Andrew Schulz's Flagrant with Akaash Singh
Andrew Schulz's Flagrant with Akaash Singh
"You made that choice to make the money and then sell out being funny for it because you know what it takes to be funny because we've seen you be funny. So you know, it's not funny, right? So you're making the choice to be not funny for the financial gain." — Andrew
"The goal of it is to not be funny and let the structure in the game and the community be funny. Yes. So when I'm in the improv thing, I'm just thinking like, oh, this would be a really clever thing. Like I laugh really hard. The neighbor thing was really funny. Yeah. And the I'm going to fuck you whatever it is funny because that's the funny thing to say. That's the comic thing to say. But in the scene, if we were an actual movie and he said that, it would be like, what are you doing? Yeah. Why are you trying to be funny? Yeah. Don't be funny. Be serious. And then the scene itself is funny." — Mark
"The comedians, it's like who can have the funniest. Like when we were doing benders. Yeah. Like it was everybody was just like, yeah, how do I get the line? How do I get the thing instead of where's the setup? Where's the thing? Gotcha. Yeah. But yeah, just fucking sucks. So we're doing a live show. Impression. Yeah." — Andrew
The podcast clip begins with a discussion surrounding a segment involving Stephen Colbert, which some hosts find perplexing and lacking humor. This leads to a broader critique of Colbert's current comedic output, with one speaker suggesting a potential shift from genuine comedic talent to a focus on financial gain. The conversation then transitions to a deep dive into improvisational comedy, exploring its core principles, such as the "yes, and" rule, and debating its effectiveness.
A significant portion of the discussion revolves around whether improv truly generates spontaneous humor or relies on predictable structures and formulas. The speakers express varied opinions, with some finding the mandated agreement and predefined game structures to be limiting and formulaic, while others acknowledge the skill involved in creating comedic scenarios within these constraints. There is a shared sentiment that genuine connection and personal perspective are crucial for compelling comedy, which some feel is often absent in traditional improv exercises.
The episode concludes with a debate on the merits of improv performers versus stand-up comedians, with a leaning towards the collaborative and less ego-driven nature of improv ensembles. The hosts touch upon the idea that improv fosters strong supporting performers and a team-oriented environment, contrasting it with the perceived individualistic competitive nature within stand-up comedy. The overall sentiment suggests a nuanced view on the effectiveness and artistic value of various comedic approaches.