Miles Stroth 11/16/06 Part 2

JF: So you guys were on stage for an hour and a half straight?


MS: Yeah, which back then was Heruclean. Now-a-days it doesn't seem like that much. Now-a-days we're able to do a lot more. I've done a two person show for an hour and a half that moves pretty quick and it doesn't seem like a lot of time. It's not all that hard, but with those shows it was hard, because we moved fast. Everything we did we were trying to push it. We were trying to make something new happen. You were thinking as hard as you could think while you were listening and doing whatever. Every one of us came off stage sweating, after every show.



JF: How did you respond to the speed of the shows, because you mentioned before that you felt a little out of place at first when everyone was going so fast?


MS: This is years later. I had become better. I got better over the few years. At this point, I had been doing it for like six years. It was two years to feeling confident. Another two years to being pretty good, then another two years to being very good. The speed was fine. I was used to it.



JF: So, what this the beginning of the Movie and the Deconstruction or had it been around before then?


MS: No, we started that, although I'm sure somebody will say they did some kind of Movie way back when, but as far as formalizing it [we did that]. I don't know of any other person who says 'yes, here's the show where we did it.'

We did it in rehearsal. We sat with Del about what are the forms we want to come up with. I think he had the idea before of a guy trying to do a movie, but he didn't know how to do it. We all had to figure out how to do it. It started out being more artistic or poetic, then we figured out that a lot of it had more to do with speed, particularly in formal ways. You couldn't take a long time to describe scenes or transitions or you'd lose the illusion that is was actually a movie you were watching. In movies the changes happen quickly. You don't get to hear the poetic description of a scene changing. It was definitely the beginning of the Deconstruction definitely, because we invented it.



JF: How important was genre to you guys when you were starting with the Movie?


MS: How what?



JF: How important was working within a genre to you guys when you were starting the Movie?


MS: We didn't work within a particular genre. The simplest idea was convincing the audience that they're watching a Movie. Of course, they're not. You're thinking in 2-dimensions for the most part. What can you do on the screen? It also freed you up to do some description where there are some images you can describe. You couldn't actually fool the audience as performers, but you can plant the image in their brains, then perform after having done that.

But we switched genres. I think the first one that we did that went well was a baseball movie. What made that so successful is that we had a fairly simple story that we managed to finish. So, it was a complete piece. Also, we did a lot of Sci-Fi, because that was what we liked to watch.



JF: Did you have a favorite of the three forms that you guys did?


MS: I would have to say that my favorite was probably the Deconstruction. The Movie was the most successful as far as the audience. It was fun, but it wasn't as interesting to me as the Deconstruction.



JF: Why was the Deconstruction more appealing to you?


MS: Immediately, because it had no opening. I hate openings. I hate doing openings. And it began with a big long intelligent scene. The simplest way to look at it was how many different you can be inspired by one scene. We'd just start taking apart the scene. What different levels can we find inspiration from this scene? Or analyze this scene? Or comment on this scene? It became a lot like the games we played off stage, the bits we played in the bar. You knew how to play the game. If the scene started, you knew where it came from. More interesting connections were made in the Deconstruction than any other pieces. That's why I liked it more.



JF: So, is that what you were guys were doing trying to take one element of the Deconstruction and connecting it to another element? Or would you just try and take an idea and see what it means to you personally?


MS: Here's the way I went about it. I know we did the Deconstruction. I remember the shows. I knew what it felt like. I knew what a lot of the concept was. When I tried to begin conveying it to other people what it was we were doing, first I would say 'here's the question we answered,' or 'here's the question that we'd be inspired by in a scene,' but that doesn't really teach a lot. Then I started piecing a part what seems to be the techniques we were using.

Part of it was, we'd make thematic connections to the opening scene. Then you'd make connections that were about the specific behavior of the opening scene. Then you'd make connections that were about the dynamic of the relationship of the opening scene. Then specific things that were said, tangents. All those different types of scenes, you start weaving them together and wind up making connections between them that you wouldn't normally have made, before you bring the opening scene back to close the piece in the face of all these new connections.



JF: So, you guys would do the opening scene again at the end of the show?


MS: Yes, classically, that was the form, first scene, last scene.



JF: Is there ever a point in a Deconstruction when you have to or want to stop drawing from the original scene as the source of your inspiration, and maybe use the scenes that have come after as the source of your inspiration?


MS: There were no set rules in the way that we went about doing it. I think we all probably teach it differently. You can always go back to the opening scene and draw information, but there should be nothing that limits your performance. If something occurs after that, that is worth pursuing [then pursue it.] If you noticed it, then somebody else probably noticed it. If it's worth exploring, you should go after that as well.

You go by certain tenets. You don't necessarily want to burn up an idea, go after it so aggressively that you can't call it back later. One of the great things about long-form is when you make those new connections later on. You have a scene that occurs early. Instead of grinding all of the humor out of it right away, [you save some of it]. You start it. You get the exploration going, then you get some other explorations going, then you start making connections that you wouldn't have made otherwise.



