Tanpola Articles Directory

The Fringe Festival has been in existence for just as long as the Edinburgh Festival proper. Both inceptions are inextricably knitted together and began life bound up way back in 1947. Our story begins when what can only sufficiently be described as a mob of eight theatre companies turned up uninvited to the newly formed Edinburgh International Festival. Taking advantage of the huge crowds pulled in by the official festivities, these rogue gatecrashers bolstered their way in with one grisly intent: to showcase their alternative and edgier drama to the unassuming masses.

The following year Scottish playwright and journalist Robert Kemp covered the festival. In his report he described how “Round the fringe of the official Festival drama, there seems to be more private enterprise than before… I am afraid some of us are not going to be at home during the evenings!” Coverage like that was obviously something too enticing to be passed up and Kemp’s description was taken on by the companies. From this point on the ramshackle bunch of illegitimate performers were banded together, drawn in by one report and given a name. They were no longer the shabby, uninvited trouble makers at the party; they were ‘The Fringe’.

During the 1950s and 60s the popularity of the Fringe element of the Festival underwent somewhat of, well if not a boom, than a definite and distinctive blossoming. In the twenty years from 1959-1989 performance companies at the Fringe expanded from just 19 to 494. Since the 90s the popularity of the Fringe has simply exploded. Last year it is estimated that 1,697,293 tickets were sold to Fringe sector productions alone.

And there, it would seem, is the rub. How can you compare the handful of studenty productions that kicked around the first years of the Edinburgh Fringe to the million selling shows of today? Frankly, in quite a literal sense, the Edinburgh Fringe has sold out. It has sold out because it has had little choice to do otherwise.

The popularity of the festival is not just the only threat to the Fringe’s identity though. For the past twenty years detractors have commented on the slow invasion of stand-up comedy. In fact, The Stage reported on the 5th June that this year will see the first time that comedy shows will out number any other genres. It stated that there will be 668 comedy shows in 2008, a whopping 32% of the total. What’s more, where as the Fringe has long been associated with rising talent, many have criticised the recent move of established names putting on huge shows at the festival. Ricky Gervais charging over 30 GBP for a ticket to his stand-up show amassed a lot of negative attention before it was announced that all proceeds were being donated to Cancer Research.

So, as many have asked, how has this been allowed to happen? How has this fairly bohemian rebellion been turned into a playground for the stargazers and the super rich? Well, the answer, as is so often the case, is embedded in the very seed of the thing itself. If we peer back through the history of the Fringe, through the success, the smoke and the mirrors to the grimy digs of its origin, we come to its hazy vague manifesto… or lack thereof. In 1959 a constitution was drawn up in which the policy of neither vetting nor censoring shows was established. From that point forward the principles have reached, well their logical conclusion.

When questioned about the influx of comic acts current director of the Fringe Jon Morgan exclaimed quite plainly “The fringe is an open access festival”. In effect, it is open to everyone who wants to perform and it always has been. The experience of the Fringe may be very different now to the one in the 40s and 50s, but the underlying principles that created whatever ‘golden’ era of the festival you care to remember are the same that now pull big brash names and bigger and brasher crowds. To claim that it’s lost its integrity, artistic or otherwise, is pointless because, by design, it never had any.

The only way to revert to the bygone bohemian age, if that is really possible or indeed what anyone wants, is to move on to pastures, places and performers new. Experimental drama need not be tied to any time or location, by its nature it should be free, unfettered and malleable.

However, if you simply want to sample the distinct magic of the Edinburgh Fringe then you’ll just have to look a little harder. Ignore the hype, and the crowds, and the press, and the celebrity, and the hangers-on, and seek that which really interests you.

With such diversity and variety bursting from every venue, the modern Fringe must have something to suit your taste. Seek, it seems, and so you shall find.

Samantha is a London theatre fanatic and regular West End theatregoer. She is currently researching the new West End show Marguerite – http://www.show-and-stay.co.uk/marguerite.html

This is truly a museum for the casual and creative Austinite. With two locations and loads of interesting exhibits and programs, AMOA is a great cultural destination for students, adults, and even parents and caregivers of young children.

The downtown location is a sleek and modern space, while the Laguna Gloria campus, AMOA’s original home, is housed within a 1916 Italiante villa. The primary home of the AMOA Art School, Laguna Gloria is located on property once owned by Stephen F. Austin, and was the residence of the legendary Clara Driscoll. Overlooking Lake Austin, and with 12 acres of beautiful grounds and gardens, Laguna Gloria is worth a visit purely on historical merit. Both locations have permanent and changing exhibits, and both have space available for private functions.

