UCB in Austin?

[JasonF]

Just read an interview with Matt Walsh of UCB which included the the following, which I thought I'd share...

I heard you mention in an interview that if UCB expanded to another city, Austin would be the next place. Is that something that's still on the horizon?

I think I'm in the minority for UCB. I love that town, and I think it'd be a great artist community to tap into. But I think the challenge with opening a UCB is you need a big influx of students every year. And I know you have University of Texas there. In New York, you have NYU and you have Columbia and you have Baruch College. That's generally how our school works is you get a lot of young people moving there. In LA, you have UCLA, USC, et cetera, et cetera. I don't know that Austin has enough changeover for that. That's the argument our manager made, the guy in New York.

I'd never previously heard this mentioned, and found it a bit surprising. Though y'all might find it of interest.

The interview is an enjoyable read too (fun stories, discussion about the upcoming UCB improv textbook, etc), if you have the time...
http://splitsider.com/2013/05/talking-t ... ure-of-ucb

[Alex B]

Apparently UCB has been considering this for a while--opening a theater somewhere like Austin or Atlanta.

I think it would be awesome, but the interview makes sounds like it won't happen that soon. Maybe in 5 years?

[BriHo]

Walsh was also the voice in the group that pushed for getting UCB accredited, and that got done pretty quickly. I'm on my phone, so I didn't see what source was linked above, but he's stated Austin-is-next on at least two podcasts, and Austin has a pretty strong reputation for comedy consumption.

The only problems I see is the lack of places to put their theater and, speaking only for myself here, while I personally would vastly prefer the UCB system (standardized, accredited, emphasis on forms many Austinians reject, etc), I also feel there are so many theater cultures here that I see social rejection of UCB to be a strong possibility. If it's going to happen it's going to be soon, though, within the next two years.

[happywaffle]

My single biggest problem is that I don't see UCB opening up shop without taking away significant amounts of business from the local, homegrown schools and theaters. They've got cachet, brand recognition, and marketing dollars (all rightfully so), and the conversation amongst average Austinites would be somewhat likely to go: "So I'm thinking about taking improv classes." "Oh neat, at UCB?"

As far as growing the Austin improv community as a whole, it could be fantastic, but I'd hope that UCB would want to be a part of the AIC's cross-pollinating culture. That'd require effort on both sides.

The theater location should be on the north side, for sure. But they might want to be downtown just on principle.

[kaci_beeler]

There are many other cities that could be better served by their presence than ours. Atlanta just lost one of their improv theaters, for instance.

[Caeriel]

Having taken classes at UCB when I lived in NYC, I'm not a fan of them moving here. My first introduction to improv was in San Francisco, delightedly watching True Fiction Magazine (including the awesome members of 3-for-all). My experience at UCB was not a positive one. Compared to TFM the stuff I saw and experienced at UCB felt schlocky, joke-y and shallow. A lot of cock jokes. I was not hooked. More importantly they had a very isolationist/elitist attitude towards the other improv theaters in NYC. Now I kinda see them as the Walmart of improv theaters, because they have a lot of brand name recognition (due to the various celebrities who came up through UCB) but have what I feel is ultimately a cheap approach to improv.

It's hard to imagine them joining into the incredible inclusiveness of the Austin improv community, but rather draining from and otherwise negatively impacting it (they have virtually zero interaction with the other improv theaters in New York, except to dismiss and deride them). Also, I would hate new students to have their first experience of improv be through UCB (which would likely happen a lot because of their brand popularity), because it's so much worse than the kinds of experiences our resident theaters already offer.

[ratliff]

I think UCB is exemplary in a lot of ways. They have a very specific, well-defined idea of what constitutes a good improv scene (Besser's version: it looks like a well-written sketch), their teaching is clear and consistent, and they've built thriving communities and successful theaters around it. They have thought, and continue to think, very rigorously and carefully about improv and comedy. Their philosophy is strong enough to be useful even to people like me who strenuously disagree with some of their basic premises. I borrow from their work all the time.

A lot of what people don't like about UCB now has less to do with the school itself and more to do with its current position as the 900-pound gorilla of improv education. Because of its alumni track record, it's now the de facto choice for ambitious people who want to succeed in film or TV. So it pulls in a lot of people who are attracted by the name, rather than by the specific approach. (Though I would argue that they probably have the best program for people whose primary goal is to work in another medium. Trying to make every improv scene resemble a well-written sketch is a pretty good way to learn how to write sketches.)

