Austin Improv

I don't like the harold.

I figured I should get this off my chest. I don't like the harold - neither as a guy trying to perform it, NOR as a guy in the audience watching it.

It forces the improvisers to concentrate and work as a team, and it is a very difficult form, so I can see why people consider the Harold as a good Improv learning tool.

But in performance, it's dreadful. The interregnums are breaks in the action and not as funny as the in-between bits. The in-between bits don't flow organically from one to the next.

It's like this: What if someone insisted that a sonnet was the best and highest form of the English language because it was so damn hard to write - and therefore should be the dominant form of communication for all English writers? You'd look at them funny.

Discuss.

Brian Boyko wrote:Discuss.

Oh god no. Please don't.

Some like Dumbo, some like Babar. In the end, they've both got ears, a trunk, and the admiration of Kareem. Some people just prefer their elephants with feathers and the gift of flight, and some prefer their pachyderms with three piece suits and crowns.



What the hell am I talking about?

Brian Boyko wrote: The interregnums are breaks in the action and not as funny as the in-between bits.

Ratliff?
Arthur?


I have a theory that's based in zero facts and total conjecture: Back when Del was "creating" the form known as the Harold, he was working with the owner of a club, Charna, who already was doing short-form. To make her feel important, Del included the group games (which I believe were often actual short-form games originally). Del saw them as a nuisance, but a necessary evil if he wanted a place to teach the Harold. Over time, he and others managed to incorporate the group games into the show better so that they are much more seamless, but still glaringly awkward and out of place when not performed by a very experienced Harold troupe.

Disclaimer: This is my justification for still not "getting" the group game.

kbadr wrote:

Brian Boyko wrote:Discuss.

Oh god no. Please don't.

!!!!!

shando wrote:!!!!!

I just don't like when we have to spend 3 days mopping up piss and vinegar in this place.

I think AIDS infection should be mandatory, discuss.

ColdTowne teaches a full session of the Harold in Level 3 as an Introduction to Long-form... this serves to:

-focus on the 3-beat structure in order to explore time dashes, character swings, and/or thematic deconstruction, all of which are elements to the more diverse long-forms introduced in Level 4.

-establish the group mind in such a way that the team works greater than the sum of its parts as an idea/emotion/theme factory while giving the audience insight into the creative suggestion-breakdown process.


The second is, I feel, the heart and soul of Del's contribution to improv, and the one that is bastardized more often than not. It's very tough for some people because they're a) thinking too hard b) wanting to be the star c) hesitant to trust completely in the group mind. It's an entirely different muscle, and some people love it, some people hate it, some people shake it off and move on.

At any rate, I'm always bemoaning the fact that Austin has so little exposure to Harolds, and always recommend that people in Level 3 watch several Trophy Wife shows, www.trophywifeimprov.com. They're a solid Harold team at IO L.A. and put every single darn show they do online, for which I'm grateful; it's a great resource.

Justin's justification rocks, but since I just learned this interesting tidbit from the new biography of Del: according to interviews of folks who worked with him at the Committee, the group game dates from the '60s...Del was teaching a workshop on games, and he collaborated with Alan Myerson and Bill Mathieu to map out an early form of the Harold. Apparently the games were intended to "heighten and crystallize" the ideas introduced at the beginning.

Of course, Del isn't here to tell it himself, so it could be that Myerson and Mathieu are stealing his thunder. But the Committee did a series of Harolds in the late '60s before the form went dormant for a decade or so.

jennycarlson wrote: Of course, Del isn't here to tell it himself, so it could be that Myerson and Mathieu are stealing his thunder. But the Committee did a series of Harolds in the late '60s before the form went dormant for a decade or so.

Talk to Latifah at ACoT about this. She was a founding member of the Committee and will talk your ear off about this if you let her. According to her, the rest of the Committee thought Del was stealing their (collective) thunder. But then again, Del was the one who went on to develop, refine, and codify the Harold, while the Committee folks went on to be in WKRP in Cincinnati and MASH and sort of left improv for televisualized careers.

York99 wrote:

Brian Boyko wrote: The interregnums are breaks in the action and not as funny as the in-between bits.

I have a theory that's based in zero facts and total conjecture: Back when Del was "creating" the form known as the Harold, he was working with the owner of a club, Charna, who already was doing short-form. To make her feel important, Del included the group games (which I believe were often actual short-form games originally). Del saw them as a nuisance, but a necessary evil if he wanted a place to teach the Harold. Over time, he and others managed to incorporate the group games into the show better so that they are much more seamless, but still glaringly awkward and out of place when not performed by a very experienced Harold troupe.

Disclaimer: This is my justification for still not "getting" the group game.

That's really interesting.
I've rarely enjoyed watching those organic games because they really take me out of the show...on a few occasions I thought they worked more successfully (McNichol & May) with people who already had a great group mind and dynamic.
A lot of other times they look awkward, stilted, and no fun.
Seriously, that's a big part of it sometimes. The improvisers don't look like they're having fun with it...or they're trying too hard and that's noticeably strange too.

I find it interesting that a lot of improv gets labeled as a Harold when it really isn't. Junk has never done a Harold, but I have heard our shows being described as Harolds on multiple occasions. Back in our days as the Foolish Mortals we dabbled with the Harold after seeing The Reckoning perform at the Dallas Improv Festival, but we needed a Harold coach to help us really nail down the nuances of it. We moved on to explore other forms instead, but I really enjoy a good Harold and would love to try it again some day. They are a beautiful thing to watch if done well and a trainwreck to watch if done poorly.

kaci_beeler wrote:on a few occasions I thought they worked more successfully (McNichol & May) with people who already had a great group mind and dynamic.

So much of improv is watching other troupes (or watching members of your own troupe) try something 'new' and succeed/fail, then letting it inspire your own process. I feel it's really just a matter of exposure.

And yeah, trust creates and nurtures group mind. Beats me why Bob and Erika trust each other so much.

kaci_beeler wrote: That's really interesting.
I've rarely enjoyed watching those organic games because they really take me out of the show...on a few occasions I thought they worked more successfully (McNichol & May) with people who already had a great group mind and dynamic.
A lot of other times they look awkward, stilted, and no fun.
Seriously, that's a big part of it sometimes. They improvisers don't look like they're having fun with it.

Would a Harold show without those games simply be referred to as a . . . . modified Harold?


In other news, my grandfather's name was Harold. He was a great guy.

entry pending

Justin Davis wrote:modified Harold?

Standup, sketch, pottery and cutting your fingernails can all be argued as a modified Harold if you're willing to take it far enough.