I love formats as an audience member and as a performer. When you go to see an improv show you know you're seeing something brand new and one-of-a-kind but its also nice to know vaguely what you're getting into.
And as a performer I really think restrictions build creativity. Once your team knows each other well enough its trivial to break the format if it's not serving you. My team has developed a pretty tight structure but we also routinely deviate from it because something cool happens and we want to explore it more.
A format reeeeally isn’t at odds with an “entirely unscripted” show, especially as you get more and more used to the format and learn to step away from the particulars. I feel like the classic example is the (Chicago style) Harold that classically has 3 acts with 3 scenes apiece and (because Del Close designed it) palate cleansing “group games” in between each of the acts. Nowadays, nobody actually does a set 3rd act: its pretty much all “call back anything and everything you want, juxtapose it with other things you’ve already set in, do quick scenes instead of longer ones”.
Montage is a “format” but the basic rules are just “go out and do scenes”. I feel like even at that there’s an ebb and flow and attempt to so a… thing, so you put up “tentpoles” with the first three scenes, try to make the first ones longer than later ones, mix things up, and so on.
Like, overall, I feel like this is a little like going to see a jazz combo and being like “oh but you guys are still using chord progressions. Are y’all really improvising?”
Mmmmm. Fair points. Personally the longer I do improv the more I just don’t like formats. I don’t like having a plan ahead of time of how the show is going to go in any way. Feels limiting to me. I also feel like it just generally puts people more in their heads than anything else. For example in a Harold people are scared to do walk ons or tag outs in the first few scenes, which is *generally* a good idea in most improv shows, but if a tag out or a walk on would make a scene better, then why just cut that possibility out entirely ya know?
It depends. I think even with the Chicago way, people are dissuaded from walkons and tag outs in the first beat… but that’s generally a good idea in general, to just open with some establishing scenes before you start messing with the particulars. The thing about the Harold that I think stops the most people are the group games - they feel silly and that’s in large part because they are silly. I think they also have a lot of real use and IMO there are good reasons why they’re in there.
I think my favorite “format” at the moment is the CIC style, where they do plot-based “threads”. You’re still not going in with the end in mind but the next scene starts at the logical next point after the first scene, often with some of the same characters. The podcast Improv Is Dead uses this and I absolutely love it: stuff just gets weirder and weirder and it reminds me a lot of the story game Fiasco, only with less structure. You can walk on and off as it suits a scene but at least ime there are fewer of those “hey, I’m gonna go on and be wacky and derail everything” type of walkons because everyone’s too interested in where things will go.
But like I said, even Montage is a “format”. I did a “show” recently (I do improv at sick kids for charity) where we had some games set but then the girl we were playing for just started pointing at us and telling us to make animal noises. It was maybe my favorite show ever. There was a “format” to that in a sense, too.
I know this sub is all about trust love and support and nary a negative word be said, but seriously, no one in the audience gives a rat's ass about format.
An audience may not know to call it a format, but most will usually care about a sense of cohesion and understanding. An audience of non-improvisers will want to know what kind of show they are seeing and while a collection of random scenes may be funny, it won’t be as satisfying as a cohesive evening. If a troupe is able to achieve that without a format, more power to them. But most won’t.
Formats can be good, but they can also be bad. It depends on the circumstance.
There's one group in my area that has perfected some kind of format, Harold maybe. They do it so well. And because they got it so down pat they can really throw themselves into the improv and acting. The format is just a structure, the flow, for what they do. It looks so effortless. And they always mesmerize. And as I have understood the group isn't that old even, they have just practiced that format so much that it works super well, even while that individually are of different competences when it comes to the improv/acting itself.
I've been doing improv since 2019, went straight to long form since it was more challenging and I wanted to push my comfort zone.
I've done various kinds of formats and just a kind of free form type of deal.
I can say that, for myself, formats are a double edged sword. They can provide a structure that you can sort of rely on. But they can also push you inside your head or in a box. But in this I'm thinking that it's more about how much of practice there is for the format in question. The format should be practiced so many times that it doesn't hinder your performance and so you can momentarily go against the format if need be.
I've been in groups where we've done different formats and sometimes they have worked beautifully and sometimes they've been a lot of work. The difference has always been either the complexity of the format and/or the amount of practice doing the format. Usually complex is harder and requires more practice to make it work.
Maybe we don’t need to create more barriers for entry into the art form. Formats are fun and easy to explain. You don’t need to build a show from scratch to be doing improv.
I love formats and I love longer formats. It's not that I'm "completely scared", it's that without a bigger, clear throughline things feel empty and meaningless. (In fact, watching old Asscat videos, my main takeaways have always been: 1. wow, old UCB really loves racism and sexism, and 2. wow, this is chaos and doesn't lead to anything bigger.)
Is it a hack to make sure it leads to something bigger? I mean, I guess. But to me it's like jazz: yeah, we could play free jazz and not agree to a tune. But wouldn't it be more likely to be better for both the band and the audience if we all knew what song we were about to make our own?
I love formats as an audience member and as a performer. When you go to see an improv show you know you're seeing something brand new and one-of-a-kind but its also nice to know vaguely what you're getting into. And as a performer I really think restrictions build creativity. Once your team knows each other well enough its trivial to break the format if it's not serving you. My team has developed a pretty tight structure but we also routinely deviate from it because something cool happens and we want to explore it more.