Kevin hit it on the head: what we're all afraid of, and rightly so, is that if UCB came to town they'd suck all the oxygen out of our lovingly tended biosphere and destroy the fragile ecology of Austin improv.

But that ecology will change sooner or later anyway. I dread the day that the first improviser out of Austin makes it big, because whatever theater s/he was associated with will suddenly start getting a disproportionate amount of attention.

Unfortunately, the logic of late capitalism is not very kind to the idea of a multifaceted community embracing many points of view. Typically, there are winners and losers (at least in terms of revenue and influence), with one 900-pound gorilla replacing another in succession.

I hope that day is a long way off. But it's probably coming, with or without the help of UCB.

[happywaffle]

Kevin hit it on the head: what we're all afraid of, and rightly so, is that if UCB came to town they'd suck all the oxygen out of our lovingly tended biosphere and destroy the fragile ecology of Austin improv.

Yeah, talking to Jason in person on Saturday, I compared this whole discussion to a small town worrying about the county building that big dam. Alex gave a better analogy: Walmart moving into town. It's not happening soon, but it also has that inevitable "someday" feeling about it. We'd need to think about how we'd react to it—and circling the wagons, preparing for battle with the outsiders, probably isn't the smartest move.

I dread the day that the first improviser out of Austin makes it big, because whatever theater s/he was associated with will suddenly start getting a disproportionate amount of attention.

Hear that, Maxwell?!

[androidqueen]

Perhaps this is naive of me, but from what I've seen, Austin has a great deal of pride in its local businesses/artists/etc. You see non-local chains around, but they're not nearly as dense as see in other cities. [citation needed]

A leviathan moving to town would certainly change the landscape, but I'm not worried. I suspect this ecosystem is more resilient than you're giving it credit for.

[ratliff]

Perhaps this is naive of me, but from what I've seen, Austin has a great deal of pride in its local businesses/artists/etc. You see non-local chains around, but they're not nearly as dense as see in other cities. [citation needed]

A leviathan moving to town would certainly change the landscape, but I'm not worried. I suspect this ecosystem is more resilient than you're giving it credit for.

I hope you're right!

[Rev. Jordan T. Maxwell]

Alex gave a better analogy: Walmart moving into town.

this was the analogy I was thinking of as well. though my dread of it happening is not just the notion of the 900 pound gorilla coming in and crushing everything and being more successful, but that they won't be part of the cool collaborative and cooperative attitude our community has (yes, i'm more worried that the 900 pound gorilla won't be my FRIEND!). I think that's something that really sets Austin apart and why I love playing here so much. but I guess even moreso than that (I don't want to be friends with people who don't want to be friends with me, so NYAH!), I would worry about the different theatres and schools in town closing ranks internally to fortify their individual brands and be more competitive. so it's not just that the gorilla won't play with us, but will lead us to not play with each other. and THAT would be a damn crime and a shame.

on the other hand...if we can't put on our big boy pants and rise to the occasion, then that's on us. personally, I feel up to the challenge. bring it on.

I dread the day that the first improviser out of Austin makes it big, because whatever theater s/he was associated with will suddenly start getting a disproportionate amount of attention.

Hear that, Maxwell?!

don't worry, i'm doing my level best to make sure I NEVER make it big!

[Spots]

I would worry about the different theatres and schools in town closing ranks internally to fortify their individual brands and be more competitive. so it's not just that the gorilla won't play with us, but will lead us to not play with each other. and THAT would be a damn crime and a shame.

Let's say that this would actually give lower level students more opportunities at each individual theater. Is that bad for them? Or is it only bad for the status quo?


There was a brief time when I took classes at the Institution when we had no stage to play on. We did have shows but stagetime was limited. I became a little frustrated to see the same non-Institution folks get more stagetime than many of the actual students. Especially after I sensed social pressure for this trend to continue. Just as an example.

As a result-- every time I played on another school's stage, I felt guilty for robbing their students of a performance breakthrough. During the 5 Families show this was definitely on my mind.

Keep the bottom churning and allow level 2 and level 3 students more opportunities, particularly if they are on fire & might outshine the people who've played in nearly every daggum show. Every one in town wins as the talent gets better and better. Just take each new face as a call to action to better yourself.


It's hard to keep a pulse on new talent and throw your friend a bone at the same time. This is the conundrum. Does anyone even enjoy bones?


In blocking out UCB -- we'd be afraid of the suppression of particular players. Not the suppression of talent.

[happywaffle]

It's certainly one point of view that the purpose of a theater's stage is to allow the students of that theater to play.

