I've seen just about enough self-referential, masturbatory improv to make a post-modern enthusiast decay in his chair.
Here in Chicago, the improv scene is large and strong. It has and continues to produce some of the most talented comedians and actors in the business. So why is it that the only people at improv shows in Chicago are other improvisers? You have to figure that at least 75 percent of any audience barring Second City shows is filled by fellow burgeoners in the craft. This causes many problems.
Firstly, the scene is stagnant, void of bold experimentation and new ideas. People see what works in another improv show and seek to imitate, reproduce, and in some cases improv upon their tactics. But merely improving upon maneuvers you've seen before do not keep things fresh, and in most cases the imitation just comes off as flattery; that is flat and reeking of hack. It's obvious they saw 'So and So' do a form in a show and have attempted to do it themselves. It's unoriginal and it plagues the scene here in Chicago.
It's really a question of what's important in your improv. Where I'm from, it is less admirable to take someone elses idea and work within its structures. Here, the improvisers are trying to focus more on the skills within the show; the form is not as important. Both have their positive elements. Plying your craft without the distraction of form is useful for becoming a better performer, but from an audience standpoint, it appears to just be what everyone else is doing. What you have to do is combine the two. Give yourself an easy form that isn't already being played by every other group under the sun or even better no form at all and work your skills within that. Keep it fresh for the audience. Remember them? The ones that are paying admission and buying drinks to keep your theatre afloat?
Improv is on the cusp of becoming the "stand-up comedy" of the 2000s. In the 80s stand-up was huge. It exploded all over the country and become a springboard for almost everyone you see on TV today doing comedy. In the 90s there was a backlash that comes with every afterburning fad. The clubs flamed out and the comedians had to find other ways of getting on a stage. Improv has become a way for lots of comedians to get together and work out some spontaneous material.
BUT, improv has also been adopted by some theatre craftsmen for its applications to the stage ensemble. There are many complementary elements to ensemble scripted work and group improv. So, this very young art of improv is in a fine place to acheive something great; status. If groups continue to make reference to each other and their craft, i.e. making a joke about one of the prinicipals of improv and do not serve an audience of strangers and every day folks, they will find themselves only doing scenes for each other. And you can bet it will not be in a theatre space as fellow improvisers feel entitled to complimentary tickets to every friggin show they go to. And this secret society that has scared off its followers will die in someone's living room with no hope of advancement, and certainly no pay. You can't tell jokes that go over the paying clientele's heads. They will desert you and go see
Wimbledon instead.
The only hope for the future of the art form is for groups to take more chances (isn't that one of the precepts of improv?) Don't be afraid to fail (certainly important for improv) and go beyond their own boundaries. You can't be afraid to work outside your comfort zone on stage. It's funny that the problems these groups are having have a solution in the very fundamentals of their work. Groups just fall right in line with what has been done before them, with the exception of some groups who have experimented with new forms, groups that most improvisers have heard of. The groups you haven't heard of are rightfully jammed into the closet of forgotten harolds, where they will never be heard from again.
If the art form does not evolve and become more of something else and less of what it is now, it stands a good chance of becoming extinct, and almost assuredly endangered. And that's all I have to say about that.
By the way, So and So is a great name for a two person improv troupe.
By the way II, I have had two more encounters with misspellings of the word improv. i went downtown to do all of the necessary paperwork for the cupholders. the first office put "Available Cupholders Imporv Comedy" on an official form. I had to have him reprint it. C'mon, buddy, imporv? Then the "assumed name" office lady asked me if it was a V or a U on my application. Are you sure it's not "Available Cupholders Improu Comedy?
Oh, so it's a V. Do you want to put an E at the end of that word?"
"Well, I'd like to think we'll improve comedy, but that's kind of a lofty goal at this point in time. We'll just go with IMPROV."
Gahwleee, people, you're only in the improv mecca of the entire world. Is this something that state employees are barred from viewing because none of them seem to have heard of it?
Makes me sick. I guess improv is more important to me than a old guy and an Asian lady who are just doing their jobs. If the company was called "Available Cupholders Josh Groban" there would be no problem, because everyone knows who that is.
Well, that's all for now. I have my first Incubator show at The Playground tonight with Right Hand Yellow. I'm a little weary because we're doing a Harold type form with an "organic" group opening. I always feel a little anxious about those because they don't seem organic to me anymore (see above.) In any case, I'm excited to see who chokes and who goes with grace. And of course, doing the improv will be pretty sweet. I may even throw a Jenkins in there for the Jenkins Counter.
evolve,
b
