It appears that long form improv is growing in popularity. Or at least it was very popular in two of the three shows I attended in the last month. I've seen three different troups do a deconstruction, and one troup simply take one suggestion for a scene that lasted for 20 or 30 minutes. Of course everyone who performed in these shows was very talented, and this is not a commentary on that.
I feel that this long form of improv is fairly unengaging for the audience. Instead of heightening the experience for them it relys on the audience to be committed to the long program. For me a big part of the magic of an improv show is that the audience gives you random suggestions and then you incorporate and interpret those suggestions in a way that pulls the audience in. It's a push and pull that forces the audience to be responsible for the show. I also think that an audience attending an improv show expects that they are going to be involved in that way. With a sketch show, the expectations for audience involvement is low, but not so with an improv show. Just as with anything else, expectations can be deadly dissappointing when not met.
I recognize that as an improviser it probably takes more skill and requires more artful execution to do these longer forms, but has anybody thought about what the audience wants to see?
long form vs everything else
Discussion of the art and craft of improvisation.
Moderators: arclight, happywaffle, bradisntclever
-
- kaci_beeler Offline
- Posts: 2151
- Joined: September 4th, 2005, 10:27 pm
- Location: Austin, TX
- Contact:
Some of my best and favorite shows are longform ones. It was actually longform improv that got me into improv in the first place, back when I was just an audience member. The Well Hung Jury in particular, brought all kinds of folks to the wonder if improv in their superb storytelling and engaging characters.
And a lot of audience members I know (including my father and brothers) don't even want to see shortform anymore, though they enjoyed it for a time. And to most, longform is a logical transition from shortform.
Longform is more than the deconstruction or one long scene. Those are only two types of longform out of hundreds. Plus it's up to the improvisers to make the format engaging. Some forms just don't work well for some troupes.
There are even some longform shows that continually take suggestions throughout (Choose-Your-Own-Adventure, the ultimate longform audience experience!), or some that take none at all. Some wizards of improv believe that you should be able to do an improv show without taking a suggestion, and that audiences are trained to think the suggestion has an important place in their experience.
When pgraph does a longform story, we often like to do a sort of improvised play format. People don't give suggestions when they go to see scripted work, but they can thoroughly enjoy it all the same. Of course we often take a suggestion to initially inspire us, and then the inspiration from that suggestion inspires more and more things as the show continues.
One of my goals in improv is to do an improvised play so well that it seems as though it were scripted - with a troupe writing, directing, making scenary (with their words), and acting all at the same time. The audience interest in it should be as is when an audience is engaged in watching a play.
Audience suggestions continually would break up the story and the forth wall, thus making the emphasis on story, characters, and plot dwindle to some degree.
There's room for it all in improv, and different people of course enjoy different things.
It has been said that the persona-prov (improvisers coming onstage already playing a character who's pretending to do short-form improv) is both long and short form in style.
And of course a lot of people have thought about what the audience wants to see!
That's why we're inventing and performing new forms all the time! Start Trekkin', Cops & Lawyers, Choose-Your-Own-Adventure, and even our recent "After School Improv" format have been created with the knowledgable public in mind.
I think audiences in Austin are fortunate, there is a whole variety sample when it comes to improv here, and they can pick and choose between what they like the best.
Coldtowne and the Girls Girls Girls got the Best of 2006 award from the Chronicle, which is voted on by the public, and they both do longform.
And a lot of audience members I know (including my father and brothers) don't even want to see shortform anymore, though they enjoyed it for a time. And to most, longform is a logical transition from shortform.
Longform is more than the deconstruction or one long scene. Those are only two types of longform out of hundreds. Plus it's up to the improvisers to make the format engaging. Some forms just don't work well for some troupes.
There are even some longform shows that continually take suggestions throughout (Choose-Your-Own-Adventure, the ultimate longform audience experience!), or some that take none at all. Some wizards of improv believe that you should be able to do an improv show without taking a suggestion, and that audiences are trained to think the suggestion has an important place in their experience.
When pgraph does a longform story, we often like to do a sort of improvised play format. People don't give suggestions when they go to see scripted work, but they can thoroughly enjoy it all the same. Of course we often take a suggestion to initially inspire us, and then the inspiration from that suggestion inspires more and more things as the show continues.
One of my goals in improv is to do an improvised play so well that it seems as though it were scripted - with a troupe writing, directing, making scenary (with their words), and acting all at the same time. The audience interest in it should be as is when an audience is engaged in watching a play.
