Looking down on Improv [Archive] - Chicago Improv Network

cooterpunch

08-09-2007, 05:39 AM

While promoting a show via email, I received this comment in reply:

"If any of your people would like to learn real acting please have them go to my site: <site withheld="" by="" me="">{site withheld by me} Thanks!!!!!!!"My reply:

Improvisation is 'Real Acting.' It's about as real as acting gets.

What you may be thinking of is Whose Line Is It Anyways. That? Not real acting.

However, true improvisation has been used by Viola Spolin since the 1930's to develop non-actors into profoundly talented performers.

John Belushi, Bill Murray, Gilda Radner, Mike Nichols, Elaine May, Barbara Harris, Tina Fey, Dan Ayckroyd, Steve Carrell... The list of actors who have come out of the Second City since 1959 goes on and on.

Many master acting coaches use improvisational techniques to give actors in training the ability to reach emotional depths they would have had no way to reach otherwise. It opens people up to the many dimensions of a written work by allowing the freedom to play with words and stretch the varied choices any actor can make from a script.

Improvisation encourages actors to find the truth in themselves and project it forward.

Without a script, truth is all an actor has to ground himself.

And is it not truth on stage and screen what we seek as actors?

Play is the thing. Improvisation widens the field of play and gives actors the power of choice.

If you think improvisation is not real acting, then your mind is already closed to the possibilities of this wonderful branch of theatre.

Thank you for your comment.

If any of you have anything to say to this gentleman about the art of improvisation, please post it here and I will pass it on.

- cooterpunch -</site>

Gass

08-09-2007, 02:50 PM

Or, paste his name and we can ridicule him individually

Don Hall

08-09-2007, 04:50 PM

Aside from the fact that it seems that he can teach folks "real acting," I'm not sure I disagree with anything he writes.

What's the beef?

buntwanter

08-09-2007, 05:04 PM

Acting skills are the biggest thing missing from improv today. Despite your outrage at the term "real", the fact is, improv at it's current standard, requires almost no real acting skill at all.

Amidei

08-09-2007, 05:14 PM

Other than the snide nature of his comment, and the bullshit superiority of his tone. . . .

Acting and Improvisation are different realms. Improvisation is a tool that actors and directors use. A valuable tool, but simply a tool. Improvisors see it as an end unto itself. Which, when done well, is exciting, brilliant and invigorating. But I don't think you could say that acting is a tool that improvisors use. Now that I have said that, I am sure someone will contradict me.

However, this statement is not accurate. In fact, I am not sure what it even means.

<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=6 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD class=alt2 style="BORDER-RIGHT: 1px inset; BORDER-TOP: 1px inset; BORDER-LEFT: 1px inset; BORDER-BOTTOM: 1px inset">Improvisation is 'Real Acting.' It's about as real as acting gets.</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>

I mean, sure, Improvisational training has produced some decent actors since 1959. However, the history of acting, of theatre. . . . well. . . I mean, we are talking about at least going back to the 6th century BC here, so, let us get some perspective. So, that statement, well, no offense, but it is kind of self deluding bullshit.

As you said it yourself, "the play is the thing." Whatever tools the individual actor needs to bring out the truth or tell the story. And even that can be overrated, the whole "truth" ideal. It does not matter what I, the actor, feel or think. It does not matter what I, the actor, do to prepare myself. All that matters is what the audience percieves. That is it. If my process is totally mechanical, but my performance is electric, well, all the folks spouting off about "method" this or that can go fuck themselves.

If you want to talk about the culture of Improv vs. the culture of traditional Theatre. . that is a different story. . .and well, you will probably lose that one. In my opinion, the general tolerance of crap allowed onstage the Improv community is one of the reasons so many people outside the improv "scene" have no interest in going to see another improve set, but will have no problem dropping 20 bucks to go see Open Eye's "One Flew Over The Cuckoo's Nest."

Biddle

08-09-2007, 05:29 PM

I don't think that this is all that big a deal.

That guy just had a typo when he wrote his original post. He should've said,

"If any of your people would like to learn SCRIPTED acting please have them go to my site: <SITE me="" by="" withheld="">{site withheld} Thanks!!!!!!!"

Everything else is just subjective opinion. Even the later CIN comments here about how "there ain't no REAL actin' in improv these days!" That's all just subjective opinion, too.

Scripted Performance is Acting.
Improvised Performance (even silly, nonsensical, absurdist pap) is Acting.

There's plenty of room for all of it, under an umbrella that big.

Glad I Could Clear That Up For Everyone,
COB

Run

08-09-2007, 05:33 PM

I think improvisors tend to be over-sensitive and overly defensive about improv. I am an improvisor by experience and training. Only "real" acting classes were taken in college. Who cares what one side thinks of the other? Take care of your own skill set and performance abilities. Improv doesn't need you to defend it. If you are quick to react to a comment like the one above ... then it seems likely you believe deep down that the comment has merit and that you wish improv wasn't so rooted in shitty acting. If that's not the case then why does it bother you? Ignore it, move on, and don't waste valuable time.

lackadaisy

08-09-2007, 07:53 PM

I called it "legitimate theatre" in college. One day my acting professor, more like mentor, still the most amazing man I've ever met, told me that was a worthless distinction. And he despised improv and generally refused to come to our shows. Doesn't mean he didn't see the value though.

I think the "real" in the original comment is a similar thing. Perhaps it's not an insult to improv, perhaps it's just a poorly worded attempt at distinguishing between the two forms (Scripted and Improvised, as Biddle said)

If I may be so indulgent, I'll forward a slightly different distinction, one that comes in many flavors: acting v. performing.

(you might also say musician v. entertainer, design v. decorate, artist v. painter, etc.)

As others have mentioned, the improv scene is littered with bad acting. Well, frankly, it's not really acting. It's performing. Performing for the laugh, the applause, the momentary high of doing something fun or funny or cool, for the recognition you may get from friends and fellows after the show. It's fine. Some are really really good at it.

Then there are the actors. Those to whom the overall piece, the sublety of inhabiting a character, new challenges and new discoveries are most important.

Actors let an audience watch. Performers don't exist without it.

Being an acting improviser is hard, and takes years of practice, but if you can learn to do it you're probably highly consistent and very good.

Being a performing improviser is easy, most everyone in or just out of classes anywhere is one, but chances are you can be painful to watch.

Anyone will watch acting improvisers, take TJ & Dave (or Letts last night).

Not everyone likes performing improvisers. Look at a lot of Harold sets, or Playground montages.

Even an oft-brilliant, hilarious show like Weaselicious is a performance that relies on the audience knowing the context to enjoy, and it is performed for their enjoyment. I hesitate to say there's much acting there.

Of course, there is no firm dividing line. these distinctions are made to spur conversation, not categorize

======

Wow, that got really long before I knew it

buntwanter

08-09-2007, 08:48 PM

And the cycle continues...

Someone draws the distinction between acting and improv...

Improvisers get defensive and dismiss it...

Improvisers continue to hold onto their shitty standard of performance, convinced that no matter what it is, it's acting, and that's all that counts.

If acting were important in improv, then improvisers would learn to act well. As it stands, most of them are terrible actors. The reason for this is either that they have no training and experience, or they don't think it's important in their art form. I think there are large amounts of both.

Every school of improv I've attended have taught with the assumption that students already had acting skills. Then they process them through a few months of "agreement" and "object work", and thrust them out onto a stage to be funny enough not to be cut. For most, it's a miserable failure. Unfortunately, they still have the neighborhood rec-room theater to spew out "shows" that the general public has zero interest in watching.

At least if the shows were engaging performances of believeable characters and situations, it might have some basis of respectability. But the standard doesn't demand that. It only demands high energy and funny "lines".

Shotts

08-09-2007, 08:58 PM

No bits in the Dojo, fellas.

lackadaisy

08-09-2007, 09:46 PM

At least if the shows were engaging performances of believeable characters and situations, it might have some basis of respectability. But the standard doesn't demand that. It only demands high energy and funny "lines".

doesn't demand, but DOES reward. That's why those that care (that is, those having this conversation) should be making an attempt not to defend improv against acting, but to recognize good v. bad in terms of acting and push ourselves and others in the right direction.

the system feeds on itself. improvisers watch bad improv shows and pat each other on the back because of the community. we need to all learn to accept criticism, like "real" actors, and consciously work to improve on those terms. else we're just run-o-the-mill community theater

Don Hall

08-09-2007, 11:38 PM

the system feeds on itself. improvisers watch bad improv shows and pat each other on the back because of the community. we need to all learn to accept criticism, like "real" actors, and consciously work to improve on those terms. else we're just run-o-the-mill community theater

Well said.

Scol

08-10-2007, 06:15 PM

Having worked on both sides of the fence (so-called straight 'acting' and improv) I've noticed one big difference.

The vast majority of incidents involving chronic lateness and absenteeism live in improv's yard.

These are not qualities I would defend to anyone.

Landmine

08-10-2007, 07:27 PM

Yeah, some bad habits and such do seem to stick with Improv. When I do plays i rehearse 3 or more days a week it seems,.... in improv you'd get laughed at by your team if you asked to rehearse more than 2 hours a week.

Biddle

08-10-2007, 07:45 PM

I think that the only reason why that's true, Tyler is that it's not what people are used to. Get people used to 3 hour rehearsals and they'll find that their two hour rehearsals are over before they've really gotten started. The justification for 2 hour rehearsals is just that it's not normally done.

