Entertainig the public

[garrelt]

Following some post in this forum, i would start this discussion.

For the last 16 years i took part in several historic events as an participant, organizer and adviser.
You always have the problem about how to entertain and inform the public about the theme of the event.
Who do you invite and who not, then also why not.
It is very hard to get the good mix, between Historic accurate as possible and entertaining the public.
At the end of the day the public must, in my opinion, go home with a good feeling and also having learned something about the historic event.

Put a person somewhere in chain-mail, a helmet on and a sword in his hand and you will hear: Look a knight (regardless of the type of equipment).

If you look back in history you see that in the Roman Arena's entertaining the public ,bread and games, was more important then showing a historic correct battle.

An example a fisherman (Retiarius) catching a fish (Secutor).
Looking at a normal fisherman catching a fish is not so exciting as a fight between armed people.

Credibility instead of the truth.

[Robert]

Salve all!

As some may know I am busy trying to get a themepark on Romans and Batavians of the ground in Nijmegen, a struggle strife with politics. However, this endevour has caused me to have to delve into exactly the questions Garrelt puts up for discussion. I have found there is no simple answer, because THE public does not exist.
On general, the public couldn't care less is you wear your sword left or right or whether or not your pugio is period. Hotly debated issues like tunic colour or the shape of pteruges do not detract from the amusement value of a good mock fight, displays of horsemanship (even on a incorrect saddle with stirups) or a ballista demonstration.
There is however a part of the public, be it small, who are genuinely interested in things like the above. It is for that small group that one should portay as correct a picture as possible when building a themepark or putting on a show. If you are going to do it, might as well try to do it right! The overall costs are often more or less the same, it just requires more though, effort and attention.

[jvrjenivs]

For me education is one of the important parts of the hobby. The clothing must therefore be as authentic as is possible within my propabillities. So, if only one person an event ask me anything about the clothing, I think it is important that you could tell him what it has looked like and such things.

Of course mass etertainment is also very important, exspecially for families with children. For that group I think it is most important to show them that it wasn't like Ridley Scotts Gladiator or 300.

Another point I personally found very important is to give the public some feeling of the period we're talking about. Too many people, for what I see at least, don't have the general timeline of history ready? What, did the romans have already bronze? (Wasn't the bronze age much earlier???) And the stone-age isn't that whole days shouting 'uge-uge' with the flinstones?

Authenicity is most importent for me, as we could thus show that one person who wants to know more, what is was like. For the others we could just tell and do as little from our knowledge as is good for the moment, if you have a good historical correct base to start from.

[M. Demetrius]

I agree with all the above...but what's sad is that if you get it right, have the right diameter hamata, correct fabrics, perfect shoe for the time period, too many people will rely on their theatre or movie experiences and say, "Why isn't your armor made correctly?".

It's hard to educate them all at once, and then there's the few that have looked at line drawings from Trajan's Column and swear that all the hamata should be dagged at the hem, all the helmets should have rings on the top, and so on. What to do?

[garrelt]

Education is very important, there are already to many stereotypes in all the different historic scenes.
No to mention all the kings and queens walking around.

Last year we did two different gladiator shows together with the gladiators of Ludus Gladiatorii Antoniniana, one in Xanten en one in Augustdorf (Germany).
Both were very different, the comments from the public were good.
Xanten was ad hoc because a lot of visitors (tourists) could no see the Junkelman gladiators so this was an extra.
In Augustdorf this was put in a modern theater context, with music, light and pyrotechnics.

Later by the campfire the discussion went from how the public liked the show to how does a Batavian (soldier/civilian) could have looked liked.
So from fun it became academic.

The majority of the public/visitors/tourist has no notion of something is historic correct or not, but you also encounter people who have more than a normal interest in what you are displaying.

You can use tennis balls, latex spear points, plywood axes and other modern materials for safety in a show/battle as long you don't say that they are historic correct.

Some people already call this form of presentation Infotainment.

[Robert Vermaat]

Well spoken all!

