![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
acroyearA reply to a post by PyrateLady in AFR, on performances at the renfaire, and the seeming lack of "variety" of some acts compared to others. In a sense, sections of this also give my opinions on the older history/reenactment vs. "fun" discussion that I was avoiding last month.
In it are my thoughts on "well-rehearsed" acts (not a bad thing), the nature of experienced fairegoers as audience members verses the once-a-year bulk of the faires paying audience, why the "well-rehearsed" acts have such large audiences, the use of anachronisms, the job of performers in the faire environment, and the use of sexual innuendo-based humor.
PyrateLady@pyrates.com (PyrateLady) wrote in message news:<85e89af0.0310170906.84a8372@posting.google.com>...
> I know of some stage shows that literally have not changed one bit in
> 20 years. But these same shows still get huge audiences. In the minds
> of many people, huge attendance defines a successful show. But there
> are people, like you, who don't want to hear the same schtick over and
> over again, and they "vote with their feet" -- they don't go. But, at
> least at a festival that gets the attendance numbers that MDRF gets,
> it seems that for every person like you who has heard the same old
> jokes 15 times, there is ALWAYS someone who is hearing them for the
> very first time. It's remarkable. I sometimes wonder if the laws of
> physics are being bent.
well, aside from standard deviations, physics isn't run by statistics, and has a much higher predictability rate ;-) .
anyways, i'm often surprised by the extent of attraction (trans: audience sizes) for some acts over others. Particularly the difficulty some utterly fantastic (and so open and friendly and welcoming) musicians like Wolgemut had in getting anything approaching an audience at the market, when compared to the various juggling/daredevil acts that often to me are "same old, same old" and yet fill the whole floor, regardless of the heat.
now one thing that's easily noted is that a large audience attracts a large audience. There's kind of a dividing line at each stage that once its crossed, in terms of numbers of people in the audience, the curiosity factor suddenly explodes the numbers to fill the house. In addition, there's just something about the market stage that music acts that don't already have a huge audience (The Rogues, the Baebes) can't work with. (I'm speaking from having seen both Wolgemut and the Crimsons at the Market).
> But one thing about MDRF is that it brings in people from the DC area,
> which is known to be a very transient population.
there's another factor, that's bigger I think. We're very used to the "regulars", those that come every day of the run, sit in the same spots at the same times each time (not just the White Hart, but also the dragon, shucks, the globe). Almost ever time, these regulars we know dress in garb, and there's enough recognition in seeing those, in garb, so often that we tend to filter out non-garbed patrons at times. We're not ignoring them, certainly, but they don't fit into long-term memory unless we had something intimate happen.
however, they are not the bulk of the thousands that show up in a day. there are many who only come once a year, don't dress up, buy the wooden swords, sometimes (not all, and the ones that do stick out too much to form a real statistic) drink too damn much. If you only see Puke & Snot, or Hack & Slash, or Johnny Fox, or (extending to other fairs) Zilch, Don Juan and Miguel, The Tortuga Twins, Sound & Fury, etc etc, once per year, then your memory doesn't necessarilly take in all the jokes and the next year, many jokes that you'd already heard still sound fresh and new. This is, of course, the talent and skill that these performers have to make them a success, along with a LOT of rehearsal to get things past the rote and back into seeming fresh. As performers, its easy to see through that to the fact that its "the same lines", but the vast majority of their audiences don't see that, and won't.
I respect Hack & Slash greatly, and think they are a wonderful part of MDRF's line of entertainers. On the other hand, I don't think I've ever, or will ever see a full H&S show in my life. I've certainly seen each of their shows, probably several times, but never "in order". As I walk by the stage in the last 8 years, at different times, i've pretty much seen them all, just not at once. Now, for me, that's not unusual. I've never seen Saving Private Ryan or Titanic "in order, from beginning to end", even though I can say i've seen both films at least a dozen times when put all together. HBO makes that easy, of course.
