Joe Bill 3/20/06 Part 3
JF: What improv have you done and what teams have you been a part of that you’ve been really proud of?
JB: Since I’ve been up here? Since I’ve been in Chicago?
JF: Um, no, you’re entire career.
JB: I’m proud of ‘Double Take’ that we did in college. I’m proud of ‘Screw Puppies’ that we did at the Annoyance. I was proud to do a show called ‘Modern Problems in Science’ at the Annoyance, then over at Edinburgh. There’s 3 guys, Rich Fulcher, Phil Gronchy and Dick Costello originally did the show. It was 3 professors. You take a suggestion about something you might teach in a University, then you take an absurd theory. Then in an hour each of the teachers, teaching from that academic discipline, works to prove this absurd theory to be true. Del loved that show. I think he saw it once. [laughs] That was like the epitome of the ‘brain’ show that I loved.
I’m extremely proud of Georgia Pacific who I coached for two years, then started playing with in the second year and ended up playing with them for like four years. That was me and Mark Sutton, TJ Jagodowski, Bumper Carroll, Lisa Lewis, Christina, Pat Shay, that group was off the hook. They were as solid as any group that ever went through IO. I enjoyed working with ‘Inside Vladimir.’ I came on as Tina [Fey] and Amy [Poehler] were leaving. I liked playing with those guys, because it was an Annoyance flavored IO team without that being the focus. They just played really hard. Nobody had kid gloves with each other.
There are things that I’m really proud of having directed. It’s all versions of ‘the Bat,’ which gave way to ‘the Throwdown,’ which gave way to ‘It’s not Me, it’s me,’ which became ‘the Scramble.’ Anytime I get to revisit my set of tricks that I like in shows, with swinging gates, with chaos-prov. Finding the order in chaos. I love doing Bassprov, and I’m extremely proud of it. I love doing the Four Horsemen shows, which is myself, Mick Napier, Mark Sutton, and Ed Furman. We’ll do a show like once every year or two. That kind of gets back to the roots of what the Annoyance used to be. I play with a group now at IO called Little Room. We do an old-school Harold. I didn’t know that I would be having this much fun, but I really do.
JF: What was it like improvising with TJ Jagadowski and Tina Fey?
JB: I’ve only played with Tina, outside of UCB, maybe twice. That’s way back. I think I did two rehearsals with Tina. The thing that interested me about Tina was that she was so non-descript and quiet, but onstage she was so fucking smart and quick. That’s toward the end of the days when women in improv would get upset that men would pigeonhole them into stereotypical ‘women’ roles. Tina was one of those women who didn’t give a fuck. She could handle anything that you could throw at her. She was just so obviously smarter than everybody on the team. If it wasn’t daunting, if you had any measure of confidence in being able to play a strong character, you’d love to play with her, because she’d never let a scene go bad. She’d might make you look bad, if you fucked with her.
Inside Vladimir, because everybody was so gloves off with each other, it was a blast playing with her. I don’t pretend [to be particularly close with Tina.] I’m closer to Amy. I know her a little better. She also played with ‘Screw Puppies.’ She always loves talking about teaching. I’m kind of an improv geek. I love talking about improv teaching.
TJ is different because I took over a team called ‘Bucket’ from Mick, which was the first team TJ got put on. It was obvious to me just from him just sitting in for three hours that this fucking guy was really good. He basically sucked out everything that was quote, unquote ‘Annoyance’ philosophy that I could give him in one rehearsal, and I don’t know that I really hipped him to anything after that. He was exceptionally bright, still is. I’m lucky enough to have played with him in Georgia Pacific or in other contexts that I know very well, usually, where he’s going. Some people you have that mind-meld with. If TJ and I make eye-contact, we both can tell what the other is thinking without talking. I love playing with TJ because he’s such a total actor. Like earlier when you asked ‘what kind of stuff do you like,’ I like when improvisers remember when they’re actors and they don’t emote. They remember the Del note ‘wear you’re character like a veil.’ You’re not doing something with a film of self-consciousness or with a wink to the audience. You’re playing truthfully in the moment with every fucking cell in your body, and TJ can do that. He’s one of those guys, the really great actors, who you just watch them and it’s enjoyable just to watch them process information about the circumstances. He’s fucking great at that. Being able to have coached him and have played with him is a privilege for sure.
