The Opinion Page

Editors: Jeff Catanese & William T McEvoy

Who Will Review the Reviewer? by William T McEvoy

In this issue, the op-ed section has Michael Bridenstine and Shaun Landry weighing in with their opinions about the first issue of improvreview.com.  They are not kind.  And so we quickly got a little taste of the medicine we’ve been prescribing, that is, that critical review will improve the form.  That was just the written criticism.  Over the last two months, many people have chewed my ear about what they thought about our website, including people who admitted they’d never actually been to the site.  The theme of the criticism seems to ask, “Who will review the reviewer?”  The answer is you.

If our reviews are slanted, dull, or off the mark, you can write to tell us that.  Or worse: stop reading.  And we’ll make changes or abandon the project.  If an improv show is slanted, dull and off the mark, someone will tell the troupe (and that someone might very well be a reviewer from this site), or people will stop going.  And then the troupe will make changes or abandon the project.  Like with any review, especially negative ones, we don’t agree with everything said.  But we value that the writers took the time to tell us what they thought, indicating to us that we’ve hit on something good.    

Now what happens if we come to your show and you have an off night?  You stink up the joint?  Call us.  We are not sitting behind our computers sharpening our knives waiting to pounce on your show.  We’ll come back.  We’ll give you the benefit of the doubt.  If we’ve already published, we will come back on request right away, and by design in six months.  And if it’s your group’s first show ever, we won’t come and review unless you ask us to.

We want to see a good show.  We want to tell our readers more of what they should see rather than what they don’t.  A good example of that is Hester Prynnz, which I reviewed in this issue.  I first saw them in April, and to tell the truth, they weren’t very good.  If I weren’t writing reviews, I’d likely never see them again.  But I went to their October show and was happily floored.  Now I think, what about all those people who saw their earlier work and wrote them off?  I told the person I went to the April show with, and he was surprised at my rave.  So was his wife, who had only heard about the show.  Maybe you saw them earlier, or heard less than wonderful things about them.  Well, maybe my review will change your mind.

That’s why I’m doing this.

William T McEvoy

Editor-in-Chief

Improv Review

__________________________________________________________

 Letters to the editor:

Dear Improv Review,

First, I am absolutely delighted with www.improvreview.com.  Learning about its existence is but one of several serendipitous outcomes of my having attended the 1st Annual NYC Improv Festival.

I have strong opinions concerning what improvisers need to provide in order to satisfy an audience.  Although I attended all three of the seminars offered by the NY Improv Festival, I was only able to touch on one of these areas publicly.

In my opinion it is a bad thing that improvisers seem to have agreed amongst themselves that it is okay to sing in front of the public without first investing time and money to learn to sing properly through formal singing lessons.  I think it is a huge mistake to put on a public stage the sounds emmitted by untrained singers.  It is easy enough to learn to sing through instruction.  One of the best singing schools in NYC, for example, has classes six days a week at reasonable rates.  (http://www.singersforum.org/html/courses.html [Not an Improv Review recommendation])

Finally, I feel that too many inaccurate comparisons are being made between jazz music and improvisational comedy.  First of all, a good jazz recording can be listened to hundreds of times without becoming tiresome whereas, by contrast, an improvisational comedy set is intended to be heard only once.  Second, in a jazz ensemble each musician only does what he or she is expert at:  the bass player is not expected to play the piano, the drummer is not expected to play bass. By contrast all improvisers are expected to be equal and interchangeable.  I am getting increasingly wearied by the comparisons made between the saxophonist John Coltrane and improvisational comedy. I think a much better comparison can be made between Fats Waller and improv, or between a DixieLand band and improv.

In closing I wish to say that I think Improv Review may turn out to be the best thing that ever happened to improvisational comedy.  As was stated at one of the seminars at the Festival, for an art form to grow it needs a forum for criticism and discussion.

Sincerely,

Robert Glover

___________________________

Dear Improv Review,

First let me stress that the idea of improvreview.com is needed for the Improv community.  Our peers (not to mention non-improvisors who attend our productions) need to step out of the shadows and give direct and clear reviews of what we are currently doing.  Kudos for existing.

I attended the New York Improv Festival as a panel member and teacher, and I saw a good chunk of the shows.  And I'm pretty disturbed regarding the review for the Improvoholics. 

