how to push eleven towels through a slot

Mo Daviau · Post by **Mo Daviau** » September 5th, 2006, 11:37 pm

A proposal:

A showing of the Dasariski performance on DVD.
A panel of improv experts.
A discussion of what made this show great and what we can learn from it.
Charts, graphs, diagrams.
Pizza.
And a general OoB postmortem.

How's your October looking?

phlounderphil · Post by **phlounderphil** » September 5th, 2006, 11:40 pm

As long as we can watch the Edmond Bulldogs as well.

I'm still kicking myself for missing this show.

vine311 · Post by **vine311** » September 5th, 2006, 11:44 pm

phlounderphil wrote:As long as we can watch the Edmond Bulldogs as well.

I'm still kicking myself for missing this show.

I second that. Also, I missed Knuckleball, Frank Mills, Get Up, McNichol and May and I really want to see all of them.

DollarBill · Post by **DollarBill** » September 8th, 2006, 10:35 am

After OOB I drove back to Chicago with Melissa. Eighteen hours of driving yeilds a lot of conversation, and much of it was about Dasariski's show. Durring that conversation my perspective changed slightly from the extreme of being totally floored and depressed because I would never be that good, to one of... "I think that might be possible."

Here's what I think made it a success:
1) There are three of them (a small enough number so that things don't get cluttered and it made scene transitions silky). And they were all 3 on stage almost the whole time. Talk about extreme connection (makes it harder to get confused).
2) They didn't move the location of the first scene for like 10 of 15 minutes. This allowed them to become deeply rooted in their characters.
3) They didn't cut to very many locations so that relationships could be fully explored.
4) They didn't forget anything (this is a hard one).
5) They were very patient and very real without being very slow (this is an extremely hard one... gross).

Ultimately though, I noticed them doing things that just aren't in my nature. Stuff that was really funny that I just don't think is my style. But I think I like that. If I could do a show as silky smooth and wonderful as they did I'm sure it would have a totally different feel, and I can't wait to go to class this week to practice more. Sweet freakin practice. Sweet.

mcnichol · Post by **mcnichol** » September 8th, 2006, 11:11 am

DollarBill wrote:4) They didn't forget anything (this is a hard one)

I agree -- the stuff in your list is all key, but for me this one is the big one. They didn't lose any piece of detail -- just remembered and brought back stuff when necessary. It's the difference between building a little world and playing in it, and having to continually invent and search for stuff to talk about / do. As funny as the 11 towels bit was, probably the biggest laugh (or the most unexpected one) was Craig just walking up and saying (in a vaguely Mexican accent) "I need 11 towels." Everyone in the audience knew exactly what he was referring to, who he was, where he was, etc. But even stronger, Bob and Rich knew all of that too, so they could just move on with the scene and play, without having to (re-)establish tons of stuff.

See you back here soon Bill!

kaci_beeler · Post by **kaci_beeler** » September 8th, 2006, 11:16 am

Why only focus on this show and not also the 3 For All portion, which I thought had equal amounts of knowledge and wealth in their improv skills. Or at least, the Double Feauture show, which many of you didn't see.

kbadr · Post by **kbadr** » September 8th, 2006, 11:19 am

It's just people of different backgrounds being inspired by different things.

Some people dig the Beatles, some dig the Stones.

*edit* I forgot who I was replying to, sorry about that--Some people dig The Strokes, some dig The White Stripes.

kaci_beeler · Post by **kaci_beeler** » September 8th, 2006, 11:22 am

Well, I totally understand that. But I would like to discuss both of the shows together, instead of having two separate camps (which seem to be forming).

*edit* Kareem can eat poop.

Wesley · Post by **Wesley** » September 8th, 2006, 11:26 am

I'm sick of you excluding the third camp of people who were so tired from all night parties and golf that they just passed out and slept right on through the show, learning nothing and, though refreshed, failed to be inspired in any way.

Seriously, when can we see those shows on tape?

mcnichol · Post by **mcnichol** » September 8th, 2006, 11:27 am

kaci_beeler wrote:Why only focus on this show and not also the 3 For All portion

I was just replying to something Bill had said. It's a message board, so go ahead and talk about 3-For-All!