Also, Pasquesi was one of my first buddies when I came up here. I admired what he did and learned so much from him, then TJ was like the second-generation, post-Annoyance IO experience for me, that the two of them are doing a show together is just awesome for me to watch. It’s like watching the guy who was a real anchor to me in my first 10 years in Chicago play with a guy who has meant so much to me in my second 10 years in Chicago. I love watching those guys play.
JF: What do you think of ‘the game?’
JB: I think that I look at it differently. This is a split between the Annoyance and the IO view. I look at ‘the game’ as more of a macro proposition, whereas classic IO looks at it more as a micro proposition. I believe that ‘the game’ is nothing more than the context. Within the context, certain things that represent pattern happen. Within the context, there’s a one-upmanship quote, unquote ‘game’ that happens. What’s more important is not that you find or get ‘the game,’ but it’s how you play ‘the game,’ so that the context that has two characters one-upping each other is more important than that they one-up each other. Does that make sense?
JF: Um, a little bit.
JB: When you say ‘find the game’ in a scene, there’s always a game. You cannot help but have a game. There is always ‘a game.’ The game could be something routed in something as simple as proximity, or perceived cause and effect. There is understanding in that your left-brain knows that you want to bring this back, you want to repeat the pattern, you want to quote, unquote ‘explore’ that. The quote, unquote ‘game,’ the context of the scene is far more interesting to behold when it inspires people because of it, instead of obliges people to uphold it.
JF: Do you ever use that term when you’re teaching?
JB: ‘The game?’
JF: Yeah.
JB: I usually say ‘the game’ in this context, there’s always a fucking game. Anybody who tells you to find a game is not giving you the best note. The best note is embrace the ‘the game’ that is there. I think that sometimes improvisers drive themselves fucking crazy trying to look for the game, trying to find the game or whatever, because that makes them analyze and think. The game is just really what the scene is about, or in a more immediate Annoyance sense what is your character about. To use Napier’s word, what’s your ‘deal?’ What’s your thing? What’s your shit?
If the lights come up and you and I are onstage and I snap twice and you fart, what’s the game? Do I just keep snapping and you keep farting? The answer is you don’t know, because we’re not there and it’s not happening. Who the fuck knows? You can theorize about it. You can talk about ‘what if?’ I could snap twice. You fart. We pause for 5 seconds. I snap twice. You fart. We pause for 4 seconds. I snap twice. You fart. We pause for 3 seconds, and so on until we do it simultaneously then we turn and smile to the audience and the lights go out. Then you can fucking sit and have a conversation with 20 people in your class about how you should have done it or what the fucking game was and you get 20 different fucking answers. When all we did was, we engaged in the simple active thing that I just described, snap, fart, and called that a game, and repeated it, so that’s the game. Alright, or is the game us smiling at the audience after snapping and farting?
If I’m going to talk about ‘the game,’ it’s usually in response to a question. I think when you talk about ‘the game’ in a non-specific [way], and you start talking about the quote, unquote ‘game’ in theory, it ends up having you take away stage time from students in a class that could be spent with them doing something, because it’s a very seductive conversation to have. I think it’s more important to know that laughter is always the result of tension broken. If you want to look at ‘the game’ in a micro, classic IO sense, the game is that which creates and breaks tension. Armando and I have talked about tension. Armando will talk about tension in terms of building and releasing tension, and I say creating and breaking tension. They’re the same thing, or are they? Do you know what I mean?
As long as you can get people to understand that, as soon those lights go up or as soon as they step onstage, whatever they do is an observable aspect of their character and their job is not play to the top of their intelligence but rather to play to the top of their character’s integrity, then the game kind of takes care of itself.
JF: What makes a good improv teacher or director?
JB: They’re two different things. I suppose the similarity is to facilitate confidence in the people that they’re teaching or directing.
In directing, you’re assuming competence in the people that are there. In teaching, you can say you are, and I don’t mean incompetent in the damning way that you might use it, when we don’t know how to do something or when we have a modicum of skill at something, then we are to a degree more incompetent than those that have a great measure of skill at the same thing.
