Monday, September 17, 2007
IT MAY BE A KIND OF LUNCH-COUNTER ART, BUT THEN ART IS SO VAGUE AND LUNCH IS SO REAL: Last night, The Daily Show won its fifth consecutive Emmy for "Outstanding Variety, Music or Comedy Series." If you look back over the list of previous winners for that category, you'll see that there actually hasn't been much "variety" over the past couple of decades, which have been dominated by late-night comedy shows. But as a recent article in Variety pointed out, that category used to belong to true "variety programs," from Your Show of Shows to Laugh-In to The Carol Burnett Show. And where did those variety shows come from? In large part, from vaudeville.
Vaudeville emerged in the late 19th century, growing out of several different sources: the "olio" segment of minstrel shows, the multiple acts of the circus, the rapid-fire musical/comedy/dance routines of concert saloons and burlesque. A key figure in American vaudeville was Tony Pastor, whose New York theatres offered more family-friendly "variety shows" during the 1880s and 1890s. But the real vaudeville business didn't really take off until Benjamin Franklin Keith and Edward F. Albee (grandfather of the playwright) established a whole circuit of cheap vaudeville theatres that promised continuous, wholesome, entertaining shows for all classes of patrons. The Keith-Albee "Sunday School" circuit -- so-called for its strict regulation of both performers' routines and audience members' behavior -- quickly became the industry standard, and vaudeville took its place as the leading form of stage entertainment for the next several decades. Observers hailed vaudeville as a quintessentially American format; as Edwin Milton Royle put it in the statement quoted in the post title, it was a "lunch-counter art," a product of "the era of the department store and the short story."
Conveniently, motion pictures arrived right around this time, so we actually have some film records of early vaudeville performances. The variety is quite remarkable: animal acts, acrobats, dramatic sketches, dancers, strongmen, escape artists, and especially comedians. As producers liked to say, vaudeville had "something for everybody," and if you didn't like one act, you only had to wait a few minutes for the next one to come along.
Yet while film did provide a way to record vaudeville, the movies also eventually challenged vaudeville's pop-culture supremacy, as would radio and television in their time. Some performers made the transition to new media, as did the variety format, but over the past generation or so, vaudeville has largely disappeared. Or has it? Are there any elements of today's popular culture that seem indebted to vaudeville? Do you see any chance for the variety format making a return to pop-culture prominence?
Vaudeville emerged in the late 19th century, growing out of several different sources: the "olio" segment of minstrel shows, the multiple acts of the circus, the rapid-fire musical/comedy/dance routines of concert saloons and burlesque. A key figure in American vaudeville was Tony Pastor, whose New York theatres offered more family-friendly "variety shows" during the 1880s and 1890s. But the real vaudeville business didn't really take off until Benjamin Franklin Keith and Edward F. Albee (grandfather of the playwright) established a whole circuit of cheap vaudeville theatres that promised continuous, wholesome, entertaining shows for all classes of patrons. The Keith-Albee "Sunday School" circuit -- so-called for its strict regulation of both performers' routines and audience members' behavior -- quickly became the industry standard, and vaudeville took its place as the leading form of stage entertainment for the next several decades. Observers hailed vaudeville as a quintessentially American format; as Edwin Milton Royle put it in the statement quoted in the post title, it was a "lunch-counter art," a product of "the era of the department store and the short story."
Conveniently, motion pictures arrived right around this time, so we actually have some film records of early vaudeville performances. The variety is quite remarkable: animal acts, acrobats, dramatic sketches, dancers, strongmen, escape artists, and especially comedians. As producers liked to say, vaudeville had "something for everybody," and if you didn't like one act, you only had to wait a few minutes for the next one to come along.
Yet while film did provide a way to record vaudeville, the movies also eventually challenged vaudeville's pop-culture supremacy, as would radio and television in their time. Some performers made the transition to new media, as did the variety format, but over the past generation or so, vaudeville has largely disappeared. Or has it? Are there any elements of today's popular culture that seem indebted to vaudeville? Do you see any chance for the variety format making a return to pop-culture prominence?
IF THE THUNDER DON'T GET YOU THEN THE LIGHTNING WILL: Robert Jordan, author of the enormously long (and still unfinished) Wheel of Time series, has died at the age of 58. The Wheel of Time series was something I had yet to get to, but given its popularity -- and his undeniable benefit to the world of speculative fiction -- I thought a thread might be appropriate for his fans.
CAN WE PASS OUT VIRTUAL CIGARS? I am delighted to pass along word that regular commenter Kevbo Nobo and his wife have welcomed a newborn into their lives. Writes Kevbo, "His name is Duncan (a decision made final when we watched seasons 1 & 2 of Veronica Mars last month); 6 lbs, 2 oz, 18.5 inches long. He & Mrs Nobo are both fine."
Sunday, September 16, 2007
BLUE, GREEN, ORANGE AND PURPLE: USA Today turned 25 years old this weekend, and as America's most-read daily newspaper, we probably ought to say something about it. But other than the introduction of color printing to daily newspapers, I'm not quite sure what else I'd highlight. Maybe the formalization of sports-on-tv criticism as a legitimate beat? You can read their self-chronology here.
It's a newspaper that I only read when it's available for free (at a hotel, or abandoned at an airport), and I can't think of anything that it does better than other newspapers or any writer there I find that interesting or memorable. So when, and why, do you read it?
It's a newspaper that I only read when it's available for free (at a hotel, or abandoned at an airport), and I can't think of anything that it does better than other newspapers or any writer there I find that interesting or memorable. So when, and why, do you read it?
THE ACADEMY OF TELEVISION ARTS AND SCIENCES WELCOMES YOU: It's Emmy night, and many of us will be liveblogging in the comments. Do join us for all the festivities, and feel free to make your Award and Necrology Applause-O-Meter predictions while you still can. Among those also live-blogging or chatting will be Lisa de Moraes and, time permitting, Alan Sepinwall.
(On the latter: Merv Griffith's primacy beats Jane Wyman's recency, with Calvert DeForest taking third over Tom Poston.)
(On the latter: Merv Griffith's primacy beats Jane Wyman's recency, with Calvert DeForest taking third over Tom Poston.)
BETTER STILL, EVERYONE SAYS "SCREW THIS" AND HANDS THEIR AWARDS OVER TO KYLE CHANDLER AND CONNIE BRITTON: We need a thread to pre-show discuss the main Emmys. airing tonight. Seems like a safe guess it's going to be a lovefest for The Sopranos (which has to be the front-runner for drama series, leading actor, and directing/writing awards), with comedy seeming likely to be spread out (Baldwin will hopefully break Shalhoub's streak, Ferrera seems likely to win for Ugly Betty, and while NPH should win, Jeremy Piven probably will). And while Stephen Colbert can't lose to Barry Manilow this year, he could lose to Tony Bennett. It's also a safe bet we're not going to have anything as brilliant as last year's opening ("No, I did not have Conan O'Brien fall through the ceiling."). Share your hopes (Runway beating TAR) and fears (the rather inexplicable nominee Boston Legal sweeping--even if I could deal with Shatner winning).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)