What defines fringe theatre? It’s such a vast landscape the possibilities are endless. Location, radicalism, financial constraints, the imagination born from those financial constraints – each answer has passionate advocates who constantly use their opinions as barometers to announce either its death or rude health.
I’m as much of an idealist as anyone but I’m starting to feel that in order to get anywhere with this question we need to stop speaking about the fringe as an exhaustive whole and focus on what defines good fringe venues. In doing so I think you can define the fringe because what unifies this eclectic mix of venues is a strong sense of identity.
Whilst their glitzy counterparts on Shaftesbury Avenue house a fluffy musical one moment and the new David Hare the next, the fringe is able to provide what its closest Off-West End neighbours do – committed, holistic programming. Many are both receiving and producing houses through necessity. But those with strong enough reputations are able to pick from appropriate work, work which is as strengthened by its association with the venue as the venue is by the quality of its programming.
As such the Finborough is known by new writers as being as safe a pair of hands as the Royal Court, whilst the Union’s hit rate for new musicals is as high as the Menier’s. The Yard Theatre is producing experimental work that is as exciting as The Barbican while a recent production of The Duchess of Malfi at The White Bear was as rigorous and insightful as any National Theatre revival.
Venues with a strong artistic identity are what the fringe offers that the West End doesn’t
Though resources vary wildly what binds these venues together is a strong artistic identity which enables consistent programming. This consistency builds trust with both artists and audiences, encouraging chances to be taken and bold work to be made and seen.
This is when the fringe is at its most vital. Whether it is in reinterpreting the classics, explosive performance art or premiering a new musical, venues with a strong identity – where audiences are more likely to take a punt on something new – is what this environment can offer.
That a distinctive identity is necessary is proven when you look at venues that have struggled in the past. The Tristan Bates Theatre has a dream location smack in the centre of town. But with a vague artistic mandate and schizophrenic programme it’s an unknown entity that is hardly spoken of, let alone attended.
In a landscape of more than 80 venues and growing, this wishy-washy mentality stops them from being a positive alternative to anything, even the dusty plays of their West End neighbours. It’s only to be hoped that new producers Ben Monks and Will Young can give it some much needed direction.
Venues with a strong artistic identity are what the fringe offers that the West End doesn’t. It’s this collective sense of identity – whatever, artistically, that may be – that binds the fringe together and makes it such an essential part of our vibrant theatre ecology.

Jobs & Auditions
Comments 4 comments
Honor, did you read this? Looks like many would disagree with your views of what constitutes fringe. http://www.thestage.co.uk/columns/shenton/2012/10/low-pay-no-pay/Report comment
To an extent I agree, but neither the Union, nor the Menier are particularly, if at all, known for “new” musicals – rather, they present excellent revivals or updated versions of established musicals. That, perhaps is a massive problem of the fringe – programming is too often populist – it has to be to draw in an audience.
As for TBT – with The Last Session there at the moment, Thrill Me originating there last year before transferring in to the Charing Cross, and Rest Upon the Wind starting there and now touring internationally, I think it’s doing rather better than you’d suggest. I’m particularly looking forward to their programme next year which will showcase performances by members – what an amazing way to use a fantastic venue.Report comment
Eclecticism isn’t, in itself, a bad thing. The National, the Donmar, the Almeida all have eclectic programmes. On the Fringe, some of the most successful venues offer all sorts of shows. The Print Room can flick from Alan Acykbourn to Will Eno. Southwark Playhouse and the Arcola are both like theatres on shuffle, with devised work, new writing and classics rubbing up against one another. In fact, for me, that’s one of the assets of the Fringe; that it can give space to all sorts of things.
However, it’s worth stressing that the diverse programming at these venues is a conscious decision. There are others, mostly venues-for-hire, where it’s not. Strikes me that this is the distinction worth making, rather than variety in and of itself.Report comment
well this isn’t really saying anything at all apart from some vague praise and criticism. Those of us who earn a living touring and in the fringe (yes it is possible) know how good it is. Perfect no. Good yes…for so many reasons…without subsidy or often written press support or pay…still carries on. How about a peice that actually talks to some more real fringe practitioners. and has some sort of erm. …point?Report comment