Austin Improv

I've been wondering about this for a while.

You are the director of an upcoming production. You put together an audition, lots of improvisers show up and you ask to see various scenes, games, interactions, etc...

What is it that makes you choose to cast someone?

It is, naturally, very important that said improviser is able to contribute to the seamless flow of the scene and play well with his/her fellow improvisers, but what else?

How important is it that they are familiar with the subject of the production? For example, I never went to audition for the dickens show, because I don't feel I have any substantial knowledge on the matter and would, therefore, not be of use to the cast. Am I right to think that way? Or is genre-specific knowledge a nice-to-have skill, but not paramount to participating in any given show?

Do directors want to see characters, scene-painting and actions that would be likely to be seen in the concept in question? Or is it more "I see the skills this improviser has and I can see a way that they can be of use in our show."?

Looking forward to all and any input.

M.

Different directors look for different things. Instead of creating some uniform system of guidelines, try to understand what makes each project and director different from the rest.

Well, it's a good thing that all directors have access to this thread then!

I'm not looking for a pattern. I'm just interested to see what people have to say about it.

M.

The experience I have on the director side of things is limited, but I do know what I look for. I look for people that are fearless and generous. I want them to be able to jump on a cold stage and make something happen but I don't want them to bulldoze the other players while they're doing it. I want them to be competent at both initiation and support. It also helps tremendously if they fail with good humor. I want you to take risks. If it doesn't work, laugh it off and move on to the next thing.

Also, leave your fear and anxiety at the door. Have fun. Relax and enjoy.

I like to see if the imps can play the genera. In Dickens it would have been hard to see you to your best light if you didn't know the kind of broad, over developed characters that Dickens likes to create. That is not saying that you have to know everything, just that it is easier to see you fitting into the show if you already have some knowledge.

I want to see:

enthusiasm for the project,
an ability to take direction- even when what your doing is good, can you tweak it like I ask?
the chemistry between players,
the look of the players together and individually,
the ability to PLAY and have fun

There is also something really difficult to define - basically do you fit with the needs of the project.

When I did Louder Than Words I asked only people that I knew could make sharp movements on stage like the silent stars, heighten to ridiculous levels, and had a charming sense of vulnerability. Honestly, I wasn't even able to define what I wanted until I had seen it in my actors.

And, there is always the actor that surprises me and gives me something that I didn't know I wanted.


Hope this helps

i haven't directed an improv show (yet!), but i imagine i'd look for the same things i look for in scripted work. i've told the Buffy cast numerous times that i don't cast actors, i cast an ensemble. you might not be the single strongest actor in the room, but if you connect with the other performers, have a playful and open energy and can take direction with a minimum of fuss (and seem like someone i'm going to want to spend hours of time with over several weeks)...then everything else is just mechanics to be worked on, which is why you have rehearsals to begin with.

show me what you bring to the overall mix. i'll figure out if and where it fits.

I think each show presents its own challenges and requirements.

In general, though, I'd say I'm looking for a mix of people who I feel can play well together first and foremost. These shows are often sort of All-Star ensembles, and like sports all-star games, it's a bunch of people who maybe don't really play together very much. And without the right guidance and chemistry, even a grab bag of great individual players will misfire unless they develop a real sense of ensemble. To that end I feel like I'm looking for players who can play without an ego. I also like feeling that each individual person brings some unique intangible to the group, that would make the group poorer if they weren't in the show.

Also, my goal with every show is to try to create an environment where each individual player is excited to do a scene with any other member in the cast. Nothing is worse than dreading doing a scene with someone else in your show, or having that dread coming toward you!

Joplin, Shana, and I have joked about holding an audition based on nothing but playing basketball or soccer. Leave the improv at the door, just can you flow with the team? That's what we're really after.

Um, so, hmm, that's not really about casting, more about end results of ensemble.

For me, enthusiasm for the project trumps advance knowledge. I want you for your improv, not your expertise. That's what rehearsals are for-you can learn any genre tropes you need to learn there. Some people might have a head start, but if I'm doing my job as a director, everybody can get to where they need to be by show time. I had people in False Matters for instance who I don't think knew anything about Philip K. Dick before the show, but they were the right fit for the group. Again, though, it's about balance, 'cause some folks in the cast probably knew more than me.

As I said, each show is different as is each director. I think some people cast with a completely open book, no preconceptions. Some Gnap! shows have been cast completely closed, with no auditions at all, just asking the people that the director knew he or she wanted. I think most directors have a mix. I know I for one usually start with 3 or 4 core people that I know I want and then it's a question of filling in from there.

I'd echo a lot of what Jessica, Jason, and Jordan have said. I like being surprised. The cast list I had sort of created in my head for False Matters before the audition was much different than the cast I came up with, as some people really surprised me in the audition and fit what I was going for.

I'd say know this too. Auditions are just one part of the puzzle. It's maybe not fair, but your previous body of work and your reputation for being a team player are also in the mix any time a director is looking at you. Neewbs have it easy in that regard as they're unknown quantities. But if you've been around for while, chances are the director has seen you play, been in other shows with you, knows if the other person they really want to cast has a good or strained relationship with you, etc. This doesn't mean you won't be cast, but know that that's out there. I've certainly cast people who I thought might be difficult because they were absolutely right for the show, and my job as the director is to help the rest of the cast see that too. But I'll be honest and say that I've also had situations where I was weighing options between players I felt brought similar abilities and made my decision based on the person with whom I had the best offstage rapport. Again, maybe not 'fair,' but it all comes back to building that sense of ensemble.