In teaching people, you’re often times helping people from platform skills on up in reps at the improv gym, so they can get more confident in using the tools of improvisation in a competent way. When you’re teaching, or coaching, or directing improv, it’s important to live up what the ideal of the project is, whether it’s a showcase or a run. You’re creating a product. You have to stay true to that. In both instances, you need to allow for ‘here’s what I plan to do today, but if I see after the first hour it’s not working with these guys,’ you have to be ready to adjust or go to plan B. I suppose in a way they’re also both like improvising in that the thing that’s probably going to fuck up your teaching or your directing is the same thing that’s going to fuck their scene up, which is talking too much. [laughs]
JF: What are some things that you try to do as a teacher to try and get people to feel more confident?
JB: I think it’s to get them to know themselves, to get them to understand who they are. I carry around a lot of psychological shit with me. I believe that people’s biggest obstacle to get over is usually themselves. A lot of my teaching, regardless of where I’m teaching or what I’m teaching, is helping people get out of their own way, their own judgment, and to give themselves to succeed or fail but just to fucking do something, just do it, fearlessly.
So, I will assess the group that I’m teaching. I know that no two groups are alike, but I know that there’s a 99% certainty that anything I encounter in that classroom I’ve encountered before. It might just be in different combination with other things that are there. I always endeavor to be honest with people. I stole this from Mick. At some point, years ago he said the 3 words you may utter as a teacher or director are ‘I don’t know.’ And if you honestly don’t know, I think that’s what separates a beginning teacher or director from an intermediate teacher or director is being willing to say ‘I don’t know’ if you truly don’t know, instead of running your mouth and hoping that something that makes sense comes out.
JF: I was a teacher in a middle school for a little while and I think the same thing is true there. If you don’t know, you just to be quiet and tell them that you’ll get back to them.
JB: Or throw them a bone. ‘What do you think?’ I thought Del was full of shit when he said everyone’s intelligent. Just because sitting in front of the class doesn’t mean you’re the smartest fucker in there. I mean, he might have been. I don’t know if he was the smartest. He was probably the most well-read. He probably had more balls than anybody in the room. But you don’t know who’s sitting out there. There’s nothing wrong with asking them, ‘I don’t know. What do you guys think about what you see?’ Because you’re still a leader. Whether you’re a teacher or a director, you’re the one who’s in charge of and responsible for the initially energy that those people experience in that space that day. You have to have ownership of that, and you have to comport yourself with confidence. Being confident really doesn’t have much to do with knowing everything. Being confident means one thing, and that is ‘there’s a pretty good chance we’re going to get something good done today, and if we don’t, we’ll get it done the next time.’
JF: Where would you like to see yourself 5 to 10 years from now?
JB: Jesus, I don’t know, alive. [Laughs] I don’t know. I’ve always been horrible with this. I’ve gotten good since I’ve hit 40 at being able to look at where I’d like to be in a year, but in 5 to 10 years from now, I suppose doing more of what I do. I know I will always teach. I know I will always perform. I know I will always be largely based in Chicago. I’ll go to one coast or another to work. If it’s 10 years from now, it’d be great to have enough money to have a place in New York and a place in Chicago, and a place to go visit somebody in L.A., but I don’t really care for L.A. that much, even though that’s where the work and the weather is. I think in 10 years from now, I would like Bassprov to realize some sort of commercial success, being a television version of itself or a movie version of itself. I suppose I would still see myself teaching improv, helping people, helping people learn what I’ve learned quicker. In my 30’s, my teaching goal was to help improvisers answer the question ‘how do I get out of my head?’ Now in my 40’s, I want to help people do in 10 years what it took me 20 to do.
JF: Do you have anything that you’d like to say to the improv community that we didn’t get out?
JB: Remember that there’s other shit to do besides improv. …Um, if people are reading this looking for any type of wisdom, I’m flattered, but that probably already resides between their ear. …And, um, hi! I hope your day is good and I’ll see you soon.
[Mark Henderson posted a great article and picture of 'Dubbletaque,' the college group Joe Bill was referring to, in the Improv section of the IRC: http://www.improvresourcecenter.com/...ad.php?t=43771 ]
JB: Since I’ve been up here? Since I’ve been in Chicago?
JF: Um, no, you’re entire career.
JB: I’m proud of ‘Double Take’ that we did in college. I’m proud of ‘Screw Puppies’ that we did at the Annoyance. I was proud to do a show called ‘Modern Problems in Science’ at the Annoyance, then over at Edinburgh. There’s 3 guys, Rich Fulcher, Phil Gronchy and Dick Costello originally did the show. It was 3 professors. You take a suggestion about something you might teach in a University, then you take an absurd theory. Then in an hour each of the teachers, teaching from that academic discipline, works to prove this absurd theory to be true. Del loved that show. I think he saw it once. [laughs] That was like the epitome of the ‘brain’ show that I loved.
I’m extremely proud of Georgia Pacific who I coached for two years, then started playing with in the second year and ended up playing with them for like four years. That was me and Mark Sutton, TJ Jagodowski, Bumper Carroll, Lisa Lewis, Christina, Pat Shay, that group was off the hook. They were as solid as any group that ever went through IO. I enjoyed working with ‘Inside Vladimir.’ I came on as Tina [Fey] and Amy [Poehler] were leaving. I liked playing with those guys, because it was an Annoyance flavored IO team without that being the focus. They just played really hard. Nobody had kid gloves with each other.
There are things that I’m really proud of having directed. It’s all versions of ‘the Bat,’ which gave way to ‘the Throwdown,’ which gave way to ‘It’s not Me, it’s me,’ which became ‘the Scramble.’ Anytime I get to revisit my set of tricks that I like in shows, with swinging gates, with chaos-prov. Finding the order in chaos. I love doing Bassprov, and I’m extremely proud of it. I love doing the Four Horsemen shows, which is myself, Mick Napier, Mark Sutton, and Ed Furman. We’ll do a show like once every year or two. That kind of gets back to the roots of what the Annoyance used to be. I play with a group now at IO called Little Room. We do an old-school Harold. I didn’t know that I would be having this much fun, but I really do.
JF: What was it like improvising with TJ Jagadowski and Tina Fey?
JB: I’ve only played with Tina, outside of UCB, maybe twice. That’s way back. I think I did two rehearsals with Tina. The thing that interested me about Tina was that she was so non-descript and quiet, but onstage she was so fucking smart and quick. That’s toward the end of the days when women in improv would get upset that men would pigeonhole them into stereotypical ‘women’ roles. Tina was one of those women who didn’t give a fuck. She could handle anything that you could throw at her. She was just so obviously smarter than everybody on the team. If it wasn’t daunting, if you had any measure of confidence in being able to play a strong character, you’d love to play with her, because she’d never let a scene go bad. She’d might make you look bad, if you fucked with her.
Inside Vladimir, because everybody was so gloves off with each other, it was a blast playing with her. I don’t pretend [to be particularly close with Tina.] I’m closer to Amy. I know her a little better. She also played with ‘Screw Puppies.’ She always loves talking about teaching. I’m kind of an improv geek. I love talking about improv teaching.
TJ is different because I took over a team called ‘Bucket’ from Mick, which was the first team TJ got put on. It was obvious to me just from him just sitting in for three hours that this fucking guy was really good. He basically sucked out everything that was quote, unquote ‘Annoyance’ philosophy that I could give him in one rehearsal, and I don’t know that I really hipped him to anything after that. He was exceptionally bright, still is. I’m lucky enough to have played with him in Georgia Pacific or in other contexts that I know very well, usually, where he’s going. Some people you have that mind-meld with. If TJ and I make eye-contact, we both can tell what the other is thinking without talking. I love playing with TJ because he’s such a total actor. Like earlier when you asked ‘what kind of stuff do you like,’ I like when improvisers remember when they’re actors and they don’t emote. They remember the Del note ‘wear you’re character like a veil.’ You’re not doing something with a film of self-consciousness or with a wink to the audience. You’re playing truthfully in the moment with every fucking cell in your body, and TJ can do that. He’s one of those guys, the really great actors, who you just watch them and it’s enjoyable just to watch them process information about the circumstances. He’s fucking great at that. Being able to have coached him and have played with him is a privilege for sure.