However, I have to recognize that my p.o.v. of those acts comes from day to day familiarity of walking by their stages, catching a couple of minutes, moving on, and eventually the whole show's in my head. But I have a head for memorizing things, developed through my own means of learning and rehearsal; the majority probably do not. In fact, I don't really carry a watch with me anymore; I tell the time by walking past a stage and figuring out how far into their act they are, and work forward from when the act's start time was.
> Personally, I think the best way to keep a show fresh is to add a
> healthy dollop of improvisation. ...
> Other ways to keep a show fresh is to keep adding new material, which
> I see a lot of performers do: they add new juggling techniques, new
> magic tricks, new songs, new skits, new stories. But the other side of
> the coin is that most of the time, the longer someone does a
> particular show or trick or story, the better they get at it.
ah, but what's being rehearsed? The song, or the ability to develop a song and arraingment into something that will interest the audience. The Pyrate's skill ( and yours, Darcy ;) ) that's been developed over the years is not just the performance, but the selection and preparation of material for it. Its not just making a song yours, or making a song consistent for the show, its making *yourself* a strong enough performer and musician to be able to make ANY song yours (or discard it and move on when you realize it won't ever be yours, which certainly happens to all musicians).
> A thought about anachronistic jokes. I honestly think that in a way,
> they are reassuring to audience members, especially to those who maybe
> feel a little lost when surrounded by people in strange clothing,
> speaking with strange accents and lingo, and doing odd things like
> selling fish and hawking tarot card readings. In a way, it's like
> they're invading a world that they aren't part of and maybe don't even
> understand. Sometimes just following what's going on is pretty
> difficult (especially with funky accents).
I was thinking about the anachronistic jokes/quips, as I look back on our own shows this run. The thought came up when discussing the less experienced actors this year and what can be taught to them to help them give stronger performances; within that came an observation myself about anachonistic references and the need to keep them controled until when has determined how they fit in with the overall character/act.
In a sense, there are several types of anachronisms. First is the "blunt reference", such as Skum's "Got Milk?" in Leave it to Hamlet, or their "Spice Girls" reference in Richard III. Jokes like that tend to be dated and quickly out of date as the general populace forgets what the original was ("E-Ticket" in Weird Al's Jurassic Park, for example). The audience moves on, so the act must move on as well. Often, a more recent parallel can quickly be found and switched in to keep the show timely and not lose the desired overall effect.
The second is the more subtle translation of our modern life and lifestyle into the past. Having a fictional advertising sponser ("B-O-O-Z-E..."), or reworking modern slogans to being part of the schtick ("Cat & Fiddle Morris : We wear bells, so you don't have to!" (from Dow bathroom cleaner)). These, fortunately, have a little more permanence (minus the "we've heard it before" effect discussed above), since they reflect more of how our society works, over a specific part of our pop culture. I tend to prefer this latter style, in that it has more room for subtlety to play into it.
There's a third type I just thought of, which usually involves movie-line quoting, particularly if the movie itself is of a fantasy or period nature, such as Braveheart, Python's Holy Grail, LOTR, Star Wars, etc. These do have a similar issue of timeliness that the other direct-references have, but can last a longer in that they are references to films that our faire audience will likely know well, and continue to see often (as opposed to "rented it once and that's that). Of course, we all know to keep some of those to a minimum (particularly the Python), simply because its just too easy to fall back on that...keep it up, and you're not necessarilly doing your act anymore, you're doing theirs, and that's not how it should work...
Actually, a fourth type, which is one of those types that's in the odd middle ground, to the point that I see it more as what our jobs really entail vs. what we do to carry out our jobs. Some styles of humor from the renaissnace simply do not translate well into the modern world.
We exist as a bridge to the past, not necessarilly as re-enactors of the past.
To try to complete that bridge, we have to act "in the spirit of" what they would have done back then, as opposed to "faithful reproduction". Thus, the use of modern songs, modern instruments (RPFS's limitations even seem to go as far as no classical 6-string guitars...even though they allow 18th century stradivarius violins), tunes that are out of time (most celtic music is 18th century or later, as are in documentation all forms of celtic dance), magic tricks from the 19th century and early 20th century. I know darn well that the morris dancing I do, though referred to in words by Shakespeare and before, is very likely not what was done in this period; it was documented in the early 20th century by talking to men about their grandfathers' dances, so maybe late 18th century at best).