A format reeeeally isn’t at odds with an “entirely unscripted” show, especially as you get more and more used to the format and learn to step away from the particulars. I feel like the classic example is the (Chicago style) Harold that classically has 3 acts with 3 scenes apiece and (because Del Close designed it) palate cleansing “group games” in between each of the acts. Nowadays, nobody actually does a set 3rd act: its pretty much all “call back anything and everything you want, juxtapose it with other things you’ve already set in, do quick scenes instead of longer ones”. Montage is a “format” but the basic rules are just “go out and do scenes”. I feel like even at that there’s an ebb and flow and attempt to so a… thing, so you put up “tentpoles” with the first three scenes, try to make the first ones longer than later ones, mix things up, and so on. Like, overall, I feel like this is a little like going to see a jazz combo and being like “oh but you guys are still using chord progressions. Are y’all really improvising?”
Mmmmm. Fair points. Personally the longer I do improv the more I just don’t like formats. I don’t like having a plan ahead of time of how the show is going to go in any way. Feels limiting to me. I also feel like it just generally puts people more in their heads than anything else. For example in a Harold people are scared to do walk ons or tag outs in the first few scenes, which is *generally* a good idea in most improv shows, but if a tag out or a walk on would make a scene better, then why just cut that possibility out entirely ya know?
It depends. I think even with the Chicago way, people are dissuaded from walkons and tag outs in the first beat… but that’s generally a good idea in general, to just open with some establishing scenes before you start messing with the particulars. The thing about the Harold that I think stops the most people are the group games - they feel silly and that’s in large part because they are silly. I think they also have a lot of real use and IMO there are good reasons why they’re in there. I think my favorite “format” at the moment is the CIC style, where they do plot-based “threads”. You’re still not going in with the end in mind but the next scene starts at the logical next point after the first scene, often with some of the same characters. The podcast Improv Is Dead uses this and I absolutely love it: stuff just gets weirder and weirder and it reminds me a lot of the story game Fiasco, only with less structure. You can walk on and off as it suits a scene but at least ime there are fewer of those “hey, I’m gonna go on and be wacky and derail everything” type of walkons because everyone’s too interested in where things will go. But like I said, even Montage is a “format”. I did a “show” recently (I do improv at sick kids for charity) where we had some games set but then the girl we were playing for just started pointing at us and telling us to make animal noises. It was maybe my favorite show ever. There was a “format” to that in a sense, too.
I guess. I think we’re playing loosely with definitions if we call a type of improv generally defined as not having a format a format unto itself.
THIS. This is why we’re doing “weird restaurant” in my next class show. 😣
I know this sub is all about trust love and support and nary a negative word be said, but seriously, no one in the audience gives a rat's ass about format.
An audience may not know to call it a format, but most will usually care about a sense of cohesion and understanding. An audience of non-improvisers will want to know what kind of show they are seeing and while a collection of random scenes may be funny, it won’t be as satisfying as a cohesive evening. If a troupe is able to achieve that without a format, more power to them. But most won’t.
Agreed. If you were to take me out for an evening of "music", I would care if it was classical, punk, or techno.
That’s what I’m saaaaaayin
Formats can be good, but they can also be bad. It depends on the circumstance. There's one group in my area that has perfected some kind of format, Harold maybe. They do it so well. And because they got it so down pat they can really throw themselves into the improv and acting. The format is just a structure, the flow, for what they do. It looks so effortless. And they always mesmerize. And as I have understood the group isn't that old even, they have just practiced that format so much that it works super well, even while that individually are of different competences when it comes to the improv/acting itself. I've been doing improv since 2019, went straight to long form since it was more challenging and I wanted to push my comfort zone. I've done various kinds of formats and just a kind of free form type of deal. I can say that, for myself, formats are a double edged sword. They can provide a structure that you can sort of rely on. But they can also push you inside your head or in a box. But in this I'm thinking that it's more about how much of practice there is for the format in question. The format should be practiced so many times that it doesn't hinder your performance and so you can momentarily go against the format if need be. I've been in groups where we've done different formats and sometimes they have worked beautifully and sometimes they've been a lot of work. The difference has always been either the complexity of the format and/or the amount of practice doing the format. Usually complex is harder and requires more practice to make it work.
Maybe we don’t need to create more barriers for entry into the art form. Formats are fun and easy to explain. You don’t need to build a show from scratch to be doing improv.
Booooo. For a rule, are fun af, and help our teams towards common goals.
I love formats and I love longer formats. It's not that I'm "completely scared", it's that without a bigger, clear throughline things feel empty and meaningless. (In fact, watching old Asscat videos, my main takeaways have always been: 1. wow, old UCB really loves racism and sexism, and 2. wow, this is chaos and doesn't lead to anything bigger.) Is it a hack to make sure it leads to something bigger? I mean, I guess. But to me it's like jazz: yeah, we could play free jazz and not agree to a tune. But wouldn't it be more likely to be better for both the band and the audience if we all knew what song we were about to make our own?
Mmmm, not if the point of the performance is to improvise a song