Also, Pasquesi was one of my first buddies when I came up here. I admired what he did and learned so much from him, then TJ was like the second-generation, post-Annoyance IO experience for me, that the two of them are doing a show together is just awesome for me to watch. It’s like watching the guy who was a real anchor to me in my first 10 years in Chicago play with a guy who has meant so much to me in my second 10 years in Chicago. I love watching those guys play.
JF: What do you think of ‘the game?’
JB: I think that I look at it differently. This is a split between the Annoyance and the IO view. I look at ‘the game’ as more of a macro proposition, whereas classic IO looks at it more as a micro proposition. I believe that ‘the game’ is nothing more than the context. Within the context, certain things that represent pattern happen. Within the context, there’s a one-upmanship quote, unquote ‘game’ that happens. What’s more important is not that you find or get ‘the game,’ but it’s how you play ‘the game,’ so that the context that has two characters one-upping each other is more important than that they one-up each other. Does that make sense?
JF: Um, a little bit.
JB: When you say ‘find the game’ in a scene, there’s always a game. You cannot help but have a game. There is always ‘a game.’ The game could be something routed in something as simple as proximity, or perceived cause and effect. There is understanding in that your left-brain knows that you want to bring this back, you want to repeat the pattern, you want to quote, unquote ‘explore’ that. The quote, unquote ‘game,’ the context of the scene is far more interesting to behold when it inspires people because of it, instead of obliges people to uphold it.
JF: Do you ever use that term when you’re teaching?
JB: ‘The game?’
JF: Yeah.
JB: I usually say ‘the game’ in this context, there’s always a fucking game. Anybody who tells you to find a game is not giving you the best note. The best note is embrace the ‘the game’ that is there. I think that sometimes improvisers drive themselves fucking crazy trying to look for the game, trying to find the game or whatever, because that makes them analyze and think. The game is just really what the scene is about, or in a more immediate Annoyance sense what is your character about. To use Napier’s word, what’s your ‘deal?’ What’s your thing? What’s your shit?
If the lights come up and you and I are onstage and I snap twice and you fart, what’s the game? Do I just keep snapping and you keep farting? The answer is you don’t know, because we’re not there and it’s not happening. Who the fuck knows? You can theorize about it. You can talk about ‘what if?’ I could snap twice. You fart. We pause for 5 seconds. I snap twice. You fart. We pause for 4 seconds. I snap twice. You fart. We pause for 3 seconds, and so on until we do it simultaneously then we turn and smile to the audience and the lights go out. Then you can fucking sit and have a conversation with 20 people in your class about how you should have done it or what the fucking game was and you get 20 different fucking answers. When all we did was, we engaged in the simple active thing that I just described, snap, fart, and called that a game, and repeated it, so that’s the game. Alright, or is the game us smiling at the audience after snapping and farting?
If I’m going to talk about ‘the game,’ it’s usually in response to a question. I think when you talk about ‘the game’ in a non-specific [way], and you start talking about the quote, unquote ‘game’ in theory, it ends up having you take away stage time from students in a class that could be spent with them doing something, because it’s a very seductive conversation to have. I think it’s more important to know that laughter is always the result of tension broken. If you want to look at ‘the game’ in a micro, classic IO sense, the game is that which creates and breaks tension. Armando and I have talked about tension. Armando will talk about tension in terms of building and releasing tension, and I say creating and breaking tension. They’re the same thing, or are they? Do you know what I mean?
As long as you can get people to understand that, as soon those lights go up or as soon as they step onstage, whatever they do is an observable aspect of their character and their job is not play to the top of their intelligence but rather to play to the top of their character’s integrity, then the game kind of takes care of itself.
JF: What makes a good improv teacher or director?
JB: They’re two different things. I suppose the similarity is to facilitate confidence in the people that they’re teaching or directing.
In directing, you’re assuming competence in the people that are there. In teaching, you can say you are, and I don’t mean incompetent in the damning way that you might use it, when we don’t know how to do something or when we have a modicum of skill at something, then we are to a degree more incompetent than those that have a great measure of skill at the same thing.