But we do them because we hope to be acting in the spirit of what the
performers back then, and all performers in history, try to achieve. Like any shared fantasy, a framework is established, a set of rules for a look and feel, that all the performers accept and act within. That the faire's framework is grounded in a look of a particular time and place in history, (with at some faires the added use of historical personas as interactive characters), is just setting part of the framework. The job of the faire's directors, is to be the final judge of whether or not an act, a costume, a scripted show, fits within or falls out of, that framework.
Each of us, as we work faire, do make decisions of our own on whether or not something "Belongs" at faire. I personally don't care for the juggler Hilby's use of stereotypical 19th-century german costume. At the same time, I know others that are costume-particular enough to not like any use of modern scottish pre-sewn kilts. There are some acts
that don't make any pretenses at all to using "Basic Faire Accent" (BFA). Do they fit in or do they stick out? That's the director's job to decide, the directors vision of a working atmosphere.
Back to the jokes, the use of the pun is a very traditional and ancient thing within the english language, but the pun itself often depends on the pronunciation of the time, the accent its delivered in, sometimes the spelling applied, and the ability of the audience to know the vocabulary involved, particularly when it involves slang references and innuendo otherwise used to avoid a particular issue like sex. Nobody in the 16th century would get Renaissance Man's late-wife/old-boat comparison, but in the 16th century, there could probably be found just such a parallel that we wouldn't necessarilly get without having to research, or having somebody tell us "this is what they meant by ...".
The slang is an effect of culture and society, and must be used to our audience as the slang of the 16th century was used by perfomers and writers to link to theirs.
> On the other hand, there are terrific performers out there who use
> timeless jokes. God bless the timeless jokes! They NEVER go out of
> style!
perhaps...perhaps not. Timeless jokes depend on fresh delivery. variations on a theme fit in, and as with music and lyrics, the folk process does take hold.
> "Lyndon Alton Liberty" <lliberty@woh.rr.com> wrote in message news:<b4fjb.133332$xx4.23667579@twister.neo.rr.com>...
> > Howdy,
> >
> > One sec....
> > /dons flame retardant suit
> > Okies, back...
> >
> > Why is it that a seeming majority of the "popular" shows just have to have
> > content that "you don't have to worry about, it goes right over the kids
> > heads"? ...and a follow-up, Is this just an American Faire thing? ...and
> > one last thing, Where did act variety go? The way of Vaudville?
Actually, Vaudeville acts were EXACTLY like the acts of the renfaire. Some were tightly scripted and rehearsed (to achieve a look of spontenaity within a show) while some had room for improvisation, particularly when involving the audience volunteer schtick; some changed weekly while others used the same show without changing for years; there were shows with room for mistakes; performers that toggled between 3-4 different shows in order to keep audiences coming; etc etc.
As for innuendo-based jokes, there are two sides to it. From the traditionalist side, innuendo and sexual humor have always been part of our sense of humor, and if Shakespeare's any guide, very solidly part of renaissance literature and performance. On the other hand, as that bridge between then and now, we as performers have to be aware of the cultural norms of our audience, and the current lack of tolerance of sexual humor in front of children. The Vaudeville age had its layers too, some kid-friendly, others like Burlesque entertainment a
bit more mature. I believe Groucho Marx himself once had a "if the kids get this, they didn't get it from me" line in one of the movies, but I can't right now place it...however, it was an ironic line, because I believe he was saying it to other adults when no kids were present in the room.
Now sacrificing sexual humor for the sake of the few, well "prudes" who don't believe in the kind of openness that was the norm 450 years ago, and is the growing norm now, is a decision each performer has to make. The "standard disclaimer" is the easiest way to deal with it, lest the performance suffer as the performer has to re-analyze every joke with every take. After a certain point, one must simply accept that things happen and people say things in public and so be it. Now there are ways of setting limits, such as marking things in the program as "PG", or even to the point of isolating certain stages as being adultish only, or the alternative, always kids-friendly the way the castle stage used to be.
