Saturday 18 February 2012

What Do We Actually Want From Improv On Television?

Jules Garnett works in film production, has improvised regularly with Friendly Fires and Ludus Ludius, and is currently creating an improvised karaoke show.

Let’s face facts: television may be considered culturally passé by many, but it’s still an incredibly effective means of gaining exposure. If something is on television, it’s in the public consciousness, and is thus elevated elsewhere.

There have been two major attempts at improv formats on British television recently: the BBC’s ‘Fast and Loose’, and Dave’s ‘Improvisation My Dear Mark Watson’. Both were fairly strongly rejected by the improv community. I don’t want to waste time with what I consider to be the failings of these shows (save to say that the name of the latter is abysmal), but for a number of reasons, they weren’t considered successes by us talk-backers.

Now, the BBC is taking another crack at it with ‘@cuff’. My feeling from reading the synopsis (for what little it might be worth) is that this show looks well cast, but the gimmick of tweeting/updating suggestions reads like a desperate attempt at appealing to a young, net savvy crowd. I hope it’s better than that would suggest, but I’ve been in enough pitching sessions to know where these things come from.

Regardless, I have to wonder what the improv community actually wants to see from television improv. In essence, how do you want the form represented?

More specifically:
Does it matter that content reflects the types of things happening in clubs/theatres?
Should it try to be new/different/experimental, or is it okay to do the same types of things that have been done before, as long as they’re done well?
Does it matter whether short form (much more typical for television) or long form is represented?
If long form, does it matter whether it’s single-suggestion uninterrupted (Harold shows,’ Music Box’, etc) or called/directed (‘Showstopper’, ‘Lights, Camera, Improvise’, etc)? Does it matter whether it’s narrative driven, or consistent of thematically linked scenes?

I’m more interested to find out what you think (and if there’s any consensus) than prescribe my own doctrine, but I will say one thing about originality. I watched GSN’s ‘Drew Carey’s Improv-A-Ganza’, and tired of it pretty quickly. It wasn’t that there was any issue with the quality of the show’s content, but I felt that I’d just seen it all before. The fact that there was a bigger cast and a drunken audience didn’t seem to make a lot of difference.

I’d like to treat this as something of an online think tank, so please discuss below and we’ll get to the bottom of this.
Grooves,
Jules

-----

1 comment:

  1. I like Improv-a-ganza. It shows great performers doing their skillsets. Its fun, energetic and engaging. Its also short, edited and same games as the last twenty years. Does that matter? It shows them truly playing and freely doing a live show.
    What I want on the box is long-form, like the US had 'Asssscat' on their television screens. If its short-form, I won't cry. I just want to see improvisers. I want to see those people playing and feeling free and giving the show their best. Fun, energetic and engaging please. I think '...Watson' fell on the first hurdle of use of improvisers.

    ReplyDelete