Which is sad, because we're the ones who should be defining for ourselves what we will or will not give. Not by what everyone else is doing.

We can be pretty docile for a group of artists who are supposed to be iconoclasts.

Me, personally? I prefer a three hour rehearsal. We used to do them for Stinger, but had to change them when a player or two over-booked themselves and essentially gave away the last hour of our rehearsal. I miss those three hour rehearsals.

I heard a rumor that "The Family" used to rehearse every weekday. I've heard Charna say that was one of the reasons that they were as good as they were.

For what that's worth...

COB

Amidei

08-10-2007, 08:53 PM

ryandee

08-10-2007, 10:02 PM

Honestly, I think that the culture trait of improv that can be linked to a ton of the overcommitment issues and lack of work is the "team" concept as opposed to the "show" concept

Teams don't have producers, schedules, or end dates which makes them harder to commit to than other things. In a lot of ways, Teams don't have nearly the chartable consequences that shows have.

Shows have the ability to break and get rid of people that don't work out. Shows also have a stronger (hopefully) concept as well

I'm not saying this is the way that it should be (I personally believe the opposite) but it is hard to agree to rehearsing every week day for the rest of your life for your two slots at the Playground a month.

This has been my hypothesis on the slack approach to improv for some time now.

I honestly believe that if improv shifted to a "show" paradigm, the work ethic of improv would go up almost immediately.

Schoolyj

08-10-2007, 11:43 PM

I think Ryan brings up a good point. The unlimited/open-ended quality to improv may lower the stakes for individual performances - both for performers and audience.

I know that the more I have tried to keep in mind that every show matters, the more I have professionalized my behavior.

kremidas

08-11-2007, 02:07 AM

You forgot self-aggrandizing, overly-sensitive, narcissistic, deluded, defensive, indignant, neurotic, and enormously self-entitled.

Oh, and an obsessive need to exert control over people and situations. (But that's only if you moderate over an improv message board and/or seek positions of authority in order to stalk young female students.)

and HILARIOUS!

AWOOOOGA!

*heart wipe*

lackadaisy

08-11-2007, 06:09 AM

...it is hard to agree to rehearsing every week day for the rest of your life for your two slots at the Playground a month.
....
I honestly believe that if improv shifted to a "show" paradigm, the work ethic of improv would go up almost immediately.

If you commit to rehearsing every weekday, then i really doubt you are settling for the two Playground slots a month, as you say.

You're probably not settling for anything, you're probably going out and creating your own shows and audience.

The idea of "show" v. "team" that you forward could easily be maintained by the teams themselves. Many teams manage to do so; that is, present themselves in the "show" paradigm. It is the commitment of each and every person on the team that creates that.

Granted, the dominant movement is toward the "team" dynamic (how frustrating it is) that rewards, again, the community not the performance. But it is much easier to change individual approaches than to change the entire culture of the scene.

I guess all I'm saying is that we should push each other instead of blaming the "scene".

stevescholz

08-11-2007, 07:34 AM

This has all been written before, several times, for as long as there has been such a thing as an Improv Internet Message board, going back to the days of Mullaney's first experiment in such a community.

I personally differentiate between the culture of Improv and Improvisation, the skill, or tool, or art, or whatever.

As I have written here or there, in whatever forum, the culture of Improv rewards mediocrity and rarely requires from the participant serious commitment. You are considered cool if you overextend yourself and therefore cannot meet your commitments. A few beers before a show is fine. In some circumstances, drinking during the show is cool. Delivering a shitty product to a paying audience is perfectly OK, and it is ok to write it off as "I wasn't feeling it." It is ok to write off a whole set because of a small house. And in the culture of improv, it seems that improv is the only topic of conversation. The majority of the culture is made of navel-gazing, attention-starved, sycophantic, inbred adolescents. Until the participants demand more of each other, that will be the way it is. It is the it has been since I have been around. And for anyone who feels I am throwing stones, I was guilty of every sin I list and twice as many more.

Acting is a discipline, and the culture of acting does not tolerate those who abuse or ignore the discipline. In fact, you quickly find yourself not being cast. You need to show up on time. You rehearse 4 to five nights a week, for 4 to 6 weeks, and that is for non-equity. You are expected to do your personal work on your personal time, and show up prepared. Wasting others time is not tolerated. You remain sober until your responsibility has been fulfilled. You stay until the curtian call, regardless of whether or not you actually went on in the second act. In most cases, committing to one show automatically prevents you from committing to another. You are expected to deliver the same quality product to the audience in the 5th week that you did on opening night, and the same quality product to 5 people in the audience that you do to 100.

However, the skill. . . .I mean, as I have said before, so many actors I know who have no improv experience are TERRIFIED by improv, and if they look down on it, it is because they are afraid. Which, personally, I find hilarious and ironic, because there is no working actor in Chicago who has not been molded or affected by Improvisation in some way or some level. If there is a "Chicago" school of acting, Improv is one of the tenents, wherever you go. If you train here, or work here, and you have not taken a class, your castmate has, your director has, whatever, it permeates the culture. It is often unspoken amongst the 'straight' actors, but it is most definitely there. It is a part of the attitude that makes Chicago actors considered somewhat 'fearless' in other cities. The attitude is one of, 'bring it, throw whatever you got at me, see what happens, but. . . . make sure your shit works. Because what you give me you will get back in spades.'

I do not know of one actor worth his salt who, in the face of a truly talented improvisor plying his craft, is not impressed and humbled. Particularly straight actors, who have experienced the horrific sensation off "going up" and losing all the words, and not knowing what to do as your mind becomes a vacant lot. And almost all actors serious about the craft experience that, eventually. The skill is impressive, and at times, awe inspiring. I personally think that every actor who is serious about his or her craft should be required to take a year of improv. It should be in all theatre training schools. Like movement and vocal training.

I also do not know of any actors worth thier salt who would choose to spend thier time hanging out with a group of improvisors, or spend an evening and $14 or whatever $ for an evening at the IO cabarat to watch three teams make in-jokes and references to comic books.

Well said, Brian.

I'd like to commend you on some improv work you did a decade ago when Del Close directed The Carousel Players. For those who never saw the form, Del had the group do a two-person scene played by 8 people who'd rotate in and out of the characters. Brian had many a night when he and another person would bravely begin the scene and develop characters and relationships. He was a fearless actor who happened to improvise.

There are many different schools of improv as there are schools of acting. I agree that improv as a technique is a great addition to any acting program. Having the confidence to handle your fears onstage can help any actor or performer. And part of "the Chicago style" of acting does involve an awareness, honesty and flexibility that comes from the best improv.

But I don't put up with snobbery of any kind. The notion of "real" acting versus something else comes up when any two areas are pitted against each other in a false fight: community theater vs. legit theater, plays vs. sitcoms, TV shows vs. films, independent films vs. big studio productions, etc. Personally, I've seen great acting in all of those arenas. I don't presume one is always better or worse than another.

Yet, I know that commitment, preparation and teamwork can be lacking among improv groups. Of the ones that got great at IO years ago (People of Earth, The Family, Jane) were groups who had those qualities. They cared about what happened and weren't just in it for sake of doing another show on another schedule. I suspect a lot of the groups around more than year these days at IO may go through a similar experience.

And for the comment that it's easier changing the people than it is changing the scene, remember: people ARE the scene. What happens in the improv scene exists because people let it exist. If each person takes responsibility for what they do, that may gradually inspire an overall scene change.

I still see acting and improvising as part of the same world of theater. Recently, I've been teaching and directing improv at a suburban liberal arts college. I teach my students that all good improv involves good acting. Even if they play a short form game like Party Quirks, I make sure they commit to what's happening, listen to their scene partners, respond in the moment, and support each other's creativity. If they were working from a script for a play, I'd have them doing the same things.

Steve

Scol

08-11-2007, 10:32 PM

An improviser who can't act is like a guitarist who only knows three chords. There are things you can do, but you miss out on a rich range of possiblilities. Loud fast rock tunes are great fun, but if that's all you get, it becomes a boring, monotonous blur. Ultimately, an empty experience.

I don't believe improv should consist exclusively of believable characters engaging in heartfelt emotions. But if you're able to play that way, you can fly off in infinitely exciting directions.

Believing that this is the only way to do it is purism, and that becomes precious, pompous and limiting. When Bob Dylan plugged in, he made the greatest music of his career. And he got booed by the folk purists.

BUT...he explored his art in depth before he picked up that electric guitar and rocked out.

All the best art is bastardization.

Bits and jokes and energy and funny lines can be big fun. Combine that with depth and feeling, and you can do great things. And if you can't play comedian style, but you got the actor-chops, you still have the essential goods to contribute to the art form. The reverse of that is something thinner.

It seems that this thread has generated some dissing of the improv community. Well, actors have their bullshit too. As it has been argued here, the two sides of this theoretical coin have a lot to learn from each other.

Also, it seems to me that people tend to chain themselves down by only thinking of themselves as 'improvisers' or 'actors.' Wouldn't it be better to define yourself as a 'creator,' or, gasp, as an 'artist?' Shouldn't folks be concerned with making theatre, making art?

Maybe those types of aspirations can help push all this in a new direction.

"He not busy being born is busy dying."

jillybee72

08-22-2007, 10:47 PM

This is one of my many soapboxes. I wish, in general, improvisors were better actors. Many of them don't know how to speak loud enough to be heard and how to create interesting stage pictures, let alone how to give good solid theatrical performances.

