Andy welcomes all questions and will answer whatever he can thoughtfully and respectfully.  Write him at improvandy@improvreview.com.

Read Past Andy's!

#1 - Andy tells you what to do with that guy who uses stock characters and how to make bad suggestions work.

#2 - Andy tells you where to study in NYC, and why warm-up exercises shouldn't be in your performances.

#3 - Andy explains how to deal with that perfectionist in your troupe and explores the validity of one person formats.

#4 - Andy tells you how to do musical improv and how to get someone other than improvisors to come to your show.

#5 - Andy weighs the pros and cons of pimping and weighs in on the value of performing in improv jams.

#6 - Andy tells a fat guy how to avoid the Chris Farley syndrome and gets in his licks on blue suggestions.

#7 - Andy opines on festivals and gives the skinny on how to combat improv burnout.

#8 - Andy shows his fascist side when it comes to mixing democracy and improv, and tells improvisors to call out suggestions at each others' shows.

#9 - Andy finds the reason in the Rhyming game, and shows you can't get around paying a musician.

#10 - Andy tells both those who want to work in styles and those who take their improv seriously the same thing: go find others who feel the same way, don't try to change other people.

#11 - Andy helps a successful troupe split the dough, and tells another how to get to Carnegie Hall.

Dear Andy-

My group often performs games that incorporate scenes in the styles of authors, playwrights and directors. I feel that the scenes should be influenced by the style, but not get its plotline directly from it. However, I am in the minority among my troupemates. Who is right? -KG, Los Angeles, CA

Dear KG-

Sadly, you are. I say sadly because, despite the fact that your are making better scenes, more intelligent choices, and more challenging theater, your troupe will never agree with you. Never. The best chance you have for bringing your type of work to fruition onstage is to branch out with a group that agrees with you.

When the players announce that they are going to perform a scene in the style of, say, Shakespeare, they are not saying an amalgam of their creation and Shakespeare's, they are saying "style." On top of that are usually other factors to the scene: a location, an occupation, an animal you might find in Asia Minor, etc. With the parameters given you (style of Shakespeare and ibex) it is up to you to create that scene from scratch.

There is no reason (and no excuse) as to why this would not be able to be done. Most authors with three or more published works make it very easy for you to discern their style and the themes and elements that regularly make up their works. All it takes is a little homework. And if you are performing these kinds of scenes, you owe it to your audience to do that homework.

Let's take David Mamet for example. His dialogue is somewhat repetitive and spewed out in short, clipped lines (he says "the way people really talk"). He often deals with the universal themes of desperation, double-crosses and social classes seeking higher status. Yet, even with this wealth of information, most Mamet-style scenes open with the words "Fuck" and "you." Now the uninformed audience may immediately recognize these words (probably from other improv shows; not from actual Mamet pieces) and laugh, so the troupe's behavior is reinforced, and the style of Mamet equals "fuck you" for every show.

This is the great author style conundrum, and why you'll be better off pursuing this issue in a different troupe. There are troupes that take the easy way of what the audience expects, and troupes that take the hard way of homework and experimentation. Try and find (or form) the troupe that works the hard way. It's harder, but you'll probably find it more rewarding.

This is the second Improv group I have worked with, and I have discovered the same problem with both. There are players who take Improv very seriously and spend time working on character and scene development. They study books, research Web sites, and do a lot of out of practice work. Then there are the players who only want to play games. They don't do much studying, and they never want do anything other than play games. How can I help bring the two factions together into a tight and functional group? -Torn Between The Team, Monterey Bay, CA

Dear Torn-

I can understand your wanting to bring these two factions together, and, to wax idiomatic, I feel your pain. However, I'm afraid your cause is all but moot. Your question is like saying, "I subscribe to both the black hole and gravastar theories." They just don't meet.

Many folks who circulate within the improv scene are those who have seen an improv show, or "Whose Line…," or who have simply come across improv in some other way and thought it looked like fun. They tried it and, what do you know, it is fun. Not only did they find it to be an enjoyable activity, but they also found it to be a good way of getting their creative ya-yas out and perhaps garner some much needed positive attention. To these people there is no need to take the idea any further. More power to them.

The other faction consists of those people who started as a member of group one and saw greater potential, or those who found improv as a way to another means. They may be writers or actors or lawyers or scholars or any other profession or avocation that allowed them to see improv somewhat as a way of life. These are the improvisors you seem to be siding with. They will take many classes, form philosophies, form hypotheses, seek gurus, urge their troupes onward and upward and get into improv theory arguments at the bar after the show when they should just be getting drunk. And more power to them as well.

Your best course of action, TBTT, is to stop wasting your energy trying to get these two groups to agree, and use it to form or find a group that is more to your own liking. The game players will always prefer to play games, and the improv scholars will always seek a more significant truth in their work. Neither group is wrong, and their audiences are quite different as well. So you go make the vibrant theater and let the others make the fun comedy.