Whose Line & Johnson

I’ve always really enjoyed the show Whose Line, and Kim “Howard” Johnson’s book excerpts made me realize the process behind the show’s short form improv sketches. Chapter seven of the book on building a scene stood out to me the most for its detailed elements of a scene, noting the importance of the relationship between players, characters, and the environment. I feel like the cast of Whose Line have worked together so long they’re able to read each other   very well. Comparing this to and improv show I’ve gone to, less experienced performers have a harder time getting into character when they’re unsure of how their team is going to act. Obviously anything takes time and practice, but watching a show where all the cast is relaxed and comfortable with each other is much more entertaining.
Johnson also stresses the importance of the event. A good point to remember is “the situation that makes this day different from all the rest,” so go into the sketch knowing that this event they are jumping into is not going to be a normal day for these characters, which is why it’s important to stay in the now and not talk about events from the character’s past or future. An improv game they play on Whose Line called “Narrate” where they act a film noir scene based on a location the  audience gives. The two characters that Colin and Ryan play are different every times, but they are so good at escalating the story based off what the other does to move the story forward. Similar to “Yes, And” like we played in class, but their stories actually turn out pretty good.

“Men find funny women threatening.”

Maybe this is all a joke? I can’t believe that Christopher Hitchens is 100% serious. It takes an extreme ignorance to tell me that reproduction is the only thing I’m good for. It’s not often I read something and react outwardly, but I have never gasped harder reading this statement of his.

Getting through the first Hitchens article was difficult enough, but having to read his argument against Alessandra Stanley’s well-thought out rebuttal was the worst. I really couldn’t see his point in second article that apparently “proved he was right all along.” Most of the article threw in a series of quotes from his previous writing, and then then from Stanley’s article. I honestly tried to make a correlation between his quotes, and ones that he put in of hers, but the sequence just did not make sense. Where is his defense? These quotes don’t respond to her argument, or really anything at all. Clearly Hitchens was someone who wasn’t very comfortable with the idea of women being better than him at something.

Hitchens is not the type of guy who would not laugh at SNL’s Actress Round Table sketch. Kate McKinnon dominates every role she steps into, and I feel like Hitchen’s could never admit that. I do think there is a weird feeling that some guys get when watching a female comedian do well at her job. With the clip of DeAnne Smith we watched in class it was interesting to see guys in the audience tense up. Honestly dude why do you have to be like that? Seeing guys that don’t like it makes me all the more happier to see growing female representation comedy.