Austin Improv

If any of you have been to the last two jams or one of the previous Improv Diagnostics that had a lot of people, you'll get the idea of what I'm talking about.

However, if you weren't there, let me describe what happened: we played a seemingly average scene montage that got way out of hand. There were up to seven people on stage at once, there were hundreds of reocurring jokes that were intertwined in each scene, and the action was so fast that many offers and suggestions got dropped along the way or overlapped a conflicting offer. Though entertaining and a little fun, they can be a little frustrating to some, and not exactly working at its fullest potential.

I spawned off an idea for a controlled way of those uncontrolled scene montages. Whereas those ones we did in the last two jams were nuclear explosions, this is more of a nuclear power plant.

So I present to you an idea:

Fustercluck: A longform of Quality versus Quantity

A Fustercluck is an average scene montage which may be played freeform or revolve around a theme. However, there are a few guidelines and rules that both set this into overdrive, but also tone it down.

*Update* Due to questions about the purpose of this format modification, the object is to fine-tune a scene montage with a large amount of players and keep it high-energy, entertaining for an audience, but, most of all, orderly.

Current Game Settings: As of April 23, 2007, 11:55 A.M..

Guidelines:
1. For the Fustercluck to work and to not just be a regular scene montage, there must be a minimum of eight players (but this was designed to accomidate up to twenty or thirty players), and each scene should utilize a little more than four to eight players, if not all of them, hence the name. However, despite the massive amount of characters per scene, only a few may have limelight at a time while the others play support.
2. With plenty of risk of the scene ending early and plenty of turns of events, each scene should be around a minute to two minutes. They must quickly build to a climax quickly and possess a high amount of energy at all times. Play fast and play hard!
3. Go for either strong, well-defined characters, or big characters with outrageous accents and impressions. Try to mix and match the two.
4. Reoccuring characters, scenes, and running jokes are highly encouraged. However, try to keep it all at a Monty Python or Hoover's Blanket level. Overused jokes will become scene edits.

Rules:
1. Overdoing a reocurring joke too many times turns it into an edit.
2. If the scene runs out of steam, it calls for an edit.
3. Though scenes may include as many as ten players, the scene must only be focused on only up to four.
4. Only one person may speak at a time, as to moderate the madness.
5. Try to find a way to close a scene as quickly as possible from its initial offer, and keep going from there until you're edited.
6. Never refuse an offer, and if you miss your chance, just get back to the scene later.
7. If there is a specific theme or suggestion for the montage, attempt to stick to it as closely as possible.
8. Most importantly, DO NOT, UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES, INTERRUPT A PERFECTLY GOOD SCENE OR DROP ANY SUGGESTIONS OR IDEAS!!!
9. If the scene is no longer legible, the scene calls for an edit.
10. If the scene turns into a pure mess or pure chaos, it calls for an edit.

Hints and tips: *UPDATED*
1. If you hear somebody talking, it is best to remain quiet.
2. Do not try snapping somebody's neck unless you want the scene to end.
3. Despite all that's happening, make everything relevent and coherent.

How does that sound? Moderated enough? Any feedback or suggestions?

This seems overly complicated. I think, rather than focusing on throwing as many people on stage as possible, young improvisers would do much better to focus on 2 person scenes wherein they absolutely yes-and every single offer, both physical and verbal. No flat out denials or blocks or "yes...but...", but complete and utter acceptance.

Hints and tips:
1. Attempt to climax your scenes with as many characters on stage as once, such as an angry mob or a bunch of zombies or something.

I think this is going to encourage complete insanity that will not be fun to watch.

2. The less the scene makes sense, and the less explanation there is to the events, the better.

Why? What skill will this teach or reinforce?

3. Much like cream cheese, non-sequiturs are not only encouraged, but they are also encouraged.

This is the exact opposite of being obvious, one of the primary rules of improv. A gag is a gag, and will in general stop a scene short. Regardless of what Family Guy insists, non sequitors aren't comedic gold on stage.

4. If you hear somebody talking, it is best to remain quiet.

A wonderful, necessary idea. Not only is it best, it's recommended. You need to hear what the other person is saying.

5. Do not try snapping somebody's neck unless you want the scene to end.

I can go with that.

I'm trying to understand what your point is with this format.
Is it to get the results of chaos and inexperience in improv in a controlled way?

I think those "clusterfuck" scenes in improv may only be fun to those who are in them, not to an audience.
There was a time where I was involved with improv that enjoyed such chaos...we even thought it might have been our style (I'm talking about highschool improv), but really it was just inexperience along with a lot of energy and enthusiasm.