Audience suggestions continually would break up the story and the forth wall, thus making the emphasis on story, characters, and plot dwindle to some degree.
There's room for it all in improv, and different people of course enjoy different things.
It has been said that the persona-prov (improvisers coming onstage already playing a character who's pretending to do short-form improv) is both long and short form in style.
And of course a lot of people have thought about what the audience wants to see!
That's why we're inventing and performing new forms all the time! Start Trekkin', Cops & Lawyers, Choose-Your-Own-Adventure, and even our recent "After School Improv" format have been created with the knowledgable public in mind.
I think audiences in Austin are fortunate, there is a whole variety sample when it comes to improv here, and they can pick and choose between what they like the best.
Coldtowne and the Girls Girls Girls got the Best of 2006 award from the Chronicle, which is voted on by the public, and they both do longform.
Last edited by kaci_beeler on November 12th, 2006, 11:43 am, edited 4 times in total.
honest answer:
There's room for it all. Shortform shows, or shows that continually pause and ask for suggestions are more interactive, it's true. The audience is forced to play an active role in the show, and gets to see their suggestions brought to life. But as for shortform shows being more engaging by their nature, I don't see that. In fact, in many shortform shows, it's the same 2 or 3 people yelling out all the suggestions, because they happen to be more extroverted, or more drunk, or whatever.
None of this is meant to denigrate non-longform shows. I love Maestro, I love Gorilla, and I love other shows that take constant specific suggestions from the audience. But in my experience a show that takes only one, or even no, suggestions from the audience can be just as engaging for an audience, and depend just as much on the audience for its success.
snarky answer:
This is why the Dark Bloodlords Choose Your Own Adventure format is the ultimate form of improv. It combines the power of longform with the constant audience interaction of shortform. Case closed.
There's room for it all. Shortform shows, or shows that continually pause and ask for suggestions are more interactive, it's true. The audience is forced to play an active role in the show, and gets to see their suggestions brought to life. But as for shortform shows being more engaging by their nature, I don't see that. In fact, in many shortform shows, it's the same 2 or 3 people yelling out all the suggestions, because they happen to be more extroverted, or more drunk, or whatever.
Of course. In the best longform shows I've been a part of, the audience is still as active a participant as in a shortform show. The players feed off their energy, their laughs, and their reactions. Laughs from the audience inform the players as to what is working, what can be heightened, and when to edit scenes. As a result, the show is continuously tuned to give the audience what they want. It's a constant feedback loop, and when the audience and players are in sync with each other, it's amazing. This is one of the things I LOVE about improv as opposed to scripted work. We have the freedom to give the audience what they want.has anybody thought about what the audience wants to see?
Sometimes the audience doesn't enjoy that responsibility. I know people who stay away from any show that's not a long story, honestly. They like to get lost in the story, and find the constant stopping and starting jarring.It's a push and pull that forces the audience to be responsible for the show.
None of this is meant to denigrate non-longform shows. I love Maestro, I love Gorilla, and I love other shows that take constant specific suggestions from the audience. But in my experience a show that takes only one, or even no, suggestions from the audience can be just as engaging for an audience, and depend just as much on the audience for its success.
snarky answer:
This is why the Dark Bloodlords Choose Your Own Adventure format is the ultimate form of improv. It combines the power of longform with the constant audience interaction of shortform. Case closed.
PGraph plays every Thursday at 8pm! https://www.hideouttheatre.com/shows/pgraph/
-
- kaci_beeler Offline
- Posts: 2151
- Joined: September 4th, 2005, 10:27 pm
- Location: Austin, TX
- Contact:
Also, the merits of different types of longform has been talked about in detail, here:
http://forum.austinimprov.com/viewtopic.php?p=325
And the audiences place in improv, here:
http://forum.austinimprov.com/viewtopic.php?p=7481
http://forum.austinimprov.com/viewtopic.php?p=325
And the audiences place in improv, here:
http://forum.austinimprov.com/viewtopic.php?p=7481
Alright, that's fair. I have not seen any of the shows you listed above, although I really really wanted to see Star Trekkin. Perhaps my question was too harsh as well...And of course a lot of people have thought about what the audience wants to see!That's why we're inventing and performing new forms all the time! Start Trekkin', Cops & Lawyers, Choose-Your-Own-Adventure, and even our recent "After School Improv" format have been created with the knowledgable public in mind.