Many improvisors have never taken an acting class. Most improv schools don't offer an acting class, or include acting content in their curriculum. "Real" acting exists within improv, but I've seen plenty of improv that doesn't illustrate that point.

Biddle

08-23-2007, 04:06 PM

Crescent

08-23-2007, 04:21 PM

lackadaisy

08-23-2007, 04:30 PM

acting course? here you go:

http://www.angelfire.com/art/YPW/ActorPrepares.gif

available at your local library or bookstore.

or, if i had to give a short course, here it is in entirety:

We do not play characters; this is the great improv misnomer. We inhabit our characters for a short time. They have their own internal truth and consistency. Find it. Respect it.

chitiger

08-23-2007, 04:37 PM

I took Acting 1 at Second City. It was the first acting training of any kind I had ever received. I believe it has helped my improv tremendously.

I learned how movement creates character, not just physically but mentally and how a character isn't played but just is (i.e. you are the character and are experiencing all the things that character is experiencing). It's allowed me to enter into scenes without pretending I'm someone else and being conciously aware of that fact, but rather to enter as someone else and to just naturally do what that person would do because that other person is me.

It all sounds crazy (and the acting class definitely showed me why so many theater people are crazy). But it's key to compelling and entertaining improv. Otherwise you come off as a cheesey variety act.

Hawkins

08-23-2007, 04:38 PM

I don't know how this feeds into this discussion but the thread made me think of something. I have had tons of acting training and still suck at improv. Okay not suck but it was difficult for me. Some of that was probably where I was in my life when I was doing improv but I always felt much more confident as an actor on stage than when improvising BUT I loved improv way more. So I think there is a key mix of the two and it goes the other way as well. You can be a great actor but still suck at improv.

Maybe it wasn't that you sucked, maybe it was the people you were playing with were going for something different, even to the point of dare I say, lower expectations, than you were with your theatre background.

It could be the style you were playing didn't fit your need. Harold is one of those things that you have a lot of cooks, and it plays fast. Maybe your need was less people and slower play. Harold isn't the be all end all of improv (you may want to run away now for lightning may strike me)

I'm going to make a statement some will disagree with, but there aren't many improvisors out there who want to transcend "the funny"

Biddle

08-23-2007, 04:51 PM

I'm going to make a statement some will disagree with, but there aren't many improvisors out there who want to transcend "the funny"

Oh, I don't know how rare that is. I hear this pretty frequently from the local improvisers. There's an awareness that there's something more powerful, more interesting going on in an improv performance than "laugh line/laugh/laugh line/laugh" etc.

The show, "Fugue", that I am working on right now, definitely explores more dramatic content, mixed with the lighter stuff. It's a pretty dense show. And the director (and a lot of the cast members) are hungry to improvise something "honest" over something "funny".

I can't speak for how things are going out west, but there's a very real awareness of improv's dramatic potential, here in Chicago.

Cheers,
COB

Walleye

08-23-2007, 05:01 PM

Here’s the way I view it. Most everyone excels at a particular style. Some are great on film, some are not. There are folks who seem to be built to do classical work. There are those who are great comic actors and those who are great comedians who act. There are improvisers who can command a stage and those who entertain with wit and quickness. It is a very rare breed that does all of this well. We tend to discover what we do well and what we enjoy the most and focus on that one thing.

The “quality” of work is extremely difficult to generalize in any of these areas since there are so many factors to consider in age, experience, commitment, etc. It reminds me of what I consider to be another bogus generalization in our industry which is ‘community’ verses ‘professional’ theatre. See enough theatre (something I admit I don’t do anymore) and you will begin to see that there are wonderful, committed individuals doing community theatre, and a lot of unmotivated, no talent, chuckleheads who call themselves professional. The proof is in the work.
<O:p
If you as an individual, or as a team, or a community are content to perform a couple times a month, have your social life and beer, which is absolutely fine, you have that right. You will get out of your craft what you put in. If you want to get better, go out and study, work hard; find committed partners and work to excel.
<O:p
I use to love this debate. However, in recent years, I’ve become more inclined to not want to separate the two, and have people own what they do and who they are.
<O:p
If anyone wants a crate of Irish Spring, I’m done with this one.

Frymire

08-23-2007, 05:28 PM

Whether you look at it as comedy or "acting", or as a hobby or as a craft, I think improv would be more successful in general if improvisers were more honest with themselves and with their teammates about what their commitment levels are, and what exactly they want to get out of their improv.

The most successful shows and teams I've seen weren't successful because of individual talent, but because everyone was on the same page in those two regards.

Biddle

08-23-2007, 06:35 PM

I can't understand why we, the very people that we're discussing here, can't just decide to institute these changes.

Why can't we recognize quality improv and promote it?
Why can't we recognize sub-standard or sloppy improv and re-direct it? (Recommending that those players get some training if they haven't had it or take some time off before they perform again, to regroup.)

Why can't we offer classes and share more of what we know?

Why can't we critically discuss our shows with each other without wincing if they say something critical?

Why can't we stop hiring on performers that we can see are already over-booked? (Which frees up a slot for someone who is just as good, but has more time to give your troupe or show and lightens the load for the over-burdoned performer.)

Why don't we continue taking classes throughout our careers?

Why don't we go see more shows at theaters where we AREN'T already performing?

Can't we just decide to do these things?
And make them happen?
Don't we have the final say on what we do or don't do onstage?

Steev

08-23-2007, 07:15 PM

I see to recall that there were a few occasions where someone has stepped up to ask if there was interest in an Acting 101 class designed specifically for the improvisers who never got that in high school or college and that the interest was anemic, at best.

I always thought that was a little sad. The lack of interest in self improvement (even in a case where cost wasn't a factor - the class was basically free.)

COB

Biddle, you can't cite this as an example of a lack of interest in self improvement. Who was offering this class? Were they a trained actor? A trained teacher?

There are plenty of improvisors who are very interested in self-improvement, and many of them are self-improving themselves daily, without posting about it on CiN.

So don't fret. Anemic response to a free acting class offered up on an improv message board shouldn't make you sad.

Chip

08-23-2007, 07:19 PM

Why can't we recognize sub-standard or sloppy improv and re-direct it? (Recommending that those players get some training if they haven't had it or take some time off before they perform again, to regroup.)

For the most part, I agree with you, except for the part I quoted above.

I think it's tricky, who does the "re-directing". If it's the coach or director of the show, that's fine. But if an improviser in the audience came up to me after a show and said I should take some time off before I perform again, I can't imagine I'd be inclined to listen to him.

The fact is that a lot of improv learning is done on the stage.

I believe I'm better than I was two years ago, but I don't think I would have gotten there if I hadn't had some crappy shows and some great shows in between. I wouldn't have learned the same things in a rehearsal or in a class.

The Playground tends to put newer teams and unknown teams in its Tuesday and Wednesday slots, and saves the member teams and more established teams for Fridays and Saturdays. That way the incubators get to gain valuable stage time and the Playground still can put on premier performances on the weekends.

Aside from that, I don't know what you mean by re-directing them. As long as new performers are coming to Chicago to learn improv, you're going to see this. And if it's an old team that sucks, well, don't go to their shows. That's about all you can do.

The rest of the stuff, I agree, each of us can do.

-Chip

Steev

08-23-2007, 07:26 PM

Why can't we recognize sub-standard or sloppy improv and re-direct it? (Recommending that those players get some training if they haven't had it or take some time off before they perform again, to regroup.)

Sorry, Biddle, I really don't mean to be picking on you here. Just inspired to respond...

I think it's a bad idea for improvisors to self-police other improvisors if they're not their coach or director. Do actors police other actors? Do basketball players police other basketball players? Nah. That shit is best left to teammates and coaches.

I think it was Gandhi who said, "become the change you wish to see in the world." Or Yoda. Or Guybrush Threepwood.

Do good work. The shows are for audiences, not for other improvisors. Do good shows for -=audiences=-, and you send 50 ambassadors for improv back out into the world.

Frymire

08-23-2007, 07:50 PM

Do good work. The shows are for audiences, not for other improvisors. Do good shows for -=audiences=-, and you send 50 ambassadors for improv back out into the world.

For clarification, Steev, what would you mark as differences between a good show for the audience, and a good show for other improvisers? (Improv insider jokes/references aside.)

Landmine

08-23-2007, 07:59 PM

Steev, no Monkey Island references in the Dojo.

Steev

08-23-2007, 07:59 PM

For clarification, Steev, what would you mark as differences between a good show for the audience, and a good show for other improvisers? (Improv insider jokes/references aside.)

I'm not sure! I don't profess to fully understand the difference. I know I've seen a lot of shows, though, where the improvisors in the audience are doubled over in hysterics, and the family members and off-the-street audience folk are sitting politely with their hands folded. I'm sure inside jokes is part of it.

You know, it also might be like golf. When a golfer makes an amazing putt, other golfers clap. In improv, when an improvisor makes an amazing move, other improvisors laugh. Golf gets claps, improv gets laughs.

Usually, though, the non-golfing golf audience can tell an amazing chip shot just as well as a golfing golf audience. In improv, it's not always the case.

I believe it was Scot Goodhart as Butch Hilarity as Aaron Neville who said, "I don't know much, but I know I love you, and that may be all I need to know."

Biddle

08-23-2007, 07:59 PM

Hey fellas,

I don't mind being questioned about this stuff. At least we're discussing it. I think that's a positive step in the right direction. And I'm open to critical discussion of what I posted. Everything is flexible. (Except the desire to see positive change in how we conduct ourselves.)