Personally, I don't enjoy too many forced non-sequitur jokes, scenes that do not establish at least some form of character/relationship/objective/where, overblown stereotypes, overuse of jokes (beating a dead horse into the ground), or impressions and impersonations.

You've got some good things going on in this format, but I just can't ever see myself wanting to see it if it abides to all of those rules.

It reminds me exactly of the kind of amateur improv I used to see/do/observe when I was in middle and high school. I never want to return to that kind of improv. If that's what improv is, I don't want to ever do it. It feels selfish.

Is there something about it I'm missing?
Is it a meta/parody format?

My idea for controlling the chaos of montage shows in the Jam is this- keep scenes to 2 to 3 people, max, excepting for very quick support. Plus, whoever's guiding the jam should be a director, when needed. A little stifling, but with 20+ people, necessary.

I will go out on a limb for you and say...try it!

If you can conceive it. Try it.

Get on the 3fer schedule or the CageMatch.
Get some folks together that want to try it.
Be open to any other suggestions the people who are performing it with have...they need to feel comfortable and confident in what they are doing on stage too.

The best part about living in the Austin Improv Scene is that you can put up any show you want.

In response to Kareem:

I changed up some of the hints. I guess I kind of forgot the whole point of the format there. I think the addition of the new hint #3 is probably a great one.

In response to both Kaci:

The point of the Fustercluck idea is to have a seemingly chaotic scene montage, but, in reality, is completely under control. It can be quite exhilerating when done right.

Compaired to the clusterfucks of the jams, these should run a lot smoother. It's basically to get the most out of the massive scene montages: kind of like fine-tuning the engine, so-to-speak. So, when it really comes down to it, under the right controls and variables, it's not really that chaotic anymore.

In-general response:

I redid some of the rules and stuff. Now it should be a little more purposeful.

As far as improv is about putting ourselves in risky situations creatively, I like the basic idea of this format. Scenes with too many people are hard to pull off and generally don't go very well. So creating a format that encourages this is definitely risky. I think this format played with complete commitment, fearlessness and fun would be a pleasure to watch. Played with anything less than that, it would fall into all of the traps and areas of concern that Kareem, Kaci and Roy mentioned.

Spaztique wrote:8. Most importantly, DO NOT, UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES, INTERRUPT A PERFECTLY GOOD SCENE OR DROP ANY SUGGESTIONS OR IDEAS!!!

I can understand the "do not drop any suggestions/ideas" part (I think that's more or less a fundamental rule of good improv and should go without saying). I'm not sure about the "do not interrupt a perfectly good scene" part. Mischief can add to the quality of the scene, and I think this is where directors would need to add their judgment. Some scenes at the Jam get overloaded with 5 people trying to do the same bit, but others benefit from one or two people popping in to assist. It's also hard to determine whether or not a scene is perfectly good.

bradisntclever wrote:Some scenes at the Jam get overloaded with 5 people trying to do the same bit, but others benefit from one or two people popping in to assist. It's also hard to determine whether or not a scene is perfectly good.

Actually, that's kind of the purpose of the rule. There may be one or two people popping in to assist from time to time which doesn't disrupt the scene, but an unruly mob joining into the central plot could disrupt everything.

Another part of the rule is not adding another running joke to the scene or editing it too early.

Walking into a scene is better thought of as support, rather than an interruption. If you're walking in a scene to do anything other than make the people on stage look better and help out the scene, you're probably not needed. Unless it's for a walk-on button to edit the scene.

Maybe we should play some good support games/exercises in the jam.

Dave wrote: The best part about living in the Austin Improv Scene is that you can put up any show you want.

hear hear!
if you can conceive it, do it!!

I do an improv show with my dog, for christ's sake

arthursimone wrote:I do an improv show with my dog, for christ's sake

Robin does the show with *you*

speaking to a large classroom setting, it might behoove to split into two groups that montage, so it feels more like the actual thing. and they could be done simultaneous in separate rooms if that's a possibility.

as for entering, i enjoy this rule: it's the scenes that are going well that don't need you to enter, and the scenes that are struggling that need you the most. you'll want to enter the fun scenes the most, but that's exactly why you shouldn't enter.

beardedlamb wrote:speaking to a large classroom setting, it might behoove to split into two groups that montage, so it feels more like the actual thing. and they could be done simultaneous in separate rooms if that's a possibility.

Absolutely. It just wasn't possible last Tuesday because the stage was being used for tech rehearsal. Maybe we should have raided the downstairs.

superdave loves improv!

I love superdave!

...and lamb's advice.


I h8 being in big group scenes where no one is listening because they're all too busy being blahdiddy blah blah blah.