Thursday, November 12, 2009

Theatre Sports

Finals over, and I’m flying to Alice Springs to see Uluru tomorrow, but we have more important things to talk about. IMPROV REVIEW.

Alright, here we go.

OK so the show was set up with a spy gimmick, someone has to go save the world through the use of theatre sports (AKA improvisational comedy). There is a host (looking dashing in his suit) with the list of games, and a judge (facing away from the audience, though the back of his head was also quite dashing) who rated the games 1 through 3 magnifying glasses. There were 9 performers, each with a tie with their number on it, who were each referred to by their number rather than name. They were called out for games and would be rated, after a certain number of games a few people would be eliminated based on their number of magnifying glasses until one improvisational comedian was left standing.

It was sort of obvious that the group hadn’t really worked together, and the individual competition setup was not conducive to a group mentality. Sure, scenes were performed together, but in the end people were trying to stay in the game, which is not what it should be about at all. I’ve seen a few different setups now, and I have to say this is my least favorite. I see the benefits of a competition, but I much prefer two groups head-to-head over the individual being mixed together with different people. It allows for bonding, and working together. It’s one for all and all for one, rather than just all for one and none for all.

The most surprising and obvious difference was that all of the suggestions were already chosen. They didn’t get a single one from the audience. I found this especially surprising considering the audience they had to work with. Comprised of mostly actors from the show and their friends, they were quite ready and willing to laugh and participate. The performers had no idea what the suggestions were (I also got the vibe from their reactions that they didn’t even know what game they would be playing), so it was improvised, but the host already had all the suggestions picked out.

They were not afraid to let one person perform on their own, which I actually rather liked. Some good stuff came out of it. One girl did a pitch for a children’s book (no joke, that was her entire suggestion. They were pretty terrible sometimes) and really shown. The guy who ended up winning seemed to be kind of new at it; because they called him up and said he was improving then gave him a game by himself. He had to defend himself in a court room for a crime. Wasn’t given a crime to defend against, just a general crime. Kind of lame suggestion, but he did surprisingly well. He picked a direction and ran with it.

They also didn’t have any games like CMM, which used mime to convey things to each other. They did, however, have an actual mime game. Two people had to mime brushing their teeth. There is something to be said for simple suggestions being given to people who know how to use them as a spring board, and I think that is what the host was trying tap into.

Some of the games were the same with different names, though there were a couple new ones that I found rather interesting. One was called “Stunt Double” where two people were performing on a movie set a rather simple task; however they are lazy actors that don’t like physical activity so whenever anything has to be done they call “Stunt Double” and two stunt doubles take their places and perform the activity and a ridiculous stunt-y fashion. They call “actors” and the actors come back.

Another game which was particularly fantastic was called “Man Up”. It is sort of like a manly-themed “Should Have Said”. Two or more people perform an activity (they scrap booked when I saw it!). If the audience thinks they aren’t being manly enough, they shout “Man up!” and the performer changes their last line to something manly. Beer, women, breaking stuff, you get the picture. Incredibly sexist, and filled with lulz.

If you have any questions, feel free to ask. I’m looking at you Ryan, and also you Steven (though I already talked to you, so I’m looking at you slightly less).

HOLYCRAPFINALSOVERNOWLOTSOFTRAVELANDFUNANDAUSTRALIAAAAAAAHHHHHH! Ahem. Time to go pack for 100 degree weather in Uluru. I expect to get unburnt and I plan on buying a ridiculous hat.

2 comments:

  1. Thanks for the recap.

    I've seen a few competitive formats in my day, and I overwhelmingly prefer a group approach. The individual aspect sounds really jarring and promotes one-upmanship in what is ultimately (I feel) a collaborative activity. It sounds even worse that it wasn't just for arbitrary points, but to even stay in the game. Agreed, if it is a competition, make it group competition.

    Interesting theme, though. I feel like giving people names and nicknames and allowing to be themselves is a lot more fun than being a number.

    While I can believe and trust that the suggestions weren't known beforehand to the performers, to cut out the audience like that really turns it into a performance to be watched, not shared. Which makes me sad, as an audience member I get a BIG kick out of trying to get my suggestion on stage, and knowing (or thinking) that people on stage have to be ready for whatever the audience throws at them - local flavor, local celebrities, current topics, whatever is popular there and then.

    Sounds like the games and/or suggestions weren't entirely well defined? And in my experience individual performance is more common in long-form style improv.

    How many games did they play? How long was the performance? How many members were there at the start, and how big was the venue and audience?

    Is it possible they had a mime game more akin to CMM, they just didn't play it? The SoF usually plays ~13 games/hour, out of like 100 games total we know.

    If there is one thing I've learned from other improv groups, it's that they play a lot of our games with the different names, haha. Also, I don't know how recent it is, but we now have Stunt Doubles!

    I'd love to try Man Up. Stereotypes ho!

    ReplyDelete
  2. Stunt doubles has been around at least 2 years. Stu is the one who brought it in. Is it possible that we've never pulled it out of open forum.

    Yes please Man Up. Sexism is like mother's milk.

    I don't really know what you looking for as far as suggestions...

    Two lawyers from the seventeenth century dueling over an etiquette faux pas involving the last piece of spinach quiche.

    ReplyDelete