I have a lot more to say, but from a pure improv skill set stand point: LISTENING. Far and away, for me, the most important thing.

Not just hearing everything, but are you actually affected by the things happening on stage? Or are you just waiting your turn to talk? The best listeners tend to exhibit a lot of the characteristics and skills other people have mentioned.

After that, a limber mind.

For some of the shows I've directed, it IS important to me that the players be somewhat familiar with the subject matter, especially if the acting is stylized. I usually state this in the call for auditions. With most shows, the window from auditions to staging is very short, with only one rehearsal a week. I need my improvisers to be able to hit the ground running from the very beginning. They don't need to have recently read Great Expectations before the audition, but having a good idea of what the literature of Dickens is like is greatly helpful.
I just want people to do a little research on their own- read a passage, a wikipedia article, watch a clip on youtube. Get a better idea of what they're getting into before they come in.

I guess I say this because I've had people show up to auditions who told me, "I just heard there were auditions tonight and I came over." How do I know these people will bring commitment to my production if they don't even know what they're auditioning for?
That's also why I like people to tell me beforehand that they're coming. Because that is the first step in them listening and following through on something for me.

But that said, it's not paramount that the improviser have great knowledge of the subject matter. That doesn't guarantee them anything. Being easy to direct, fun to play with, and sharp and focused when appropriate is key.
I've had people who were very knowledgeable on the subject of the show audition who were incapable of flowing with their scene partners. I don't have time in the rehearsal process to teach people how to play well with others.

What I look for in cast members are: professionalism (on-time, gracious, patient), willingness to try whatever I throw at them with full enthusiasm, a grasp or promising grasp on the style and tone I'm asking them to portray, ability to support fellow players and share the stage, but also seize their time to shine when the opportunity is presented. Also, I often have a shortage of female players, so I'm especially looking at them.

When I cast a show, I try to get a mix of types - chameleon improvisers that I love and can completely and fully trust, improvisers with a good grasp of the genre/tone or who fit a type I'm looking for, and promising newcomers that I feel can be coached or directed further, capable of taking the stage and show with confidence in just a few months time.

Jastroch wrote:I have a lot more to say, but from a pure improv skill set stand point: LISTENING. Far and away, for me, the most important thing.

Not just hearing everything, but are you actually affected by the things happening on stage? Or are you just waiting your turn to talk?

THIS!

And I know listening is obviously super important for any style of improv, but man, if you're not listening in a narrative show, there is no place to hide.

shando wrote:

And I know listening is obviously super important for any style of improv, but man, if you're not listening in a narrative show, there is no place to hide.

I'd ditto that for any show I've ever directed or been involved with. Even Harold type shows where there might be more chaotic elements encouraged. Without listening, it's just a bunch of people stumbling around in the dark looking for a laugh.

FUN FACT: If I'm in a position to do so, I'll walk out of the theater if I see a show where people aren't listening to one another. If I'm seated and it'd be too rude, I squirm in my seat.

And to reiterate, this goes way beyond just being able to repeat the last thing said. Plenty of people can do that.

Jastroch wrote:

shando wrote:

And I know listening is obviously super important for any style of improv, but man, if you're not listening in a narrative show, there is no place to hide.

I'd ditto that for any show I've ever directed or been involved with. Even Harold type shows where there might be more chaotic elements encouraged. Without listening, it's just a bunch of people stumbling around in the dark looking for a laugh.

FUN FACT: If I'm in a position to do so, I'll walk out of the theater if I see a show where people aren't listening to one another. If I'm seated and it'd be too rude, I squirm in my seat.

And to reiterate, this goes way beyond just being able to repeat the last thing said. Plenty of people can do that.

Yep.

This is all very insightful. Thank you for taking the time and feel free to keep em coming.

I guess, inadvertently, we have partially veered towards an analysis of what makes a "good" improviser and some very good points are made.

What pleasantly surprises me is the fact that pretty much everyone, regardless of their overall preferences, seeks players that can mesh well with each other and can not only create a world on stage for all improvisers, but can also bounce well off the others.
I understand that this goes without saying for any improv show, but it's great to see that it's a skill that is given high importance value during a casting call.

M.

menelaos wrote: I guess, inadvertently, we have partially veered towards an analysis of what makes a "good" improviser and some very good points are made.

heheh! I suppose I'm looking for good improvisers when I audition then. That's a very zen way of looking at it.

menelaos wrote: What pleasantly surprises me is the fact that pretty much everyone, regardless of their overall preferences, seeks players that can mesh well with each other and can not only create a world on stage for all improvisers, but can also bounce well off the others.

If only that were true. That's what directors SAY they're doing in an audition, but it's frankly impossible. Even if you restrict it to two person scenes, and you want to evaluate how those two people mesh with each other, with 40 people at an audition, you'd need to do about 1,000 scenes to see the energy-pairs. You're seeing a tiny random sample with specific groups in specific scenes. Also, you're seeing people in cold pairing, you have no idea how well those people will gel about being together for even 1 rehearsal.

If directors are trying to judge based on scenework with random improvisors, what they're really saying is:

Ensemble doesn't matter, an individual improvisor will be good regardless of who he's playing with (Napier thinks this is true).