One of the hallmarks of both AMOA locations is the informal structure and feel. No stuffy, hallowed grounds here instead you find welcoming, easy to navigate floor plans full of surprising and interesting exhibits. You can tour at your own speed, reading the descriptions that are mounted next to each exhibit, or you can book a gallery tour, which are available with different age groups in mind. The compact size of the exhibit space adds to the experience the visitor can spend time with each exhibit, getting more from the experience than one where you rush through to make sure you see it all. The exhibits are right out there something to keep in mind when you bring kids there are no barriers between fast little critters and the actual exhibit.

Still, the AMOA makes a point to be accessible and interesting to children as well. In addition to offering a number of free events for families, the museum has a permanent FamilyLab. The FamilyLab is a fantastic experience for kids of all ages. It is a hands-on, interactive place to make art with creative and colorful items supplied by the museum. They also have children’s books on hand, along with bean bag chairs, in case your little one just needs a cuddle. The mirror tunnel is endlessly fascinating, and all activities in the FamilyLab are offered at no additional cost to museum admission. The second Saturday of every month AMOA offers a reduced admission for families, with art instructors leading families in creating art projects to take home.

AMOA offers art classes for children and adults, with a limited number of scholarships available. Class themes include ArtPlay, ArtABCs, Life Drawing, Watercolor, Children’s Book Illustration, and many, many more. They have for the Art School. They offer periodical education programs for teachers, docents, adults, children, and groups. They offer a myriad of interesting events, sometimes pairing visual arts with music, both for their valued members and for the public. Events include their annual fundraisers, the Art Ball in June, and their fantastically popular international food and wine tasting event, La Dolce Vita. Their museum store offers cups, shirts and other items with their distinctive logo, as well as art-inspired gifts.

Ki helps buyers interested in Austin real estate http://www.escapesomewhere.com his website has a free search of the Austin MLS http://www.escapesomewhere.com/realestate_searchthemls.html along with updates on his Austin real estate blog http://www.escapesomewhere.com/austinblog/

Author, director, comedian, physician and all round polymath Jonathan Miller has been all over The Times and the BBC this week running the West End into the proverbial square ditch. Miller insisted that because his version of Hamlet was cast by relative unknowns he couldn’t get a gig in the West End. “Producers might have been swayed” he contends, “if I’d been prepared to put in for more luminous names”.

Attacks may not come any more thinly veiled than that, but Miller continues his tirade by discussing the two versions of Shakespeare’s seminal tragedy that are currently sulking moodily in the West End. The version at the Wyndams Theatre is fronted by a Mr Jude Law whom Miller suspects “can’t act better than the young unknown who played him for me” whilst at the RSC they have “that man from Dr Who”. Of course, Miller is referring here to hip, young actor David Tennant who will be leading the company from 24th July.

Of course, Miller’s remarks have not gone unnoticed by the theatrical powers that be. The artistic director of the RSC, Michael Boyd, hit back by declaring that though he “understood” Sir Jonathan’s frustrations, Tennant was not cast as Hamlet just “because he is Doctor Who”, but “because he is an excellent actor who deserves to play the role” Boyd went on to site the work Tennant has already done with the company before becoming a household name, starring in A Midsummer Night’s Dream, Romeo and Juliet and The Comedy of Errors.

David continues: “Of course, the fact that David went on to become hugely popular as Doctor Who and for his other popular TV roles, means that he brings with him audiences who would not necessarily have booked to see Hamlet which can only be a good thing,”…

Hang on a minute, we’ve suddenly veered into fairly familiar waters haven’t we? Theatre producers refuting claims of ‘dumbing down’ by insisting that they are ‘drawing in new audiences’. One envisages Webber and Mackintosh, probably capped in berets, calling out from their golden soapbox at the head of a long line of theatrical liberators. But can theatre really be dressed up in this ‘Masses Vs Classes’ kefuffle? Art, surely, is for art sake?

So then we come to the crunch, how does this affect quality? Does sticking Christian Slater in the Edinburgh run of One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest make the production any better or worse? That, of course, is nigh on impossible to answer; would it even have got the gig without his big Hollywood name plastered all over it? One thing is certain though, it does make the play stand out. A familiar face is recognisable whether it is a pleasing sight or not.