I didn't intend that people would go and "give notes" to strangers, unsolicited, after their shows. That was my fault. I wasn't clear, but I meant that we should do this within our own groups. I think that we "let things slide" until they've gotten REALLY, REALLY bad before we deal with them. If we deal with them, at all. I think that a more proactive attitude could curb that sort of thing.

And I think that by setting high standards for ourselves is a good thing.

Please note that I've made no suggestions about form, show content, performance style or anything else that a team should have autonomous control over. I see my suggestions as being more like "housekeeping tips".

I absolutely agree with Steve's friend, Mr. Gandhi about "being the change that [he] wants to be in the world".

Maybe I'm just asking why we don't just decide to do precisely that.

COB

Dandade

08-23-2007, 08:43 PM

Hi everyone,

Before I bring up my thought, I have to say that I've really enjoyed reading this thread. As someone who moved here only a year ago and is still learning a lot about improv and improv culture, this has been a really good resource for learning about different viewpoints regarding improv and where it stands in relation to other art forms.

One thing that I find particularly interesting is the way in which we refer to "acting". I feel that whenever people talk about wanting to see more "acting" in improv, they use adjectives that refer to a naturalistic acting style. People talk about wanting to see "real" characters with "real emotions". I don't have a problem with this- I am a huge fan of performers who play characters that could meet on the street and not think twice about- but I think it's really interesting that naturalistic performance style is synonymous with "acting". How do people feel about performers who use a more Brechtian/presentational style of performance? Does that happen in the Chicago improv scene? A teacher I had at Second City was telling me that the culture in Toronto is totally different. Most of the performers on the Toronto mainstage (according to this teacher) are heavily trained in mime/physical theater and it really shows in their work. I wonder if the emphasis on naturalistic performers in improv is a statement on Chicago, as there are a lot more physical theater groups/training centers in Toronto than there are in Chicago.

Anyways, just a thought. I think ultimately there are certain principals that permeate all acting styles (clear communication of ideas, heavy commitment to choices made, etc.) that absolutely apply to improvised performance as we know/do it. I'm just interested that we chose naturalism.

Frymire

08-23-2007, 09:41 PM

I believe it was Scot Goodhart as Butch Hilarity as Aaron Neville who said, "I don't know much, but I know I love you, and that may be all I need to know."

Precisely.

I'm still trying to process the difference, and I can't really come up with a lot.

Somewhat related, in my experience, there is a marked difference between improv in the rehearsal/workshop environment, and the improv in front an audience. In rehearsal, improv always seems to be slower, more grounded, more likely to contain bits of "real acting". Once we get in front of an audience, though, we get ansy, we need that instant approval, and we pull out the bits so we get the laugh. Just as beneficial as learning how to act, I think we improvisers (me included) should learn to be more confident on stage, and realize that just because the audience isn't laughing every thirty seconds, that doesn't mean that they're not into the show. Once you reach that point, you can open yourself up for "real" moments to happen between characters -- Which makes the funny moments all the more satisfying.

Gilley

08-23-2007, 10:14 PM

Juan

08-24-2007, 05:36 AM

lackadaisy

08-24-2007, 04:05 PM

I think a big part of why people don't "decide to get better" and put out the quality work is because there are a ton, just a ton, of people doing improv who are really bad at it but think they're really good at it.

And unsurprisingly, plenty of those are the ones who are most vocal about the state of improv.

They don't know they are terrible, terrible performers and that their shows are pedestrian at best, and they end up surrounding themselves with only people who agree with their assessment of each other as "one of the best improvisers in Chicago" and such nonsense.

And that leads to a self-fulfilling cycle of them offering workshops, classes, and leading performances that are just plain mediocre.

People sitting around wondering why we don't decide to get better is like going into a hot dog & coke bowling league on a Wednesday night and asking why everyone doesn't just decide to bowl 300's all the time, if they're aware that not making a strike every frame is holding them back from that goal.

that's a bit pessimistic, don't you think?

I agree with the basic assessment that the community is filled with people who don't see a need to improve because they are lauded for their mediocrity, but your final simile insultingly insinuates that the entire improv community is intrinsically and hopelessly mediocre and we should just suck it up and move on with our lives. except, obviously, for the few truly great "bowlers" who, of course, never bowled in a Wed night league in their lives

how terrible to have a conversation about what we could do to improve ourselves! my question is whether you are lashing out because you're threatened by this conversation as you look down from your "300 rolling" perch, or because you're scared that we'll leave you behind in your self-inflicted, self-comforting mediocrity.

assuming you are not one of these "terrible, terrible performers" who are "most vocal about the state of improv" (delight in the irony) and you are finding this conversation frivolous and/or unproductive, then please, i beg of you, offer up a productive suggestion to get this conversation on track. unless, that is, you find all discussion of craft frivolous and/or unproductive, in which case I wonder why it is you've even bothered to pay us your attention.

Gilley

08-24-2007, 05:37 PM

I respectfully bow out of the conversation, as apparently, my words are too dangerous for the internet.

You know, John Adams was reviled for signing into law the Alien and Sedition acts, which sought to quash free speech and opposition to his government. Thomas Jefferson, our great patriot, held them to be unconstitutional and reversed them, pardoning those held in violation.

Lackadaisy, I PM'ed you my reply.

shalvi

08-24-2007, 05:40 PM

Forsythe

08-24-2007, 05:48 PM

Quote:
<table border="0" cellpadding="6" cellspacing="0" width="100%"> <tbody><tr> <td class="alt2" style="border: 1px inset ;"> Originally Posted by Gilley http://www.chicagoimprov.org/images/cin2007/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.chicagoimprov.org/showthread.php?p=13110#post13110)

You know, John Adams was reviled for signing into law the Alien and Sedition acts, which sought to quash free speech and opposition to his government. Thomas Jefferson, our great patriot, held them to be unconstitutional and reversed them, pardoning those held in violation.

</td> </tr> </tbody></table>
Actually, it was the Marshall-led Supreme Court and the Maybury vs. Madison court decision that struck down the Alien & Sedition acts. It also established that judicial review in America.

Everything else that Gilley has said sounds accurate. Also, don't delete his posts.

JRC

08-24-2007, 05:48 PM

Some posts in this thread have had thinly veiled specific attacks towards other posters. Personal attacks are not tolerated on this message board and are deleted. Criticism is encouraged; personal attacks or "trolls" are not.
I have deleted posts referring to it. Please keep this excellent thread going and refrain from personal attacks.
Thanks.

Jason

Hendo

08-24-2007, 05:56 PM

While I risk being accused of blowing the corpse of Del Close, I'd like to add a quick thought...

Since Del died, there has been much less emphasis on "slow comedy." I have seen more and more improv at various venues where the average length of scenes is just over a minute. I've literally counted scenes to see how fast teams are playing. Scenes that go over 5 minutes are so rare as to be non-existant.

I think the biggest fall-out of faster improv is that relationships get given short shrift. The bit is more important that the truth that underlies it.

All that being said, though... when I go see improv in NYC, I'm surprised how little attention is paid to relationship and grounded scene-work AT ALL. The game is the big thing; no one really seems to notice or care if the people on stage are working towards grounded scenes. I think it just may be a regional difference... like how the LA scene is more focused on big characters, probably because that's what gets noticed by casting directors and agents.

So the fact that we're even HAVING this discussion is a hopeful sign to me.

sammy

08-24-2007, 06:04 PM

Some posts in this thread have had thinly veiled specific attacks towards other posters. Personal attacks are not tolerated on this message board and are deleted. Criticism is encouraged; personal attacks or "trolls" are not.

You forgot self-aggrandizing, overly-sensitive, narcissistic, deluded, defensive, indignant, neurotic, and enormously self-entitled.

Oh, and an obsessive need to exert control over people and situations. (But that's only if you moderate over an improv message board and/or seek positions of authority in order to stalk young female students.)

Well, I'm glad you let that post upthread stand for TWO weeks.

So, I will release the unsanctioned sammy-edit of the gilley post, cutting out the "personal attacks" that are glaringly obvious to like, three people. Again unsanctioned and unwanted and I fully expect hate mail from gilley. well, more.

"Then we're on the same page.

I don't think it's fruitless for people to talk about getting better, I just note that it's most often very poor performers having the discussion.

As for me, I don't perform improv, I just direct it.

90% of the comments in the improv community about what "improv used to be like" in the heydey are either by people who never met Del and/or saw the fabled Family-type groups in person.

I mean, you can have been doing improv for 30 years, but if you only perform one improv show a month at a small theater or bar for those 30 years, are you really more of a comedy expert than someone who's done Second City mainstage for a year?

Probably not.

People can ramble on and on about the lofty goals and ideals behind what Del wanted ad infinitum, but reading Truth In Comedy and wearing dress clothes onstage does not automatically make you the Compass Players.

I'm glad we at least agree in my main point, which is that tons and tons of bad people think they are amazing and laud each other for being amazing, leading to not only bad shows, but entire theaters filled with poor performers co-dependencing (new word) themselves through life, content to look out at an audience of their peers, reassuring themselves that improv has no need to be "good" or "bad", as long as it's fun for the people on stage.

But again, I may be wrong, I don't really do improv shows and haven't for years. No respectable theater would have me. But many women would want me, like, totally."

