Representing Improv

[Holmes]

Here's a question that I'm going to try to put delicately.
How do you want improv to be represented?

I REALLY don't want to imply that I think anyone is giving improv a bad name, because I really don't think that, but I was thinking about how different one improv show can be from another and whether the general audience gets that.
I've been doing improv for so long that I think I might not be able to look at it objectively. Does the general audience get the difference between short-form and long-form? What kind of expectations does someone who has never been to a live improv show have? If someone sees one improv show, will they expect the same thing from other improv shows or other improv groups?
Does a not-so-great improv show (we've all had them) make the uneducated improv audience member think that all improv sucks?

I'd love to hear about people (friends or family) who've come to an improv show and their expectations and evaluations and what kinds of things had an impact; stuff like the style of improv, the number of groups performing, the person's idea beforehand of what improv is.

 

[Rafael Santana]

I've been to a lot of improv shows. The first ones I went to were my bro's college shows. All I expected out of them was for my friends to act like assholes to try and get my brother to snap. Or for college kids to make dumb jokes.

My brother was doing both his college short-form and some UCB long-form stuff at the same time for a little bit. At first, I didn't quite "get" the long-form style. I actually liked the short-form better, because it was more familiar and accessible. The crowd is a lot more actively involved and there's a lot more room for suggestions.

But now I understand and appreciate long-form a lot more. The short-style with a lot of games is completely tedious and repetitive -- OOOOH, another German Expressionist film impression! Whereas long-form lends itself to a lot more creativity. I saw a ComedySportz type of thing when I was living in Boston right around the time I saw Chris' Works Progress Administration show in the City and that's when the difference really hit me.

I think short form works better with younger audiences and people who have no experience with improv. But long-form is a higher-end type of performance.

One problem that gets me with improv is troupe names and the like. To me, there is no telling the difference between one troupe to another in most cases other than "oh yeah, that guy was in one of my brother's shows last year."

If you're coming in to see a show right off the street, how are you supposed to tell the difference between "The KnightLords" and "Victorious Streetlamp" doing back-to-back sets? And whenever you perform, I think you have to go out there with the mindset that no one out there has ever seen you before and you have to focus on differentiating yourself. Not that I have any idea how to do so.

 

[Loki]

Well, I am about to take delicate, and stomp it into the ground.

The idealistic and illusory answer:

- Audiences understand the difference between shortform and longform
- Appreciate the subtle differences in between
- In the wake of an off show, understand that since it's an artform born of creative combustion on the very spot, this is inevitable
- They do not allow this to cloud their initial impression of not only this group, but all improv
- Those that are seeing it for the first time come in with no expectations, and are ready to soak in what comes at them


The unfeigned veracious reality:

- The above may describe 5% of your audience, if you are very lucky
- This is excepting that 99% of your audience are probably improvisers themselves
- You are lucky if they even know what improv is, let alone long and shortform
- You are working against preconceived notions that you are a recycled Whose Line or worse, Stand-Up at the Improv
- If they were able to understand the principles behind improv, they would appreciate it more, but we live in a society of instant gratification where a majority of the populace doesn't want to have to study up to fully enjoy their entertainment. You don't have to understand the history of the Roman Empire to go see Shakespeare's Julius Caesar, you just go see it.
- First impressions are called that for a reason. When you see something for the first time, it leaves an impression. If you see a bad show, that stays with you, and minimizes the chance you will "waste" money to see another.
- You yourself understand pattern recognition. Once is incidence, twice is coincidence, thrice is a pattern. They see a couple of bad shows, and it's locked, doesn't matter if they're months apart or different groups.
- The world is consistently microscoping itself in attention span. Three minutes for a hot pocket, are you friggin' kidding me? So you find that you may have lost them not in a couple of shows, but in a poor show, possibly in a couple beats or games.


This may not pertain to every group, every venue at every moment, etc. But we spend a lot of time doing this, are passionate about it, and a delicate assessment glosses over the reality of Philadelphia Improv. I've been apart of some of the most brilliant improv, and on the other side of the coin, apart of some of the most embarassingly bad improv as well. I think most of us can say that. I have seen pretty much every group there is to see in the area, on many multiple occasions, and I think all of them have brilliant moments... but out of the 20+ groups, I think there are maybe 2-3 that I would say are consistently bankable.

There is so much damn potential here, but it is what you make of it. We can generate buzz, bring new people in, start new groups, etc. But I think what is most important is that the people currently doing this regularly need to be setting the bar higher and higher, both for themselves as individual improvisers, and also for their groups. Take a damn PHIT class, a workshop... go to NYC, take advantage of UCBT, Magnet, etc. Share what you learn, practice what you learn. You may be an amazing improviser, but you can ALWAYS be better. Never settle, there is no finish line.

If we all strive for this, we will individually be better, groups will be better, we will see consistency, audiences will talk... word of mouth is better than any flyer you can put together... and that is when you will see the idealistic and illusory become reality.

 

[Conklin]

Two points:
1) 20 groups? Are people stretched too thin? Instead of being in three groups, find one group willing to rehearse three times a week. You'll be shocked at how good you can be in just a few weeks.

2) I haven't seen a ton of Philly groups so I can't comment on show quality, but there is a lot of stuff that contributes to a poor experience on the part of an audience. If people are sitting in warped and disfigured folding chairs, the performance area is not raised so from the second row back you can only see performers from the neck up, the sightlines are so bad that only the middle third can see anything at all, the venue is wicked freaking hot, the house is 90% improvisers who are all doing bits in the entranceway and making the four regular audience members feel uncomfortable and out of place like they wandered into a private clubhouse, you are starting off with a significant audience bias against you.

I'm not saying that this is the case in Philly, but it's true of a lot of venues used for improv.

 

[Holmes]

Anyone have any personal stories about people coming to see an improv show and what their reaction was?

 

[Mikey]

Yes I do.

Tritone is horrible venu for improv, the bar regulars talk the whole time and the folks that come to see the shows get distracted and it really affects the performers as well. We keep doing shows there and I guess hate it but do it anyway because we make $$$ and I refuse to let a venue beat me down. Maybe I should just give up there and find a better spot.