Alright IRC. Let's have a lively discussion. I think it’s complete bullshit whenever a teacher or a coach says something like "I can't teach you to be funny, but I can teach you to be a good improviser." Though I do think that students learn important skills in classes like listening, committing, and leading with your hips to create zany characters, I think it's a bit disingenuous because it implies that you can be a good improviser without, in some way, being funny in scenes. In my opinion, to say that you can teach someone who is not funny to be a good improviser is ridiculous. I have yet to see someone perform and later think something like "oh he wasn't funny, but damn is he good at improv" and I defy anyone to say otherwise (but don't mention any specific performer because that would be hurtful). In other words, I don't believe that there are any improv skills that you can learn which do not in some way make your scenes, and by extension, yourself, funnier. And isn't it a fundamental skill for the improviser to make people laugh, whether it's with an honest reaction, some weird physicality, or a wild rant?
I can think of two reasons why a teacher would want to say this. First, because it's pretty much impossible to teach some people to be funny. Some people just don't have a sense of humor and they never will, and there's nothing wrong with that. However, there is something wrong with saying that these people are still learning improv skills even though they'll never be funny or do funny scenes, insofar as it is a way to take their money and excuse the fact that they are not improving. In other words, I think that any teacher who says that they are teaching improv skills that have nothing to do with making scenes funnier is a shyster, plain and simple. What's the point then? What on earth is this teacher teaching? The second reason that I can think of is that these teachers are seeking to appease the nefarious corporate improv workshop industry, which markets improv as a team-building exercise that helps people get better at public speaking. Thankfully, no one on this forum knows my true identity, so I am safe from such soulless hounds.
Your thoughts? Am I completely wrong about all of this?
BTW, anyone who wants to hijack this thread with a discussion about short-form improv and its merits should die from a carbon-monoxide leak in their homes while they're sleeping.
I can think of two reasons why a teacher would want to say this. First, because it's pretty much impossible to teach some people to be funny. Some people just don't have a sense of humor and they never will, and there's nothing wrong with that. However, there is something wrong with saying that these people are still learning improv skills even though they'll never be funny or do funny scenes, insofar as it is a way to take their money and excuse the fact that they are not improving. In other words, I think that any teacher who says that they are teaching improv skills that have nothing to do with making scenes funnier is a shyster, plain and simple. What's the point then? What on earth is this teacher teaching? The second reason that I can think of is that these teachers are seeking to appease the nefarious corporate improv workshop industry, which markets improv as a team-building exercise that helps people get better at public speaking. Thankfully, no one on this forum knows my true identity, so I am safe from such soulless hounds.
Your thoughts? Am I completely wrong about all of this?
BTW, anyone who wants to hijack this thread with a discussion about short-form improv and its merits should die from a carbon-monoxide leak in their homes while they're sleeping.
Last edited:
