Pamela M. Nash
Director, “Slow News Day”

Thanks for the thoughtful note. I too am a lifelong Mets fan!

Which, like improv & journalism, is a labor of love.

As Tim sez: “Onward!”

Improvisors are a sensitive bunch, on the whole. We fear that our product is going to be compared to unrelated things (Whose Line, baseball teams, etc), or not taken seriously at all. So, misunderstandings aside, I thought yours was a thorough review and I was glad to see it.

A few things: As a lifelong Mets fan, your comparison hit hard. Improv can have a high level of consistency, your readers just have to see a few shows and judge for themselves whether they’re watching the 09′ Mets or the ‘27 Yankees. Yes, the nature of it lends itself to variability. Some shows will be better than others, always. That also assures that each show is new! But improv troupes rehearse regularly to work towards a consistent level of product, even though the content can vary greatly. Measuring the quality of a show by how well the actors work together, listen to each other and collectively build something funny (as you’ve done in part, above) is my idea of the proper yardstick.

Lastly, and continuing the sports analogies that I love so much, pre-scripting in improv is akin to point shaving in sports. As in; it is disgraceful and should be swiftly and severely punished. You’re not going to be able to accuse a group of such things without some backlash. It’s pretty much the worst thing you can say to an improvisor. This is because it’s pointless to do. The truth and beauty that is improv comes from the unpredictability. To script parts of the show (aside from the format of a Newsroom, etc) defeats the purpose and we might as well do sketch. (Sketch is a perfectly awesome medium, but shouldn’t be called improv, or vice versa.) Sometimes it appears this kind of thing goes on in a show, but it almost never is the case.

Improv is relatively new to DC. I’m glad it’s getting some well deserved media attention. Hope to see you later on down the trail.

Ok, uncorroborated hearsay, i.e. “I have it on good authority from a friend of the performers (!!) that at previous shows & rehearsals, at least one of the gimmicks I mention made repeat appearances.” doesn’t wash at ALL. I’m immediately suspicious of “unnamed sources” and whatever axe they may have to grind.

I’ve been at every rehearsal and every show, and it just ain’t true! These guys have continuously amazed me at their improvisatory skills. I actually WISH they would repeat some of the gags, but they don’t.

And yes, I was very slightly soured by your review, to be honest. It seemed to be more about you and your taste, than an innovative critique. But, as they say, “to each his own taste.” My creative work comes out of a completely different industry, and my respect for improv comedy has skyrocketed as a result of being able to work with 4&9 on this project, and their sheer capacity for creativity.

But thanks for your responses, Ted. We appreciate immensely that you took the time to read our comments.

Onward!

So in summary: See WIT, see Slow News Day & other 4&9 productions, see DC Improv’s improv shows, and see Comedy Sportz for a variety of ambitious improv offerings.

I think your review would’ve been met with a little less animosity if you didn’t make general assumptions about the nature of improvisational theatre (not that you meant to, but you did regardless). It’s sort of like bashing an entire genre of music, or a style of painting: as opposed to scripted theatre, which is allowed free reign with both content and style, improv is deemed the “Whose Line is it Anyway,” half-serious, and ultimately under-delivering sport that lacks the ability to compel an audience.

Again, I don’t think you were necessarily trying to do that in your review, but I guess I’m just reiterating that it came across that way. Admittedly, I have yet to see the show, but as someone in the improv community I’m on the lookout for improv shows and, simultaneously, those who would question their legitimacy.

Aaron: Thanks. Let me be clear: I’m not saying there’s one way that improv can or should be done. Just pointing out the daunting nature of SND’s format. If anything, I was trying to throw ‘em a bone…not to demean an entire genre!

As for “jokes”—I think we have a crisis of definition here, and I’m the one playing fast & loose. So substitute “funny moments” for “jokes” in that last graf, and you’ll get the idea. I’m not talking about punch lines, in a strict sense…just laugh-generating moments. Of which, to be fair, there coulda been more.

Tim—we’re also gonna have to disagree on this one. While I appreciate the work that you & the rest of the tech crew did (seriously: good job), I have it on good authority from a friend of the performers (!!) that at previous shows & rehearsals, at least one of the gimmicks I mention made repeat appearances. Observing as much may make me “jaded,” but, you know, it also makes me “honest.”

More generally, I just have to ask: you people were actually offended by this review? This softball review of a Fringe Fest matinee? Seriously? Lighten up, people! It’s Fringe. And it’s too how outside to get incensed about this stuff.