Have fun spotting the edits. And if this is still offensive, I'd love to know how.

stonelake

08-24-2007, 06:05 PM

I think that "getting better" is such an individual thing, that asking a community to do it is kind of pointless.

How would you ask the "legitimate" theater community in Chicago to get better? I have seen a boatload of terrible, pretentious, black-box wankery in this town, but I am not concerned about the state of acting, because I have also seen great shows at those same tiny theaters and more notably, a consistent good product at the larger theaters.

We are missing the professional long-form improv venue, the Steppenwolf or Goodman of improv. Second city may be the Goodman of sketch, but nothing is really the Goodman of long-form.

IO is as close as we get, but I would not want IO to be the Goodman. If IO was the Goodman I would not be allowed to play at IO, and neither would many of my favorite performers. Especially Shotts. IO has its place, and I don't want it to change overmuch.

Maybe there is an audience for a "best of the best" longform theater. The Reckoning, Baby, That Initial Guy and Hahnk From Father Of The Bride, etc. It would be an interesting test. If you were able to put on only great stuff, people would love it, and it would do a lot for the public persona of improv.

There is bad stuff in all artforms. The issue in ours is that, lacking a well-established mainstream venue, most people's initial experience with improv is attending the show of a friend of theirs, which has a pretty good chance to be mediocre.

sammy

08-24-2007, 06:08 PM

IO is as close as we get, but I would not want IO to be the Goodman. If IO was the Goodman I would not be allowed to play at IO, and neither would many of my favorite performers. Especially Shotts.

No personal attacks on Shotts or yourself please.

BlackDog

08-24-2007, 06:16 PM

It does come off pessimistic, but perhaps reading such blunt criticism as "pessimistic" is part of the problem in and of itself. In my experience, criticism is very taboo in Improv.......We have so many quality shows in this city to use as an example to strive for. We know what a "300" game looks like just by watching shows like Tj & Dave, Second City, etc. Why can't we, at the risk of criticizing ourselves, work towards that kind of quality?

I like this outlook and agree. There are probably ten (10) high quality long form improv shows going on in all of Chicago currently. Of those ten, I bet that better than four-fifths of them would modestly request to be removed from that top ten list--- claiming to be unworthy of being in the company of such other great ensembles/shows.

In that, I believe that there is a certain nobility in well-performed improvisation. Maybe this is where the frustration of this thread's creator stems from? His/her belief in that our artistic pursuit (or our version of improv nobility) had been disregarded by a dramatic actor? I cant speak for that person but I appreciate his/her emotion on the matter.

Maybe for another time & another topic but....I think today's improvisers' sense of self entitlement is one of the primary qualities shared with the stereotypical dramatic actor.

HOLD THE PHONE: Before I click "submit reply", I have to concede that I cannot list, in my head, the ten shows/ensembles that we should all be striving toward. I formally change my number to six (6). I still cant name six but its a safer number.

Amidei

08-24-2007, 06:28 PM

How would you ask the "legitimate" theater community in Chicago to get better? I have seen a boatload of terrible, pretentious, black-box wankery in this town, but I am not concerned about the state of acting, because I have also seen great shows at those same tiny theaters and more notably, a consistent good product at the larger theaters.

I would ask the straight theater in town to get better in all sorts of ways. As an audience, I would (and have, at times) stop going to any shows unless those that I was confident were going to be quality shows (however you define quality). As a participant, I made a decision to only be associated with shows that I was confident were going to be good productions, which meant that for a while I had to be cool with playing tiny characters in great shows, and stop being the lead in shows playing in basements that no one sees.

The difference, as I see it, is that there is a much more efficeint system of checks and balances in the world of straight theatre. First of all, there are auditions. And not just one or two. A theatre actor is going out regularly on auditions. Then there are directors, and thier word is gospel once you get into their rehearsal. Then, later on there is a stage manager who keeps shit grounded once the director bails.

If you do not show up for rehearsal, people hear about it, and you don't get cast. You are expected to do personal work outside of rehearsal.

I guess, there is simply, and obviously, a more rigid structure, which allows for a more disciplined approach to the craft.

I personally think that the mediocrity mentioned here in Improv is a dedication issue. Everything that has been covered here, overextension, lack of commitment, laziness. . . .I am not saying that is the case with the whole scene. . . . but anyone who says that it is not common and rampant is deluding themselves?

As an artist, are you striving to get better, and in what way? As an artist, have you mastered the fundamentals of your craft? To use a sports metaphor, what are you doing to sharpen your free throw shooting? You staying after practice and catching balls to make sure you don't fumble? When was the last time you were in the Improv batting cage? You gotta be in shape to give your best performance. And to be in shape, you have to have your mind and body working at peak efficiency. What are you as an artist doing to prepare yourself for that moment when you do actually get to stretch and explore in front of an audience?

I remember Miles years ago explaining to a class about the "rules" of Improv, and using Brian Stack as a guy you should never try to imitate. . .you could emulate him, but not imitate him, because he broke all the rules, but that was a case of him having the rules down cold, having the fundamentals of the craft down so cold and so reflexively, that they were the basis of his performance even though his actions seemed contradictory to what was, say, being taught in what was then level 3.

Whatever. I barely know what I am talking about.

stetsko

08-24-2007, 06:37 PM

At no point have I ever been with a non-improviser who said: "well, that show was just self-aggrandizing one-liners. What layabout jackoffs."

Instead, they say "that one fat guy was really funny. I like when he played a whale."

That fact aside, it drives me nuts that "Chicago" has developed such a contempt for quick-witted game-driven improv. I love quick-witted game-driven improv. I'd rather see a 20 minute set of quick edits and fun bits than a 30-minute "piece" with slow patient characters and grounded reality.

I'd also rather watch The Importance of Being Ernest for the 90th time than pretty much any "dramatic comedy" you can find. That's me. That's what I like.

Sure, the very very best improv (or sketch or film or whatever) manages to weave bits and characters and grounding and quips all together. And, hey, people should strive for that.

But, honestly, if I'm going to go to a show or recommend a show to a friend, it's likely to be a show I know will be kicks, not one I know will feature really good "acting."

K.

Still Just Visiting

08-24-2007, 06:40 PM

Have fun spotting the edits.
You changed "tiny theater" to "small theater" and "ties" to "dress clothes". What do I win?

The original post made several good points, but no names were mentioned. So any similarity between self-delusional mediocrity and certain people in this community are connections made by the reader. If someone could PM me names of the untalented people who think they're awesome, I might understand the "attack" accusation better.

To the original point 53 posts back (which had nothing to do with the state of Chicago's improv but, rather, whether improv as an art is considered "real acting"): improv is not real acting. We're all called to tap acting muscles as a means to performing improv, but we don't stretch or exercise these muscles nearly enough.

In the training centers I attended, there was tons of emphasis on creating grounded characters on stage, but little in the way of presenting believable performances to really captivate an audience.

sammy

08-24-2007, 06:47 PM

Mr. Visiting, there's more, but my work 'tis* so subtle, 'tis easy to miss.

*'tis inserted for the benefit of Stetsko O'Reilly

Still Just Visiting

08-24-2007, 06:58 PM

OK, yeah. I see. You also deleted the "That's only partially the case in this discussion here." and "... or by people who have desperately clung to the fringes of improv, racking up the "total years" count they feel makes them an expert."<o></o>

Now what do I win?

Also, again, more acting training in improv please. Not an acting workshop for improvisors, but real theatrical training from somewhere outside the main venues. Thank you.

sammy

08-24-2007, 07:07 PM

you win a piece of Lost casting info:

Jeremy Davies (Coporal Upham from "Saving Private Ryan") has been cast for season 4 of Lost.

Rumor has it that he has some acting training.

Still Just Visiting

08-24-2007, 07:10 PM

Jeremy Davies is oustanding in Soderbergh's remake of Solaris. Check it out.

Also thanks for that list of names, sammy. I especially agree with #2 and #7.

Gass

08-24-2007, 07:13 PM

Whoa, I made #7 on list...WHOOT!!!

Biddle

08-24-2007, 07:21 PM

No dits in the bojo, please.

Thanks,
COB

Hendo

08-24-2007, 07:33 PM

I also think a big part of the problem with improv right now is that the majority of coaches and directors have no training other than "on-the-job." Just because you are an excellent improvisor doesn't mean that you can coach, direct or teach worth a crap.

I mean, there are coaches out there that haven't even finished level 5 at IO. How can you have a discussion with your team when you can't use the same language, the same shared experiences? How do you even know what YOU do that's so successful?

It's a problem everywhere, but I honestly think we need to re-start classes for coaches and directors. They used to happen every now and then. The Playground had Joe Bill and Liz Allen teach one-day workshops; Joe Bill taught an 8-week class that was excellent (we would meet for a half-hour before the team rehearsal for Project Sunshine, and then we would watch him lead rehearsal, then we would stay a half-hour afterwards for discussion of what we just saw). Mick Napier taught an 8-week class once upon a time at the Annoyance for improv and sketch.

Those classes changed my entire approach to directing and teaching. And frankly, I've seen too many young teams, both at IO and the Playground, crash because of inexperienced coaches.

So maybe we as a community should start there... ask for classes for coaches and directors, and demand that teams only have coaches and directors that have solid experience they can point to either on a resume or from a class.

BlackDog

08-24-2007, 07:45 PM

.....ask for classes for coaches and directors, and demand that teams only have coaches and directors that have solid experience they can point to either on a resume or from a class.

