Let It Out: SCTV's Joe Flaherty talks through his issues with improv
Article Tools
Older Chicagoans will remember Joe Flaherty from his days on the Second City mainstage in the early '70s; those a bit younger certainly recognize the 67-year-old comedian from nine years on the hit Canadian sketch show SCTV; and the younger, cult-comic followers know Flaherty as Harold Weir, from the short-lived Freaks And Geeks. Clearly, Flaherty has vast audience appeal—and a storied comedy history to match—so it's not surprising that the Chicago Improv Festival will honor him (and Second City head honcho Andrew Alexander) with a Lifetime Achievement Award on Wednesday, April 15 at 7 p.m. in Second City's Chicago e.t.c theater. In addition, Flaherty will join the boys of Bassprov for a set, and play with Canadians Impromptu Splendor—which bases its improv on the distinctive style of a different playwright each night. Decider called Flaherty and discovered the man had some improv issues he needed to discuss.
Decider: How did you get set up with Impromptu Splendor? Were you familiar with the group's work?
Joe Flaherty: No, [but] I'm familiar with the people in it. Their format just sounded interesting to me. They do another show in Edmonton that's an improvised soap opera—they choose one story and do it for the entire season. I like that form quite a bit. So when they told me about this one, I thought it could be fun 'cause it's not just cold improv, which I don't like doing so much anymore—improvising from nothing. I like structure to my improv.
D: What don't you like about unstructured improv?
JF: It's, in a way, a circus act. You go out there and show everybody what you can come up with—how quick and clever you are. And it can be funny, you know, spontaneous, but it always leaves me with something as an audience member. It always seems to be what jokes you can come up with on the spur of the moment—as opposed to something that's more character-driven. That's what appeals to me most. On-the-spot improv doesn't give you interesting character stuff. You come up with concepts—a lot of concepts they'll hit you with, you know? That's not my favorite. They're doing improv just for improv's sake.
D: Are you talking about long-form, the Harold?
JF: I wasn't 'cause even the Harold … I thought was too form-conscious as opposed to character-conscious. Not to say there aren't interesting results. There are.
D: Is it possible to do something open-ended and character-conscious?
JF: It's possible, sure, with really good improvisers. But it's more luck than anything else. And that's rewarding. But the other thing is, the ephemera of improvising sort of bothers me, too. It's here and gone. That's part of the charm of it, but I've seen so many good improvs. Then they're gone, and there's no record of it.
D: That's the appeal for a lot of people.
JF: Yes, and maybe I'm more of a traditionalist when it comes to things like that, but I like something recorded. When you look at all the arts, it doesn't matter to me that someone says something like, "Oh, you should have seen [Leonardo] DaVinci that day. He really whipped up a sketch that was so good … so beautiful." [Laughs.] But it's gone now. "Yeah, I threw it away." [Laughs.] I like it better when there's something there, something lasting, something that's on record. And you can reach that through a lot of improv, but it has to be structured to do that. The very thing that's appealing about improv is something I'm not that thrilled with any more.
We had a reunion a little while ago, the group I was onstage with in Chicago [at Second City]. That was the cast that John Belushi was in, and Harold Ramis. I just remember thinking about all the improvs that we did do. Some really good stuff. But they're all gone. It didn't matter, you know?
D: How do you reconcile these feelings to receive a lifetime achievement award at the Chicago Improv Festival?
JF: Well, I still like improvisation. I do. I'll give you an example, well, sort of an example: When I was doing Freaks And Geeks, Judd Apatow would let me, on occasion—a lot actually—improvise little things. We had the script, we knew the scenes, there were things we had to accomplish within the scene, but within I had this character, and he would let me improvise with him. A lot of times, I would come up with things more interesting than the script. That's the great thing about improv: When actors are in a certain situation, they can come up with things the writer wouldn't imagine. They're in the moment. You can't duplicate that sitting in a room. The best you can do is try to imagine. That's where I find improv invaluable.
D: So how did your history affect the way you feel about improv today?
JF: It's been a long-term process. So I wasn't a huge fan of the Harold. I don't know why, and, interestingly enough, we were the first people to do it in Chicago when Del Close was directing us. We thought we were just doing it, but it was Del trying to refine it. To me, it wasn't as satisfying, that process of coming up…. It's writing, a lot of writing, involved in your head. Even though that's not what it's supposed to be about. Everything was a scenario that would build, and you'd go in all sorts of different directions. Not to say it couldn't be good or exciting, but it didn't appeal to me. That's all. And I understand now. I saw Del a couple years before he died. I bumped into him in LA, and said, "Gee, I've been hearing a lot of great things about what you're doing with the Harold." And he said, "Yeah, we've had a cast working together on it for 12 years. I think we've finally got it."
_jpg_50x50_crop_q85.jpg)