Even within that, things happen that can cross an individuals line (as someone's observation of some of the sexual-oriented behaviour in some of the Rogue's shows on the Fortune stage; yes it was by patrons, not performers, but the performer has the responsibility of keeping thier volunteers under control,IMHO; in addition, the situation wasn't even funny except in its capacity for shock-value, a kind of humor that gets old *real* fast).
Now, the fact that I think hiding humor as a means of dealing with sex for children is a bad thing is another discussion entirely. When you can't deal with it in humor, it will be dealt with in other ways, often far more violent or oppressive. Yes, the goal is to keep kids from repeating inappropriate materian in circumstances where it doesn't belong (School, in particular), but the IMHO effects of our current zero-tolerance policies are more chilling than can be imagined...
> > Don't get me wrong, I like the shows, I just wonder why I don't see more
> > "period" acts, I am almost positive they entertained themselves back then.
> > The Mud Show is about as close to the Classics as I've seen at Faire
> > locally, outside of Owain Phyfe. And an example of variety lack; Axel is a
> > wonderful Sot, but the Bennie Hill shtick is old by the third listen. I love
> > The Three Stooges, but I cannot watch the same movie five times in a row
> > without vomitting. It's the same with shows. Is it that hard to find
> > somethng that works? I'm more curious than anything else.
uh, i've seen mud shows that are just as rehearsed and tied down to a script with its specific actions at specific times (all the while looking spontanious), as a Puke & Snot show, which in my observations rank among the most rehearsed and longest-running scripts in the business.
and, well, that IS something that works. It just doesn't work for long. As noted above, the person who goes to the faire on a daily basis WILL get tired of seeing the same shows and will seek out the more spontanious parts of the festival, such as the musical groups. in addition, they may find themselves joining in the various groups that we call "playtrons", those that recognize each other as those who come on a daily basis, and friendships form. once you have enough friends gathered together in a space, a playground that lets us in, stuff happens. no, its not actors nor acts, but real people having fun in a world that lets them leave their jobs, their car troubles, their life troubles behind them. I know people who have never seen a full show of anything unless it happened to occur in the pub they're resting in, for years of going to faire, and yet consider the festival their favorite place on earth...
And of course, one could always actually see the shows put on by the cast. Catch the shakespeare performance or other plays on the Globe.
spend a day following the King and see what happens. Spend a day following a secondary court character like Thomas Bolyne or Lord Cromwell and see what happens. There are, at MDRF at least, a serious of plots and situations that run through the day, all setting up for the end of the day shows like Court's Court and the script used in the final joust. Within those plots, the actors enerally are improvising all day long to describe them to the audience or to play out minor setups among each other. There's more to the King's procession than just knighting ceremonies for little kids, MC'ing a joust, and looking good for photographers.
of course, for Maryland, you'll have to come by next year to do it. :)
In it are my thoughts on "well-rehearsed" acts (not a bad thing), the nature of experienced fairegoers as audience members verses the once-a-year bulk of the faires paying audience, why the "well-rehearsed" acts have such large audiences, the use of anachronisms, the job of performers in the faire environment, and the use of sexual innuendo-based humor.
PyrateLady@pyrates.com (PyrateLady) wrote in message news:<85e89af0.0310170906.84a8372@posting.google.com>...
> I know of some stage shows that literally have not changed one bit in
> 20 years. But these same shows still get huge audiences. In the minds
> of many people, huge attendance defines a successful show. But there
> are people, like you, who don't want to hear the same schtick over and
> over again, and they "vote with their feet" -- they don't go. But, at
> least at a festival that gets the attendance numbers that MDRF gets,
> it seems that for every person like you who has heard the same old
> jokes 15 times, there is ALWAYS someone who is hearing them for the
> very first time. It's remarkable. I sometimes wonder if the laws of
> physics are being bent.
well, aside from standard deviations, physics isn't run by statistics, and has a much higher predictability rate ;-) .