And true dat for what Kareem said. It's all different tastes and whatnot, so we can't expect each other to be as jazzed about what the other is jazzed about. I love the Beatles and Buckman loves the Stones (this is true).

kaci_beeler · Post by **kaci_beeler** » September 8th, 2006, 11:37 am

mcnichol wrote:
kaci_beeler wrote:Why only focus on this show and not also the 3 For All portion
I was just replying to something Bill had said. It's a message board, so go ahead and talk about 3-For-All!

And true dat for what Kareem said. It's all different tastes and whatnot, so we can't expect each other to be as jazzed about what the other is jazzed about. I love the Beatles and Buckman loves the Stones (this is true).

I'm mostly replying to the idea of a viewing party. I'm willing to have someone point out some of the mind-blowing things that Dasariski did in their show, I bet everyone has a lot of insight to share and probably several point-of-views I haven't heard yet. I want to get in on that action.
On the same note, I also want to have a viewing party for the 3 For All/Double Feature guys for the same reason, so why not have them together? Unless someone is really apposed to this idea and thinks it would be awkward or something?

mcnichol · Post by **mcnichol** » September 8th, 2006, 11:42 am

kaci_beeler wrote:On the same note, I also want to have a viewing party for the 3 For All/Double Feature guys for the same reason, so why not have them together? Unless someone is really apposed to this idea and thinks it would be awkward or something?

We might break out into a fist fight or something. Let's just uh... let's be safe about this.

Am I the only one thinking this?

Roy Janik · Post by **Roy Janik** » September 8th, 2006, 11:43 am

kaci_beeler wrote: I also want to have a viewing party for the 3 For All/Double Feature guys for the same reason, so why not have them together? Unless someone is really apposed to this idea and thinks it would be awkward or something?

We'll have to wait on a 3 For All viewing. They wanted their tape right away, so it's in their possession. They promised to send me a DVD, though.

I have Double Feature, though.

kaci_beeler · Post by **kaci_beeler** » September 8th, 2006, 11:50 am

mcnichol wrote:
kaci_beeler wrote:On the same note, I also want to have a viewing party for the 3 For All/Double Feature guys for the same reason, so why not have them together? Unless someone is really apposed to this idea and thinks it would be awkward or something?
We might break out into a fist fight or something. Let's just uh... let's be safe about this.

Am I the only one thinking this?

Wow. Really?
Like the "To do or Not to do the Harold" argument?
Are the internal improv politics that strong?
Well...forget I said anything.

shando · Post by **shando** » September 8th, 2006, 11:51 am

DollarBill wrote:After OOB I drove back to Chicago with Melissa. Eighteen hours of driving yeilds a lot of conversation, and much of it was about Dasariski's show. Durring that conversation my perspective changed slightly from the extreme of being totally floored and depressed because I would never be that good, to one of... "I think that might be possible."

Here's what I think made it a success:
1) There are three of them (a small enough number so that things don't get cluttered and it made scene transitions silky). And they were all 3 on stage almost the whole time. Talk about extreme connection (makes it harder to get confused).
2) They didn't move the location of the first scene for like 10 of 15 minutes. This allowed them to become deeply rooted in their characters.
3) They didn't cut to very many locations so that relationships could be fully explored.
4) They didn't forget anything (this is a hard one).
5) They were very patient and very real without being very slow (this is an extremely hard one... gross).

Ultimately though, I noticed them doing things that just aren't in my nature. Stuff that was really funny that I just don't think is my style. But I think I like that. If I could do a show as silky smooth and wonderful as they did I'm sure it would have a totally different feel, and I can't wait to go to class this week to practice more. Sweet freakin practice. Sweet.

Bill, thanks for posting this analysis. I felt that 3 For All was having a so-so show for them, which turned out to be true based on what Jeremy reported. While I thought Dasariski was amazing and maybe the single best set of the festival, I was having a hard time getting my head around what I could learn from their show other than I wish I was as talented as those guys. Watching 3 for All, I knew what I could emulate to make my shows better--maybe that's just a question of my training in that I could see what they were up to more clearly. But this breakdown of what made that Dasariski show so great is really helpful.