It's a bit of a tightrope. I'm not doing re-enactment for as long as Garrelt (just about 5 years now), but I recognise a lot. You just have to take into acccount anything of the above;

If you're doing a paid job, the main task is to please the organisers, and they are mostly pleased if the audience is pleased.
That means often enough going for entertainment rather than education, but the one does not have to mean that you have to drop the other.
If you can't agree on this with the organisers, i say don't take the money.

If you organise your own event, do what you want to do, because first and foremost, this is a hobby and to have fun is what this is all about, right?

Authenticity - as has been said above, most of the public could not care if we are Romans or Vikings, so should we care if they don't? Personally I do, and education is a big part of why I do it. It challenges me, because I have to check what I know, and because I have to adapt betweeen kids and adults when I want to get my message across.
Part of that is being as authentic as I can, without ever assuming that I can reach a 100%. But it pays off when you come accross those people who actually care!

So I guess it's a mix?

[Robert]

True, Robert, it is a mix. Edutainment or infotainment is a very good way of getting a message across. This does NOT mean we should give up trying to get it reasonably right, but let's not forget the fun part of it all. We may be inspiring a child seeing "real" Romans to study archeology or simply give them an exciting story to tell in class. The main thing is, we have raised some interest having a good time ourselves.

[Medusa Gladiatrix]

This topic is similar to a discussion I'm having with an acquaintance of mine - in my case concerning gladiatorial shows. He was asking how we see it with the violence in a gladiator show, with iugulatio etc. if you should put that on display and also on how much explanation you should put there. He liked the show of the Junkelmann gladiators at Xanten while I thought there was too much explanation by Dr. Junkelmann. We watched last night a video of Junkelmann in Borg with the time running on the tape, so we noticed that half of the show is just the explanation while the fights contain the other half. I think this is definitely too long, people get unsettled.

If people see in the program of a Roman event that there will be a gladiator show they wanna see action and not a lengthy lecture. I think a short lecture is fine and should be so people learn a bit about gladiators and especially see that authentic gladiators are very much different from what they know from Hollywood movies but that the fights in authentic gear are even more thrilling than fights in fantasy kits à la "Gladiator". I think a iugulatio could be shown but personally think using theater blood would be too much. But it gives the chance to interact with the audience. Gladiators were there for entertainment, so we should entertain the visitors but having also the chance to give them some information about this topic, so it's "infotainment" but information and action should be well balanced. If someone wants to know more they could contact us after the show.

[Caturix]

So I guess it's a mix?

I'm sure about that.

I think that our goal is to mediate culture with spectacular entrateinment.
After a reenacting event I'm always happy when I look to children and adults that were totally unaware of ancient history, knowing that now, when back home, they'll start searching books and infos about Celts only because they were fascinated by our encampment and our weapons.

For what concerned the imlpement of modern instrumentsin reenacting, I can say that there are two different cases.

We can use fake weapons (tennisball instead of real spearheads, plywood axe-blades instead of metal ones) for security measures.

If we represent a fight in a quite "fiery" manner

(the more your fight will look real, the more the public will be fascinated, the more he will remind the event, the more he will reserch about the ancient cultures after that)

and don't want to be TOO realistic (E.d. risk to have someone killed), we must use fake weapons...and I think (and hope) that no one could be so idiot to assume, looking at us, that Romans fought with tennisball spears or Germans with plywood axes.

Besides, we can use some modern stuff, still for security measures, to do experimentation, if our purpose is to investigate and reconstruct something that involve not only the object itself, but the way of utilize it.

For example, if you want to reconstruct an ancient fightng tecnique in a scientific way you must use modern tools, designed specifically to allow testing martial arts and extreme fighting, the risks of an experimental work focused on armed fighting obviously unacceptable in the absence of adequate precautionary measures, an absence that would otherwise castrate the project on the rise, and distorte the conclusions and results.

Obvoiusly, if you carry on that kind of work you must also remeber that there are some mechanical aspects that you can NEVER reproduct in a dinamyc experiment (even with modern protections you'll never use a sharp blade), so you must unite dynamic experimentation to cutting tests, and so on...always remebering that something that can happaned with fake weapons or modern protections cannot be right for a truly ancient context.