anyways, i'm often surprised by the extent of attraction (trans: audience sizes) for some acts over others. Particularly the difficulty some utterly fantastic (and so open and friendly and welcoming) musicians like Wolgemut had in getting anything approaching an audience at the market, when compared to the various juggling/daredevil acts that often to me are "same old, same old" and yet fill the whole floor, regardless of the heat.
now one thing that's easily noted is that a large audience attracts a large audience. There's kind of a dividing line at each stage that once its crossed, in terms of numbers of people in the audience, the curiosity factor suddenly explodes the numbers to fill the house. In addition, there's just something about the market stage that music acts that don't already have a huge audience (The Rogues, the Baebes) can't work with. (I'm speaking from having seen both Wolgemut and the Crimsons at the Market).
> But one thing about MDRF is that it brings in people from the DC area,
> which is known to be a very transient population.
there's another factor, that's bigger I think. We're very used to the "regulars", those that come every day of the run, sit in the same spots at the same times each time (not just the White Hart, but also the dragon, shucks, the globe). Almost ever time, these regulars we know dress in garb, and there's enough recognition in seeing those, in garb, so often that we tend to filter out non-garbed patrons at times. We're not ignoring them, certainly, but they don't fit into long-term memory unless we had something intimate happen.
however, they are not the bulk of the thousands that show up in a day. there are many who only come once a year, don't dress up, buy the wooden swords, sometimes (not all, and the ones that do stick out too much to form a real statistic) drink too damn much. If you only see Puke & Snot, or Hack & Slash, or Johnny Fox, or (extending to other fairs) Zilch, Don Juan and Miguel, The Tortuga Twins, Sound & Fury, etc etc, once per year, then your memory doesn't necessarilly take in all the jokes and the next year, many jokes that you'd already heard still sound fresh and new. This is, of course, the talent and skill that these performers have to make them a success, along with a LOT of rehearsal to get things past the rote and back into seeming fresh. As performers, its easy to see through that to the fact that its "the same lines", but the vast majority of their audiences don't see that, and won't.
I respect Hack & Slash greatly, and think they are a wonderful part of MDRF's line of entertainers. On the other hand, I don't think I've ever, or will ever see a full H&S show in my life. I've certainly seen each of their shows, probably several times, but never "in order". As I walk by the stage in the last 8 years, at different times, i've pretty much seen them all, just not at once. Now, for me, that's not unusual. I've never seen Saving Private Ryan or Titanic "in order, from beginning to end", even though I can say i've seen both films at least a dozen times when put all together. HBO makes that easy, of course.
However, I have to recognize that my p.o.v. of those acts comes from day to day familiarity of walking by their stages, catching a couple of minutes, moving on, and eventually the whole show's in my head. But I have a head for memorizing things, developed through my own means of learning and rehearsal; the majority probably do not. In fact, I don't really carry a watch with me anymore; I tell the time by walking past a stage and figuring out how far into their act they are, and work forward from when the act's start time was.
> Personally, I think the best way to keep a show fresh is to add a
> healthy dollop of improvisation. ...
> Other ways to keep a show fresh is to keep adding new material, which
> I see a lot of performers do: they add new juggling techniques, new
> magic tricks, new songs, new skits, new stories. But the other side of
> the coin is that most of the time, the longer someone does a
> particular show or trick or story, the better they get at it.
ah, but what's being rehearsed? The song, or the ability to develop a song and arraingment into something that will interest the audience. The Pyrate's skill ( and yours, Darcy ;) ) that's been developed over the years is not just the performance, but the selection and preparation of material for it. Its not just making a song yours, or making a song consistent for the show, its making *yourself* a strong enough performer and musician to be able to make ANY song yours (or discard it and move on when you realize it won't ever be yours, which certainly happens to all musicians).
> A thought about anachronistic jokes. I honestly think that in a way,
> they are reassuring to audience members, especially to those who maybe
> feel a little lost when surrounded by people in strange clothing,
> speaking with strange accents and lingo, and doing odd things like
> selling fish and hawking tarot card readings. In a way, it's like
> they're invading a world that they aren't part of and maybe don't even
> understand. Sometimes just following what's going on is pretty
> difficult (especially with funky accents).
