Improv Vs. Comedy 2: This time it's personal

Hello Ben. Hello blog readers. Hello monitoring software. It's been too long.

Does improv need to make an audience laugh?

Short answer, no.

If you're after a longer, more rambling reply (and I suspect you are), then I'd say that improv doesn't need to make the audience laugh any more than a play does. Or a book, tv show... whatever. Drama can be just as entertaining as the funny that improv usually busts out, insofar as a hardcore need for amusement goes, I think audiences like variety - who doesn't? A bleak script/show tends to benefit from the contrast of some form of comedy; it can serve to juxtapose whatever tragedy the piece is about. It doesn't need to be funny, but it doesn't need to not be.

There's a common view that because most (frequently all the shows a given person has seen) improv shows are comedic, all improv shows are comedic. It isn't true and it bugs me plenty, but we're dealing with a funny old art form. It's been around in a coherent form for at least 500 years (that might warrant a guest blogger to explain properly by the way. Watch this space...) and so few practitioners seem to want to do more than emulate Whose Line.

Wait.

I'm off topic.

Anyhoo. I think a show needs fulfil any promises it has made to an audience. By which I mean if you're selling a show as funny, you have to bring the funny. Imagine going to the "action movie of the decade" and finding out that it's a period drama about a happy goatherd and his affable father. It would be totally contrary to your expectations and you'd rightly feel cheated.

Improv can and ought to cater to a range of tastes. We've all (I hope) seen beautiful improvised moments of deep anguish, blazing anger or poignant emotional truth that have stood out in a show precisely because they weren't funny. They were real, beautiful moments of drama, joy, whatever. And here's the kicker folks, not being funny makes you funnier.

I've only phrased it like that to keep you interested, I'm a shill.

Improv, to my mind, is about stories not comedy. Comedy is great, it's phenomenal at killing stories, which means it's a brilliant finishing move. But if all you've got is gag after gag after gag, it's going to get samey. And, as we all know, samey leads to fear, fear leads to hate and hate leads to bland shows.

And don't nobody pay for bland. Except maybe the Amish. (I wonder if they'll email and complain? Are there cyber-Amish? "We only use Windows 3.1. Every subsequent O/S is evil. Eeeeeevil.")

The trick I refer to is this: imagine the joke you could crack after 20 seconds. Now don't do it, keep playing it straight. Try making it to 40 seconds, then a minute. Then bust out the funny! Whatever gag will have more impact, simply because it contrasts. It's a change from what has gone before. Moreover, it's probably the end of the scene which makes you seem funnier! Pow! Zap! Blam!

My point, far from it though I may be, is this:

Improv in a vacuum doesn't need to be funny.

Improv that wants people to pay money to come see - moreover, that wants those people to come back to see it again - doesn't need comedy. It just has an easier time acheiving his goals with funny than without.

I don't know anyone who's looking to see a really well improvised tragedy. And maybe that's because nobody's selling yet...

I guess my short answer is in the second paragraph.

And it's this: "[improv] doesn't need to be funny, but it doesn't need to not be."

But what do I know? I am, after all, just a humble tailor.

The Big Link Rodeo

Stuff I saw that was cool. And loosely related to making stuff up.

Loosely.

• An article from the Guardian about how improvisation is finally catching on in Britain that either fills one with hope for the future or mild irritation at the masses of improvisation in Britain that is overlooked by the author. I went for hope, this from readwriteplay is a smarterer response.
• Found on boingboing about a week ago is this interesting article on how social science is starting to catch up with magicians in terms of understanding the processes of manipulating peoples attention.
• Awesome graphic design for improv shows and the like including a super-sweet poster of the Harold. If I can find out how to buy it, I'll throw a link up here.
• And finally, some friends of mine are performing in Showstopper! an improvised musical in Edinburgh. Now. Soon. Later.
  

That is all.

You may go.

Faith In Fun

I'm in a theatre right now, watching a Harold that Ben's workshop group has put together. And the short point I'm making is this.

Watching people enjoy improv is fun. Isn't it? The show I just watched* may not have been terribly polished, or finessed (which is not to say the guys weren't good, many of them were, I'm saying that they're new to improv) but they were really having fun. And that was engaging and allowed me to see past any foibles.

Have you ever watched improvisers who aren't having fun? It's horrible. I guess I'm affirming the power of investment and enjoyment when compared with the traditional lone requirement of "mad skillz".

Incidentally, Orange, the UK mobile phone service provider are a massive, massive waste of time and energy.

*Oooh... chronology.