You gotta get out and see more improv, sista!
As a player I really take no issue at all with these longer forms. It's as an audience member that I have felt that there was something missing in the style.
Perhaps more setup for what is about to happen is all it takes. If someone were to simply say "We're going to take one suggestion for inspiration, and then perform a short play from there," that would kind of solve it. Actually when I think back to those shows I mentioned in my other post, that was the difference between enjoying the long forms and feeling very A.D.D. When someone just took a suggestion in the regular way, I was sitting there waiting for the thing to end and for them to ask for another suggestion. When I was informed that I was in for a long form I was cool with that.
I still enjoy the heck out of the shorter form stuff though. The p-graph show at the Carousel last Tuesday was HIlarious, and very suggestion intensive. [/quote]
-
- arclight Offline
- Site Admin
- Posts: 528
- Joined: August 5th, 2005, 1:07 pm
- Location: Austin, TX
- Contact:
The debate is not as much between long- and short-form as it is about the frequency of audience participation. Curtis Needs A Ride did an interesting job of using a short-form game as a frame around scenes; they took a few suggestions at the top, set up their game, and just went. Whirled News Tonight gets a bunch of audience suggestions (in the form of news clippings) that are used to inspire scenes throughout the night, and that format is very similar to the Deconstruction.
One thing I've noticed when visiting improv theaters around the country is that short form sells. It directly engages the audience, making them more participants than spectators. Why have a live audience if you don't use them? Then again, the frequency of the same (usually tawdry) suggestions makes one wonder if your audience consists of the same 30 pervy robots each week...
Also, as a performer it's hard to experiment or stretch your range when limited to playing structured light entertainment. A lot of short-form games rely on cleverness rather than improv technique (rhyming or alphabet games, physical restriction games like Moving Bodies or Sit-Stand-Kneel, etc.) so they're uninteresting to performers who are working on thematic or narrative skills. It's hard to maintain a coherent theme or story if you are stopping every few minutes to consult the audience; it's jarring and IMO leads to a worse production.
A bigger issue is generating a more sophisticated audience that knows the spectrum of improvised shows and can make an informed choice of what they want to see, rather than just going out to see "comedy." I was originally attracted to improv via short form and while I still like it, I've set the bar really high ("You must be taller than Vancouver Theatresports to ride this ride...") The shows that I really remember are the long-form narrative shows with cool stories and interesting characters. I'm also fascinated by thematic shows; I love random weirdness and trying to piece together the gestalt of a show.
It's a good marketing question: what do people want or expect or find engaging about improv that makes them choose to see a live show rather than see a band or rent something from Netflix?
One other thing - there's been a real disappearance of short form in Austin over the past five years. At one point you could choose between Micetro, NCT (ComedySportz), and the Cheese Pistols playing between the standup sets at the Velveeta Room. Now it's pretty much just Micetro.
Ah well, the eternal battle between Art and Commerce rages on...
One thing I've noticed when visiting improv theaters around the country is that short form sells. It directly engages the audience, making them more participants than spectators. Why have a live audience if you don't use them? Then again, the frequency of the same (usually tawdry) suggestions makes one wonder if your audience consists of the same 30 pervy robots each week...
Also, as a performer it's hard to experiment or stretch your range when limited to playing structured light entertainment. A lot of short-form games rely on cleverness rather than improv technique (rhyming or alphabet games, physical restriction games like Moving Bodies or Sit-Stand-Kneel, etc.) so they're uninteresting to performers who are working on thematic or narrative skills. It's hard to maintain a coherent theme or story if you are stopping every few minutes to consult the audience; it's jarring and IMO leads to a worse production.
A bigger issue is generating a more sophisticated audience that knows the spectrum of improvised shows and can make an informed choice of what they want to see, rather than just going out to see "comedy." I was originally attracted to improv via short form and while I still like it, I've set the bar really high ("You must be taller than Vancouver Theatresports to ride this ride...") The shows that I really remember are the long-form narrative shows with cool stories and interesting characters. I'm also fascinated by thematic shows; I love random weirdness and trying to piece together the gestalt of a show.
It's a good marketing question: what do people want or expect or find engaging about improv that makes them choose to see a live show rather than see a band or rent something from Netflix?
One other thing - there's been a real disappearance of short form in Austin over the past five years. At one point you could choose between Micetro, NCT (ComedySportz), and the Cheese Pistols playing between the standup sets at the Velveeta Room. Now it's pretty much just Micetro.