Valid and currently being implemented at iO. Established at the late part of last year, is a queue for potential coaches. In addition to making Joe Bill's coaching class a prereq for many of these queued folks, we have begun a shadow program where a potential coach follows an assigned team to rehearsals and shows acting as TA to the team's coach----even filling in as a sub from time to time. We do the same for our course teachers as well; shadowing other classes.

Yes, in the end, many very talented performers make not for talented instructors. For further details see Michael Jordan and, to a lesser extent, Bruce Lee.

Hendo

08-24-2007, 07:50 PM

Valid and currently being implemented at iO. Established at the late part of last year, is a queue for potential coaches. In addition to making Joe Bill's coaching class a prereq for many of these queued folks, we have begun a shadow program where a potential coach follows an assigned team to rehearsals and shows acting as TA to the team's coach----even filling in as a sub from time to time. We do the same for our course teachers as well; shadowing other classes.

Yes, in the end, many very talented performers make not for talented instructors. For further details see Michael Jordan and, to a lesser extent, Bruce Lee.

That sounds like an excellent program!

Gilley

08-24-2007, 08:12 PM

Just to keep things in perspective, let's remember that going through the Training Center at IO or any other program is about the training-time equivalent of being at a day job for a month.

Not exactly a crucible bound to churn out experts.

A plumber has to apprentice for 5 years on the job, including classes, to be respected as a journeyman. Then another 2 years, and more classes and examinations, to be a Master.

That's 40 hours a week, every week, for 7 years.

Not 2-3 hours a week, every week, for half a year, which is pretty much all it takes hang up your shingle as a Master Improviser and start giving out classes.

Even at 10 hours a week, you'd have to improvise for 28 years at that level before you had the same hours of experience as a journeyman plumber.

Point being: don't get too wrapped up in "training and certification" when most of the training is the equivalent of a day or two of instruction.

Hendo

08-24-2007, 08:31 PM

So, what then? It's better to have no training than some training? I don't understand your point.

Gilley

08-24-2007, 08:36 PM

Training is nice.

But a 6 hour class on coaching hardly seems like something that will make a big difference.

I guess we place so much importance on it because a "generation" in improv is 8 weeks long. I think that's what makes people feel like adding a "number of years I've improvised" to their resume gives them authority.

I take notes and instruction from skilled people that are good performers and communicators, no matter how many years they've been doing it, and I disregard advice from people who have been "performing improv" for 15 or twenty years if they're bad players with bad advice.

And there are plenty of both categories out there.

I just don't get the whole focus on "credentials." It's not like any of these classes are overseen by some accreditation committee or something making sure that what Joe Bill teaches is consistent with what Jimmy Carrane teaches.

I won't even get into the whole question of how many classes are actually just to help improvisers make money for their rent.

Steev

08-24-2007, 08:39 PM

A plumber has to apprentice for 5 years on the job, including classes, to be respected as a journeyman. Then another 2 years, and more classes and examinations, to be a Master.

You're presenting plumbers in a Utopian society, methinks. I'm sure that in reality, people with very little plumbing experience are passing themselves off as master plumbers and charging just as much money. And there are also plumbers who've only laid pipe for a year that have excellent plumbing instincts.

I bet there are even scrappy young plumbers who bust out on the plumbing scene with radical ideas that fix toilets in an amazing fashion, leaving the old crotchety do-it-by-the-book plumbers angry, frustrated, and a little afraid.

These aren't personal attacks, by the way. I'm talking about fantasy plumbers that nobody has ever met before, because they're from Canada.

Gilley

08-24-2007, 08:41 PM

Not utopia, Chicago Union. Close to the same thing, I guess.

Hendo

08-24-2007, 08:49 PM

I'll tell you what, Gilley. You take an 8 week class with Joe Bill or Liz Allen or Mick Napier on coaching and directing, and get back to me on whether or not it makes any difference.

When I say it fundamentally changed my approach to coaching and directing, I'm not just blowing smoke.

And yeah, I'd rather have a coach who went through (hopefully) all three of those classes than someone who went through none, but was Charna's "Flavor of the Month." Hands down. I don't care HOW good a performer or communicator they are.

Gilley

08-24-2007, 08:52 PM

I've been through all three classes.

I've also been through Second City's director program, the Piven Theater Director Workshop, and have 6 years and 3 teams worth of coaching experience at IO, including veteran teams The Pat Shay Dancers and Rattlesnake High School.

But I don't proclaim myself to be a coach expert.

Kristin

08-24-2007, 08:55 PM

What an interesting discussion!

I am personally in the camp that all improvisers could benefit from scripted acting instruction and vice versa.

My only theatrical training of any kind thus far is at Second City and a little IO, and often I feel very behind. I have some books but they don't really do anything besides fill in background of styles, etc. I'd love to be able to afford to take an acting class somewhere (I have taken acting 1 at Second City and found it very beneficial, for the audtioning tips alone.) But more than $500 every 8 weeks is more than I can comfortably afford.

I struggle with the impulse to be funny over character development every day. I think it comes partly from a bigger fish/smaller pond mentality. In my SC Beginning Program classes (not to be conceited) I was one of the stronger people in the class, then you make Conservatory, you feel awesome, blah blah blah. My Conservatory class is full of amazing, wonderful, gifted and kind improvisers. I love working with them and learn so much but sometimes I feel I am just not giving them enough. I get in my head and then start saying things that are witty rather than what is right for my character or the scene. This is difficult to overcome and I think perhaps acting training might help me out in that respect.

Something else that I've been giving some thought to that is somewhat similar is the idea of "dumbing down" your improv or sketch for your audience. I've had instructors who say you should never do this, that we should always be "too hip for the room," as it were. I agree with this to some extent - we should give the audience credit and not assume they are dolts. But on the other hand, there is something about that that I don't like. It seems like we're saying to the audience "Oh, you don't understand our hilarious and obscure witticisms? I guess you won't be laughing much tonight." I think there is a middle ground in there somewhere that can reach the audience while still being smart.

This is long and rambly ...

BlackDog

08-24-2007, 09:17 PM

Hi Kristin,

Being "too hip for the room" is not something I can get behind. There is something to be said for having a confident swagger in taking the stage but I leave it at that.

I agree with your instructors that you should never dumb it down for the audience. However being too hip for the room isnt your answer. You'll only alienate.

You should instead treat your audience like poets and geniuses*.

Yours,
Pat Gallen

*Thems not my words. Some dead dude said it a hundred or thousand times.

EDITED TO ADD: How in the freakin world did Steve Gadlin state "laid some pipe" (in its intended plumbing context) and noone else but me giggle like a little a 7year old----Im treating my computer like a poet and/or genius, I suppose.

.

DennisOT

08-24-2007, 09:18 PM

My buddy Ryan is an attorney. He spent the requisite three years in a very competitive law school and then busted his ass for two years at one of them downtown firms that pay an insane amount of money to work an even more insane amount of hours. I am sure his lawyer classes were more demanding than my improviser classes, and the cases he worked on in his two years of hell at his paying-off-law-school-tuition gig may have asked more of his brain than most of the 45 minute shows I've had the pleasure to do.

Then again, Ryan spent much of law school high, and he went to a good one.

And then again, it's comparing apples and karate moves. You'd probably be rendered threetarded if you spent that much time with improv, and totally boring to be around. When you get up and do improv, you actually draw on a lifetime of experience, whether drawing all the pain and joys you've been through to make you characters real (Gallen) or drawing on all the dumbass bits you did from age 5 to present (me).

It's like listening to early Bob Dylan. He sounds like a wise old man, but he was just some kid fucking around in Greenwich Village. There were dudes in their 70s then who spent their lives studying music who didn't have the talent or the artistic wisdom, shall we say, that Dylan had at the start of a really laid-back apprenticeship. Those old fogey folkies took one look at Dylan and knew becoming an artist is not exactly like becoming a lawyer.

Still, I do agree with Gilley (if this is what he's saying). I often wish I spent the energy and the discipline in my field that my friends spent in theirs (the lawyers I know, as well as the traders, engineers, bakers, and candlestick-makers).

Heart,

A secret admirer.

Kristin

08-24-2007, 09:28 PM

BlackDog that is what I was thinking exactly - why alienate your audience? Especially considering people often complain that no one is coming to see improv anymore. I also just realized the way I wrote made it look like I advocated being too hip for the room but what I really meant was I am in favor of playing smart.

DennisOT

08-24-2007, 09:34 PM

DennisOT

08-24-2007, 09:45 PM

"You're drawing on a lifetime of experience..." I said, and I see it is vague.

I mean, I think you draw on that more than what you learn in a class. Being a lawyer or a plumber is the inverse of that- more concrete knowledge than abstract learning-by-living. Certainly, a plumber with a clever mind and a creative life will be better than a robot, but for the most part it's a learned trade. Contrawise, an improvationist with a shit load of killer classes ain't shit if he can't naturally flow on the mic.

MSutton

08-24-2007, 10:24 PM

Good Thread everyone...

Just a couple of points from my point of view. And it's something I share with my classes at the end of every term. I believe in every improv class you take (and every acting class for that matter) there are things that will really affect you and make you better and things that won't work for you all that much. It's not math...however some teachers and students treat it like it is. They want the "magic formula" that will make them great. It just don't work that way.

That's why I hate when coaches and teachers deal in buzz words and phrases - "you need to find the relationship more" or "you didn't yes and enough in that scene"....gee thanks for the insight. WHAT DOES THAT REALLY MEAN??