In teaching people, you’re often times helping people from platform skills on up in reps at the improv gym, so they can get more confident in using the tools of improvisation in a competent way. When you’re teaching, or coaching, or directing improv, it’s important to live up what the ideal of the project is, whether it’s a showcase or a run. You’re creating a product. You have to stay true to that. In both instances, you need to allow for ‘here’s what I plan to do today, but if I see after the first hour it’s not working with these guys,’ you have to be ready to adjust or go to plan B. I suppose in a way they’re also both like improvising in that the thing that’s probably going to fuck up your teaching or your directing is the same thing that’s going to fuck their scene up, which is talking too much. [laughs]
JF: What are some things that you try to do as a teacher to try and get people to feel more confident?
JB: I think it’s to get them to know themselves, to get them to understand who they are. I carry around a lot of psychological shit with me. I believe that people’s biggest obstacle to get over is usually themselves. A lot of my teaching, regardless of where I’m teaching or what I’m teaching, is helping people get out of their own way, their own judgment, and to give themselves to succeed or fail but just to fucking do something, just do it, fearlessly.
So, I will assess the group that I’m teaching. I know that no two groups are alike, but I know that there’s a 99% certainty that anything I encounter in that classroom I’ve encountered before. It might just be in different combination with other things that are there. I always endeavor to be honest with people. I stole this from Mick. At some point, years ago he said the 3 words you may utter as a teacher or director are ‘I don’t know.’ And if you honestly don’t know, I think that’s what separates a beginning teacher or director from an intermediate teacher or director is being willing to say ‘I don’t know’ if you truly don’t know, instead of running your mouth and hoping that something that makes sense comes out.
JF: I was a teacher in a middle school for a little while and I think the same thing is true there. If you don’t know, you just to be quiet and tell them that you’ll get back to them.
JB: Or throw them a bone. ‘What do you think?’ I thought Del was full of shit when he said everyone’s intelligent. Just because sitting in front of the class doesn’t mean you’re the smartest fucker in there. I mean, he might have been. I don’t know if he was the smartest. He was probably the most well-read. He probably had more balls than anybody in the room. But you don’t know who’s sitting out there. There’s nothing wrong with asking them, ‘I don’t know. What do you guys think about what you see?’ Because you’re still a leader. Whether you’re a teacher or a director, you’re the one who’s in charge of and responsible for the initially energy that those people experience in that space that day. You have to have ownership of that, and you have to comport yourself with confidence. Being confident really doesn’t have much to do with knowing everything. Being confident means one thing, and that is ‘there’s a pretty good chance we’re going to get something good done today, and if we don’t, we’ll get it done the next time.’
JF: Where would you like to see yourself 5 to 10 years from now?
JB: Jesus, I don’t know, alive. [Laughs] I don’t know. I’ve always been horrible with this. I’ve gotten good since I’ve hit 40 at being able to look at where I’d like to be in a year, but in 5 to 10 years from now, I suppose doing more of what I do. I know I will always teach. I know I will always perform. I know I will always be largely based in Chicago. I’ll go to one coast or another to work. If it’s 10 years from now, it’d be great to have enough money to have a place in New York and a place in Chicago, and a place to go visit somebody in L.A., but I don’t really care for L.A. that much, even though that’s where the work and the weather is. I think in 10 years from now, I would like Bassprov to realize some sort of commercial success, being a television version of itself or a movie version of itself. I suppose I would still see myself teaching improv, helping people, helping people learn what I’ve learned quicker. In my 30’s, my teaching goal was to help improvisers answer the question ‘how do I get out of my head?’ Now in my 40’s, I want to help people do in 10 years what it took me 20 to do.
JF: Do you have anything that you’d like to say to the improv community that we didn’t get out?
JB: Remember that there’s other shit to do besides improv. …Um, if people are reading this looking for any type of wisdom, I’m flattered, but that probably already resides between their ear. …And, um, hi! I hope your day is good and I’ll see you soon.
[Mark Henderson posted a great article and picture of 'Dubbletaque,' the college group Joe Bill was referring to, in the Improv section of the IRC: http://www.improvresourcecenter.com/...ad.php?t=43771 ]
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home