JF: What was it like working with Del Close with The Family?


MS: [laughs] It was interesting, because Del was a point where we basically had to drag him out of his house to get him to come over and sit there and lead us in rehearsal. On some days he was much more enthused and he was much more into it and he had more ideas and was more into it, but I remember some times when he would come in, lay on a table in the back of the room and leave after half an hour. It was strange.

The thing I've always thought about Del was that he was one of the only people I've ever known who could be consistently, occassionally be truly inspiring. He didn't have to say much some times to get us going. So, it was a strange privilige to work with Del.



JF: So, if he were to leave after half an hour, would you guys feel like you needed to give yourselves some additional sense of direction?


MS: Oh yeah, if he left, for us it was 'we're not doing it right.' It was definitely Del's inspiration, but it was our work that put it all together. But he inspired us to do that work, that's how the show was connected to him.



JF: What do you think the lasting impact of The Family has been?


MS: I like to fantasize that most improv in the country, where improv is known well at all, has been influenced by The Family. I think we really introduced speed as a style of play. I see the Upright Citizens Bridage as adapting in the aftermath of The Family, containing two of its members. The reason why Charna was able to open her theater, get her own space, was because people came to see our shows and her training center started growing exponentially. So, I think it was a pretty reaching effect we had. I like to think it was anyway. I've got nothing else going on.



JF: Did you guys come up with any other forms in The Family as well? Did you guys do The Horror as well?


MS: Yeah, we did a show after 3 Mad Rituals. One of the things I liked about The Family, that I don't like about improv currently, which I think is systemic of the problems of improv currently, we ran 3 Mad Rituals for eight months until it was no longer really interesting to us, then we said 'ok, we've done this. Now let's do something else.' So we sat down again and we came up with the Check-in Expansion and The Horror. We still did The Movie. It was a successful thing that we wanted to still have in the show, because people wanted to see it. The other two two that we came up with, we ran those two for four months, and that was it. We were done.



JF: So, what were the Check-in Expansion and The Horror?


MS: The Check-in Expansion was like a Deconscrution except that it begin with a single person going through their week, going through the stories of their week, as one person in a two person scene. Does that make sense to you?



JF: I'm not exactly sure what it means.


MS: Lets say if I took a cab ride as part of my stories of the week, I would come out on stage, sit down in a chair and say 'take me up to Soldiers' Field.' I would play out the scene as I remembered it, yet only one character would be there. It would just be my character reacting to all the other characters that surrounded me that week. We would Desconstruct that, or basically how many different ways can we find to be inspired by that.



JF: So one of your members would go on stage and do a one person scene basically from something from that happened in their week?


MS: They would do multiple one person scenes. They would basically go through their week, but they wouldn't do it monologue fashion. They'd go through their week showing the things that happened to them.



JF: And what was The Horror?


MS: The Horror was we took a clip out of the paper of something tragic that happened in the city, so it was very easy to find. One I remember was some old lady died in her apartment kneeling in ice, which is where they found her. Then we'd read that, then we'd do a piece that was specifically geared to not being funny. We weren't going to try and be funny. We were just going to try and explore the darkness that surrounded that event through whatever characters we could imagine might be connected to that event, i.e. the son that didn't check on his mother, the police woman that discovered the body. Spanning out all the events that might have been connected to this event, all of the people that might have been connected to the event. It was a creepy little piece. We usually lost a few people in the audience during it or after it. It was interesting. I didn't particularly like it as a piece, but it was interesting.



JF: So were the scenes ever funny accidentally?


MS: It wasn't one of those things 'but the truth in comedy, you get some laughs.' It wasn't that. It was dark. It was Del Close. It was dark. It wasn't playing for the realistic laugh. It wasn't even playing. The goal was to creep the audience out.



JF: So why did you guys do that?


MS: It was something new. It was something worth trying. It was interesting. To me, I thought it was a little bit pretentious. It smacked of 'because all you haven't remembered to feel bad this week, let us who are more conscienable remind you of what is going on in the world.' So, I didn't particularly care for it. Our team was kind of split on it. I think me and Flynn didn't really like it. Everyone else kind of dug it.



JF: So what did you do when you guys broke up? Or were you guys broken up?


MS: No, that was the time when Second City started hiring all the best players in town. Most of us got scooped up by Second City into their Touring Companies. It was also right at the time when Charna was going to open her building. The rest of the guys went to Second City and I stayed with Charna and helped her open her building.



JF: What was that experience like, opening up IO?


MS: It was work. I basically lived there for a couple months. We basically had to pick up the place, put up a lot of walls and electricity. We had to get everything organized with the liquor distributors, the beer distributors, get the box office up and running, get the computer stuff all up and running. It was running a theater is what it was like. It was a pain in the butt.



JF: Were there any hurt feelings between the other members of The Family and the people at IO, because they had been so important there, then left?


