So, this happened on Twitter yesterday:
I think those of us who are already “plugged in” take for granted how hard it is for someone new to the scene to get a group together. If I want to, I’m spoiled for choice, but it took some time to get here. Most of the people I started practicing with were not classmates. You would likely never have heard of me if I hadn’t been a regular at Improdome. I never would have been a regular if I didn’t used to live so close to the PIT; I had a day job.
If “interviewing” isn’t acceptable, what’s the right way to do it? Sitting in for a practice is great, if you can afford to spend the time and money. What’s wrong with wanting to talk to the person first, to get an idea if you get along or not?
I know it’s just Twitter, where the goal is to fit as much snark as you can in 140 characters or fewer. But it’s unfair pass judgment on interviewing, or any idea, if you don’t have a better idea to offer.
Because an interview - by its nature - involves judgment. Not the “comfort-level” judgment involved with seeing how you feel playing with someone but a cold, calculated, impersonal judgment born from a created situation that bears almost NO resemblance to what the improv experience is like.
I miss the sloppy, inclusive, coming-of-age, coming-into-our-own that should automatically come with PRACTICE groups. You’re not forming a team. You’re leaning together. Not cool.
I suspect lots of new students simply don’t know the norms. I think interviewing people is silly, but I’m sure it’s not silly to someone who knows literally nothing about how practice groups are formed.
I didn’t even know about practice groups until 401. My first “practice group” was more like open practice sessions: everyone could invite anyone, all our classes got open invitations, and we assumed most people would show up sporadically. And nobody knew that wasn’t the norm. When some of us talked about starting a “real” group and maybe performing someday, it seemed like a HUGE step— like it was time to stop dicking around and start taking things seriously.
There’s no handbook. Interviews would be obnoxious coming from people who know better, but if they don’t, I guess it’s as good a guess as any.
Nowhere by Gregg Araki is one of my favorite movies. It was promoted as “Beverly Hills 90210 on acid”, but I think it’s more like The Rules Of Attraction on acid. All the drug-addled, promiscuous nihilism that made Bret Easton Ellis famous, but with less intelligence and cohesiveness, and more apocalyptic imagery and gratuitous weird shit (and cameos from every actor in the world). I used to put this on in the background at parties, because I knew that any time someone happened to glance over, they’d see something insane.
Maybe it’s not intelligent, well-crafted cinema worthy of an Oscar, but it succeeds at making me think all activities other than doing drugs and having casual sex are wastes of time. It includes the best party scene I’ve seen in a movie, a lot of really cool sets, and a dope soundtrack if you pretend that 311 song isn’t there. And it does all this while speaking to everyone’s loneliness and alienation, capped off with a touching ending that might make you think everything’s going to be OK in the world (until it undercuts that feeling with weird alien stuff).
Can’t say it’s my all-time favorite, but it’s a line in the sand. I want to know more people who love this movie. I don’t think it’s on DVD, but I’ll lend the VHS to anyone who asks.
Don’t even get me started on Doom Generation.
j2d2:
this makes me feel kinda uncomfortable…
this is how I feel right now!
This is the most uncomfortable I have felt in my life.
Last nite, wuz chatting with Ben and James about improv scene stuff. A bit about how hard it is to get non-improvisers out to the shows, even when the shows are free.
Finally, they both turned to me and asked, “Wait, how did YOU get here?”
I started going to shows after meeting a member of the improv-cult at a Nanowrimo event. Started seeing his group regularly b/c the shows were fun (and CHEAP) and I had a lot of free time. After finding those events on Facebook, there were links to even more events, and I ended up addicted. Finally people started talking to me after shows, despite my pathological shyness and allergies to social scenes. You’d be surprised at how much more likely I am to attend the shows of people who remember my name.
Thus I suggest a new tactic of attracting audience members:
Go to events that aren’t about improv and talk to people.I’m assuming that improvisers get other improvisers to attend shows by going to their shows first, much like how it worked for me on the larp scene (get more players by attending other games than your own).
So what about literary events? Indie theater? Art shows? Nerd events? IAF type interdisciplinary mixed media weird things? These are also largely cheap or free in NYC, like the ones I post about. I’ve tried getting my friends from these scenes to come with me to improv shows, but I’m not IN any, so I have less pull. Even tho they are also poor and bored most weeknights. I don’t know how to pitch this improv scene that I’m not really part of.
Have people on the scene actually, seriously, doggedly tried this tactic?
I think non-improvisers do go to improv shows, but to “mainstream” ones, i.e. at the established theaters. The last several times I’ve been at the UCB on a Fri./Sat. night, I’ve seen a packed house full of people I don’t know.
I think getting non-improvisers to indie shows is harder, because why wouldn’t they go to a free Asssscat with celebrities in it instead? That’s just the nature of being “indie”. Getting your own friends to come is easier, of course, but they’re probably not gonna come every single time.
I think about this a lot, because my indie team* is constantly trying to get bigger audiences. We pay for the space and NEED big audiences so we can afford to keep going. We’ve mostly relied on our opening groups to bring their friends. There are promotional tools like postcards, Time Out New York listings, etc., but I don’t know how much good those do.
