Fringe 2007
October 8th, 2007 • comedy
A few overdue thoughts, post-Fringe 2007:
1. The narrative in the media that there was “too much comedy” at the Edinburgh Fringe Festival was both strange and unexamined. In actuality, theatre and comedy represent roughly equal proportions of the Fringe - theatre has slightly more shows, in fact.
It’s never been clear why comedy should have to represent a smaller proportion of the total shows; if the argument is that they take a larger proportion of ticket shares and that this impacts directly on theatre sales.. well, we’re just admitting that the public doesn’t actually want to cram into converted cupboards to watch theatre. Comedy? Maybe it doesn’t matter what the venue is like if the bar is open. I’ve certainly yet to hear the complaint that there’s not enough theatre.
There are, though, a couple of things to remember: comedy can be (and usually is at the Fringe) much, much cheaper to produce, with consequently less risk. Smaller casts, smaller production budgets and a larger potential audience can be a powerful combination. Theatre at the fringe can be world-class, but there are a different set of pressures at work.
Similarly, the claim made by certain reviewers that the Fringe is “killing” the art of comedy through an over-reliance on giant shows by established acts is headline grabbing but not persuasive. The vast majority of shows which enjoyed great word-of-mouth this year were Fringe first-timers or those yet to make the big-time - a good example here are the if.comeddie nominated Pappy’s Fun Club.
If someone is prepared to drop £40 to see Ricky Gervais - who sold out thousands of seats at the Edinburgh Castle Esplanade - they’re probably going to be prepared to spend another £5 and take a risk on an unknown. In any case, I’ve yet to meet someone who thought they were competing with Gervais for audience share, whose show arguably drew on an entirely different (TV oriented) market.
2. The related complaints - made primarily by the directors of the larger, older venues - that the Fringe has grown too large and that “the competition for audiences is too tough” rarely recognise the multiple sources of the problem.
It’s slightly odd to have William Burdett Coutts complaining about low audiences, while admitting that “I’m as guilty as anyone else. There is a limited local audience. We have expanded our shows.” With 700,000 tickets to sell, it’s perhaps not that suprising that the Assembly Rooms - tickets priced towards the upper end of the market - had trouble filling seats. It’s also not realistic to judge the success of the Fringe on the basis of the success of the Assembly Rooms - plenty of smaller (let’s even say younger) venues have had a great year.
The tentative proposal to create another Fringe - to split from the (fringe) festival which split from the (international) festival - is not a solution; it’s a re-branding exercise. The “free festival” is a nice idea, and a good way to offer venues to acts who couldn’t otherwise afford the festival - but the vast majority of people working in the arts are also hoping to pay their rent. The number of professionals prepared to give up a month to live in one of the most expensive cities in the UK for no money at all is quite small. (A fairly large number end up doing that inadvertently, but they didn’t actively plan it.)
3. There is also - and it’s an unpopular thing to say - a parasitic relationship between some comedy agencies and the acts that they promote at the festival: I’ve learnt first hand of the (not uncommon) terms on offer, terms which guarantee a loss even if the entire run sells out.
While you could fairly criticise companies for offering such terms - or acts for being desperate enough to sign in the hope of longer term fame - you start to understand where all the money is going, why ticket prices creep so quickly and why it’s good business sense for promoters and venues to take large numbers of acts. Contracts set up to primarily protect the profitability of venues and promoters is good business sense, but it’s not necessarily the best environment to grow new acts.
Standardised disclaimer: having worked on both the promoter and venue sides, I’ll say that the majority aren’t trying to screw you. They are, however, trying to compete with certain companies who are dropping huge amounts of money on the fringe and EXPECTING their clients to make a loss.