The Improvaholics got a relatively decent review.  But the show that I attended that evening, did not reflect the review they were given. 

They unfortunately were not very entertaining, nor did they show the talent mentioned in the article given.  The formats were sloppy, the technical end sloppy, listening skills were lacking, causing moments of great pain for a good majority of the audience...and only one member of Improvoholics had a true grasp of musical style.

By the second game structure I was praying for them to focus in and get better.  It never happened.  From not heightening the game of First Date, to pushing the (already apathetic) audience members to give them better answers, to the extremely painful “Balladeer” where the most inexperienced performer in musical structure led a mind numbing song that in no way helped the already struggling actors perform their scenes. 

The show was, disappointing, and left a lot of the audience members (esp. Non New Yorkers) afterwards with this question "How the hell did they get a spot in this festival?"

With all this being said...I also know that one of the main members of Improvoholics, created improvreview.com, which makes me wince.  It would put my mind at ease to know that the person who reviewed this particular show was not from NY, so I know that this site does not become what so many people are afraid of : 1) Giving bad reviews out in spite due to not liking the group members personally, and 2) Giving good reviews to groups because they are friends with someone.

I hope that Improvreview.com does not become a place where you have to "Know or Blow" someone to get a decent, fair review.

With Warmest Regards...and that is honest.

Shaun Landry

Oui Be Negroes

San Francisco/Los Angeles

___________________________

Dear Improv Review folks:

I'm glad your site exists.

Regarding you article in the NY Improv Festival - I think too much was written about delays and not enough about the Fest itself.  All festivals are plagued with the same kind of delays.  I was trying to find something to give me a "you are there" feel, and not a critique of what went wrong. I think a good review has the ability to transport the reader to the event itself.  Also I felt the review didn't deal enough with the significance of the event to the NY Improv scene.

As far as your show reviews I felt there was not enough description of what was good.  In particular, I mean Klaatu.  While I agree their shows are very uneven, I didn't feel connected to the review.  After I read the reviews, I didn't feel compelled to see any of them.  The reviews didn't grab me.  If your site is designed to attract people to read the reviews and see the shows, then the reviews have to be more compelling, more descriptive, and less dwelling on the negative.

I support what you're doing and I am eager to see other reviews.  Good luck, all!

Susan Santaniello

Dear Sirs:

For three years KLAATU has enjoyed growing audiences and received excellent feedback from them.  We are proud of the positive notice we received this past June from Backstage's Amelia David and grateful that the 1,200 member NYC activities group Social Circles has made us their Improv Comedy choice three times this year with another show already scheduled.  I am honored to be working with each of the excellent cast members on our four teams.  We have sacrificed a lot to be able to present our shows for free admission and no drink minimum.  I hope people will come to one of our shows and judge for themselves.  Jeff's [Catanese, Improv Review Editor] entitled to his opinion about the show, but I think that his singling out one of our cast member's "flat stomach" is inappropriate and I am personally offended by it.

Greg Sullivan

___________________________

Thanks for the incisive reviews.  I know which groups I'm going to watch...

-M. Caperton

__________________________________________________________

The Opinion of One

By Michael Bridenstine

Imagine my surprise when I saw not one, but two reviews of my improv group on the latest website dealing with improv, improvreview.com.  The Chainsaw Boys were just going about our business of trying to make the world laugh when suddenly we find two of our performances put under the scrutiny of improvreview.com's pen.  I haven't gotten this much attention since I told Coach Abdoo that Mark Bernhard was the one who pulled the fire alarm back in sophomore year of High School.  (A mistake I regret to this day.)

The arrival of improvreview.com has sparked some talk in the New York improv scene and I have some personal thoughts I felt I might share with the community if the editors are kind enough to publish this article.  Jeff Catanese, Co-Editor-In-Chief writes that they will provide "Letters to provide a public forum of opinion" and that's exactly what I intend this to be.  In fact, I would like to springboard off of their words in order to form my own.

Jeff Catanese writes in his Opinion section, "I should say here that we don't feel the need to defend (the website).  The end will justify the means.  I have read too many good reviews of bad improv in the 'legitimate' press, just because those critics honestly have no idea what they're looking at, or what they're looking for."  He continues, "We don't contend to be the happy, fun-time place for improvisers to read about their buddies."  William McEvoy writes, "Now there are going to be those who say (especially those who don't get a stellar review) that Jeff and I have an axe to grind with the improv community…that as performers in the craft we're reviewing, we're going to anger people who then won't work with us.  To that we say: bullshit."

