Still prevalent today, farce, or comedy involving ridiculous situations, mistaken identities, satirical critiques of society, and other techniques of exaggeration to entertain the audience, has long outlasted its creators. The term farce, meaning "stuffed" in French, was first applied to work produced in the Middle Ages, however, plays with farcical characteristics date as far back to Ancient Greek theatre. Additionally, the titling of a work as farce has been received differently throughout time. For these reasons, secondary sources detailing the history of this subgenera's development are inconsistent.
Research surrounding the subgenre farce points towards an extensive and complex origin and progression of the term used in theatre. Some critiques mark the beginning of farcical plays as the Middle Ages, emphasizing their rise in popularity during the Restoration Period (mid-17th-18th century). The time periods from which farce emerged, however, reveals how the audience, and theatre critics received farcical plays.
In Peter Holland's article, "Farce," he revealed that the titling of a work as "farce" was "most likely accompanied by an apology," (Holland, 107) alluding to a quote from two editors of Restoration and 18th century farces who said, "there is no great literary merit to be found in any one of them" (Holland, 107). Holland even claims that Restoration playwrights "sought carefully" to not have their works defined as farce. Other playwrights at the height of farce's popularity, deemed the technique escapist and without any aesthetic value. However, farces were continuously produced for their financial offerings, yet hindered the playwright from claiming literary merit. Holland, claims that this is still true, and that the exaggeration and satirical traits of farces, while sometimes revealing societal unrest, is achieved through humor rather than "witty" material.
Holland's arguments, while supported by men who critiqued the subgenera in its prime, differ from other theatre critics who brand farce as "high comedy." Later evaluations of 19th century English farce's, which were influenced by the French tradition, display an appreciation for farce despite its mainly visual experience, and praise the societal critiques enveloped in satire and ridiculous humor.
Thus, as the technique of farce transformed over time, along with the audience and the political climate, the reception and effects of the subgenera also evolved.
So, the difficulties in researching secondary sources for farce, involved organizing the time periods. If the secondary source researched the origins of farce in France, the traits and sentiments surrounding the subgenre greatly differed from the 19th century English form.
Additionally, ridiculous humor and exaggerated situations transcended the border of France and England, influencing plays in Ireland, South America, and even India. So, there were plentiful secondary sources that focused on specific areas of the world where farce in employed in the theatre for a variety of reasons.
While these sources helped illustrate the expansive nature of the theatrical tradition, it was overwhelming to see just how large this subgenre is. For this reason, I decided to focus on the English and French tradition of farce, yet still record the similarities of its effect despite its presence in theatre around the world.
Given the current political climate the U.S, it will be interesting to compare the purpose and effect of farce during the Middle Ages in France and the Restoration period in England, which might shed light on contemporary popular satirical comedies like SNL and other shows with farcical qualities.
I thought it was interesting how you noted that there were periods of time and critics who saw farce as lacking artistic merit. I think that's one of the genius things about satirical works, is that we're constantly having to negotiate where we draw the line between banality and subversive humor. On a separate note, do you know why the word "stuffed" was used to title this genre? I'm not sure if your research got into the implications of that, but I think it's certainly interesting. Maybe it's "stuffed" in the sense of being overly ridiculous or full of itself?
ReplyDeleteIt's interesting how opinions on farce have changed over time. You point out how giving a work the branding of farce was almost like an insult in the 18th century, but by the 19th century it was considered high comedy by many. I wonder if the styles and tones of literature from this genre actually drastically changed or if it was merely a shift in what audiences liked and didn't like. Its difficult for me to understand or relate the 18th century critiques because of how difficult is to write good comedy and satire pieces. I have a lot of respect for these writers. Obviously, there are still less than great pieces that exist in this genre today, but not enough to tarnish the entire genre.
ReplyDeleteI very much enjoyed learning about this subgenre. I had no idea what the term meant and I was pleased to learn it meant, "stuffed." I am wondering how to interpret this definition because I think that the term does not carry the same meaning in the U.S. I have a cousin from Australia and saying, "stuff it" basically translates to cursing at someone. Furthermore, I find it interesting how SNL uses farce to reveal "societal unrest" successfully through humor. It's nice to see that consistency. Can satire and farce be used interchangeably since they are so similar?
ReplyDeleteThe process of research has been cyclically reinforcing. The more I searched secondary sources, the more I learned about primary sources, and vice versa. Learning about the plays and diving more into secondary research, I've discovered the difference between satire and farce. Satire is often comedy through sarcasm or overdone situations that critique society, or have a bigger meaning. This term cannot be interchangeable with farce, since the subgenre actually does not require this. Early farces were only ridiculous situations or physical and visual humor. The subgenre was meant to make one laugh uncontrollably, but not necessarily think about political or social context. It isn't until later, when some playwrights used the popular theatrical device to convey their concern with certain societal issues. This is seen in Oscar Wilde's The Importance of Being Earnest. However, some farces truly do not mean anything are meant to make the audience laugh hysterically. This is why many people critiqued farce for its lack of literary merit. However, it remained a popular form of the dramatic arts, and still persists into modern day with some instances of more witty and satirical material.
ReplyDelete