So I’d answer your question with a trickier question: what can an indie improv show offer a non-improv audience that they can’t get from a “mainstream” show? That one’s a riddle.
*Sherpa, performing at Under St. Marks (94 St. Marks between 1st/A) on Saturday, November 14th, at 10:30 p.m., with guest performers Banana Hands and Out Of The Woods. The first three audience members to mention this post receive one (1) Japanese yen.
Listen. I don’t feel like Our Modern Inheritance of Guilt Owing to Our Geographic Ancestors Treatment of Native Americans is an issue I was aching for Buffy to deal with - but if you’re going to touch on it…eh. Probably don’t bother.And: I’m about sick of flighty-Buffy. I know I said I like when SMG gets to do comic things, but we’ve been seeing a Buffy-overwhelmed-by-the-world for too much of this season.
OH. And thanks, episode writer ane spenson, for aother episode where instead of dealing with something big you cut things off with a joke at the end. (See Earshot and Xander accidentally telling Buffy that Angel was there.)
I think the intention with the Native American guilt trip was less to deal with that issue, and more to show College Cliche #358: Previously Apolitical Freshman Gets Strident And Insists That Mainstream Representations Of American Greatness Are Bullshit. But I don’t think it worked so well.
I also think I’ve read that they wanted Buffy to be overwhelmed for a bit so she wouldn’t seem acclimated to the crazy new college world unrealistically fast.
That damn Jane Espenson. What does she think? That some aspects of the Buffy/Angel relationship are dealt with on some show other than Buffy, so that a person who’s keeping up with Buffy but not the other show is missing important stuff? Stupid Jane Espenson.
In theory, I guess they’re doing everything right with Riley - by which I mean allying him with Willow and setting up this interesting parallel to Buffy by being a demon hunter. I just…don’t care. I didn’t need to watch him discover his feelings for Buffy. I have no idea how that was supposed to make him likable. I also don’t want to watch Buffy-as-Bridget-Jones. I hope that kultziness isn’t going to become a new thing for her.
I am shocked, shocked I say, by the presence of another stereotypical black character in the Buffyverse. Shocked. In an unsurprised way.
Season Four has been way, way too much about foreshadowing and vagueries in a way that I think this show is better than.
Welcome to everybody hating Riley and hating this season.
I don’t even think Forrest is a stereotypical black character. Just a stereotypical fratboy character. Scenes with Riley and his friends make me feel like I’m watching From Justin To Kelly.
The reveal about Riley is kinda cool, though.
Parker Abrams will reappear as a major supporting character in the spinoff series “Scott Hope, Arm of Justice”.
- I originally thought Cordelia seemed…dumber on Angel. But then I realized she was lying in the first scene. That works for me. The choice of bringing her over into this show is still kind of surprising, but she works - and was the most easily removable from the Buffy clan.
- Thank gosh Doyle is Doyle and not Whistler.
- Watching the opening credits hit home that this show is not Buffy. It is sleeker, smoother and more like those gritty shows other people watch late at night. Also, I realized that unlike Buffy most of the character in this show are going to be, like, adults. Weird.
- The premise of the show…I’ll buy it. For now. Mostly because I assume it will be a vehicle for these early episodes and will eventually be abandoned as the show grows. It’s pretty … Touched by Angel if you catch my drift. I wasn’t going to go there, but then I did.
They wanted Cordelia to counter the dark serious broodiness of Angel. I get that, but don’t love it.
“More like those gritty shows other people watch late at night” is my new favorite description of the bad ways in which Angel differs from Buffy. Their original premise was a monster-of-the-week anthology. You can see them trying for a very specific vibe, which reminds me of some crap “thriller” series you’d see on the USA Network. Once they realize it’s not working, the show gets better. Just like how Buffy improved when they realized it wasn’t enough to make the neglected girl at school turn invisible.
On characters being adults: without spoiling anything, I think it’s interesting to see how characters who appear on both shows— whether they moved over like Cordelia, or they’re guest-starring— come across differently in each. A lot of stuff that’s perfectly acceptable on Buffy doesn’t fly on Angel. I have examples in mind, but can’t name ‘em yet.
I love Whistler.
I am killing time by reading about George Washington’s family tree.
Fucker’s descended from royalty. English, French, Scottish, Irish, Italian, other stuff. Descended from William the Conqueror, descended from Roman emperors, descended from Anglo-Saxon and Celtic kings from a thousand years ago with names like Ethelred, etc. Long live the king.
It’s interesting seeing where names come from. The Washington name comes from George Washington’s great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-grandfather William of Washington, who came from an English town of that name. And the town’s name probably comes from the Anglo-Saxon Hwæsingatūn, which roughly means “”estate of the descendents (family) of Hwæsa”. Hwæsa (or Wassa) is an Old English name meaning “wheat sheaf”. So George Washington is George of the estate of the descendants of a guy who I guess grew wheat.
William of Washington’s father was Patrick fitz Dolfin, son of Dolfin fitz Uchtred, son of Uchtred fitz Maldred, and now I want kids so I can bring all those names back. A few generations further back, the Washingtons were descended from Duncan, of MacBeth fame.
Sorry. Got bored, got nerdy. Now I’ll go back to posting pop songs.