Ah well, the eternal battle between Art and Commerce rages on...
-
- kaci_beeler Offline
- Posts: 2151
- Joined: September 4th, 2005, 10:27 pm
- Location: Austin, TX
- Contact:
I know what you're saying, and frankly, I wouldn't mind if improvisers did that. The first time I saw an Armando (monologues from real life inspire scenes), I was frustrated because it wasn't explained and I didn't know if the monologues were real or made-up or if it was going to follow a story or what.penelope butterbean wrote:
Perhaps more setup for what is about to happen is all it takes. If someone were to simply say "We're going to take one suggestion for inspiration, and then perform a short play from there," that would kind of solve it. Actually when I think back to those shows I mentioned in my other post, that was the difference between enjoying the long forms and feeling very A.D.D. When someone just took a suggestion in the regular way, I was sitting there waiting for the thing to end and for them to ask for another suggestion. When I was informed that I was in for a long form I was cool with that.
I can't speak for all the improvisers here, but Pgraph always tries to briefly explain what we're going to do.
"We're going to take a suggestion from you that will inspire the story we are about to tell."
or
"We're going to play some games for you tonight and we're going to need a lot of help from you to make it work."
Speaking my mind...
I couldn't disagree with the above statement more. I would be more apt to agree if you had said, "George W. Bush is the second coming of Christ." Like, if you had said the holocaust didn't happen, I would be quicker to hear you out.penelope butterbean wrote:I feel that this long form of improv is fairly unengaging for the audience. Instead of heightening the experience for them it relys on the audience to be committed to the long program.
Short form may be easier for the common folk to digest because quick games are easier to get. But that's the exact opposite of engaging. It plays to short attention spans.
Long form requires the audience to pay attention and engage their intelect for a much bigger pay off. If all an audience is interested in is seeing their suggestion used so they get to participate (which I don't believe) then I am not interested in performing for them because they aren't interested in my craft. If they want to participate that badly, then they can go to John Q. Haflfaf's Heckle Hut off of Ben White.
I have nothing "against" short form. It's fun to play and I like making people laugh. But it's like candy or Chinese food, when I'm done I feel disatisfied (and guilty). I want to make a bigger statement then "5 Things." And I believe the audience wants to see me make that statement.
Ungh.
--Jastroch
"Racewater dishtrack. Finese red dirt warfs. Media my volumn swiftly" - Arrogant.
"Racewater dishtrack. Finese red dirt warfs. Media my volumn swiftly" - Arrogant.
If I was running an improv theater, I would probably start the evenings with short form, sandwhich some super strong long form in the middle (good character & story development), and end the night with short form again.
My reasoning?
Short form is fast food/ finger food/ appetizer comedy. Quick tastey, and whets the palette for more.
Main course can be more than that. More subtle flavors. Richer stuff that fills you up and makes you wish you knew how to cook like the gormet chefs who delivered this comedy.
And for dessert, a sweet something that is lots of fun and ends the night on a light note. OR I'd end the night with a rich and heavy knockout of strong and potent comedy that can only be served in small doses.
Viola!
My reasoning?
Short form is fast food/ finger food/ appetizer comedy. Quick tastey, and whets the palette for more.
Main course can be more than that. More subtle flavors. Richer stuff that fills you up and makes you wish you knew how to cook like the gormet chefs who delivered this comedy.
And for dessert, a sweet something that is lots of fun and ends the night on a light note. OR I'd end the night with a rich and heavy knockout of strong and potent comedy that can only be served in small doses.
Viola!
-
- phlounderphil Offline
- Posts: 621
- Joined: August 15th, 2005, 3:07 am
- Location: Austin
- Contact:
-
- LuBu McJohnson Offline
- Posts: 756
- Joined: January 3rd, 2006, 1:03 am
- Location: Austown
- Contact:
Yeah, I like shortform.
You guys. You know me. Know how I make a livin'. Gigglepants. If I didn't like shortform I'd have been out of there a long time ago. And I certainly think that longform is an incredibly useful tool for anyone who would like to pursue the...pursuit...of professional storytelling. And it's not like I wouldn't love to do longform. I need some traning though, which I am getting and the fab Coldtowne Conservatory and blah blah blah etc. etc.
