it further.

For instance, I hear the term "experimentation" used frequently here although it's usually followed by a mainstream film or TV title.

So rather than deal with "UCB pressure", Austin theaters tend to appease Austin's niche film community. Any difficulties selling improv to audiences, we simply make up for by selling them film titles they're familiar with.

Explore this to the fullest but be aware that in both scenarios, theaters are chasing the nearest brand that still latches hold with audiences. (whether it's Second City or the film Beetlejuice)

In other words Austin, just like everyone else, tends to play it safe. Brand-latching is practically the opposite of being on the fringe.

jillybee72 wrote:1) In his workshop, Todd Stashwick mentioned how fortunate Austin is that there is no dangling carrot that people are chasing, there is no Second City that is a path to stardom so everyone's shows become the same trying to look like that. ("Facism" he kept saying). Everyone can create different amazing things all over town.

2) Jastroch had a nice newspaper quote: “We really want to show the rest of the country what’s happening here in Austin,” said Jastroch. “Right now we’re more of a training ground on how to become to be a really great performer, but I think there’s a huge explosion of attention coming"

Shall we rub these two ideas against each other?

Jill, that quote was actually Buckman's! The young writer thought he was talking to me. Buckman is a far wiser man.

But I agree!

Spots wrote:Brand latching. Latching on to a familiar brand to sell your own product.

Austin theaters don't have pressure to become UCB clones, that's for sure. Variation is great.

We can take it further.

For instance, I hear the term "experimentation" used frequently here although it's usually followed by a mainstream film or TV title.

So rather than deal with "UCB pressure", Austin theaters tend to appease Austin's niche film community. Any difficulties selling improv to audiences, we simply make up for by selling them film titles they're familiar with.

Explore this to the fullest but be aware that in both scenarios, theaters are chasing the nearest brand that still latches hold with audiences. (whether it's Second City or the film Beetlejuice)

In other words Austin, just like everyone else, tends to play it safe. Brand-latching is practically the opposite of being on the fringe.

Those are some broad generalizations that aren't particularly accurate.

For every improv show concept that involves a film title, there are at least 2 that don't.

Eris 2035
Austin Secrets
Live Nude Improv
Showdown
Who Is T Henry Baudecliff?
The Violet Underbelly

How were these shows playing it safe? They all threw the performers onto the brink of failure. Do not confuse creating a show *concept* that will potentially sell and fill the theaters with creating show *content* that is safe. You can do genre work and still take a risk. We do it all the time in this town. Striking the balance between marketable and artistic fulfillment is a constant challenge, and I am quite proud of the fact that with each passing year, we do better work while maintaining audiences.

And there's also a ton of work that isn't remotely genre or film-based.

kbadr wrote: Eris 2035
Austin Secrets
Live Nude Improv
Showdown
Who Is T Henry Baudecliff?
The Violet Underbelly

Add Improv Fantasy League, Victrola, Hyperlinks, etc...

Second Kareem's point. Not to mention that out-of-towners talk to me all the time about how Austin troupes come up with more formats than anywhere else they've been. I don't know if that's entirely accurate, I'd like to think it is, but that's what I keep hearing.

To be fair, we stole Improv Fantasy League. But your point is valid.

Yeah, I'm a little puzzled by referring to doing film (or even television) based work as a "tendency". It certainly happens, and those shows tend to get more buzz, but that's not the majority of what goes on in this town.

Jastroch wrote:To be fair, we stole Improv Fantasy League. But your point is valid.

Well now I think you stink, Jastroch

While it's true that some people will move to NY/Chicago/LA in order to pursue a career in improv, I think it's incorrect to conclude that that results in a dilution of experimentation. This just doesn't stand up to even a glancing analysis of the work that's being done in these cities.

Sure, Second City (which is more about sketch comedy than improv), UCB, iO, Annoyance, Groundlings, etc. may dominate the scenes in terms of prestige and brand recognition, this may have more to do with the fact that Chicago, LA and NYC are *significantly* larger and denser cities than Austin. Each of these cities has way more people within a 30m traveling radius than any theatre in Austin has (and ever will have). As such, these theatres have a greater capacity to generate a following large enough to propel them to national significance.

