If all improv looks the same, why does it come out so wonky?

A counter point to Michael Such’s pretty good article on improv aesthetic diversity

I say counterpoint, as opposed to rebuttal. I’m all for experimentation in improv, let’s push the artform, lets make beautiful noise.

I guess my counterpoint is we do that whether we like it or not. Improv by it’s nature is slippery and experimental. If you wanted to get up and do a completely flawless, sterile reproduction of a Mike and Molly episode (picked because it’s quite safe comedy, and quite good all things considering), you couldn’t begin to do it. It would go whacko-strange twelve seconds in. Improv is a dance of decay, we are miscast, mislead and vastly under-prepared from the whistle and I love it. Would I like to see experimentation in improv? Of course! But make no mistake, improv is firmly in the experimental basket.

Let’s take a bog-standard improv scene about an alligator becoming the pope (I hope this sounds fairly standard to you, an animal taking a position of power in the human world, that comes up a lot right?). This scene will have likely have

1. That premise
2. A person being a crocodile, at best making a snapping motion with their hands, maybe not acting any different at all
3. Multiple location changes indicated only by physical gestures on stage.
4. The entire cast, in the scene or not, standing about watching the play, maybe even reacting themselves.
5. It lasts all of a few minutes before another new narrative begins
6. The dialouge is unscripted, and sometimes non-nonsensical or not-plot focused.
7. The reactions are relatively subdued, even unrealistic. The acting is often amateurish, and indeed is conducted by amateurs.
8. The fourth wall is broken many times, if it was really up in the first place
9. That narrative may enter into another narrative at any point, sometimes for no good reason.
10. The play was heavily influenced by the audience.

A pretty typical improv show, kind of boring if anything. But if any scripted work did any of those eight things (and you know there’s more), you’d lose your nut over this experimental play. The cast standing around, half-heatedly playing roles, relying on bare minimum props and costumes sounds fairly Brecht to me. There is shades of the tragicomedy of Samuel Beckett, or the rank stark amateurism of Lars Von Trier (we often just use our own name and voice). I mean the plot (not to mention the the everyman / straight man core) has echos of Eugène Ionesco surely? I’m not saying improv sometimes experiments, I’m saying improv has to fight not to be an experimental collapse into chaos. It is experimentation, like it or not.

Now admittedly my go-to references for what is ‘experimental’ is pretty white bread half-a-century old (Von Trier non-withstanding I suppose). I honestly don’t know much experimental theatre; as you said I like many improvisers don’t have a formal background in the arts. I guess your going for a ‘learn the rules before you can break the rules’ adage, I’m not against that. It does seem, and this is where I got confused, like YOU are against that though. That improv schools breed homogeneity. I’m not saying they don’t, but I would argue pretty strongly drama schools and especially visual arts schools do so far more. Painting rewards those with an interesting viewpoint while improv rewards the technically proficient? Bollocks. Improv is a hodgepode of abilities slammed together regardless. This guy (retired policeman 58) is singing with no training next to a guy (high school drop out, 23) who is on another day in the touring cast of Little Shop of Horrors. This girl (mother and dental nurse) is performing a scene with her German Shepard (not even a trained german shepard). None of them can do a Sean Connery impression, but all have done a Sean Connery impression regardless. Improv is failure after failure. Where do they get the most laughs? When they just say something true from their perspective. I don’t care how outsider your art is, improv is competing just fine thank you. You say hobby like it disqualifies you, like being a corporate sponsored gallery darling makes you more authentic? I’m not having a go, get paid, make great stuff, you can be an artist in that medium. But it doesn’t MAKE you an artist, and there are many who say it lessens your artistic merit. Not me though, I like money.

Speaking of money, and this could just me being dumb, but I got a little confused when you talked about bums in seats at improv shows. Are you saying shows need to appeal more to outside audiences instead of other improvisers, or your saying we do comedy because it’s so financially lucrative? Again, no counterpoint, I was just confused. I will say I don’t think experimental theatre is….know for being a big money spinner, if that is your concern. Improvisers watching improv is no different than playwrights watching plays. Maybe try improv with pretty topless ladies? That might work. Genuinely, that might work. I personally do comedy improv because I like comedy and I like improv. I enjoy watching it, I enjoy doing it. I’m not trying to sound trite or snarky, I just thought I should put it out there.