If we were looking at this in terms of art, I would probably say to you now that shortform would be more akin to a Chuck Jones doodle, and longform would be more like some kind of Da Vinci painting. Basically in the whole of the improvisational world, like any other form of artistry, you have a more arsty side and a more accessible side. I can live with that. I'm content at this point to parade my Chuck Jones doodle around, make people laugh, and feel artistically fulfilled. I can only hope that you guys, as the artsy longform guys, would decide not to look down on us, as the accessable shortform guys, as people from other artistic endavors are prone to do. I know that we create a show that the audience has no emotional investment in, but we do entertain even if we fail to enlighten.
And also, I wouldn't say that shortform doesn't do well in Austin. While we do put on free shows, we did have an audience of about 100 last Friday, and those guys could have been out drinkin'.
j/k though. I'll stop sounding like an ass now.
You guys. You know me. Know how I make a livin'. Gigglepants. If I didn't like shortform I'd have been out of there a long time ago. And I certainly think that longform is an incredibly useful tool for anyone who would like to pursue the...pursuit...of professional storytelling. And it's not like I wouldn't love to do longform. I need some traning though, which I am getting and the fab Coldtowne Conservatory and blah blah blah etc. etc.
If we were looking at this in terms of art, I would probably say to you now that shortform would be more akin to a Chuck Jones doodle, and longform would be more like some kind of Da Vinci painting. Basically in the whole of the improvisational world, like any other form of artistry, you have a more arsty side and a more accessible side. I can live with that. I'm content at this point to parade my Chuck Jones doodle around, make people laugh, and feel artistically fulfilled. I can only hope that you guys, as the artsy longform guys, would decide not to look down on us, as the accessable shortform guys, as people from other artistic endavors are prone to do. I know that we create a show that the audience has no emotional investment in, but we do entertain even if we fail to enlighten.
And also, I wouldn't say that shortform doesn't do well in Austin. While we do put on free shows, we did have an audience of about 100 last Friday, and those guys could have been out drinkin'.
j/k though. I'll stop sounding like an ass now.-Bryan Roberts a.k.a. LuBu McJohnson a.k.a. Ghetto Sketch Warlock
"This is for those that don't know the half"
-http://www.ghettosketchwarlock.com
"Any mistakes can be rectified without loss of life, unless they involve Lubu."
-Ratliff
"This is for those that don't know the half"
-http://www.ghettosketchwarlock.com
"Any mistakes can be rectified without loss of life, unless they involve Lubu."
-Ratliff
I think it's a matter of taste and - with great risk of sounding pompous, though that is not at all the intent - somewhat a matter of sophistication (read: I am admittedly pompous... like a jackass who won't watch anything but art movies or a music "lover" who only listens to Beethoven and Miles Davis).
I started at Second City and had a ball playing Party Quirks and Conducted Story. But it wasn't until a friend gave me "Truth in Comedy" and brought me to the Improv Olympic that my eyes opened to the infinite possibilities and wonder of improvisation. I saw that this artform could offer something more... so so so much more.
I still respect short form. I think it's an incredible tool to learn improv; I think it's an effective way to make improv accessible to the general public; and I find it very fun to play. On the other hand, I hate watching it. I didn't often participate in Maestro... not because I didn't enjoy performing, rather because I didn't enjoy watching... even from the sideline in between scenes I got to play in.
It's not interesting to me to watch... and I am an audience member.
I started at Second City and had a ball playing Party Quirks and Conducted Story. But it wasn't until a friend gave me "Truth in Comedy" and brought me to the Improv Olympic that my eyes opened to the infinite possibilities and wonder of improvisation. I saw that this artform could offer something more... so so so much more.
I still respect short form. I think it's an incredible tool to learn improv; I think it's an effective way to make improv accessible to the general public; and I find it very fun to play. On the other hand, I hate watching it. I didn't often participate in Maestro... not because I didn't enjoy performing, rather because I didn't enjoy watching... even from the sideline in between scenes I got to play in.
It's not interesting to me to watch... and I am an audience member.
"Every cat dies 9 times, but every cat does not truly live 9 lives."
-Bravecat
-Bravecat
-
- nadine Offline
- Posts: 915
- Joined: November 28th, 2005, 1:05 pm
- Location: quantum probability
- Contact:
Ditto. It's fun and enjoyable for a while to watch shortform, and then I get antsy for something deeper. Like "Simpsons" (short funny bits) vs "Battlestar Galactica" (long involved).York99 wrote:It's not interesting to me to watch... and I am an audience member.
Most of the shows I remember are long form.
Anyways, the artform is big enough to encompass different audience taste and improviser styles...