I was thinking about the anachronistic jokes/quips, as I look back on our own shows this run. The thought came up when discussing the less experienced actors this year and what can be taught to them to help them give stronger performances; within that came an observation myself about anachonistic references and the need to keep them controled until when has determined how they fit in with the overall character/act.
In a sense, there are several types of anachronisms. First is the "blunt reference", such as Skum's "Got Milk?" in Leave it to Hamlet, or their "Spice Girls" reference in Richard III. Jokes like that tend to be dated and quickly out of date as the general populace forgets what the original was ("E-Ticket" in Weird Al's Jurassic Park, for example). The audience moves on, so the act must move on as well. Often, a more recent parallel can quickly be found and switched in to keep the show timely and not lose the desired overall effect.
The second is the more subtle translation of our modern life and lifestyle into the past. Having a fictional advertising sponser ("B-O-O-Z-E..."), or reworking modern slogans to being part of the schtick ("Cat & Fiddle Morris : We wear bells, so you don't have to!" (from Dow bathroom cleaner)). These, fortunately, have a little more permanence (minus the "we've heard it before" effect discussed above), since they reflect more of how our society works, over a specific part of our pop culture. I tend to prefer this latter style, in that it has more room for subtlety to play into it.
There's a third type I just thought of, which usually involves movie-line quoting, particularly if the movie itself is of a fantasy or period nature, such as Braveheart, Python's Holy Grail, LOTR, Star Wars, etc. These do have a similar issue of timeliness that the other direct-references have, but can last a longer in that they are references to films that our faire audience will likely know well, and continue to see often (as opposed to "rented it once and that's that). Of course, we all know to keep some of those to a minimum (particularly the Python), simply because its just too easy to fall back on that...keep it up, and you're not necessarilly doing your act anymore, you're doing theirs, and that's not how it should work...
Actually, a fourth type, which is one of those types that's in the odd middle ground, to the point that I see it more as what our jobs really entail vs. what we do to carry out our jobs. Some styles of humor from the renaissnace simply do not translate well into the modern world.
We exist as a bridge to the past, not necessarilly as re-enactors of the past.
To try to complete that bridge, we have to act "in the spirit of" what they would have done back then, as opposed to "faithful reproduction". Thus, the use of modern songs, modern instruments (RPFS's limitations even seem to go as far as no classical 6-string guitars...even though they allow 18th century stradivarius violins), tunes that are out of time (most celtic music is 18th century or later, as are in documentation all forms of celtic dance), magic tricks from the 19th century and early 20th century. I know darn well that the morris dancing I do, though referred to in words by Shakespeare and before, is very likely not what was done in this period; it was documented in the early 20th century by talking to men about their grandfathers' dances, so maybe late 18th century at best).
But we do them because we hope to be acting in the spirit of what the
performers back then, and all performers in history, try to achieve. Like any shared fantasy, a framework is established, a set of rules for a look and feel, that all the performers accept and act within. That the faire's framework is grounded in a look of a particular time and place in history, (with at some faires the added use of historical personas as interactive characters), is just setting part of the framework. The job of the faire's directors, is to be the final judge of whether or not an act, a costume, a scripted show, fits within or falls out of, that framework.
Each of us, as we work faire, do make decisions of our own on whether or not something "Belongs" at faire. I personally don't care for the juggler Hilby's use of stereotypical 19th-century german costume. At the same time, I know others that are costume-particular enough to not like any use of modern scottish pre-sewn kilts. There are some acts
that don't make any pretenses at all to using "Basic Faire Accent" (BFA). Do they fit in or do they stick out? That's the director's job to decide, the directors vision of a working atmosphere.
Back to the jokes, the use of the pun is a very traditional and ancient thing within the english language, but the pun itself often depends on the pronunciation of the time, the accent its delivered in, sometimes the spelling applied, and the ability of the audience to know the vocabulary involved, particularly when it involves slang references and innuendo otherwise used to avoid a particular issue like sex. Nobody in the 16th century would get Renaissance Man's late-wife/old-boat comparison, but in the 16th century, there could probably be found just such a parallel that we wouldn't necessarilly get without having to research, or having somebody tell us "this is what they meant by ...".
