Jaded Optimist Coloring Book

As I finally begin my mad dash to see as many Fringe shows as humanly possible I find myself sitting in Bryant Lake Bowl actually laughing out loud at Mark Whitney’s show “Fool for a Client.” As I’m walking out the door I happened to overhear two people complaining that the show wasn’t storytelling, it was stand-up comedy.  This person’s companion huffed in agreement and went on to say that it wasn’t “even ” theater.  So I ponder.   This commentary between two Fringegoers with whom I have more than a passing acquaintance kind of hit home a bit too much like the spicey harissa sauce I had with my lunch today at Sapor.  It gave me heart burn.  Actually, these last words are unfair to the harissa-I ate that voluntarily and loved the taste and felt that the heart burn was a fair price to pay for some serious spice.  You see, I am a performer, Fringe and otherwise, and I use humor (often of the serious R or even X rated) to tell my stories.  Often, the more painful the story, the darker and broader the humor.  Not every story needs to be of the traditional variety.  Story can be personal narrative (visit the Moth web site and you’ll know what that genre is all about), it can be ancient folk tale, it can have a clearly defined plot, or moral.  It can be told completely scripted or significantly improved.  It can be read with fairly minimal physicality or completely “acted”.  From my point of view, a storyteller is someone who speaks from the stage directly to the audience as opposed to someone or a group of someones who uses the stage as a private world and allows the audience to watch the action more or less as a voyeur.  So what the hell is my point?  Fool for a Client is a most compelling personal narrative told to a participating audience in an extremely humerous manner.  Sometimes using sex or other no-no’s to allow people to groan, hiss,  laugh, etc.  Mark Whitney is most definitely a storyteller, and if that title bothers you because you have a narrow definition of what a storyteller is, then life for you is full of too many shoulds and should nots, which makes me laugh because in many ways, that was pretty much the main point of Mark’s story.  The show is outstanding and selling out, so if you still plan to go, reserve, reserve, reserve.

And now for more ranting on this topic: I went to the Rarig Arena last evening to watch the always glorious Charlie Bethel do his one hour version of Beowulf. Damn he’s good. He told me later that evening at Fringe Central at the Bedlam that he felt that he had rushed the piece a bit. Charlie: get over it! You were, as always, just too damn exhilarating for words. When Charlie Bethel is in the Fringe, go see him. Always. But, was what Charlie doing storytelling? According to my thesis set forth above (ok, not really a thesis, more a poorly sketched out set of thoughts), the answer is yes. Charlie was not doing a story in a bubble world that we, the voyeurs in the audience got to see and with which we could not really interact. Charlie was telling the tale of Beowulf to us, all of us, in 360 degrees of energetic glory. Was there a “story?” Of course, Beowulf is a story in epic poem poetic form. Seems like a story to me. It has a plot. Dramatic arc. All that good stuff. So, Charlie Bethel is a story teller who told us a classic story as interpreted by him. He used humor and some audience interaction to bring the piece alive. Similar in some ways to what Mark Whitney uses in his piece described above. And, I will vainly add, similar to what I do (sometimes successfully, sometimes not) in my show Alone and Testifying at Interact. 3 very very different shows. All I posit, storytelling.

I also saw Mortem Capiendum by Four Humors Theater last night.  This was not, I have decided, storytelling.  It was sketch comedy ala Saturday Night Live.  I’m not sure why I make that distinction here, but it seems that the purpose of the performers here was to tell an hour long joke in sketch form.  How’s that for saying nothing.  There was a story, plot and all (more or less).  It was clearly interactive with the audience.  There was certainly lots of physicality.  I don’t know why, it just wasn’t storytelling, and I’m fairly certain that the three hysterically funny performers don’t see themselves as storytellers.  I’d bet they see themselves as comic performers.  Oh well, who cares.  I, and apparently everyone else in the theater, has a hell of a lot of fun.  You know, laugh until your face hurts fun.  Was it Great?  No.  Like many sketches on SNL, it went on a bit too long for my taste.  They could have cut 10 minutes from the piece and it would have been every bit as funny and felt tighter.  It dragged in some places.  But that’s quibbling.  I still watch SNL as often as I can (I’ve been a fan from Day 1; John Belushi was a childhood friend, and the BEST person with whom to share a joint), and highly recommend this show to anyone who enjoys irreverent sketch comedy.