The Painhole
(note: Archived Painhole essays can be found at the bottom of this
page)
As always, this week’s hole is motivated by events at last Friday’s show (1/29). Actually, this topic addresses a problem that goes all the way back to the earliest days of FNI – not to mention most of our glorious simian heritage. And because the problem is so deeply rooted, so close to the rotten core that is the heart of improvisational comedy, I don’t really expect to solve anything with this sad excuse for an essay. In fact, I know going in that everything I’m about to say will have all the practical effect of trying to hold back the ocean with a salad fork – but I’ve always taken the approach that it’s far more satisfying to curse the darkness (damm you darkness!!); So hear goes nothing….
Ok, what I’m raving on about is a little something called respect. Specifically, respect for your on-stage partner. See, as a performer you know when you volunteer for a game that the audience is going to try and fuck you over. The audience wants to put you in the most difficult position possible because it’s funny to them to watch you squirm. But when you are on stage you have a partner. And your partner is right up there with you, in the thick of it, trying to do nothing but get both your asses out of harms way and looking good while doing it. This being the case, why is it that I’ve seen players make such deliberate and abhorrent choices - choices so devoid of even the smallest shred of mutual respect – that it makes me want to go to the pantry and open up a family-sized can of Bitch-Slap?
Can anyone out there please tell me why, in the methodical quest for comedy and personal glory, performers are so willing to disrespect their partners? By disrespect, I mean purposefully putting your partner in a situation or role where they A) are denied any opportunity of efficacy as it relates to the scene and/or B) would almost certainly take personal offense. Allow me to give you some examples both fictional and real:
There isn’t much that’s more disrespectful than “locking out” your scene partner. This happens whenever you put your partner in any position where they can’t effect the action on stage. Basically, you’re telling your partner that he/she is just a necessary evil and that you are so much better you can make the scene entertaining all by yourself. Locking out can come in many different forms such as denial, upstaging, not listening, ect. – but the absolute worst is when you put your partner in some dismal, pointless character role that can’t possibly do or add anything to the structure of the scene. I can’t count the number of times I’ve seen one player slap cast-iron shackles on another and then stand there stupefied when the scene goes down the toilet. Imagine how you would feel if your partner opened a scene by defining you as Billy, the mute and paraplegic brother that’s been in a coma since birth. What could you do? How could you help the scene along? Now, I know you think that example sounds farfetched, so how ‘bout this opening line; “Yeah Baby…. Work for the camera!” See, both examples are exactly the same -- one player has, in the opening moments of the scene, totally restricted the action and choices of his/her partner.
Now, just so there’s no confusion… Yes, many times it’s necessary for one player to make choices that effect another. In Freeze, for example, it’s the responsibility of the player entering the scene to set the situation and relationship. However, there is a huge difference between doing this and purposefully sabotaging your partner for the sake of a quick laugh. On stage, you want to offer your partner something that they can work with, something they can develop; this way they work with you and you both make a better scene. What you don’t want to do is go for some cheap laugh at the expense of your partner and, perhaps, the scene itself. The difference comes down to a matter of respect, and the outcome is typically the difference between success and failure.
For some of the most glaring and blatant examples of disrespect, all you need to do is remember the last scene you witnessed in which one of the players was female. Pop quiz: Was her character A) a Hooker B) a Slut C) a Lesbian or D) All of the above? Much more importantly, was it her partner who put her in this role? There is not much need for a drawn-out description here, because it’s all been said before by Ben in his “Women at Improvs” Painhole. But my point is; whether it’s men doing it to women, women doing it to women, or women doing it to themselves, women are constantly placed in the role of sex object. I don’t know why exactly this is, and guess what – I don’t really care. What I do care about is this: We’ve all seen it before and it was only mildly amusing the first 1000 times. What in the name of Bob Packwood makes you think doing this has some intrinsic and divine comedy value?! “Oh look…. I’m making her gyrate on stage… see, now that’s funny! Oh man, I’ve got her touching another women…. Lenny Bruce pales in comparison to the magnesium fire of my comedic brilliance!!” Well, I’ve got some Huey Lewis and the News for you - if you want to try to be really funny and entertaining, try a scene sometime where the woman is a real, 3 dimensional character who can interact above the uterus. Go ahead, ring the bell jar if you dare! But I warn you - you might actually end up doing a scene with more entertainment value than the chuckle you get after saying “hey, smell my finger”
Finally; there is a special form of disrespect that is very rare but is hands down the worst kind of sin. There’s no real name for it, but trust me, it’s the Black Death of performance. It’s what happens when you get the bright idea that it would be really very terribly funny if you make your partner act out some real life situation or piece of personal history on stage (oh, and yes, I’m talking to you here Tom). See, it’s like when black people call each other “nigger”... it’s ok if someone else dose it, but if you try you just get your ass kicked. If someone feels that they can find humor in reenacting some personal incident or story on stage, then by all means let them - after all, Improvs is nothing if not a cheap form of therapy. On the flip side however, there is absolutely positively nothing more rude and disrespectful than to make someone do this without choice. I don’t care if someone gets up 1,000,000 times and makes a self-deprecating joke; that fact doesn’t give you the right to make joke 1,000,001 for them. If you do this and your partner doesn’t mind, you can still come off to the audience looking like an ass. But if your partner didn’t really feel like reliving that moment when daddy took off the belt; well you just bought yourself a cold dish of revenge waiting to be served. Either way, it’s just common courtesy to let your partner decide what’s in the public domain.
With all I’ve said here I don’t want anyone to get the impression that I’m for censorship on stage. Far from it; I’m of the personal opinion that the stage is the last place for anyone with a thin skin. If you volunteer to get up in front of 150 people, you’ve got to be prepared to take some cruel shots. However, if you volunteered in the first place because you thought you could eek out even a moment of joy for the audience and yourself - then you owe it to yourself not to limit the choices that can happen on the stage. And that’s precisely what starts to happen when you stop treating your partner with the same respect you yourself demand. So treat your partner with a little respect; because in the end you and your partner are all that stands between polite applause and absolute brilliance.
I'm coming to get you, Werber.
ARCHIVES: