![]() |
Level C's "Gone Blue" @ Second City Training Center - 2004 |
"Short-form ain't funny. It's for people who can't improvise."
27 Year Old Nelson Velazquez
When I was in the beginning stages of my improv journey in the early 2000s, I was learning the proverbial ropes at the venerable Second City Training Center Chicago. I learned how to play a bunch of cheeky short-form games but the longer scenic games were the ones I really enjoyed as I got to flex my burgeoning acting chops and my ever-growing 20-something male ego; I knew everything at that time including what was funny and what wasn't. Somehow I got it into my thick and ever-balding skull that short-form improvisation was a kid's game while long-form improv was for the "real improvisers".
Long-Form > Short-form (Or So I Thought)
I developed my strong opinion about what "kind of improv" was best early on. I thought long-form was the "right" path in being a good improviser. Part of cementing that opinion wasn't voluntary; I was institutionalized to think "long-form"! I was in two expensive conservatory-level programs back-to-back, taking expensive classes at another prestigious long-form-based school (never finished the curriculum), and was in an active sketch comedy group where expensive long-form work was touted as the best way to generate sketch material. The other factor that turned me onto long-form was that I had heard stories from fellow students who had taken slightly cheaper classes at another theater known for being all about short-form; stories of harrowing notes being given after performing scenes, students' comedic voices being trounced upon in very dismissive ways by high-profile teachers, and where the mainstage show was at the time quite an expensive outing for 2 hours of weekend night. None of that sounded appealing to me. My thought was, "When am I ever going to really need short-form in my career?"
Soon enough.
Short-Form > Long-Form (Or So I Thought)
It turned out that very same short-form theater actually did other kinds of shows outside their normal programming; some of which were actual long-form shows. I eventually started auditioning for teams at that very same short-form theater. My thought process in doing so was "Do well enough to get on a team, do some good shows, and wait until long-form show auditions become available."
Since I was new to the theater, I had to audition for their incubator teams. "Fine," I thought. "I'm better than these beginners, but whatevs. I'll pay my dues."
The audition itself was pretty simple from what I remember. We warmed-up together outside of the mainstage area, went in, handed out headshots & resumes to the auditors, went up on stage, told a little fact about ourselves unrelated to improv, and then formally began the audition. I played a couple of games I had played before in classes and learned a new one on the spot (tag team monologue). I walked out of the audition feeling pretty good about it. Eventually, I was offered a spot on a new team and one step closer to doing long-form at another theater.
A Whole New World (Don't You Dare Close Your Eyes)
The rehearsal process for our team was very eye-opening. As I watched other perform exercises or games, I realized, "Uhm....these people are, like, REALLY good." My ego began to deflate and bouts of serious self-criticism creeped in. I saw how people would get to the point of their scene really quickly where it would take me a couple of minutes to rev the engine to get to what the scene was about. I saw a ton of characters come out of people right from the very beginning of the scene where I was more about planning one character for the whole class and using it multiple times. I also saw just how nice people were being to each other - being really supportive of each other and giving laughs to scenes when they really didn't deserve them. I was really humbled by those rehearsals. I began to realize "I don't know 💩 about short-form. Why didn't we do this stuff in class?"
It was at this point I started seeing the power of short-form improv. You get maybe 5 minutes to play a game and entertain a paying discerning crowd. You need the necessary skills to be creative quickly while still holding onto the fundamental facets of what makes improv so great: listening, reacting, and discovering. There's no time for slow-moving, self-indulgent improvisation when you've got a drunk guy in the back of the theater looking to laugh his ass off every 15 seconds.
After that experience (and many more), I began to regret ever thinking short-form was inferior. I had fallen in love with the format and saw just how powerful it could be especially in the realm that it excelled at: connecting the actors on stage with the audience watching it multiple times throughout the show. That opinion kept me from delving deeper into the art of improv and probably cost me opportunities I could've taken advantage of at the time. I see now that I needed to go through that experience to make me who I am today, but I'm not gonna lie: I sure was (and still am) full of 💩 back then.
So, What's The Difference Between Them?
What's the difference between short-form and long-form then? The amount of time it takes to get "to it" to entertain a crowd? One is more narrative than the other? Sure. Those are aspects to how the formats get consumed, but to me, the difference between short-form and long-form is:
In short-form, we tell the audience the game we're playing.
In long-form, we don't.
That's it.
The skills required to perform in either format are the same. You still have to listen, react, and discover in both. You still have to emote in scenes. You still have to develop characters and relationships just like any theatrical piece. In short-form, you tell the audience how to watch the subsequent scene and what to look out for so they're "in on it". In long-form, you don't telegraph what game is being played along the way; the audience has to figure it out.
Edit That Thought
It took me a long time to figure out the difference. I love both formats equally now and don't really differentiate between the two artistically. The differences to me are more production-oriented topics. If I'm playing at a bar or a small town that hasn't been exposed to a lot of improv, I might stick with a short-form show. However, if I'm playing with another short-form team on the bill, I would want to give the audience something different to watch and thus may perform a long-form improvised musical instead.
I do my best nowadays to expose my students to the relationship between short and long-form so that they can see that they are just different sides of the same theatrical coin. I hope they don't make the same mistake I made in creating an unnecessary division between the two and are able to explore improv free from barriers and judgment.
Have you ever flipped your thinking on a form, format, or philosophy? What changed your mind? Drop it below — I’d love to hear your “I was full of 💩” moment.