Dear Editor,
Best of Chicago voting is live now. Vote for your favorites »
I must address the recent review of Frank Booth in the Blue Velvet Lounge [October 27] at the ImprovOlympic. I again seem to be hearing in the review the oracular voice of the Reader theater critic(s) in a contentious attitude toward improvisation, even more specifically “long form” improvisation. Reviews of shows in the last year (one exception noted–The Armando Diaz Experience) from Virgil’s House of Dig to Carl’s Closed, have disparaged both the sum of the parts and the whole. The reviews have spoken openly of the tiredness and dryness of “long form” shows. I argue that this approach to reviewing these shows an inherent contempt for “long form” shows and not critical objectivity. This contempt disparages the whole–the development of a work in progress: intelligent and challenging “long form” improvisation attempting innovation at exploring characters and ideas through ensemble work and ignores the parts–the many scenes and scenic connections of smart players and ideas and creating raw laughter. I have experienced at least two of the shows reviewed, as well as a significant share of “long form” improvisation shows. At the two shows, I witnessed enough laughter (and laughed) generated by sincere characters connecting and tongue in cheek character work to rival quality Second City revues and nonimprovised productions.
Robert Burke
