Reviewing is a funny business. Love us or loathe us, reviewers are here and here to stay, casting judicial eyes over shows and sharing those judgments in public forums. Comedy reviewing is fraught with difficulty. Comedy is such a particular and subjective art form that rarely does a comedy review not raise contention. Add to this the fact that comedians will tell you that reviews don’t matter; it’s not about the reviewer’s opinion, it’s about whether or not the audiences are laughing or not. Yet, come festival time, I, like most media outlets, am besieged with requests for reviews. And for all the attitude of ‘reviews, they don’t matter, they’re meaningless’, write a bad one and you’re about as popular as a Danish cartoonist.
Having reviewed comedy for a year now and having gotten a taste of some of the difficulties as well as some of the satisfactions that come from being a comedy reviewer I wanted to get the perspectives of a couple of people who know the business a hell of a lot better than me, on what can be, at times, a tricky subject.
Melbourne’s Fiona Scott Norman worked as a reviewer for fifteen years before she turned her back on the job to give performing a chance, reviewing for Inpress, The Bulletin, The Herald Sun and The Age in her time. “Originally it was for the free theatre/comedy tickets. I loved all that stuff and couldn’t afford to go. And for many years the sheer thrill of being able to go to every show in Melbourne was pretty much reward enough” says Fiona, who also discovered that she “was good at it; loved it as a matter of fact. It was hard to give up – it was an integral part of my identity – but I’d had enough after 15 years, didn’t want to still be doing it when I died”. She also cited a desire to “try being on the other side of the fence.”
Although essentially UK based, Steve Bennett is a name known to many Australians familiar with the UK comedy website Chortle. “I’m a journalist and thought I ought to learn how to make websites” says Steve the creator of Britain’s most prominent comedy website. ”...I chose comedy because I could see how it would be useful to have listings linking through to reviews, which printed publications couldn’t do. And the site’s just grown and grown from that hobby!”
Steve has reviewed for “Chortle” for six and half years, covering comedy around the UK and as far away from home as Melbourne.
Myself, I never really intended to be a reviewer. I started “The Groggy Squirrel” as a resource for punters. I soon came to realise though that to become a comprehensive publication we were going to have to review and, like it or not, I was going to have to carry my fair share of that load. I was the reluctant reviewer.
The reluctant reviewer that I was at first, there have been aspects of reviewing that I have come to enjoy. Like any writing process there is always immense satisfaction in producing a piece that is well written and reflects honestly my own perception. It is a great pleasure to me also to write a really rapturous piece, feeling genuinely inspired to write a glowing review is like a lovely wash of warmth and sheer enjoyment in writing.
“I was reviewing during the “golden years” of Melbourne comedy,” reflects Fiona “and I’m proud of the contribution I made…Reflecting back to comics what they’re doing, so they have the opportunity to grow as performers (as a comic myself now, I can appreciate how valuable that service was). I also felt incredibly privileged to follow the careers of so many people; I saw so much comedy for so many years, and it was rewarding to accrue that much knowledge. Oh, and to be well enough positioned in the industry to really be able to give great shows a push – there was no greater satisfaction than being able to identify excellence and brilliance, bring it to the attention of the public and the industry, and watch it go off like a cracker in a nutsack. And, hell, hanging out in the comedy scene was FUN. And there’s nothing quite like the thrill of the Comedy Festival when you’re running from show to show like a mad woman, four shows a night; it was intoxicating.”
“I’m most proud of creating the whole site, rather than of reviewing per se,” says Steve, ”...But traveling the world, including coming to the Melbourne International Comedy Festival, and seeing the best comedians, isn’t a bad way to earn a living.”
In the obverse to writing a good review, writing a bad review can be a difficult, sometimes painful and always soul searching process. It’s not something I enjoy at all, but it’s inevitable that these reviews will need to written from time to time. Fiona’s thoughts reflected my own, as she described one of the most difficult aspects of reviewing as “having to give people an honest assessment of their work that was less than glowing, and then having to face them once the review came out. I was always part of things, and always made myself available for [a] chat, and I always wrote what I perceived as the truth. Emotionally and physically it could be exhausting. My back went out from stress (and drinking, and staying up late, and partying) every Comedy Festival.” She also brought up an issue which has troubled me from time to time, describing ”...being in a room and knowing that everyone wants something from you, or thinks that you have the power to do something for them. In the end it was the not being real which wore me down, of being treated so differently, I got sick of being a power figure, of not necessarily knowing who my friends really were.”
As a reviewer, as much as you try to write for the punter, it’s often in the back of your mind that the industry is reading what you’ve written. Asked whether he writes for industry or punters Steve says that “I write for myself, really. What I think about the act – hopefully in terms punter can understand but with the experience of seeing so much comedy that being in the industry brings” Fiona’s sentiments echoed Steve’s with Fiona reflecting that her aims were ”...to clearly represent what I’d seen on stage so that a punter who’d seen the show would agree with what I’d written, and that someone who hadn’t been there would get a sense of what they’d missed.” However Fiona acknowledges that she was “always hyper aware that the comic would be reading every word extremely closely, and what was informing everything I wrote was what I thought good comedy should be – in that I think I shared a soapbox with Dave Taranto. I always wanted to encourage the comic to do better, take more risks, push themselves further, reward originality, and discourage them from the banal.”
Empathy and criticism are not mutually exclusive notions, and empathy in reviewing can take a variety of forms.” It’s written from what you feel about an act” says Steve. “If I’ve sat there emotionless yet the room’s in hysterics, I do say that, and say that others find the comedian funny – but I can still lay into them. Sometimes when a room’s completely dead, or something’s billed as a new material night, I won’t review at all. I guess that’s empathy”. Fiona posited that “Empathy does not mean being soft and weak, it simply means having an awareness, a sensitivity, to how my words would be received. That means not being an arsehole, especially if you’re delivering unpalatable news. And also, to me, being a critic didn’t mean being negative, it meant being an analyst. What I was doing, above and beyond everything, was analysing the work, and that’s not incompatible with empathy for the artist.” Fiona also made the salient point that you “don’t effect change by slapping someone in the face.”
The written word can have an awesome power in comparison to the spoken word. Being a reviewer I am only too painfully aware of the fact that it is just one person’s opinion and sometimes I find the importance placed on reviews a little ludicrous. Fiona acknowledged the disparity between the written and spoken word but concluded that “What it comes down to is that as a critic, ideally, you’re offering an informed opinion. You might be just the one opinion, but you’re the one who sees all the shows, so really knows who’s doing what, what’s fresh, what’s hack, who’s progressing, who’s stagnating, who’s thieving, who’s hot, etc. It’s your job. And if you’re passionate and knowledgeable about comedy, and you write reviews that people respect, then your opinion is definitely of more value than most. It’s also about consistency – if you’ve been published long and often, then punters and comics know your views, your prejudices, your leanings, and they can agree or not.” Steve acknowledged that it is just one person’s opinion, “but hopefully someone with knowledge of the art form. When people read reviews they should be aware of that. You can see from the comments posted on “Chortle” there’s plenty of other people who disagree with me, and that’s good. A review should be the starting point for a debate, not a gospel truth.” Fiona added that “it’s extremely frustrating when people who don’t know squat about comedy are given the space to review during the festivals, and they miss the point of a show by a country mile…they’re not true comedy reviewers if they don’t know what they’re doing.”
Even when I’m not reviewing a show or performance, I find it next to impossible now to not look comedy without analysing the work. I recently had a conversation with a comedian about their performance and I started to say “As a punter…” The comedian in question, quite rightly, pulled me up and told me that I wasn’t responding as punter, I was looking at the work as a reviewer. He was right. It’s almost impossible for me to look at comedy, or indeed any artform without my reviewer’s hat on now. Asked whether she looked at comedy differently as a reviewer than she would as a punter Fiona said “Yeah. More analytically. My mind was always processing what I was seeing, analysing, it was rare to be taken off guard and just laugh. The main difference is, I guess, is that when I watched comedy I was working, whereas punters are relaxing. Now I watch it differently again.” Steve reflected the notion of reviewing as a habit. “I don’t put a reviewers’ prism in front of my face to see comedy any differently” he said, “but just by seeing so much, you do look at things differently, You start to see the tricks comics use and are less impressed by hackneyed material. On the other hand, you do appreciate good acts, doing new things and still being funny a whole lot more. I think you see comedy more as an art than as an entertainment, that’s for sure – but you still have to be funny.”
Being a comedy reviewer can be exhausting business. There are times when everyone wants a piece of you, and you find yourself trying to do the right thing by as many people as you can, and you can end up running yourself into the ground, particularly during festival time. Unlike punters, reviewers can’t just go from one show to another without a care in the world. We have to turn around and reflect on every single show, and give it the due care and consideration it deserves. This process can be exhausting and stressful. When asked if she ever got “comedy fatigue” Fiona responded “Not when it was good…I got reviewing fatigue, which is different…I get it more, now, as a performer, when you’re seeing the same people do the same (sometimes not great) stuff over and over. As a critic I got a much broader spread of material. I didn’t get comedy fatigue, but I got very impatient with mediocrity. I think a world where there’s little patience with mediocrity is not a bad world, however.”
One concern as a reviewer is creating animosity between yourself and the artists you are critiquing. Although you have to acknowledge that being a reviewer is not a vocation that is particularly conducive to broad popularity, no one wants to be hated for simply doing their job as honestly and competently as they can. However the reality is that situations will, and do, arise where animosity, spoken or otherwise, will occur. Asked if he has ever received bad feedback Steve responded that he gets ”...several hundred emails a week! There’s no real question of dealing with it. I had my say and other people tell me I’m [right] or wrong. A very small number of comedians have taken the serious hump, but if you’re giving out criticism you have to take it in return. There’s some comedians I’m never going to be socializing with. But it’s primarily a job, not a way of making new friends, though I have made many doing this, too. Which is another bonus.” Fiona reflects that “Given the length of time I reviewed, and the amount of reviews I wrote, [I got] precious little. I mostly got very positive feedback about my work – and the rare times when I got angry and went someone for being lazy and cynical (Craig Charles springs to mind), were the reviews I got the best feedback for (people love a lynching). But, sure, there’s always fall-out when you put yourself and your opinion out there. I pretty much lost an important friendship over one review (the offending line was “It’s a good show, not a great show”).”
As reviewers we put our opinions in a public forum, metaphorically painting targets on our chests, inciting people to disagree with us, hate us, or just show us simple distain. Ultimately, reviewing is a tricky and often thankless task. However we do it because on some level we believe in it and believe that on some level we may be able to make some small difference. Where there is art there will also be an art critic. Steve describes a good reviewer as “anyone with a passion for comedy, a clear way of expressing that passion and a wide knowledge of all that’s out there”, while Fiona says “you need passion for comedy and commitment above all else. Integrity is paramount. Empathy is very important, but also objectivity. A good review is one that can point out the strengths of someone’s act and also the areas they still need to work on, while taking their feelings into account.”
To my mind bad reviewers care little for the craft of what they do. Obversely good reviewers care, about the integrity of the performers they are assessing and the integrity of their own work. They also take the responsibility of what they do seriously. Whether read by four or forty thousand people, reviews have ramifications, and reviewers must be aware of that. We’re not here exclusively to bitch about comedians, contrary to some beliefs we are not out ‘to get’ the people we review. We are trying to share our perspective on what’s going on, give punters an idea of what they might enjoy and to give an informed perspective on the work that is happening in the comedy world.