The slang is an effect of culture and society, and must be used to our audience as the slang of the 16th century was used by perfomers and writers to link to theirs.
> On the other hand, there are terrific performers out there who use
> timeless jokes. God bless the timeless jokes! They NEVER go out of
> style!
perhaps...perhaps not. Timeless jokes depend on fresh delivery. variations on a theme fit in, and as with music and lyrics, the folk process does take hold.
> "Lyndon Alton Liberty" <lliberty@woh.rr.com> wrote in message news:<b4fjb.133332$xx4.23667579@twister.neo.rr.com>...
> > Howdy,
> >
> > One sec....
> > /dons flame retardant suit
> > Okies, back...
> >
> > Why is it that a seeming majority of the "popular" shows just have to have
> > content that "you don't have to worry about, it goes right over the kids
> > heads"? ...and a follow-up, Is this just an American Faire thing? ...and
> > one last thing, Where did act variety go? The way of Vaudville?
Actually, Vaudeville acts were EXACTLY like the acts of the renfaire. Some were tightly scripted and rehearsed (to achieve a look of spontenaity within a show) while some had room for improvisation, particularly when involving the audience volunteer schtick; some changed weekly while others used the same show without changing for years; there were shows with room for mistakes; performers that toggled between 3-4 different shows in order to keep audiences coming; etc etc.
As for innuendo-based jokes, there are two sides to it. From the traditionalist side, innuendo and sexual humor have always been part of our sense of humor, and if Shakespeare's any guide, very solidly part of renaissance literature and performance. On the other hand, as that bridge between then and now, we as performers have to be aware of the cultural norms of our audience, and the current lack of tolerance of sexual humor in front of children. The Vaudeville age had its layers too, some kid-friendly, others like Burlesque entertainment a
bit more mature. I believe Groucho Marx himself once had a "if the kids get this, they didn't get it from me" line in one of the movies, but I can't right now place it...however, it was an ironic line, because I believe he was saying it to other adults when no kids were present in the room.
Now sacrificing sexual humor for the sake of the few, well "prudes" who don't believe in the kind of openness that was the norm 450 years ago, and is the growing norm now, is a decision each performer has to make. The "standard disclaimer" is the easiest way to deal with it, lest the performance suffer as the performer has to re-analyze every joke with every take. After a certain point, one must simply accept that things happen and people say things in public and so be it. Now there are ways of setting limits, such as marking things in the program as "PG", or even to the point of isolating certain stages as being adultish only, or the alternative, always kids-friendly the way the castle stage used to be.
Even within that, things happen that can cross an individuals line (as someone's observation of some of the sexual-oriented behaviour in some of the Rogue's shows on the Fortune stage; yes it was by patrons, not performers, but the performer has the responsibility of keeping thier volunteers under control,IMHO; in addition, the situation wasn't even funny except in its capacity for shock-value, a kind of humor that gets old *real* fast).
Now, the fact that I think hiding humor as a means of dealing with sex for children is a bad thing is another discussion entirely. When you can't deal with it in humor, it will be dealt with in other ways, often far more violent or oppressive. Yes, the goal is to keep kids from repeating inappropriate materian in circumstances where it doesn't belong (School, in particular), but the IMHO effects of our current zero-tolerance policies are more chilling than can be imagined...
> > Don't get me wrong, I like the shows, I just wonder why I don't see more
> > "period" acts, I am almost positive they entertained themselves back then.
