Anti-War Protesters Rally In Federal Plaza
Expiration Date: An interview with Undateable’s Anne Coyle
Review: Revolution Brewing
Where Are You Going? Hyde Park Mural Asks Big Questions
Bookstores We Love: The Book Cellar
Okay, so last night after a rousing episode of “Lost” (oooh, it’s getting so good again), we sat down to watch “Thank God You’re Here”. The show originally aired in Australia where it was the most successful new show in 2006. Parts of it were painful to watch and parts of it – well – parts of it weren’t so bad. We thought Chelsea Handler was okay, taking the easy way out sometimes with her poop jokes. Shannon Elizabeth predictably went straight for the sex, but Tom Green’s clumsy plumber and George Takei’s “neck doctor” were actually pretty funny. There’s no denying that the show would be a thousand times more enjoyable if the core cast (including Nyima Funk and Maribeth Monroe from Second City) improvised with the guests instead of trying to hit certain beats and spit out fabricated lines. We thought the end where everyone came out to improvise was a clusterfuck, but it wasn't terrible and we actually laughed out loud a few times.
We touched a bit on it yesterday, but the question remains, can improv ever translate successfully to television?
Shows like “Lifegame”, “Whose Line is it Anyway”, and now “Thank God You’re Here” have all tried. The only one (for now) that’s even had mild success is “Whose Line”. Many improvisers credit “Whose Line” as the show that got them interested in improv in the first place. It may not be the longer, slower, more artful improv that is now being practiced around Chicago, but at least it was true short-form improv, as opposed to the half-scripted “Thank God You’re Here”.
Bravo tried an hour long show with A.S.S.S.S.C.A.T. a few years ago. If a cast with Tina Fey, Horatio Sans, Amy Poehler and Andy Richter can’t pull it off, who can? Can a long-form show, like the kind practiced at I.O., The Annoyance, or any other bar in the city, ever have a successful run on the tube? Chicagoist can’t help but think that the general American public still doesn’t have the foggiest idea what improv is really about, and until the art becomes more mainstream through shows like “TGYH”, long-form will never be marketable to the masses.
We also wonder if improv can stand on its own two feet at all. We know sketch shows can be successful on the box, but like some commenters mentioned yesterday, improv is so fleeting and so wildly chancy, maybe TV will never be its venue. There’s a difference between watching T.J. and Dave at I.O. with a drink and some friends, and watching some strangers on TV try to pull rabbits out of their asses for some laughs. What do you think? Can improv ever be successful on TV?
add to stumble upon
add to reddit
tweet this
post to facebook
george takei was cringeworthy. tom green was okay destroying his own set, but couldn't do dick with the other performers. i was surprised at how well shannon elizabeth did, and i'm kicking myself for missing chelsea handler's individual bit. i liked her a lot.
to play devil's advocate...maybe the reason the general public is clueless about improv is because it's so insular. i mean, what does 'short long' mean? i myself am without a comedy/theatrical background, and it bugs me when i hear improv phrases pop up in sketches. it's a bit of a turn-off.
Come on now, George Takei coming in and saying "thank god I'm here" before anyone else could say it? Loved that. I thought he was trying to thwart the script the whole way and I appreciated that.
As far as improv being insular, it is. But so is opera, or poetry, or anything else.
The title of my post refers to short form improv vs. long form improv. Short being the quick go for the laughs humor of say...Comedy Sportz or Whose Line and long form being more dramatic, with more references back to itself done at I.O. or by TJ and Dave.
I'm just not sure improv can stand on its own two feet outside of a club or bar setting.
i did love the "thank god i'm here." but he kept cracking up and seemed in waaaay over his head.
as an outsider, it looks like improv has a bad rap. i've been invited - nay, ordered to see TJ and Dave in the near future. i'd be able to judge better after that.
That show and TJ and Dave have next to no crossover to what you saw on the TV.
Perhaps, i'm a bit twisted, but I prefer the actors to completely bomb because it's more entertaining to me.
I saw last's week episode with edie mcclurg and she handled her bit flawlessly which to me was boring.
am I the only one who thinks this?
I agree, I'd like to see the core cast improv based on what the guest star comes up with. It seems counterproductive to ignore the insanity the guest throws out there and bring it back to a preset list of topics. I think there must still be ways of getting back on point (if say, there are props or extra characters that need to get introduced) without getting back to the "script" so abruptly. Overall, though, I am watching and enjoying the show, for both the funny parts and the embarrassing parts.
Have you ever seen Colin Mochrie & Brad Sherwood live? It's a great evening of improv. Those guys are pros!!
www.colinandbradshow.com
www.myspace.com/colinandbrad
it's interesting. most people i know only know improv as "whose line is it anyway" stuff -- short form and games. they have no clue what long form improv is AT ALL. in fact, i think a lot of people see improv as this kind of "entertain me, MONKEY!" kind of thing. they feel if they aren't constantly laughing, they've been ripped off. long form leaves a lot of people wanting, because they don't get the subtleties of the artform.
i was watching 'thank god you're here' when it was on monday nights, and the people who were funnier and better obviously know the basic 'rules' of improv -- just say yes to anything they ask you. give an answer no matter what. give specifics, etc.
i agree with the idea that it is sort of lame that the ensemble is required to have forced lines, etc. i'm guessing that the reason is that it forces the scene 1. to have a definite narrative no matter what (lowest common denominator needs that) and 2. it also forces the new player into awkward situations by automatically re-routing the scene instantly, forcing them to have to crazily improVISe again.
anyway, it's interesting to watch the show. i love dave foley on there, but david alan grier is annoying to me. and he had super gray hair the first episode and now totally dyes his hair.
The show was kind of boring for me. Having trained at The Second City, it made my skin crawl to see them break every rule of improv in the 8-9 minutes I watched: correcting the improviser, directing (or, in improvspeak, "pimping") the actions to be followed, etc. The whole thing feels very forced. It's not authentic improv at all.
Interesting that Maribeth Monroe (former Second City Mainstage alum) is on there.
that episode of lost sucked, must like this post.
Go to this web page where you can place a bid on a Colin Mochrie & Brad Sherwood autographed Bar stool or a short autographed director's chair! All proceeds go to the Rialto Square Theater in Joliet Campaign. go to wccq.com for details!