Another POV is that the purpose of the stage is to put on shows for an audience which are as good as humanly possible, no matter which players might be involved to make that happen. (The *accompanying* POV is that it's entirely the responsibility of the show's director to choose the cast, no matter who they want.)

Given the up-and-comers that I've seen emerge in mainstage shows—Bridget Brewer is one who comes to mind—I don't sense any suppression of talent going on. Sure, some students won't see as much stage time as they otherwise would. Heck, even I haven't been in a mainstage show in a year and a half. But that's a result of a thriving community, and it's not a bad thing to have a system where the brightest stars get the most stage time. Hell, that's how the show business *works*.

[Rev. Jordan T. Maxwell]

I would worry about the different theatres and schools in town closing ranks internally to fortify their individual brands and be more competitive. so it's not just that the gorilla won't play with us, but will lead us to not play with each other. and THAT would be a damn crime and a shame.

Let's say that this would actually give lower level students more opportunities at each individual theater. Is that bad for them? Or is it only bad for the status quo?


There was a brief time when I took classes at the Institution when we had no stage to play on. We did have shows but stagetime was limited. I became a little frustrated to see the same non-Institution folks get more stagetime than many of the actual students. Especially after I sensed social pressure for this trend to continue. Just as an example.

As a result-- every time I played on another school's stage, I felt guilty for robbing their students of a performance breakthrough. During the 5 Families show this was definitely on my mind.

Keep the bottom churning and allow level 2 and level 3 students more opportunities, particularly if they are on fire & might outshine the people who've played in nearly every daggum show. Every one in town wins as the talent gets better and better. Just take each new face as a call to action to better yourself.


It's hard to keep a pulse on new talent and throw your friend a bone at the same time. This is the conundrum. Does anyone even enjoy bones?


In blocking out UCB -- we'd be afraid of the suppression of particular players. Not the suppression of talent.

well, that's a balancing act every theatre has to face, between showcasing established acts, newer talent, and giving students time to shine. personally, I think the theatres in town do a pretty good job of that now. standard show slots book long running troupes alongside newer ones, mainstage shows cast from the range of veterans to students, and there are plenty of open shows and jams (some specifically geared towards students) to sate the stage lust. if Confidence Men plays at the Hideout, I don't think too many level 2 students are going to be upset that THEY'RE not getting to play instead...and the ones who are probably aren't going to last long. the real up and comers seem to be the ones who see the vast array of talent at different levels of experience from all the theatres in town and think "oh my God, we can do THAT?" and double down on their game. and perhaps the level of talent and experience an established entity like UCB could bring would fuel that as well. but it doesn't serve us (or, in the long run, them) to become too insular.

[Spots]

It is a different point of view. Totally.


This is where we come to what I call "the nudge". The nudge is crucial to my point of view. If you want to step into my shoes for a minute.

Here's what it is. All the time I see low level students who want to play. They want to play badly. But their heads start to mess with them. They get butterflies before the recital. During the jam they never step onstage. Scene after scene they just do not step on that stage.

YOU, as their peer, have to empathize with when you first started. Did you feel the same way? I know I did. I was terrified.

So here's what I do. I gently nudge the person into the next scene. I nudge them! Because I know they want to play but they are fighting themselves and giving themselves excuses in their head not to.


This happens every week. Seriously. Apprehension is not uncommon in improv. There's a little bit of it in every person who isn't a natural born stage hog, right?

So take the idea of the nudge and extend it a little bit. Extend to where a student has to be nudged to feel invited at the actual theater. They look around week after week but nobody talks to them. Nobody invites them to the barbeque.


They stop taking classes. They stop attending shows. They convince themselves they weren't good enough.


They fall off the face of the earth and we all say, "if they wanted it bad enough they would have fought for it."


But think back and YOU tell me that nobody nudged you. Tell me that. Because I was nudged by someone. I can think back to the very second it happened. I have to acknowledge that if I was nudged, then maybe improv is not a matter of fighting over a bone.

I have nudged new folks to the point of absurdity. Some people reading this were nudged by people they don't want to admit. There's no telling if those students would have kept at it without the nudge. Some days I imagine alternate universes where they never fell in love with improv. I imagine them sitting at their computer. And it makes me real sad.

So you know what? I don't risk it. I nudge every person I see if I realize they WANT it but are too apprehensive to go for it. Within the one theater I can manage this type of nurturing.

I don't believe in dog-eat-dog. You end up with a bunch of stage hogs that way. And it gets annoying fast. Nudge them. You end up with a cross cut of real people who were once terrified to do this incredibly scary thing we all do.


Seriously this thing we do is scary. Acknowledge it and nudge them.