Jimmy Carr Hates Amputees

Another day, another comedian demonised.

You may have read in the paper that Jimmy Carr is worse than the Taliban after having made a joke on the subject of servicemen amputees. You may have read the critiscisms from a mother of an injured serviceman and the former army officer and MP Patrick Mercer. Both of them more or less called Jimmy Carr abhorent and Patrick Mercer went as far as to say his career should end right away. Both of them were outraged however neither of them had engaged with the joke's meaning.

It is so often a mistake to confuse a joke's subject matter with its target. Whenever I have written anything I have always thought hard about what the joke says and if there is a target, who it is. Jimmy Carr often, in my opinion, does not struggle with this question. Many of his jokes could be construed as being bigotted, sexist and small minded. However Jimmy Carr puts a lot of thought into his material as evidenced by his excellent book 'The Naked Jape'. Why does he get away with prejudice when he really shouldn't? Well, three reasons.

First off all Jimmy Carr likes puns and word play. These are extremely difficult to attribute meaning to. Take David Jason's infamous 'Mahatama Coat' pun, in reality it is a word play based on a well known name. Racist connotations can be gleaned from it and it can be used in a derogatory way but at its core it is no more harmful than a joke about someone called Mr. E being very enigmatic. Jimmy Carr often makes jokes that superficially seem offensive due to subject matter but underneath the surface are merely simple puns. It could be argued that it is the use of offensive subject matter that makes them funnny as the inclusion of illicit topics means the bate and switch is less expected and there is more tension to be released when it comes.

Carr does, however, include in his act jokes that very definately have a target and these can only be justified by one thing. The stage Jimmy Carr is a character that the real Jimmy Carr plays, more often than not it is his own attitudes that are the butt of the jokes he makes rather than the subject matter. Within the framework of this small-minded character these otherwise harsh jokes are cushioned and given a reprieve, as long as Carr remains this unnattractive, perverse monster the laughter is firmly directed at him and not his subjects. Unlike Ricky Gervais, Carr has gone some way to try and make this clear, often he includes jokes about his own persona, makes it clear he is being ironic and in interviews he is keen to stress that he isn't the same offstage as on. That is not to say that these measures don't go over the head of a large part of his fan base but to an extent that is out of his hands.

The final reason Carr isn't held to account more is because he chooses 'controversial' topics that people don't mind being joked about. In the comedy game paedophiles, gypsies, rape, disease and famine all seem to be topics that mainstream acts can use, sometimes even as the punchlines for jokes. The mainstream audience seem to cry out for these near (but not quite at) the knuckle topics to such a degree that Carr and others need to seek out new areas to joke about. No doubt this was a large contributing factor not only to the success of Carr and some of his contemporaries who pushed the envelope but also to the Andrew Sachs scandal. How far can we demand comedians to push the envelope before they push it too far. This pressure from the audience is Carr's downfall as a comic, while they are baying for blood he sees little choice but to give it to them.

No matter how much he thinks about his jokes, Carr's greatest master still seems to be the potential for a laugh and not his own moral compass. Carr, Gervais and Frankie Boyle are at the forefront of a movement that prizes humour content over ethical clarity. This is a movement that seems to include to some degree even high minded and morally guided comedians such as Stewart Lee who, even when he has a good point to make, arguably goes too far in attacking some subjects. Carr should be held morally accountable for the jokes that he says, if he hasn't made it clear he's being ironic he should, if a joke has got a target that he doesn't want to wound then he shouldn't say it. However in this latest case Carr is being demonised over a joke that actually, isn't offensive.

"Say what you like about these servicemen amputees from Iraq and Afghanistan, but we’re going to have a fucking good Paralympic team in 2012."

A mother of an injured serviceman said ‘There’s no one with a better sense of humour than the lads who have lost limbs. It’s unfortunate that people like Jimmy Carr abuse them.’ Which begs two questions 1) did Jimmy Carr abuse them and 2) why have no articles published actually asked any of the people who have lost limbs in combat what they thought of the joke. Apparently there's no one with a better sense of humour than them however no journalists thought it wise to consult them over an issue of humour directly related to them. Perhaps it is because it might not correspond with the story of the article.

Jimmy Carr actually visited many amputees before the show in question. It is not an absurd suggestion to say this joke was perhaps a product of one of those visits. Far from being an insulting joke this simple switcheroo of expectations seems to be an inclusive joke. He treats them in the same way as he would anyone else, not making light of their circumstances or current situation but shining light on their potential future, represented here by the olympics. The only way you could think this joke is offensive to the subjects is if you think there is something derogatory about the paralympics. The amputees are not the victims in this line, the 'message' of the joke, if it has one, is not ridiculing the soldiers, it is highlighting that their disabilities are not the end of the road for them.

It seems odd that Jimmy Carr, who has a back catalogue of jokes that he could be attacked for, is attacked for this one. PEople are blinding themselves to what he is actually saying and concerning themselves only with the subject matter. This is tantamount to saying there are subjects you should not joke about which is simply not true. As long as you know what you are saying you can joke about anything. Patrick Mercer is an extremely odd critic of Carr considering his own views about things said in context http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article1484909.ece You would think a man who thinks its acceptable for black servicemen to be called 'niggers' and 'black bastards' (in context of course!) would think a bit harder about what Carr was actually saying.

It was only a few years ago that Jim Davidson came under criticism for refusing to go onstage unless disabled people in the front row were moved further back. He argued that he couldnt ridicule the front row if they sat there. He (rightly so) came under enourmous critiscism for this as he was not viewing them as equals who were as ripe for humour as anybody else. Jimmy Carr has treated these men and women with respect by not ignoring them. It is more shameful to pretend that these human beings with lives ahead of them do not exist or have to be treated as second class citizens. Obviously jokes that insult them or degrade them aren't acceptable, but jokes that insult or degrade any group of people arent. That doesnt mean that jokes can't be made about them especially when Carr has actually invited them to be in his audience.

It is sad that so much of Carr's material is taken in the wrong way by bigots who think he is confirming their point of view. It is sad that so much of his negative and actually offensive material is viewed as acceptable. But surely it is most sad that he gets attacked for a joke that is entrenched, yes in gallows humour, but also in an optimism with which this group of people is rarely seen. They are not being demeaned or excluded with this joke. It does a lot more for humanising their plight than the newspapers do by turning them into a statistic and a group that should be pitied and not spoken of in anything other than hushed tones.

A Dissapointing Day Off

Nick Griffin poured a mug of cocoa, went into his drawing room and put another log on the fire. It pleased him as it began to burn, just as fire had always pleased Nick as far back as he could remember. He sat down in his armchair and switched on the Archers "why can't life be more like the Archers" he pondered as he sipped his warm cocoa. Nick sighed and reflected that the day had not gone as planned. He had been looking forward to his day off for weeks now but when he called up to confirm his place on the upcoming tour of the lake district the man on the phone told him "not enough people were booking this tour, it's deeply boring and as a result unpopular?" "what's that?" Nick asked, for he was hard of hearing "The tour's being shut down because not enough bloody immigrants are going on it? and its being replaced by a chinese take-away? called 'We're just here for the benefits'? and the Lake District is being turned into a giant Mosque?" "yes" the man said "that's what has happenned. Muslims hate caravan holidays, hiking and sheep" the man said all that to Nick, probably, Nick thought he had said that, and that was what really mattered. Nick phoned up some friends and told them to throw bricks at anyone in a burkha. "We've lost the lake district but hopefull that should stop them taking the Norfolk Broads." he said to himself.

After that he had thought about calling his old friends the nazis and asking them if they fancied going to a tearoom for some earl grey and a nibble on a scone but then he remembered that he was the most hated man in Britain in the Nazi's eyes. Only the other day he had been passing by some nazi's committing a racially motivated assault on a homosexual, communist Jew, when one of the Nazis saw Nick he said "We hate you more than this homosexual, communist Jew Nick Griffin." We hate you more than communists, Jews, Homosexuals, the mentally impaired, clowns, the anti-Nazi league, Winston Churchill, the cast of Allo' Allo', the man who played the evil Nazi in Indiana Jones, Indiana Jones and everyone else who is (at this moment or has ever been) in Britain. You're most hated man in Britain (as far as we're concerned)" And Nick knew he was.

He had wandered round the green and seen that the may pole he loved so dearly as a child had been vandalised by a gang of militant homosexuals. They had replaced the brightly coloured ribbons of the maypole with some brightly coloured ribbons that were practically screaming "be a gay". Nick thought about gays. He thought about them kissing in front of him. It made him sick. He carried on thinking about it. Nick liked thinking about it. NO HE DIDN'T! It made him disgusted. It always did, he hated it everytime he was confronted by men kissing right there in front of him (as they so often did). They probably wanted to kiss him! Nick kicked the now faggy maypole and just for good measure under his breath issued another denial about his own alleged homosexual relationship with Martin Webster for four years during the late 1970s. He tried to think about men kissing just so he could again excersise his disgust but try as he might he couldn't conjure up the image and so went to seek some gays out so that he could be disgusted by them.

Six hours later Nick finished watching the videos he had borrowed from the backroom of the rental shop and mopped his disgust up with a sock.

He looked outside and saw a light "not the muslims burning one of their women in the street again!" It was a street lamp. It mattered not. Nick loved women and hated to see them get burned to death in the street in his head so he he wrote an article entitled 'BRITISH FREEDOM and CHANGE from the elite pencil pushing politically correct whitehall beauracracy and FREEDOM and CHANGE back to the way BRITAIN used to be before the identity smudging ethnically diverse bogus asylum seekers and illegal imigrants flooded our shores and CHANGED it and stopped us being FREE and are blocking BRITAIN's way to FREEDOM, CHANGE, FREEDOM and the taking away of other people's FREEDOM in order to stop BRITAIN changing.' Happy that he had moved the women's rights movement forward another ten years he went to prepare himself a cup of cocoa.

And there he sat, cocoa in hand, listening to the Archers. Soon it was 7.15 and time for bed. After all it just wasn't safe on the streets anymore after dark. Not with Nazis, homosexuals and muslims about. It really had been a dissapointing day off he thought. But then he remembered avenging the loss of the Lake District, being disgusted at the gays and fighting for freedom and women's rights. "I guess you can't get away from work even on your day off" he said to himself with a chuckle. Then he took a brick from the pile in his study and threw it out the window at a passing pakistani.

THE END

PS - just found a video on the internet by the BNP who have used the theme music by the Dark Knight as a backing to their points.
Just to point out
Batman is a criminal
Batman's best friend is an immigrant (Superman, and an illegal one at that)
Batman has an illegitimate mixed race son with a half arab, half chinese woman
Batman has had love affairs with women of all races and species (aliens as well)
Batman is a character who is regularly lampooned for potentially being a homosexual with his partner Robin
and
Isn't British

Adventureland

Sometimes a film comes along that warms you to your core. The sort of film that you'd happily watch again as soon as it has finished. The sort of film you know is going to creep into your top 10 list.

Over the last few years there have been a few of these films. They haven't always been the more obvious ones, Speed Racer being an example, so keep that in mind when I say that Adventureland is the best film I have seen this year, it warmed me to my core, I watched it twice in one day and it is on my top 10 list.

Not since Almost Famous have I loved every frame of a film so much.

And I am a little in love with Kristen Stewart. I almost want to watch Twilight just for her... But I didn't love this film enough to watch the lead actors other films regardless of quality. It's still not Rocky.

500 Days of Summer

The first new review is a little flick featuring the talents of William Miller's sister and Heath Ledger's erstwhile partner in courting the Stratford sisters. Not mentioned is a little complaint I have with the film: The two character seem to initially bond over a love of the Smiths however it is presented as if this is an unusual affection to have... Am I missing something? I have managed to meet many a female Smiths fan without thinking "You like the Smiths? I think I must be in love with you!". I fell in love with them all anyway, but it had nothing to do with Morrisey.


500 Days of Summer has been called the Annie Hall for the ipod generation and although it is clear to see why, it isn’t. It is a very good movie, one which gracefully takes you with the protagonist on a journey from love to heartbreak and (almost) back. Where it differs is that Annie Hall had an identity all of its own whereas 500 Days of Summer exists as a response to the trappings of its genre. You have seen this movie before, it contains the superficial jokes, broad character strokes and familiar beats of any generic rom-com. The ingenuity of the film is using those elements to tease the audience and make them question their preconceptions over how the film will end.

As a love story it is standard. The dialogue is savvier than some but not as clever as it thinks it is. The direction has moments of brilliance (a dance routine through New York is as good a representation of how it feels to be in love as any committed to film) but is also disjointed and confused at times and the characters are likable yet generic. As the omniscient narrator (Lifted so brazenly from Pushing Daisies that they might as well have hired the same actor) informs you however, this is not a love story.

The movie begins with this statement yet dares you not to believe it. Tom is a nice chap who loves Summer and surely love conquers all, the problem is Summer is never in love with him. Just like the narrator Summer informs him that she isn’t serious about the relationship and just like Tom you tell yourself that she can be won round, somehow the movie will get back on formula. But it doesn’t. Like so many other rom-coms the leads are ill-suited and the relationship wouldn’t last, unlike others this rom-com has the tenacity to admit that.

Joseph Gordon Levitt’s plays the good willed everyman so well you can’t help but root for him and read into Summer’s reactions on his behalf. Zooey Deschenal’s kookiness is at times cloying but she too is likable and guarded enough that the readings are possible. You believe in the relationship, not because you think it could work, but because you believe it must and want it to. When the realisation comes that you have been tricked with a double bluff it is all the more harrowing because uo are invested you in these characters with the false hope of a happy ending.

The brutal depiction of the post break up fall out where happiness and hope are flayed and left for dead is what makes this movie special. You feel Tom’s pain, his hope for reconciliation and his anger when that proves impossible. 500 Days of Summer is an upsetting movie that exists for a time in the genre of emotional torture porn. For anyone who has ever experienced heartbreak and rejection watching this film will be akin to an exorcised spirit watching Ghost Busters.

Had the narration been Tom’s rather than an anonymous voice it would have made clear the implication that we are seeing things through his eyes. As he falls in love it is presented in the style of a rom-com and slowly the layers are peeled back to reveal a world closer to reality. Although before the end there are still some genre staples to cover (the inevitable “I quit and here’s why!” speech) but they feel like a natural part of Tom’s journey to recovery. In the end he isn’t Summer’s story, that is a different man and her relationship with Tom was just a prologue. This bitter thought is never quite overcome but that is OK because Tom, far from having completed a journey, is now ready to begin one anew with a thicker skin and a wiser head on his shoulders. 500 Days of Summer is an intriguing film; it could not exist without employing the clichés of its genre yet parts feel utterly authentic and it could well be the most upsetting film you see this year but there is hope woven in. It is well worth a watch but for gods sake don’t go on a first date.


------------------------


My nan is a bit racist but as she gets older she forgets which stigmas are attached to which group. "Don't go for an Italian Jonathan, they put Cats on their pizzas."

I rewatched the 1966 Batman film with Adam West in and realised I had forgotten about my favourite part. A recurring joke in the series featured Bruce and Dick mounting the bat poles in Wayne Manor and sliding down to the cave always arriving fully costumed as Batman and Robin. The movie seeks to explain how this is possible and features a scene of them sliding down the poles and pulling a lever on the way marked "Automatic Costume Lever". Brilliant. But even then the pedant in me was thinking "what if they miss the lever? Would they have to go all the way back up to Wayne manor and come down again?"

Bits and Pieces

Bamboozlement

A Magic double act who excel at slight of hand and mind reading. Their tricks are truly baffling as they dress up old routines using innovative misdirection.

If they have one weakness it is a lack of identity. Both Morgan and West are likeable stage presences but they do not bring distinct characters or a relationship of any kind to the forefront. It leads to a cold double act who, although you marvel at what they do, you are never truly invested in.

They also seem slightly unsure of who they are appealing to as a 'nail up the nose' trick seems out of place in a family show.

Ultimately they are still finding their identity and it mattered little because for a debut show (especially for magicians who have only two years experience) it is phenomenal and they are definitely an act to watch.

Pappy’s Fun Club

Brilliant. Utterly brilliant. Pappy’s Fun Club conjure up a wonderfully inclusive atmosphere, punchlines feel both surprising and familiar. The show feels like a reunion with that childhood friend who could always make you laugh more than anyone else. Go and see them now. Buy tickets. What are you waiting for? Go!

Zemblanity

Zemblanity is very enjoyable, conjures a convincing slightly unsettling atmosphere but is also a little boring. The style to substance ratio feels slightly askew and although the clowning is both impressive and hilarious there doesn’t seem to be a truly strong narrative or emotional anchor to take the audience through the show. On this particular night there were also boys in the audience from ‘Out of the Blue’ who spoilt a lot of the show with their distracting wooping and cheering like they were a hen party at a strip show. Zemblanity has little need for polish but they do need a little more underneath.

Richard Sandling’s Perfect Movie

A really great themed stand up show. Richard Sandling is a very warm comedian, holding the crowd effortlessly with his infectious enthusiasm for movies both good and bad. Each day he gets two comics to do movie based stand up and re-enact their favourite scenes at the end. If you have even a passing interest in films you should not miss this. It is different each day and throws up numerous unforgettable impromtu moments, from a re-enactment of the opening scene of ‘A Matter of Life and Death’ to the whole audience in unison shouting “Yippe-Kay-Yay-Motherfucker!” in response to Sandling’s wonderfully terrible Alan Rickman impression.

The Comedy Reserve

It’s a mixed bag of styles but not of quality for this compilation show of four relatively new stand ups. Chris Stokes and Pat Beurtscher have wonderfully idiosyncratic routines, Jahred Hardy is a ball of energy and enthusiasm and Doc Brown provides assured, grounded and crowd pleasing routines alongside his humorous raps.

It’s Got Jokes In

Another compilation show, this time all women and free!

Hannah George is an extremely able compere. While on the one hand she is a dick to members of the audience it is always carried off without causing offence due to her bubbly persona and because she directs far harsher barbs at herself. She gets the crowd excited and in the mood effortlessly but did not have an opportunity to stray beyond one liners or very short stories in a set mainly based on audience interaction. It would be interesting to see her do a twenty minute set with more developed routines.

Lou Sanders seemed like a good comic having an off day. She was obviously experimenting with new material which seemed to undermine her confidence. She had some strong material but it was a disjointed set she did not seem at her best.

Catie Wilkins is eloquent and wonderfully sarcastic, dragging stories out before revealing an unexpected twist or call back. She too seemed like she was experimenting with her set as it was not quite polished but there was a definate shape and structure to it that the others lacked.

This is a strong show with acts that are going to soon go on to bigger and better things. If anyone ever tells you women aren’t as funny as men these three are good evidence for the contrary

Five Pound Fringe

Five Pound Fringe

I spent the day reviewing shows at the Five Pound Fringe and found it to be a delightful and more intimate alternative to the larger venues. It plays host to acts who can’t/won’t demand high ticket prices but are beyond the Free Fringe (That is not to say people on the Free Fringe aren’t advanced, both Rob Heeney and Richard Sandling are excellent for example). It also hosts sketch shows, comic plays and the odd experiment. All in all it is a great compromise between the Free Fringe and the mainstream venues especially in times of recession and a lot of the best alternative acts are playing here. They were also the first venue to recognise www.callthatashow.com as a genuine press organisation so if anyone wants to review their shows get in contact for press tickets.

Mike Bubbins – It’s Not the End of the World (But You Can See it from Here)

Mike Bubbins is the sort of figure you would imagine finding in any Welsh pub that has a subscription to Sky Sports and a big screen TV. He is well aware of how he comes across and is happy to play with the expectations of him without (thankfully) actually behaving that way. His debut Edinburgh show deals with his frustrations with the world and that loose theme offers him a nice opportunity to perform a series of stories and rants about modern life.

Bubbins is a very appealing character. He is a natural storyteller and has a cool, assured directness that makes an audience member feel as if he is talking directly too them. When I saw him the audience was quite small and he seemed to tailor the show and make it more intimate.

There weren’t a huge amount of belly laughs but that was largely due to the size of the crowd and Bubbins pushed on through any silences that otherwise would have been laughter filled. He was holding back from really cutting loose and venting his frustrations at times and there are routines that could benefit from a greater sense of frustration and anger. With a bigger audience his set would come alive as he would be able to let loose and take the energy up.

He had a nicely structured hour, occasionally the theme seemed to get away from him but that’s preferable to it stifling the material. The conclusion tied a lot of the material and characters together in an understated, unexpected and rather charming way. It is a solid and enjoyable show but feels like it needs a bigger audience in to really develop.

The One and the Many

Trevor Lock provides both a strong central performance and lovely writing in ‘The One and the Many’. Lock plays a young man who, on the day he should be meeting his long lost mother, stumbles into a ‘massage parlour’ and meets a mysterious hooded woman. The play follows his burgeoning relationships with the two, both of which are complicated by his sex-obsessed flatmate.

Lock and Jen Brister make for an engaging couple. even though neither he nor we are able to see her face. It is their scenes in which both the writing and the performances feel most comfortable. Their courtship is sensitive, funny and Lock displays a great knack for juxtaposing naturalistic dialogue and the absurd situation. In fact these scenes are a great exploration of beauty, desire and love. The decision to juxtapose them with scenes of laddish banter is not always as successful.

Lock’s performance is just as strong in the scenes set in his flat but Brister initially seems less comfortable in the role of the mother and isn’t helped by the fact she looks younger than both her son and his flatmate. Her entrance and the subsequent farcical misunderstanding felt forced. It is not until the mother and son grow closer that she seems to relax in the role and their later scenes are very sweet. Tom Fynn puts in a solid performance as the flatmate (eerily reminiscent of Russell Brand) but, again, his more overtly humorous speeches feel out of place in the often lyrical play.

The script is skilfully written and feels like a sweet, poignant short story adapted for the stage. It is constructed from lots of short scenes like a television or radio play and this necessitates a lot of scene changes. Unfortunately the set changes are not smooth and, in this intimate venue, blackouts and music seem to draw attention to, rather than from, them. This breaks up the action and prevents the audience getting into the rhythm of the play immediately.

Lock has written a script filled with lovely imagery, colourful ideas and a strong emotional through line and his performance is equally impressive. The play still feels like a work in progress and the shining moments come from the more serious character moments rather than jokes. I would be interested to see Lock develop this piece further in a serious direction; it definitely has the depth to sustain it.

James Sherwood – At the Piano

From the moment James Sherwood comes on stage he is completely in control of the room and the show never flags as he entertains with his carefully crafted songs and routines. If Radio 4 ever had to make a comedian in a laboratory James Sherwood could be the final product. He is well aware of who makes up his audience and he balances his more idiosyncratic routines with a gentle mocking of middle class concerns.

Not a word is wasted in the entire show and even when bantering with the audience Sherwood is witty and concise. His poster compares him to Marcus Brigstocke but despite his cynicism there is a gentleness with Sherwood that makes him much easier to like and allows the truly barbed comments to be all the funnier and unexpected. Sherwood is reminiscent of a young Stephen Fry: intelligent, erudite and possessing a singular charm that allows him to keep the audience onside both while harshly cutting down his targets and when he chooses to indulge in deliberately terrible puns.

There are many laugh out loud and memorable moments in this show. Sherwood entertains with a brilliant demonstration of his keyboard’s demo button, misheard lyrics and many more songs that show off his talent as both a composer and a lyricist. If there is one complaint to be made it is that perhaps he has got a little too comfortable with his audience. His laidback demeanour prevents the show from ever reaching and sustaining the gut-busting levels of humour that he is capable of. Nevertheless he is head and shoulders above most of his comedic peers, musical or otherwise, and you can guarantee that an hour with James Sherwood is an hour filled with intelligence, warmth and class.

Superclump

Superclump boasts nine of the best young acts from the comedy circuit who have joined together to produce an hour of sketch comedy. This ensures that the evening is full to the brim with ideas and jokes that executed with style and charm however following the ‘strength in numbers’ policy also holds the show back from being truly distinctive.

The sketches feel devised rather than written. This helps produce some brilliantly unexpected twists and turns as well as strong short skits including an alternative take on Little Red Riding Hood. All the performers are skilled comedians, none fail to make a good impression and having so many keeps the tone unpredictable and varied.

It also means performers disappear for ten minutes at a time while others return for sketch after sketch. As a trade off for the limited time onstage there are instances of show boating and the cast have yet to find a natural balance. Mike Wozniak and Nat Luurtzema stood out for their committment to acting the sketches as opposed to others who occasionally broke character for laughs.

One or two of the longer sketches don’t quite feel finished and instead like a conglomerate of ideas. These sketches play like ‘A Day in the Life’ by the Beatles; all the sections are entertaining but you know they weren’t originally designed to be together. Towards the end the show relies a little too much on recurring jokes and call-backs to earlier sketches. This works well as a way of giving the show a story arc but also leads to self-indulgent moments, such as a dance that's first outing really didn't merit an encore.

The audience and I laughed the whole way through Superclump. When the sketches and call-backs work they are brilliant and the cast are all likable performers. They show a lot of promise and it would be interesting to see how this show develops over the run. I do wish they had fewer performers and writers involved as it has robbed the whole of a cohesive personality. Unfortunately each of them is too strong to cut. Maybe splitting into smaller groups would produce several streamlined more indidualistic pieces because, as funny as it is, Superclump feels a bit too much like a showcase and not enough like a show.

The Honeymoon

‘Never Enough’ was my favourite show at NSDF this year. I thought it was wonderful and wrote a gushing review that heaped compliment on compliment. I could see that it had its flaws (it was unfocussed, schizophrenic and about twenty minutes too long) but I could forgive them for the emotional impact that the show had on me and the skills of the wonderful devisors. ‘The Honeymoon’ also created a wonderful emotional atmosphere and showed off the talents of the brilliant cast. They have made vast improvements in their story telling skills but this makes the weaknesses all the more apparent. There are still some plot twists which feel devised rather than planned and they don’t necessarily ring true to the rest of the piece.

‘The Honeymoon’ is a much darker play than its predecessor, the characters in ‘Never Enough’ were highly conflicted innocents who were in denial about their problems, the characters in ‘The Honeymoon’ on the other hand are aware of their faults and complicit in their own self destruction. The characterisations are entertainingly quirky and once again the actresses show off their considerable skills as comedic actors. This time the dancing takes somewhat of a backseat to straight scenes, monologues and songs all of which are executed with aplomb by the cast.

It is also a much more focussed play (with the exception of one hilarious but out of place underwear diversion) which explores the lives and dreams of the characters as they flee from their wedding. It is raw and there are few of the (potentially jarring) twists and subversions in tone or plot that ‘Never Enough’ displayed. The play feels written rather than devised and all the stronger for it. The problem for me came two thirds of the way through.

An unseen character, alluded to previously, does something bad. Unfortunately the action feels out of character based on what we know of him. More importantly it is somewhat clichéd in a play that so far has managed to avoid or subvert any that threatened to crop up. Unlike ‘Never Enough’ this play so far had been devoid of schizophrenic changes in tone and this one event just didn’t work for me. It was the one part of the play that felt like it had been reverse engineered into the story. It was a plot device rather than a development, it changed the piece from character led to event led and most worryingly changed the characters from active protagonists into victims.

This is not to say it is not excecuted well, it is one of the more powerful sequences in a powerful piece. It just does not feel necessary or justified. The ending that follows it is sublime, beautiful and any other praising adjectives you can throw at it but could have been reached in a more appropriate way. The shift to melodrama, while by no means ruined the piece, did undermine an otherwise brilliant production.

A lot of people I have spoken to have not had the problem so this may well be my own personal prejudice. The play was met with a deservedly warm response and it is a worthy edition to Rashdash’ canon of work. The actresses’ lists of talents seem to be multiplying all the time and the development since their last production suggests that their future projects will be even better.