Ren Faire

While this docu-drama is specific to this particular renaissance fair, I found Ren Faire to be fascinating, interesting, and thought provoking.

As for the first episode, the cinematography is incredible, and the director's ability to film the festival, its audience, its family of workers, and then the main storyline of succession with George, Jeff, and Louie is balanced and well-done. George and this Ren Faire are intertwined as it is George who created this particular fair and continues to rule.

After watching the first episode, I plan on going to one of these fairs because it is a world that seems, at least in this film, to be so inviting to everyone.

Not sure if the film makers are trying to paint a sympathetic portrait of a delusional megalomaniacal d-bag manchild or catering to whatever purse strings that funded it, but it's nothing more than a student film filled with fluffery and proselytizing by those seeking to gain some huge benefit by their dishonesty. I knew George for nigh on ten years and he's a creep, and I guess that's apparent, but nowhere is the mention of his child brides.

More importantly, nowhere is the mention of Toon Town, where a number of participants live, some of them year round. I realize this is a focus on the owner, but his multi-million dollar business would be nothing without all the little people who make it work. But they're just peasants, so who cares? Either they weren't asked or wisely declined to be part of this boring, pointless stroking of egos debacle.

And from the film's eventuality, one has to wonder if the entire thing wasn't a scam to push publicity and/or manipulate the players. There's an ironic phrase amongst people who work there who have realistic expectations about what the faires are like concerning the people who pathetically think of it as real life: living the dream. This film has the same pathos.

Todays documentaries always seem to have this fancy presentation about them and frankly artificial feel.

They all require a film filter, heavy editing and overly dramatic music.

Although this one is well shot and looks great, I can't help but feel misled by the whole thing.

The story is presented like a movie with deliberate scenes that show each of the people as if it were some drama. And it begs the question, why wasn't this simply filmed as such?

I say this because it seems fake overall, as if the story doesn't have the weight it's presented throughout the three episodes.

It boards on being simply a reality tv show with a stronger budget.

I wish we saw more of the fair itself too! The inner workings, the shows, fellow actors and vendors.

Their thoughts on the whole matter and their jobs. But instead it was about management and their "king." Personally I felt that would've been a better choice for a theme here.

The fair seems to be more of a background than anything else. For three hour long episodes, it felt like a bait and switch.

George is the center of all this and boy is he probably one of the worst bosses you could have. Abusive, narcissistic, sexist and most of all, deranged! The way he talks to people and then claim he's some martyr. He really is alone in all of this.

Clearly past his prime, he seeks out a successor in his three top employees. It turns into a wannabe Succession, minus the razor sharp dialogue and acting.

A few players enter the game, only one will win. You can probably guess who it will be with the first outing and again I wonder why this was three episodes instead of two. I think George just liked the power play and using others for his own amusement. Sad individual.

It certainly kept me intrigued and the pace was steady. Yet it felt extra all around, filler that could've been more concentrated.

Again, the moments of almost fourth wall breaking where we see a dream like scenario of some of these people imagining things or hearing voices. It should've been a film. Just take the story that happened and turn it into a movie. Clearly these takes were set up and the people in on it. It was hard to take seriously.

I really thought this was a mockumentary, because of how absurd things were getting by the end.

Things end with a whimper and you're not surprised at the outcome for any of these folks here.

The whole thing is a fluff piece and I felt that this was a waste of time. Documentaries used to have a more traditional way of being shown More classy back in the day. Now it's made for the mainstream and spoon feeds you everything

I dare say this is a faux film about a true story. That's the best way I can describe it. Fascinating, yet frustrating.

You may like it more than I, but I don't recommend.

5 for the presentation and music. 2 for everything else.

This documentary was absolutely amazing. While it centers around a Renaissance fair, it's actually a deeper exploration of how businesses, corporations, and the world are currently being run. If you haven't seen this series, I highly encourage you to watch it. Then take a hard look at the outdated, expired individuals running the world today and compare the two.

This documentary is a wake-up call. As someone who personally knows an individual like George Coulam, I can tell you Lance Oppenheim framed him perfectly. From an outsider's perspective, George's legacy seems structurally sound, and he could even be seen as a hero. But all it takes is one dinner with him at Olive Garden to realize he's the villain, and his legacy will crumble like a house of cards.

It's crapola! Basically the filmmakers are attempting to draw the viewer into the lives of these characters and to do so they take someone like Jeff, for instance, and they direct him - and if you don't see the issue with that then I can't help you - but imo, or even by definition, when you present a subject in a documentary, and you begin to say 'ok Jeff, recreate how you would leer up at Lou and his family - really glare at them with hate in your eyes' and you see a scene where the 'documentarians' capture a candid shot of Louis family entering a meeting with George, whist Jeff looks on, and you're then utilizing several cameras to show this, but have directed and produced several of the reaction shots - well then EVERYTHING else is now in question as to its authenticity - as to whether or not the 'documentarians' (in quotes for a reason) have suggested that they have this thread where someone wants to buy the fair whilst others lobby to retain it - perhaps that was done solely for the sake of 'good tv' because after all, everyone involved in the Fair would surely benefit from a successful documentary - it's free advertising (and half of them are already performers) - - you see what I mean? Also, the whispering device as well as other audio choices, again, in my opinion, are very poor choices - but you know, that's subjective - anyway, judge for yourselves of course but bear in mind what I've suggested please.

AND POINT OF ORDER: IT'S DUBBED AS THE ORIGINAL RENFAIRE, BUT HE ADMITTEDLY STOLE THE IDEA FROM A FAIR HE ATTENDED IN SAN FRANCISCO IN THE 70s -

Update: it's so transparent how outlined the storyline is - one character is fired before the 3 month off season (but coincidentally undergoes 'weight-loss surgery') then is rehired in the spring - ask yourself where did the audio come from - that entire plot line was engineered and manufactured - ie PRODUCED

And I haven't even touched upon the problematic issue of this being a glorified dating profile for some lecherous old coot who is looking to be a sugar daddy - no hyperbole - he wants to be 'a sugar daddy' to a natural breasted millennial (or younger) - it's offensive to me that he's essentially utilizing this platform in hopes of amplifying his profile - bleh!