MS: No, the point back then was try to get farther, try to get a break and do something. Improv was always something that everybody came back to. It still is I think for the most part. You go to Second City, do a show, try to get onto their Mainstage, get a job with Saturday Night Live, go on, have a career, have a life. Improv is not something that will pay you, as of yet, so you have to find a way to make money to be successful.



JF: So what were you doing with improv after The Family and during the creation of the Improv Olympic theater space?


MS: Well, I was teaching at the IO. I was also doing shows every week. I was coming up with new shows to put up there. I did all improv shows. I never changed my focus over to sketch. This is what I've always been doing. I only stopped teaching a year and a half ago.



JF: Oh, you stopped?


MS: Yup, I was teaching a new class basically every 8 weeks for 12 years. I think I just had enough. I also don't necessarily agree with the way everything is handled inside the Improv Olympic program, even though I know a lot of it is out of necessity because the program is so large. I don't like having to share a syllabus with someone. I don't teach that way. I don't know what my lesson is until I'm in front of a class and I'm watching what they're doing. A lesson might spring to mind, or they might have a weakness that needs addressing right away. So I can't stick to a still a syllabus. I'll still teach a workshop if I travel, but I guess I felt stagnant staying in the same program for long. It was also effecting my performance, because I didn't sign on to be a great teacher. When I stopped teaching, my performance got better.

Unfortunately, because I had been teaching for so long and because of my own habits, I was reflecting the students problems on stage. I was thinking about the things I should be showing my students instead of exploring.



JF: How did Zumpf come about?


MS: Zumpf came around because I needed to do something. For a long time after The Family, I worked in a lot of different shows, but there was nothing that really, I thought, challenged what I had already done, so I was becoming stagnant. There were some very good people who put up this show called Quartet was the first I remember. It was Dassie. I'm combining all their names because of all of their subsequent shows, 'Dasariski'. It was Rich Talarico, and Cackowski and Stephanie Weir. I think so. I can't remember if McBreyer was in there too.

They were putting up shows. First Quartet, then Trio. They were both good, but Trio in particular pissed me off. And when I say that, it's the highest compliment I can give to an improv show. What it means to me is that I'm angry that I didn't come up with it. I'm annoyed that someone is doing work that is so good and I'm not a part of it. So, that show kind of set a fire under me. It was such good work, and it was different than what had been going on. It was smart and slower. It was a smaller cast. It was accomplishing quite a few things; all of them wonderful.

I first began with the natural progression: four, three, I guess two is next. I said 'ok, Trio is in full swing. I'd better come up with a two person show then.' I need to basically throw my hat back in the ring. I wanted to do it with a student, not one of the more established players, because then they wouldn't have such ingrained habits. They'd be more flexible. My thinking was, right back to The Family, how do I create ensemble of two? The idea with The Family was we knew each other so well. It was the group 1 mind thing. It took years to develop with six people. I was like how fast can I develop it with one person? Well, I only have to know one other person, but that one other person has to know me well, otherwise this won't work.

I first picked Karen Graci. I thought the natural tension between a man and a woman on stage would be easier to play off of than two men. She declined, because she busy with Second City TourCo, and that annoyed me [laughs]. So, I said 'alright, fuck it. I'm just going to pick the strongest student I know,' that was Dan Bakkedahl. In the end, I'm very grateful for Karen's decline. I started with Dan, and what I did with Dan, who was already very good and interesting, was I basically made him know everything I knew. I made him play two person Deconstructions with me. I made him play two person Movies with me. I made him do everything I knew, but only as a two person form. I went over gambit I had in the book as far as 'here's form, and here's game and here's what I mean when I'm doing this.' All the while recognizing what he was doing well and what he does well.

I did that for about four months with him, then we started trying to put up the show and it wasn't very good initially. Part of the reason for that was Dan was still hesitant. He was still thinking that he had to play second fiddle to me. In a two person show, you can't play second fiddle to everybody. You are necessary. No one can carry anybody. It took him a couple months for him to accept that we were now equals. We had to just play it that way. And it started getting better. We both liked that Wednesday house over at Improv Olympic, the late night house. Before that people were doing shows after 10 o'clock. We did probably six months of shows for maybe twelve people a night. At first it wasn't very good, then as it got better we slowly started to build that house. The advantage of Improv Olympic was being able to hold on to a spot for nothing for a long, because there's nothing else going on in that spot so there's no objection to us doing it.



JF: How long did that show go on for?


MS: I think probably about two years, a little over two years.



JF: Always in the same time slot?


MS: Always in the same time slot. The show had its things that did well, but we also did things [where we tried to experiment] like we had an idea to do a bum scene but improvised. Just running around with a camera. The idea was what if two bums found a camera and tried to make a movie, which is crazy but we were always like 'let's just try it.' At that point Dan and I had moved in together. I'm always like 'your life in improv reflects your life.' Me and Dan became good friends. We lived together for about a year, and that's what we were pursuing.