> > The Mud Show is about as close to the Classics as I've seen at Faire
> > locally, outside of Owain Phyfe. And an example of variety lack; Axel is a
> > wonderful Sot, but the Bennie Hill shtick is old by the third listen. I love
> > The Three Stooges, but I cannot watch the same movie five times in a row
> > without vomitting. It's the same with shows. Is it that hard to find
> > somethng that works? I'm more curious than anything else.
uh, i've seen mud shows that are just as rehearsed and tied down to a script with its specific actions at specific times (all the while looking spontanious), as a Puke & Snot show, which in my observations rank among the most rehearsed and longest-running scripts in the business.
and, well, that IS something that works. It just doesn't work for long. As noted above, the person who goes to the faire on a daily basis WILL get tired of seeing the same shows and will seek out the more spontanious parts of the festival, such as the musical groups. in addition, they may find themselves joining in the various groups that we call "playtrons", those that recognize each other as those who come on a daily basis, and friendships form. once you have enough friends gathered together in a space, a playground that lets us in, stuff happens. no, its not actors nor acts, but real people having fun in a world that lets them leave their jobs, their car troubles, their life troubles behind them. I know people who have never seen a full show of anything unless it happened to occur in the pub they're resting in, for years of going to faire, and yet consider the festival their favorite place on earth...
And of course, one could always actually see the shows put on by the cast. Catch the shakespeare performance or other plays on the Globe.
spend a day following the King and see what happens. Spend a day following a secondary court character like Thomas Bolyne or Lord Cromwell and see what happens. There are, at MDRF at least, a serious of plots and situations that run through the day, all setting up for the end of the day shows like Court's Court and the script used in the final joust. Within those plots, the actors enerally are improvising all day long to describe them to the audience or to play out minor setups among each other. There's more to the King's procession than just knighting ceremonies for little kids, MC'ing a joust, and looking good for photographers.
of course, for Maryland, you'll have to come by next year to do it. :)
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2003-10-21 07:07 am (UTC)I know people who come to Maryland once a year, watch Johnny Fox 2 times and quote the entire show with him. That is what makes those people happy and Mr. Fox gets a large audience. Then you have people like Mark Jaster (aka "A Fool Named O") who use some stuff every year, new stuff, and some improve. This year he had modern references in the sound technician bit (including getting shocked by his son) using primarily older-style props (rope, wood, bread ... the snaps were modern)). His improve with the blanket is improve. There are a few things he does every show (baby, dracula, old woman) then opens it up (I have seen/heard of: Mt. Rushmore, carousel, King Henry, Anne Bolyn, Baseball, tiger, lion, giraffe, Superman, Godzilla, etc. ... my Mom tries to come up with something that will be a challenge for him).
One thing I personally have a problem with is the 'if your kids get it, they didn't learn it from me' in shows that aren't marked PG or don't really need it. At one of the jousts one of the cheerleaders gave everyone the clap. I've heard that joke in several different shows at Maryland, usually in the pub. Pub shows having that sort of reference doesn't bother me, shows marked PG having the reference doesn't bother me. I personally saw no reason to have that as part of the cheerleading of the joust.
Sexual humor is period ... and done right can be very subtle and be the Omega Factor right over the kids heads. Telling the kids that they missed something will, in my opinion, open their eyes/ears to the option and possible prompt some questions that don't need to be asked at the festival. Just as some of the costumes (performers AND playtrons) don't need to be explained (though some don't need any explanation ... it is all right there) in public.
Keeping anything having to do with love/lust/sex behind closed doors isn't healthy (nor is saying 'you aren't adult enough to know/do/think XYZ' since that means that doing XYZ is how you become an adult ... but that is a different rant).
I find the humor that requires thinking (by the performor and/or the audience) to be more enjoyable than the "HERE IS THE JOKE, AREN'T I GREAT TO COME UP WITH THE MOST OBVIOUS JOKE POSSIBLE" people. But that is my taste.
Fight School has modern references (including the beginning of the show which refers to a movie but not by name), includes stuff from past the renaissance (esp. in Fight School Reloaded), has some bad jokes but isn't tasteless or blatantly sexual (actually I can't think of any sexual references in the show). However, it works for me.
I guess the short answer for me is that I appreciate variety in the shows, it doesn't have to be all new but it is nice if there is some new (be it shtick between songs, new songs, new tricks, a bit of improve in the otherwise standard show, etc.). I prefer to see intelligent humor (not always taking the most obvious joke). I prefer to see any 'bathroom' humor fairly discrete. Sexual innuendo (done right) is fabulous, if blatant it is vulgar in the modern sense of the word (not the original sense).m