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

-----

Details of ‘@cuff’: http://www.comedy.co.uk/guide/pilots/cuff/

What makes makes people watch...?

For my first entry into this blog, I'm going to try and answer a question that I really don't know the answer to, or even know if there is an answer.

Anyone who's watched a lot of Improv will be able to tell you that there is some sort of indefinable quality that makes some improvisers more watchable on stage than others. This has nothing to do with talent or experience, but it's just a quality that's there that makes it difficult to take your eyes of someone.

I'm pretty sure Keith Johnstone (I can't find the exact reference in his books) said that an improvisor should try and make the audience want to take them home at the end of the evening. Whether this is for the same reason you'd adopt a kitten or for more morally corrupt reasons I can't recall, but I think this is a good aim.

We make snap judgements in everyday life, I know for one that when I meet someone I decide in the first 10 seconds or not whether I like them of not. Likewise with art, we often just know if something is good or if we like it, regardless of what sort of art background we have. Another example, would be looking at flats, from experience the worst flats I have lived in have been ones where my gut told me this wasn't right yet my analytical mind over-ruled this initial instinct. More often than not these instant judgements are correct, but why? I don't think anyone really knows, but millions of years of evolution probably has something to do with it.

But this doesn't answer the questions as to what makes some improvisers more watchable on stage than others? I've though about this a lot recently, and although I can't put my finger on it, and here are a few traits which I think more watchable improvisers have, you'll note that I'm more certain about some things rather than others:

• Does not appear to dominate scenes, gives the other actors space;
• Not afraid to make mistakes, constantly pushing themselves and getting themselves in trouble;
• Plays slightly low status to the audience;
• An egoless performer (conversely an ego driven performer is nigh on unwatchable), unaware of how good they are;
• Happy to play furniture, make a small addition to the scene;
• Never look like they are trying too hard, make things look effortless, as if they are not even thinking;
• Emotionally honest with themselves, they allow a little peak into their or their character's soul;
• Can see their enjoyment, they look like they want to be on stage.

By no means is this a full and thorough list, but I do think it answers a very small segment of the question (or at least serves as a useful list of performance skills). In fact I am probably more confused now as to what works than when I first started writing this what I like and what I don't. I also know that this doesn't even gets close to identifying what it the watchability factor actually is.

It should probably be pointed out that I don't want to give the impression that other improvisers are unwatchable. This certainly isn't the case, what I'm getting at, and I'm going to paraphrase Orwell - "All improvisors are watchable, but some are more watchable than others".

Perhaps we shouldn't think too hard as to why we like something and just accept it for what it is as some things just can't be answered.