Comments

Comments

Editor February 18th, 2016

Here is a link to Dianne's review.  

Dianne Pulham February 17th, 2016

I fully agree with Adam. I actually reviewed this show for another publication because I believe the current standard of reviews for improv. are not up to standard. I've never commented on any of your reviews either John. However I've been an avid reader. In any review, I'm not looking for a synopsis. You can tell us moments of what happened - but comment on them! Did you enjoy that the audience was personified? I did! Was it clever that the director choose to involve the audience as a focus group? Were the actors witty? Did they support one another? Did they tell moving stories and intricate relationships?

 

I believe the actors researched this show to a polished standard. Its improv. Improv is NOT about fact checking. I would have stayed home and watched Netflix if I wanted that standard. Improv is glorious for its moments of creativity and with that comes a licence to FAIL. Being happy and OK with failure is one of the fundamentals of improv. I don't mean to be rude but honestly if you are to continue reviewing improv, I suggest you take a beginner’s course. Better yet, hire someone who actually understands and enjoys the genre. You clearly don't like watching improv. anyway. They are brave actors and a very talented bunch.

Adam Goodall February 17th, 2016

Thanks for the response, John. A couple of points in response.

I'm not suggesting you shouldn't mention the anchronisms. Rather, I'm taking issue with the corrective tone that the review takes towards those anachronisms when it's clear from the start of the show that the actors are comfortable with us suspending our disbelief a bit about the time period the show takes place in. You follow up a list of fact-checks with the comment "It's a good show all the same", so I can't say I'm convinced that this is just a "mentioning". Further, if we're turning to the publicity material to determine exactly how dedicated to the 1960s the show is, I note that even the publicity material says it's "based on" that world. It would be a tall order indeed to hold an improv show to the standard of accurately recreating the 1960s when the audience offers can easily intrude on that.

All of this avoids my main point, though - that the review offers an unclear picture of how the show works as improv because it doesn't clearly articulate what you find sophisticated about the show's improv and doesn't engage with the form or what works within it on any deep level. Because of that, it seems to continue problems that were identified by Jen (probably one of the most experienced and knowledgeable improv practitioners this city has) at the Theatreview Hui several months ago. Hence the last three paragraphs of my post.

John Smythe February 17th, 2016

Cheers Adam – you noted some details I missed so thanks for clarifying things.

“I'm curious as to what it's meant to add to a review of an improv show that never suggests it's trying to rebuild the 1960s in front of us.”

Here is what their publicity says (in part):

“The advertising world of the 1960s comes alive in the witty, intelligent, improvised show, Admen. … Admen will be an improvised show based on the world of 1960s advertising agencies, similar to the award-winning television show, Mad Men.”

Many improv formats are based on a premise that requires the players to thoroughly research and genre, era, or whatever.  I did add “Just saying …” to those comments then cut it. Nevertheless I do think it’s valid to mention anachronisms – which of course can be included to comic or artistic effect.

One of the joys of reviewing improv is that one can tell the story without it being a spoiler. I include story elements here for two reasons: to exemplify the quality and nature of the evolving plotlines; to let prospective punters know where the series is headed, should they choose to go. 

Adam Goodall February 17th, 2016

Normally I don't comment on Theatreview reviews but, having also seen Ad Men last night, I wanted to try and talk to a couple of things.

I guess the preponderance of fact-checking in the review (the remotes, the quote attributed to Mark Twain in the show, the high fives) is grounded in the assumption at the heart of the ask-for description: "[it does] require someone who was either around in the 1960s or is tuned into their parent's memorabilia". The actors do ask us to "cast our minds back" to the brands of our past when cuing us for the ask-for, so sure, I can see how that would be the initial perception of someone who grew up in that era. I would've thought their selection of 'What Now' from the audience offers would've indicated that the show wasn't going to be slavishly dedicated to recreating the 1960s, though; that some anachronistic elements would sneak in.

I'm surprised, then, to see it continuously held to that standard (through the fact-checking) even after it pretty aggressively rejects it during the show. I'm also not sure what the fact-checking tell us about the show? I'm curious as to what it's meant to add to a review of an improv show that never suggests it's trying to rebuild the 1960s in front of us.

It's also disappointing to see the misunderstanding of basic plot elements here. If I recall correctly, when Chadwick Norse announces the change of the firm's name from Morehouse Norse to Morehouse Crowhurst (two scenes after agreeing to marry Pamela), he follows up the announcement by declaring "I've taken her name!" I'm similarly confused by the suggestion there's some air of mystery around Shannon's "discombobulation" (Beady says outright that Shannon has a crush on Pamela). Then there's smaller things, like the focus group name - "Maria", which Charlie shouted repeatedly - but I don't want to start nitpicking.

I could also draw issue with the characterisation of how the ensemble performed and picked up on offers (for example, Jonny's entire pitch for What Now was subtextually about connecting with children and making them feel important, which seems to tie pretty effectively into the provocation you outline). That's a subjective thing, though, and I can understand if someone disagrees.

I'm reminded, though, of last year's Theatreview Hui. During that Hui, Jen O'Sullivan rightly raised a number of issues with the improv reviewing on Theatreview, that it more often than not indicated a lack of familiarity with how the form works and an inability to articulate how good a show is as improv - the skills that are used, the way that a story's developed, the way the ensemble works, etc. There's a couple of comments in this review that amount to a verdict on the quality of the show and its elements, but they're pretty contradictory; reading this, I can't comprehend how the conclusion was reached that this is "sophisticated improv" when most of the references made to their improv skills prior are to their failures to "spark off provocations" or "create the climax the format presumably hopes for" (even with some positive checking of Boz's pitch and Freya's physical comedy). The rest is plot synopsis or fact-checking.

And, I mean, I saw the show! I agree that this is sophisticated improv. I know that the ensemble plays off each other well; I can see that they're acutely aware of how to balance storylines without barging in on other peoples' stories, on how to provide character-consistent offers to each other, on how to build each scene so that there's something for others to build off down the line. I can also see the rough edges. But this review doesn't really articulate where the joy or sophistication of this show lies (or, if that's not the case, the failure). It just tells me high fives weren't a thing until the 1970s.