Part of pursuing an art form is finding out what kind of artist you are. Taking things and using them to find your voice. It's a journey that can take years. Being too results oriented only leads to entitlement and expectations that may never be met.

I also get the feeling sometimes that people are just "sitting through" a class just to put a check in the box next to Annoyance, or Second City. If that's why you're there...you're already in trouble.

I agree that too much improv is mediocre and a big reason is that too many people are getting thrust into roles as teachers and coaches that aren't ready. Also...too many people spread themselves too thin. Sometimes it's better to do one great show a week than 4 so-so shows. But...there's a lot of improvisors out there...so that is the product of saturation. Personally...I worked solidly at Annoyance for 3 years before I directed anything and another 3 years before I taught a class. Now I've been teaching for 13 years at Annoyance, Second City and on the road and I still learn things that make me a better teacher and performer every time I walk into the room.

What's the answer...I really don't know. I always think of the process before the product. Not that I don't think of the product...but if the process is not solid then nothing after it will be. AND...I always look for things that can make me better, challenge me, put me- the artist - in a different place. Then I'm always growing.

Hell...I've heard even DeNiro takes a class from time to time.

bron

08-24-2007, 10:25 PM

Some thoughts upon reading this thread.

Everyone has made mention in some respect or other the artistic nature of improv. We are meant to be artists, we should refine the art etc. etc. Everyone also seems hell-bent on getting rid of the crappy art, and only keeping the good. It has been discussed as improving the artform, or constantly self-improving, but the way I have read it, we just want to get rid of the crappy art. And I do agree that if you want to pursue an artistic endeavor you should seek to improve yourself through it, however, there is no art whatsoever without crappy art. People all over the world make shitty paintings, write stupid plays, perform with hideous acting, pretentious music, flat out crappy crappy crap. So what are we saying?

Improv is good, and challenging, and takes talent and should be respected by actors? yes. I believe that was the original discussion on the table. Past that, everyone seems to want to change improv from that which made us enjoy it in the first place. We are looking for some semblance of an objective measure that allows us to stratify what good improv is, what it isn't and how we stack up against our fellow players/teams/cities. Improv is a wonderful thing because it can be what you want it to be. If someone wants to do a 30 minute bit-fest, and their is an audience that wants to watch it, then that's great. If you want to present an improvised 2 hour melodrama, fine, if someone would like to watch you do it. Acting, no acting, serious, funny, poignant or stupid, let improv be whatever it be. Will you have to put up with some stuff you don't like? yes. I've seen shitty plays at Steppenwolf too.

As for railing against all of the improvisors who don't know how bad they are... I don't know. I agree, but what's the point. If you want to be a good improvisor, that needs to be a personal thing and should have little to do with others. Don't play with them if you don't like them.

Amidei

08-24-2007, 10:55 PM

Everyone has made mention in some respect or other the artistic nature of improv. We are meant to be artists, we should refine the art etc. etc. Everyone also seems hell-bent on getting rid of the crappy art, and only keeping the good. It has been discussed as improving the artform, or constantly self-improving, but the way I have read it, we just want to get rid of the crappy art. And I do agree that if you want to pursue an artistic endeavor you should seek to improve yourself through it, however, there is no art whatsoever without crappy art. People all over the world make shitty paintings, write stupid plays, perform with hideous acting, pretentious music, flat out crappy crappy crap. So what are we saying?

Right, I think the point is, my point anyway, it is not so much as getting rid of crappy art, but not being smugly self satisfied with said crappy art. Ackknowledging that it can suck, and that you need to get better, not settling for "that was good enough" or for "I wasn't feeling it." You might not be feeling it. So, it is up to you the artist to get to the root of that, and figure out how you, the artist, can generate that performance through, technique or whatever works for you, when inspiration is not there. . . . .and more often than not inspiration will not be there. Stretching yourself when inspiration is not there. Put some sweat into it. As Sutton so aptly put it, there is no magic bullet. However, if you work hard at the process, do not settle, take it seriously and commit, you will undoubtedly improve, and as your process improves, undoubtably your product will improve. Not rocket science.

If you want to be a good improvisor, that needs to be a personal thing and should have little to do with others. Don't play with them if you don't like them.

Here again, seems to me, is an ethic that causes the whole system to break down. Say at the IO. You don't 'play' with who you choose, do you? (Personally, I am beyond the whole 'play' and 'team' terminology, and beleive that helps keept the Improv scene firmly rooted in a clique-ridden adolescence. . . .but that is me and I digress) If this is what you want to do, you should show up, and perform to the best of your ability regardless of who you are perfoming with.

I do not agree that wanting to be a good improvisor is necessarily a personal thing, not if you are attempting to actually be an improvisor. Then, it should become a personal responsibility to become the best performer you can be, but here is the question. . . .who is responsible for weeding out the weak improvisor, the one who is not in it for love of process of craft, who is not stretching or learning, who is stuck in the mire of the Improv Ghetto and loving it, and not planning on moving anywhere? What are the consequences for not getting it? Is that not a sign of the collective health of the community?

Again, in these discussions, I am almost always thinking about performers, improvisors, who are on teams and charging money for performance. If you are not doing that, show up in ripped jeans, drunk, with vomit down the front of your shirt for all anyone cares.

Scol

08-24-2007, 11:06 PM

Damn right there is no art without shitty art. Because failure is the norm, no matter how good you are. Go out and fail. It's what'll usually happen.

There are certainly improvisers who think they're better than they are, but I give most people the benefit of the doubt; meaning, the improv scene in Chicago is a gigantic pressure cooker of peer pressure. Everywhere you look you see cockiness. Most of it is an ACT, folks. I've heard mention of drawing on a lifetime of experience, and here's me doing that right now-you can't trust what's on the surface. Deep down, the vast majority of people are frightened and insecure. When you were in the old west you acted tough or you got shot. When you're 24 in Chicago, and all your friends are behaving all coolsville, facile, witty, cock of the walk...you're pretty tempted to do it too.

So maybe all this incessant judgement of every poor slob who puts their ass on the line and gets in front of an audience to make stuff up is the wrong way to go.

And I'm not talking about constructive criticism. Yes, there is a great deal of self-entitlement. People have to be couragous and humble enough to accept the big C. Arrogance and immaturity is a load of sparrow-farts.

But enough already with all this hatred of bad improv. Bad improv is the norm. And some of it is perpetrated by people who aren't good and never will be. But there's a lot of not-yet-good-but-will-be. And most of the time, that latter group will stink to high heaven. How can they avoid it?

Judging them serves no one.

MSutton

08-24-2007, 11:12 PM

I agree about "crappy improv" and it's place in the equation.... in this regard. The Annoyance has been successful for a long time because we believe in giving people the "freedom to fail".

What does that mean?? It means that we recognize that we have an audience and that they pay money. BUT...we don't hamstring anyone's creativity for the sake of putting up only things that are of a perceived quality. You don't have anyone looking over your shoulder all the time.

So..your first show might not be so good, but you learn our process and learn about putting up shows and you're next one kicks ass. Having that freedom has led to some spectactular failures and some incredible, successful shows.

I also agree that it's not the failure, it's how you use it that makes the difference. I think a lot of great performing is about making yourself vulnerable. To do that you have to put yourself in uncomfortable places...too many improvisors (ironically) don't like to do that.

Steev

08-24-2007, 11:29 PM

<a href="http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=lay+some+pipe">Ohhhhhhh.</a>

Heh.

http://www.steev.org/junk/bracket.gif

sammy

08-24-2007, 11:32 PM

I would like to contend that I should have been in the opposite bracket of Otto.

I still would have lost, but in the finals. The FINALS!

pedropolis

08-28-2007, 08:03 AM

I believe improv is a tool which makes an actor better. It allows them the freedom to create mobility within the script and helps them make better acting decisions on the fly.

The art throws actors in the worst possible situation --being on stage without a script and they have to make something out of nothing. And that takes guts.

Improv became a mostly comedic art form because it is funny to see an actor make something up. And that comedy makes the audience pay more attention to the action.

I would take a great scripted comedic performance over the best improv performance because in improv we witness the actors first draft of their ideas and most of the time they need great refinement.

But great improvisers are also great actors and they can make no script into a show, a poor script into a good one and a good script into a great show.

So while i think improv as a form of entertainment isn't as fantastic as a sketch show or a movie it still serves a great purpose for training the actor's talent and comic sensibilities.

joest

08-30-2007, 10:57 AM

I'm late to the party (but hey, I actually took the time to register with the "new" board to reply!).

Let me provide an outside perspective. I started improvising in Chicago. Among other things, because I enjoyed the Improv I saw there. And I continue to enjoy a lot of the Improv there (when I'm there, which is not all that often, unfortunately).

You guys have a very lively scene and and amazing talent. But you already know that. Well, where I am there is great talent too. But people don't come here (Vienna) to do Improv. They come here to "act". And then they get into Improv. And more often than not, it gets in their way of becoming a good improviser. True, they can always resort to singing or whatever (actually singing, not "selling" it :), but that also makes them lazy: this scene sucks, let's sing. Most of the "actor first" Improv here isn't that great. Believe me. It just isn't.