With established West End musicals like Chicago casting, well, dubious pop stars like Kelly Osbourne and Duncan James for brief turns in its run, we may question some of the underlying motives working behind the scenes. Are performers like Osbourne and James really the most talented people vying for the role, or are they cast because they have the highest profile?

Similarly, the front page of this week’s Stage Newspaper is adorned with the exclusive story that Gareth Gates is to make his West End debut in a one night Stiles and Drewe tribute gala at Her Majesty’s Theatre. Accompanied by a throng of ‘Any Dream Will Do’ and ‘How do You Solve A Problem Like Maria’ finalists, the more cynical reader may question why this fairly underwhelming spectacle is splashed across the front page? The answer, quite simply, is because Celebrity (Sex’s flatter and more nauseatingly vain half cousin) sells.

Miller’s attack on West End producers might carry more weight if star-studdied performances, good or bad, didn’t attract the biggest crowds. Perhaps if theatre was given a more central role in popular entertainment audiences would be more familiar with the art form and worry less about catching a famous name in the lime light. Until then celebrities will draw the biggest crowds, the highest prices and, unfortunately for Sir Jonathan Miller, the best theatres.

Samantha is a London theatre fanatic and regular West End theatregoer. She is currently researching the new West End show Oliver! – http://www.show-and-stay.co.uk/oliver.html

With so much content beaming freely across the web, consumers have never had such unfettered access to entertainment. Dilating bandwiths have meant data transfers have shrunk to infinitesimal speeds and, as entire fleets of pirate P2P websites and media data streamers career off all over the place, the notion of actually paying for entertainment is quickly becoming rather odious.

With a West End theatre seat costing you easily in excess of 20GBP, the economic future of live drama is looking decidedly well, shaky. Pair this with the increasing dependence that West End shows have on celebrity and many have forecasted murky waters ahead.

Matt Wolf from the Guardian describes the recent Hollywood invasion of the West End as the “visiting celebrity cavalcade” come to rescue the dwindling audiences dribbling through the gate. A few years ago, Sheriden Morley described in the New York Times how the influx of celebrity had “turned London audiences, once the best and most perceptive in the world, into mindless stargazers.”

Pretty stern stuff isn’t it? But then, that might not be the whole story. After all, can we really declare that traditional theatre has lost its bite?

It certainly hadn’t just over ten years ago, when Sarah Kane’s Blasted premiered at the Royal Court. The fury that splashed over the front pages of nearly every national newspaper the next morning was burnt into the mind of anyone that dared to assume that theatre had lost its power to shock. The violence in the play is no worse than is found in the tamest of Tarantino flicks so why the outrage?

Quite simply, in the cinema, on television or on DVD, the action happens elsewhere, in a shifting world behind a screen. In the theatre, the action is right in front of you; you can hear it, feel it and, if you were really so inclined, you could reach out and touch it. You can watch actors enact the most brutal or intimate scenes on hi-res plasma screens anywhere, but only in the theatre can they watch you right back.

What’s more, It might not just be the available ‘experience’ that saddles defiantly in theatre’s corner. Theatre, it seems, has quietly started embedding itself within popular culture. Although slightly fewer than its predecessors, Ofcom insists that the BBC’s hunt to cast a new West End version of Oliver!, “I’d Do Anything”, steadily attracts over 5 million viewers. Match this with the recent crop of copycat shows like “Hairspray: The School Musical”, which is currently preparing to air on SkyOne, and it may look like there’s fight in the old girl yet.

To many, theatre may not seem like the most viable economic prospect; who would want to pay for entertainment when they can get huge budget content streamed to their home for next to nothing? But then that may be the whole point, where as ‘content’ can be zipped, transfered and then unzipped at any computer the world over, theatre cannot.

Theatre will be affected by technological advances, of course it will, and it may need to change in order to progress, but it cannot be trampled over by the digital stampede because it is a totally different entertainment animal. Streamers may supersede television schedules and force licence fee funded institutions into remission, but it cannot replace what it cannot do to begin with. Theatre is temporal, magical, immediate, personal and not, under any circumstances, available to download.

Samantha is a London theatre fanatic and regular West End theatregoer. She is currently researching the new West End show Oliver! – http://www.show-and-stay.co.uk/oliver.html