The Edinburgh Fringe Programme is published tomorrow – almost two months before the world’s biggest arts festival actually starts.
So here is my two happence on why some comedy shows will fail or will lose at least one star in reviews.
Performers have to think up their show title in around February, usually well before they have written the show and often before they have developed any ideas they have.
During the much-later writing process, they then discover what their show is actually about. This is often barely relevant to the show title.
And, even if they think they know what their show is about when they start writing, it may turn into something totally different by the time they are finished – and even further-removed from the title which they are now (because of unnecessarily-early Fringe Office deadlines) stuck with.
If they are sensible, they will preview the show a good few times in front of genuine audiences (ie NOT their friends) to see where the laughs really are. These laughter-points may be totally different to what they assumed. And the audience may be uninterested or extremely interested in parts of the show unforeseen by the performer.
This is good. Dry runs of the show are good. But there is a danger.
The comedy performer will often, perhaps usually, have written the show themselves. This is good.
If they are wonderfully creative, they will have had hundreds of ideas and sidetracks swirling through their brain as they constructed the show. This is good.
They test-run the show in front of audiences to see where the laughs are so that they can adjust the structure. This is good.
But they are comedy performers. They crave laughs. They feel in their heart, mind, body and soul that, if the audience is not laughing, they are failing as performers.
Or, more to the point, they are not having their egos boosted as they constantly require.
So, after each dry-run performance, they will tweak the structure of the show so they keep in the laughy bits and cut out the non-laughy bits. In theory this is good.
But there is that fine cliché saying: You can’t see the wood for the trees.
At the Edinburgh Fringe, people choose to go to a live stage show.
The live stage show has a title. If it is a literally attractive and very specific title, it will have drawn the audience in.
If the title bears little or no relation to the content of the show, there is a high risk of confusing or alienating the audience during the performance or, at least, distracting them.
They are sitting there thinking (even if only subconsciously):
This show is called FISHING IN GUATEMALA and there has been no mention of fishing or Guatemala so far. When is he/she going to mention it? Is all this stuff I am sitting through heading towards a story about a fish-based tourist trip which will pull all these funny but unconnected jokes/stories together?
The other danger is that, during the writing process, the performer has bunged-in and kept-in everything funny they can think of to get laughs. And, during the previews, he/she has kept in everything that gets laughs while removing everything that doesn’t get laughs. Including the linear narrative that holds the bleedin’ show together.
So, even if there was originally a single unifying idea to the show, it is now a mishmash of funny but unconnected and disconnecting 2-or-3 minute items swirling around uncontrolled within a 55 minute show.
If it is a pure ‘gag’ show a la Jimmy Carr or Tim Vine or Milton Jones, that works. Especially with those three, because they are brilliant, highly-experienced performers with total control of their content, linking and pacing.
But, if it is a show that supposedly has a subject and/or a show with a title that implies a subject but the subject is not constantly holding the show together or propelling it forward, then, dear performer, you are fucked with a very sharp stick indeed.
You will lose the audience’s concentration and you will lose – at the very least – one star in reviews.
Even at a late stage, though – like tomorrow, when the Fringe Programme is published – not all may be lost.
In 2005, the Scots comic Janey Godley wrote her autobiography, which I edited. She wrote every word. It was a single flowing narrative which could happily have had no division into chapters but, for ease of reading, it was broken into chapters.
I gave Janey advice and wrote the chapter titles. She wrote 100% of the text of the book.
We had both suggested titles for the book to the publishers. Some were random thoughts which might lead to other thoughts.
One of these was Handstands in the Dark because, during her very very dark childhood, Janey would do handstands, sometimes without the room light on.
The publisher liked the counterpoint of the happy handstands and the darkness of her life and insisted on Handstands in the Dark as the title. I personally think the publisher also liked it because it sounded classy and publishers are partly in business to boost their egos when they talk about their books to wanker friends at Islington dinner parties.
When, while writing the book, Janey prepared her next Edinburgh Fringe show – which would be used partly to publicise the book and covered the same autobiographical subjects – she chose the much more commercial Good Godley! as her show title. The publisher could have used this title but had brain-freeze on Handstands in the Dark.
So, when structuring the book – which was not fully written when Handstands in the Dark was decided-on as the inevitable title – we had to bear in mind what the tenuously-relevant title of the book was.
One of my contributions as alleged editor was to get a reference to Janey doing handstands on the first page with a brief mention of why. She wrote:
“I liked doing handstands. I loved the world upside-down. It made me dizzy but I liked that feeling… Sometimes I would only talk upside-down. Sometimes I would talk in a code only I knew. Sometimes out in the street I would kneel down and scoop water from puddles with my hands coz I was thirsty but too scared to go home and face what was there…”
The book has 27 chapters.
The first chapter is titled THE WORLD UPSIDE-DOWN.
The penultimate chapter is titled THE HANDSTAND, implying that the book builds towards a particular handstand and there is a relevant handstand theme important to the structure and (that terrible publishers’ term) ‘story-arc’ of the book.
But the importance of the concept of handstands in a dark world is something added on top of the book. It is not what the book is about.
The book has its own terrifically strong structure of throat-gripping hook-after-hook-after-hook (all Janey’s doing, not mine), leading up to an unforeseen end.
When published, Handstands in the Dark was a top-five hardback bestseller in Scotland and a top-ten paperback bestseller in the UK. It is still in print and selling 12 years later because it is an extraordinarily well-written book (and I did not write a word of the text).
My point is that the content of the book itself is actually not defined by the title. It grew organically and brilliantly as Janey wrote it. The addition of the penultimate chapter title and the inclusion of the first-page reference were to make the irrelevant title seem relevant.
So my advice to anyone with an Edinburgh Fringe comedy show stuck with an irrelevant title is this…
Bung in a reference to the title of the show at least three, ideally five times, scattered throughout the show. This will make it seem like the title defines the show.
If your comedy stage show meanders all over the bloody place, then you are probably dead in the water, but…
In your own mind, define in one single short sentence exactly what the show actually IS supposed to be about (which may well have changed since you first thought you knew what you were going to write). And make sure that everything – EVERYTHING – in the show relates to that short single sentence concept.
It does not matter if one 2-minute section gets big laughs. If it is irrelevant, cut it. You can use it in another show.
An audience can be carried along on laughs and an idea.
But, if you have laughs and no single central idea which is developed through the show and builds to a logical, relevant climax, then (unless you really are as technically brilliant as Jimmy Carr) you are going to have a show with laughs but no actual audience involvement – you will lose the audience’s attention and emotional involvement and you will probably lose at least one less star in any review.
If your show is called FISHING IN GUATEMALA then, for fucksake, at least mention fish and Guatemala.
(My apologies to anyone who actually HAS written a comedy show titled and fascinatingly about fishing in Guatemala.)