** rant on ** There is also way to much "clown" training going on here. +, too much short form. I know, but I'll stand by that statement. Short form gets you laughs too easy! ** rant off **

The best Improv shows I have seen have all been in Chicago. PLEASE - keep doing what you are doing!! If anyone is trying to tell you that you are not supposed to get on stage and suck they are misguiding you. You have to suck a million times before you can be any good as an improviser. Our luck is that seeing us fail can be funny! You are soo lucky that you are in city that has a built in infrastructure that allows you to suck on stage and still have a forgiving audience. So have fun failing.

(now, as for folks patting each other on the back after a miserable show, that is another topic entirely!)

davec

08-30-2007, 07:00 PM

Super late to the party, but here's davec.'s two cents:

Every time this argument starts, everyone tries to jump fastest to see who can bash improv quickest as compared to "acting."

First, do you actually see scripted theater like you do improv? Lots of it is terrible. There's also a lot of terrible painters, bands, and poets out there. All great art rests on a foundation of a million people who suck.

Second, improv is not scripted dramatic theater. It's a false connection that this community is too quick to make. We're constantly comparing ourselves unfavorably to the majesty of theater and telling each other what improv needs to be as good as "real theater." Bullshit.

We should take pride in ourselves as a community and an artform and claim ownership over our own artform. It's improv. It uses some stuff from theater, some from comedy, and some from a bunch of other things, but it's not theater. It's improv. I like improv and sketch better than theater, even if the "acting isn't as good."

This discussion invariably produces the implied argument that theater is "better" than improv. Then do theater. This argument always sounds like a guy in a punk band trying to explain to everyone else why jazz is much better and they should all be trying to play jazz. Knowing and appreciating jazz can't hurt you, but if you're playing punk, then fucking play punk instead of complaining about how bad everyone is at jazz.

Knowing and appreciating theater can't hurt you in improv, and you should know some of that. But you also should know writing and editing. And you should know current events and pop culture. You should have a broad range of knowlege. Knowing about string theory wouldn't hurt either.

But in the end, you're an improvisor. This is the art form you've chosen and if it makes you mad because you think something else is somehow better, then why aren't you doing that? I love doing improv and sketch more than any other art. If you don't, because something else is better, then do that.

buntwanter

08-30-2007, 07:17 PM

Training is nice.

But a 6 hour class on coaching hardly seems like something that will make a big difference.

I think coaching is overrated. You can get a bunch of comic geniuses, and no matter what wisdom you impart to them in your weekly two-hour meetings, they'll inevitably get up on stage and do exactly what they feel will get them the most attention, regardless. You can't coach someone, much less a group, out of the ridiculously low standard of goofball antics that now passes as long-form.

I've had people I've coached tell me straight out things like: "This team isn't even a priority with me", "I've been acting for ten years, I don't need coaching", and "When I get up there, I'm going to do what I want anyway".

Even teams with coaches who are viewed as legendary and well-sought-after have put up shows that have simply sucked because the kids do what they think is the funniest thing or the funnies accent or whatever.

I was aksed to do an improv scene in my scene study class at Act One. My partner was a woman who had never improvised a day in her life. She was brilliant. No coaching, no workshops, she simply did what she does, which is act. I made offers and she picked up on them, and played them realistically. The result was a very funny scene, a slice of real life, played by actors.

Coach and workshop your asses off. Starving improvers need a few bucks here and there. And there's so much precious knowledge and golden nuggets of wisdom to contemplate. But if you want to be a better improviser, take some fucking acting classes.

Hendo

08-30-2007, 07:36 PM

Wow, O'Rourke... I barely know where to begin.

First of all, most of your response is so subjective as to be nearly worthless for the community at large. Maybe you've had bad experiences coaching, but the majority of players I have coached have said that the teams that I coached were their favorite groups to play with; the skills we worked on in rehearsal were well represented in their shows; they respected me and each other and it showed in their play (in the case of the Senate, make all that present-tense).

Colan hit it right on the head; trying to tell improvisors that they aren't real actors is like a jazz musician telling a punk musician that he doesn't know music. Tell that to Joe Strummer. It also buys into Bernie Sahlins' bullshit theory that long-form improv shouldn't exist because improv is a only a tool and not to be used as an artistic end to itself. Anyone who's seen TJ and Dave can tell you that that idea is crap.

Are there actors out there who can improvise fantastically without taking a class? Sure. Just like there are improvisors who can act RINGS around most actors, yet haven't taken an acting class. That's a straw-man argument.

There's a reason casting directors and agents are looking for improv classes and shows on resumes across the country; improvisors are better for commercial work. They audition better. They can give you three quick reads on a script. Most actors can't. So most "actors" in Chicago are being told to take improv classes. Know where I was told this? At Act One, in my on-screen class.

Do improvisors need some basic stage skills? Sure. Face the audience. Project your voice. Watch your blocking and stage-picture. Plenty of "real" actors need to brush up on these skills, too. The thing with them, though, is that they've got several weeks of a director walking them through the script, blocking the action, telling them to talk louder... and even THEN you see some shitty acting on a lot of our stages.

So, for me, bottom line?

-Coaching is necessary. Teams without coaches often suck. More often than teams with coaches.

-classes are good. Most people can't improvise their way out of a paper bag.

-there are always exceptions to these ideas, but they are few and far between.

Steev

08-30-2007, 07:46 PM

-Coaching is necessary. Teams without coaches often suck. More often than teams with coaches.

I challenge this statistic, as I feel it's based on subjective opinion and hearsay.

I posit that the percentage of teams with coaches that suck and the percentage of teams without coaches that suck are numbers that, when compared, are deemed statistically irrelevant.

Hendo

08-30-2007, 07:48 PM

well, blewty blewty blookins to you, Steev Gadlin.

Steev

08-30-2007, 08:00 PM

Well harumph!

Telfer

08-30-2007, 08:18 PM

I agree with Steev. All having a coach means is that you're proactive, perhaps more likely to rehearse. And even then, I have seen some real shit come from teams that rehearse every week.

Steev

08-30-2007, 08:59 PM

Hey, I'm not trying to say that a coach is pointless, or a bad thing. Having a coach is a great thing.

I'm just saying that coaching doesn't necessarily mean better, funnier shows. And I don't think you can find objective evidence to prove otherwise.

Also, I'm wrong a lot.

Telfer

08-30-2007, 09:00 PM

Also, I hate improv.

Steev

08-30-2007, 09:13 PM

And you smell.

rkozlowski

08-31-2007, 10:50 PM

Bored at work at the end of a Friday afternoon before a holiday weekend? I discover a thread. Brian's statement is as true and eloquent as anything I've ever read on the subject.

Rob

This has all been written before, several times, for as long as there has been such a thing as an Improv Internet Message board, going back to the days of Mullaney's first experiment in such a community.

I personally differentiate between the culture of Improv and Improvisation, the skill, or tool, or art, or whatever.

As I have written here or there, in whatever forum, the culture of Improv rewards mediocrity and rarely requires from the participant serious commitment. You are considered cool if you overextend yourself and therefore cannot meet your commitments. A few beers before a show is fine. In some circumstances, drinking during the show is cool. Delivering a shitty product to a paying audience is perfectly OK, and it is ok to write it off as "I wasn't feeling it." It is ok to write off a whole set because of a small house. And in the culture of improv, it seems that improv is the only topic of conversation. The majority of the culture is made of navel-gazing, attention-starved, sycophantic, inbred adolescents. Until the participants demand more of each other, that will be the way it is. It is the it has been since I have been around. And for anyone who feels I am throwing stones, I was guilty of every sin I list and twice as many more.

Acting is a discipline, and the culture of acting does not tolerate those who abuse or ignore the discipline. In fact, you quickly find yourself not being cast. You need to show up on time. You rehearse 4 to five nights a week, for 4 to 6 weeks, and that is for non-equity. You are expected to do your personal work on your personal time, and show up prepared. Wasting others time is not tolerated. You remain sober until your responsibility has been fulfilled. You stay until the curtian call, regardless of whether or not you actually went on in the second act. In most cases, committing to one show automatically prevents you from committing to another. You are expected to deliver the same quality product to the audience in the 5th week that you did on opening night, and the same quality product to 5 people in the audience that you do to 100.

However, the skill. . . .I mean, as I have said before, so many actors I know who have no improv experience are TERRIFIED by improv, and if they look down on it, it is because they are afraid. Which, personally, I find hilarious and ironic, because there is no working actor in Chicago who has not been molded or affected by Improvisation in some way or some level. If there is a "Chicago" school of acting, Improv is one of the tenents, wherever you go. If you train here, or work here, and you have not taken a class, your castmate has, your director has, whatever, it permeates the culture. It is often unspoken amongst the 'straight' actors, but it is most definitely there. It is a part of the attitude that makes Chicago actors considered somewhat 'fearless' in other cities. The attitude is one of, 'bring it, throw whatever you got at me, see what happens, but. . . . make sure your shit works. Because what you give me you will get back in spades.'

I do not know of one actor worth his salt who, in the face of a truly talented improvisor plying his craft, is not impressed and humbled. Particularly straight actors, who have experienced the horrific sensation off "going up" and losing all the words, and not knowing what to do as your mind becomes a vacant lot. And almost all actors serious about the craft experience that, eventually. The skill is impressive, and at times, awe inspiring. I personally think that every actor who is serious about his or her craft should be required to take a year of improv. It should be in all theatre training schools. Like movement and vocal training.

I also do not know of any actors worth thier salt who would choose to spend thier time hanging out with a group of improvisors, or spend an evening and $14 or whatever $ for an evening at the IO cabarat to watch three teams make in-jokes and references to comic books.