On being an ‘improvwright’, I just have to laugh. Don’t get me wrong, I’ve invented dozens of formats and exercises and blah blah blah, but so has every improviser six months in. ‘Oh this will be The Cheese format, and we’ll leave holes between the scenes to let it really sink in’. ‘Oh, this is the Cuckoo format, where we have three identical scenes and one larger more aggressive scene and the larger scene will eventually push the other scenes out of the nest’ or ‘Oh, this will be the Platonic Ideal format, where we dress in Greek chorus robes and Melpomene masks and tell tales of woe and hardship’. Format is great, but if the improv stinks the whole thing stinks. I don’t mean the improv stinks because it doesn’t conform to the rules. I mean it stinks because it stinks. Polishing a turd, all that stuff.

I also found it a little funny how you keep mentioning improv’s independence from other theatre and entertainment. I mean, I agree with you, let’s take all we can grab from everywhere! I do a two man movie format I’m pretty proud of, for instance (I’m not pretending that’s original, the opposite, that’s my point). I just generally find more opposition to that idea; it is often asserted that improv (and comedy in general) is such a funhouse mirror remix rip-off culture of bastardising other entertainment, that is has little merit of its own. Improvised musical, improvised star trek, improvised Shakespeare, improvised Wes Anderson, improvised dungeons and dragons, improvised cards against humanity, improvised facebook, improvised dating, on and on and on. Like I say, I’m all for it, I’m just surprised you are.

Finally, looking at your ‘default settings’ of improv, they seem…odd. Like…these rules are often in improv yes, but they are either more often in every single scripted piece of theatre (the improvisers are not themselves on stage but other people in an imagined situation, the audience are not part of the imagined circumstance, the performers are a team who rehearse together for the show) OR they are what I would call ‘experimental elements’ that I mentioned before (making them less, no more, homogeneous). For instance, a lot of improv is swept or tagged, but there is more experimentation here than in theatre shows, fact. There has got to be more improv shows that involve the audience, or anyone can come up to play, that any theatrical performance, or musical performance (bar dancing maybe, but that’s similar to laughing to me), or sporting performance (I say this because pick-up games exist, but they are less common than pick up improv shows surely).

Boiling down, I more or less agree with these points of homegeny.

In longform, everything performers do in scenes is diegetic.

I would agree, sure. I would compare it to a Looney Toons short, anything can be manipulated. Maybe it would interesting to have short-form human props again? Probably not though, but maybe.

The action is split into discrete scenes

They are, sure, with the proviso that I think ideas and characters bleed into other discrete scenes more often than in scripted works.

The performers take a single suggestion from the audience at the start of the show, usually a single word

True, let’s mix this up. I did a show where the audience had to make a noise together for the scene inspirations. It failed, but we tried. What do you do with Two of Wands?

None of the characters, setting or situations are pre-planned

Ok. I guess that’s an acceptable side-effect of improv, we default to improvising everything. I guess we could do more pre-planning, sure. I love the work of Stolen House using pre-existing sets. Still sounds quite a bit that you just want to do serious theatre.

It’s comedy

This did seem to be a big sticking point for you. I’m all for serious improv. Go for your life. Like I said though, I like comedy. A further word of caution though: I think improvising anything is an inherently funny. Things go wrong, cracks show, it just becomes funny. But like I say, there’s room.

The action is conveyed primarily through dialogue

True. But that is a problem across the performing art world. I mean, I like dialogue, but you’re not saying you dislike it so sure, let’s work on it, let’s have better visual/editing/audio etc storytelling.

The performance takes place in a certain location, at a certain time, with a pre-agreed audience and performers

Haha sure. Are you talking about a prank? Some Andy Kauman stuff? Street theatre? Without an audience? Theatre beyond a theatre space, sure, if you start talking about that sort of diversity I guess we’re stagnant. I mean, why can’t improv be me committing a crime and being interrogated by the police? Or me making love to my wife? Or the undocumented lifespan of a mountain? Sure, try it, I guess.

This article just seems so scattershot, talking of the so-dull way people stand on stage (what do you want, jumping jacks? Are you a child?), or the causal clothing (you’re right, matching jumpsuits would be better, or the prominence of the Harold (I wish I had a jump joke here), all in one paragraph. I haven’t seen your work, maybe your clearly leading the way, but I didn’t get a lot of ‘how to fix’ from this article, just wish the world was shinier for you.

Ok, I got a little angry there at the end. Sorry. Maybe I sound like jerk, reflexively pushing back, defending an improv community not even my own. This was a provocation indeed, so I give you that. I read your article because I was interested, so I hope I don’t appear angry you had the gall the write it at all.

Hey, if you have ideas to lead us onward and upwards to better and better improv, I’m all ears. But don’t be the dude rolling your eyes for the sake of it. Improv is a team sport as well you know, muck in, make it better! None of the elements you mentioned you can’t fix right now from the inside. After all — you are making art, emphasis on making.