Of course, this doesn't preclude Austin theatres from national awareness and increasing attention for the nation at large, I think, will *help*. As more attention (and so, money) comes in, the opportunity for theatres to stage experimental work may actually increase. In fact, Second City is a prime example of this. Their money making work supports their free, experimental shows where they workshop new material in front of a public audience.

yeah, other than Dusk, i can't think of a specific film that's referenced in any particular Austin improv show in recent memory (well, Improvised Robocop, but that's a bit cheeky. ). i'd agree there's a lot of genre and author infused and inspired work going on, but that includes literary as well as cinematic. and it's just one aspect of the experimentation and innovation going on in this city. the list of shows and formats listed so far by others are just the tip of the iceberg. there is so much exploration and experimentation of form and structure in this town right now, it's kind of incredible. especially compared to a lot of other cities and scenes.

as for rubbing the two ideas together...it's fantastic we don't have that carrot here. and i think it's precisely that experimentation, exploration, diversity and collaboration that WILL bring us that attention. not because we're begging for it, but because we've EARNED it.

kbadr wrote: Eris 2035
Austin Secrets
Live Nude Improv
Showdown
Who Is T Henry Baudecliff?
The Violet Underbelly

And False Matters, Lost/Found, The Sandbox, One More Night, Guilds of Steel, on and on.

kbadr wrote:How were these shows playing it safe? They all threw the performers onto the brink of failure. Do not confuse creating a show *concept* that will potentially sell and fill the theaters with creating show *content* that is safe. You can do genre work and still take a risk. We do it all the time in this town. Striking the balance between marketable and artistic fulfillment is a constant challenge, and I am quite proud of the fact that with each passing year, we do better work while maintaining audiences.

And there's also a ton of work that isn't remotely genre or film-based.

This.

jillybee72 wrote: Shall we rub these two ideas against each other?

Rather than getting derailed by the genre-inspired conversation, I think Jill's initial request to rub these two ideas together is important.

There's a real tension in the quotes from Jastroch/Buckman in that article, a certain ambivalance. It's an ambivalence I feel as well, and I'm not sure how to reconcile them.

The tension runs along these lines: There's no industry here, so we can all do whatever for the sake of our art, and that is GOOD! But soon we will have industry here looking at us, and that will be GOOD!

Like I said I am ambivalent about all this. I love the community's open-ended, throw it against the wall nature. I wish we all got paid more for it. I hope that some future, potential getting paid more for it doesn't do away with the throw it against the wall nature of the community.

In the CultureMap interview Shana and I did, the upper echelons of what an improv career can be was talked about but it didn't make it into the article. What I said was that as far as pure improv goes, the pinnacle seems to be TJ and Dave--a standing run in New York, a documentary made about them. Beyond that level, improv can lead people to be famous, but at that point they're not famous for doing improv, they're acting in a sitcom, SNL, or in films. I'm not sure where I'm going with this, but improv seems to have an upper bound on how deeply you can penetrate the culture's collective imagination exclusively as an improv artist.

yeah, False Matters is always one of the first that comes to mind when i think of how awesomely experimental Austin improv can get. that intro alone...man...

dancrumb wrote:While it's true that some people will move to NY/Chicago/LA in order to pursue a career in improv, I think it's incorrect to conclude that that results in a dilution of experimentation. This just doesn't stand up to even a glancing analysis of the work that's being done in these cities.

Sure, Second City (which is more about sketch comedy than improv), UCB, iO, Annoyance, Groundlings, etc. may dominate the scenes in terms of prestige and brand recognition, this may have more to do with the fact that Chicago, LA and NYC are *significantly* larger and denser cities than Austin. Each of these cities has way more people within a 30m traveling radius than any theatre in Austin has (and ever will have). As such, these theatres have a greater capacity to generate a following large enough to propel them to national significance.

Of course, this doesn't preclude Austin theatres from national awareness and increasing attention for the nation at large, I think, will *help*. As more attention (and so, money) comes in, the opportunity for theatres to stage experimental work may actually increase. In fact, Second City is a prime example of this. Their money making work supports their free, experimental shows where they workshop new material in front of a public audience.

i think Todd's point wasn't that there's no experimental or artistically driven improv in L.A., New York or Chicago (it would be foolish for him to say that since he's DONE work like that in all three of those cities. )...more that such work tends to be on the fringe in those scenes, while it's practically our organizing principle in Austin.

and i would say Austin improv's commercial success has an almost direct correlation to the growth of more experimental, innovative and artistically driven shows. the Austin audience is hungrier for that kind of stuff, i think.

To be fair, I can't speak to Todd's intentions as I wasn't at the workshop. Looking at his history, he's certainly been involved in both mainstream and fringe enterprises in the big improv cities.

I guess the question I'm left with is whether becoming a major centre of improv necessitates the migration of truly experimental theatre to the fringe. The Big Three have a major advantage in their size and, as a result, are able to sustain a number of large theatres. All of these theatres have mainstream shows as well as experimental shows.
If Austin becomes an Improv City (TM), will that result in theatres favouring more established formats, so as to be able to draw in more audience members? Unfortunately, I think maintaining a predominantly experimental vibe may be an unstable equilibrium and if one theatre moves towards more mainstream fare, others will need to follow in order to survive.

Finally, since we all love a good semantic debate, part of me wonders whether it's simply a truism to say that experimental work will always be on the fringe. Isn't work that is experimental (and thus, not broadly accepted), by definition, on the fringe? This is not just an academic distinction: being able to marry commercial concerns with artistic concerns is the core of running a successful theatre.