Is it me, or does there seem to be a lot of anger here?  I respect the intentions of the Editors, but why the anger?  Does there really need to be a published site that spouts out such negative feelings?  Sure, there are positive things said about certain groups, but the lingering taste in my mouth is not a positive one.  It appears as if the Editors feel a need to turn an overcritical eye onto the performances of New York groups and others that travel hundreds of miles just to say what a wonderful art form improv is.  When I'm busting my ass fifty hours a week working my day job and then paying money to perform my improv, I fail to see how such criticism is going to make me a better performer.

And it's not because there were critical words used in describing the performances of my group The Chainsaw Boys.  Hey - we got three out of five stars.  But according to our reviews, we "left the audience wondering if it was even worth the time" with an "energetic presentation of sophomoric improv" that suffered from a "lack of improvisation skills" and was "dominated by…selfish shortcomings."  I cut and paste these words from the two reviews, but would you want to see our show after reading this?  I think we do great work, and sure, like all improv groups we have bad shows, but did I ask for this?  Are my performance and the performance of my group fair game once it's put out there?  If Catanese really "hope(s) to inspire a higher level of excellence in those who perform and produce improv," is this the right way to go about it?

The negativity really shines in the review of the group Klaatu.  Not only did they receive one out of five stars (a reviewing system that has no definition or frame of reference), but also they were assaulted with lines like "the evening became painful" and they "look(ed) like deer in headlights."  Personal stabs were made too, "Troupe members seemed to make up for a lack of performance savvy and inspiration by relying upon personal defaults when they found that they had nothing else to offer a scene.  It's too bad those defaults included Ms. Royal's bubbly personality, Mr. Brinkerhoff's innocent routine, or Ms. Ryan's flat stomach.”  And the worst thing I have read on the entire site reads "It's always a pity to see the winner crowned only because his answer sucked the least."  So, even though I have not seen Klaatu perform, I know they should be pitied and they suck.  Ouch.

McEvoy writes, "Read the reviews.  Are they balanced?  Are they educated?"  My answer - No and I don't know.  I have already mentioned that I feel the coverage veers towards the unnecessarily negative and as far as educated, how am I supposed to know?  There is no information or background given about what is considered a great improv show.  Are Nichols and May good?  Eddie Izzard?  "Lifegame"?  What's better  - short form or long form?  Is breaking the fourth wall a good thing and are dick jokes bad?  Are the performers trying to make a statement or generate a laugh?  In the absence of providing some kind of standard, it's impossible for me as a reader to take anything at all away from this site.  To take it a step further, I honestly believe that the reviewer has little to no knowledge of what the performers often intend to accomplish.  In one of the reviews of our show, improvreview.com writes "a few of the other players used the format of the scene as an excuse to interrupt and derail it, pointing out the other actors' faults for a laugh."  What the reviewer doesn't understand is that this is the point of the form.  It's what we intend to do but when you read it in the review well executed form comes off as selfish denying.

Catanese writes, "We love improv.  It's time the world learned what it is, and what it can be."  Well, I love improv too, but I don't want it to be what Jeff Catanese wants it to be.  I've performed with both Catanese and McEvoy, and although I have always found them to be nice and courteous, I do not like their work.  From working with them, I have concluded that we are different performers with different intentions and different senses of humor.  And that's all fine.  In fact, I like it that way.

The editors of improvreview.com write that they really want to "provide a strong, opinionated voice in the world of improv (that) can inspire others to value their own voices, and have the courage to use them."  I put to them my belief that the absence of a critical improv forum is not due to a lack of courage but rather a respectful understanding of the vast scope of the performance community, its tastes and its values.

Michael Bridenstine is a member of the Chainsaw Boys.  To read their review, click here.

__________________________________________________________

Your opinions are important too. editor@improvreview.com

Improv Review reserves the right to edit all letters for space and content. In order to get your letter published, please include your full name, the way you would like your name to appear, your city, your improv affiliation (if any), your e-mail address and a daytime telephone number.