A review of a review of improv

August 29, 2011

My fringe show was reviewed on Culture Vulture Victoria. It’s a good review and accurate. I’m happy with it, although I think I’d like to review the review itself… just for fun.

Here’s the full review:

In Photo Booth, local improv veteran Dave Morris tells a series of stories based on input from his audience. The show balances its laughs with bits of sadness, philosophy and satire. Given the nature of improvisation, every rendition will be an all-new surprise, but Morris is an experienced and reliable performer; he engages his audience, both anticipating and responding to their reactions, and knows how to take a tale in an unexpected direction. Morris has fun with his act as well as himself, pausing in the middle of a scene to make fun of his own acting and criticizing his narrative decisions as the characters he’s created. Improv always carries a bit of unpredictability, but because of its inherently hit-or-miss nature, it’s one of the more exciting things to see live. Morris and Photo Booth are worth taking a chance on.

—E.G. Anderson

Well, that’s a nice a review. Couldn’t have hoped for more. It’s honest and to the point with little to no hyperbole or embellishments and not a hint of coarse language. What’s most interesting to note is that the reviewer didn’t review the actual show they saw but the idea of the show and me as a performer. Personally, I think this is a good thing, but still it warrants a thought or two.

When reviewing a play, you look at the script, the direction, the props, costumes, and set. You consider all the work that went into and the choices the actors and directors made. But with an improv show, you can’t. Because the choices they made on that one night will be nothing like any choice they make on another night in front of a different audience. What you can review is their ability to make choices, and how they react and respond to their audience. And you can also look at the subtleties of style this particular improviser has. The reviewer of my show did all of this very well, and I would like to think, honestly.

I’m also glad that the reviewer didn’t review the audience. Too often you hear reviews of improv shows that are: “Oh, the audience wasn’t very good that night so the improvisers didn’t have much to work with.” Which may be the truth, but it basically makes the review meaningless by shifting all of the pressure onto the audience. It also makes the audience members reading it more likely to not go because they don’t want to be blamed for a bad show. So again, I applaud the reviewer for leaving the audience – which in this case was rather small and unhelpful – out of the review and focus on what I actually did.

And of course they left a nice little recommendation at the end. That my show is “…worth taking a chance a on.” Which is again, very honest and accurate. The nature of improvisation means it’s not a guarantee, but this reviewer thought that I was worth the risk. Sweet.

All in all, it was a good review – and I mean that in every possible way. If I were to come across other reviews by E.G. Anderson I would read them and consider them “worth taking a chance on.”

I give this particular review: ★★★★★

 ¶