[jvrjenivs]

The Junkelmann gladiator show has too much of talking and is more interesting for people who know where they're looking at then for the normal family, I agree. I think as re-enactor you don't have to show the iugulatio, nor do you need to avoid that part, as it was part of the original games as well. Most important is to show the public that everything you showed was a show, no real fight with deadly end. I think it is more a matter of how many fights you show and the answer of the public when the fight has been giving us a winner. A few simple words by the lanista would give the public a good first view, and showed them that Ridley Scotts Gladiator wasn't all about the boody games.

Just a few simple words about the gladiator fights as entertainment (wasn't it meant to be that in ancient times), the costs of the training and the different types (small vs big shields) shows enough information, and hopefully most of the public will remember that not everyone who didn't win the fight would leave the Arena dead.

And don't forget to support the man who made the fights possible (/paid for it)

[garrelt]

We use, have used theater blood (in some shows), and do our fighting with blunt steel weapons.
One on one and also in a battle.
The use of blunt steel is already being discussed in this forum.
Sharp or semi-sharp only for display.
Wooden weapons are also used for training.

I also like the mix, the same applies to your personal interaction with public.

[AuxArcher]

Salve, all. Let me throw in my own obeservations.

I have been to a lot of events, and what I dread is the lecturer who is in love with himself, and drones on and on and on and on and on and on and on...and on, until the audience is about to revolt in boredom. Learning and teaching are a big part of why we all love living history / reenanactment, but....the average folks taking thier kids to see Romans proably wants to see Romans doing what Romans do.

I was at a live fire demo last year, not Ancient, but maybe you have seen the same demo? They had US small arms from pre-Rev to the latest M4s and SAWs, an amazing collection of fully operable hardware. They had each soldier dressed in the proper uniforms of each period, probably a line of 40 guys. And before they fired, the lecturer droned on for 40 minutes (kid you not) about minutia. It was truly aweful.

That kind of thing is what makes so many kids hate history in the first place. It also, I think, shows a disrepect or oblivion to your audience, which is sometimes the sole reason you are there.

A good program of any sort does cater to those who are there to learn, but forcing it down their collective throats doesnt really work very well.

[M. Demetrius]

A good program of any sort does cater to those who are there to learn, but forcing it down their collective throats doesnt really work very well.

And old man once said, "Son, you can sometimes teach people something, but you can't learn them anything."

He also said, "Don't squat with your spurs on."

Smart man. :wink:

[Matt Lukes]

Very well said!

Indeed the minutia is only of interest to a very small proportion of people- usually those of us who are already fairly knowledgeable and for whom the basics would be boring. Any lecture or even a general explanation must be tailored to the audience, addressing their level of interest and knowledge. It makes no sense to get into all the fiddly details if the audience is composed of the general public who probably don't know much beyond what they saw in Gladiator or on the History Channel. That doesn't mean things need to be 'dumbed down' or even relayed incorrectly, but rather that the very important points need to be recognized and, in particular, those that would be the most generally interesting, be presented primarily. I find people are particularly interested in the correction of myths- because it teaches them something really new that not many people know and they can show off with their newfound knoweledge LOL

It also helps to intersperse action with lecture- talk about a weapon and then have a guy in kit demonstrate. Talk about something else, repeat. You can't just drone on and on and later get to the display. People lose interest. I think it's also best not to have a narration while action is going on as people can't concentrate well enough on either and something will suffer- better as I said to have it a short talk, short action, short talk, short action, etc. Unless the action by its nature is longer, such as a gladiator match.

The one thing I do dislike is when people go with the 'infotainment' approach such as the History Channel often does- describing the Spartans as 'The Delta Force of the Ancient World' just makes me groan and lose interest LOL That I consider dumbing things down- it's just as bad to leave people feeling patronized as it is to bore them.

[Magnus]

Yeah, but the "Delta Force of the Ancient World" sounds so cool!!! :lol: