Smoker review
Whilst last night’s Smoker had the unsurprising combination of some funny bits and some not-so-funny bits, what is surprising is how easily you can change that to: some funny guys and some not-so-funny girls. This review will read slightly like a ‘who has a dick’ contest, so if you have a desperate need to quickly know who was good and who wasn’t, just check out their testosterone levels.
Let’s start with the positives (aka men). My favourite act of the night by far was Joey Batey as Jimmy, a character with a wonderfully childlike view of the world, such that he represents ‘a proper sense of decorum’ by drawing a vampire with a flower; his innocence was so endearing that when he revealed he liked to play tricks on his blind girlfriend, I laughed and went ‘awwww’ in equal measure.
The best of the rest were all sketches – Keith Akushie and Dannish Babar were brilliantly paired as the Mathemagicians, teaching us about all the fun numbers: 69, hi 5, 9/11… Lucien Young and Ellie Ross (they have three X chromosomes between them, so it’s fine) were spot-on as a pair of desperately enthusiastic yet out of touch anti-drugs campaigners, particularly when dancing in a club like broken puppets operated by an epileptic dog. A brutally honest Come Dine With Me voiceover (‘Julia is a clumsy bitch’) also made for a great sketch.
Now to the not-so-positives (aka girls). Maybe this was just me, since there were other people laughing at these points, but I just didn’t ‘get’ why the girls’ material qualified as comedy. I didn’t get why Katy Bulmer, staggering around the stage talking about her apparently chinchilla-like vagina, was meant to be funny. I didn’t get why getting angrier and louder was any substitute for jokes. I didn’t get why a plagiarism hotline was at all humorous – no, you can’t just invent a slightly quirky situation, run with it, and just hope a joke will emerge somehow. That’s not really how it works.
And you wouldn’t expect your heart to sincerely sink during a comedy night, but mine did when someone – I’m not sufficiently familiar with the entirety of the Cambridge comedy scene to know this girl’s name, but maybe that’s fortunate here – used the uninspiring opener ‘do you remember…’ Why yes, I do remember (Panda Pops, as it happened to be this time). Well done for establishing that a certain fizzy drink used to exist, and my memory is sufficiently operative to recall said drink. Now please can we get past this and get to some fucking jokes.
So the three and a half stars up there are pretty much exclusively for the blokes that performed last night. I’m not saying you shouldn’t bother with the Smoker (as if a review really could have even the slightest impact on the Smokers selling out, which seems more inevitable than both death and taxes) because the good parts were incredibly good. I’m just saying it was a shame that, during a comedy show, a certain section of the performers had forgotten to be funny.
You are such a self-hating peen-lover. Can a reviewer for the smoker once in they’re life listen to the rest of the audience. Just because you don't get a couple of jokes, you don't think for one single second that the fact that the entire audience is in hysterics could be for a reason.
*their life
hear hear!
Bore off Jim. As someone who hasn't missed a Smoker for over a year, this reviewer is spot on. It's why you arn't one. x
I agree with the reviewer. Despite having a vagina and feeling guilty for saying this: the men stole the show. Disappointed that this reviewer left out the great closing act: "why you should break up with him" song. It was incredibly funny, clever, and smacked of the kind of intelligent humor that you'd expect from this group. Also wanted to comment on the actors in the Come Dine With Me sketch: both the man and woman were incredibly effective at using their body and body types to induce laughs. This woman was the most talented comedienne there last night.
As much as I love the term 'self-hating peen-lover', I suspect that Chloe is probably right Jim. Also it's 'their' not 'they're'; seriously Jim I know I shoddily sub-edit pieces at times but that's ridiculous.
The chinchilla girl was funny. People were laughing. Her vagina shouldn't blind the fact that she was funny.
Not happy. Shabbily written review – obviously written in MUCH HASTE. Hopefully Chloe has no hopes of a career in journalism. The smoker last night was one of the funniest overall shows I have had the pleasure of enjoying in Cambridge. I'm sure that by constantly mentioning a divide between male comedians and female comediennes you will be instilling fresh new female talent in Cambridge with no end of confidence. Oh, and sweetheart, if you are not familiar with the Cambridge comedy scene don't go and review a smoker – I could have really used a free ticket.
durr, I didn't get da jokes cos der vaginas were in da way.
Chloe Mashiter IS the new Jan Moir.
I'm so OVER Chloe Mashiter, you are not a writer darling.
Loved Panda Pop girl, Loved Vadge girl – nuff said.
You cannot allow a reviewer to criticise a performance or act without then allowing a reader to criticise the article she has produced. Post up Peena's comment.
Yikes, don't shit on the Footlights doorstep is the message I'm getting. If a comment hasn't been posted up it's probably an oversight rather than intentional. I think the comment in question has been posted now.
We have to moderate comments as (believe it or not) we can get sued for them and we only have a couple of dedicated people performing this laborious task. If a comment doesn't go up for a while it's probably because they haven't got round to checking it properly. You should be able to criticise Chloe just as she criticised the show and we wouldn't want it any other way.
I must point out though that 3 and 1/2 stars isn't a bad review. It's also a bit arrogant to assume that Chloe didn't get the jokes. As for those saying 'I should have reviewed this, i'm far more knowledgeable of Cambridge Comedy etc etc', my question would be why didn't you? It only takes an e-mail to myself or Lottie and we can set up with tickets and give you a chance at reviewing.
The fact that Chloe isn't involved in the Cambridge comedy scene may mean she was more unbiased, however, as good as reviewers are when they know a lot about their subject they can often be incredibly biased as they know the people involved (something the Tab can be guilty of as much as any of student paper).
Anyway, I didn't go to the Smoker last night so I can't comment on how good it was or wasn't. Keep the comments coming, but comparing Chloe to Jan Moir is an 'ickle bit far. I don't recall her saying that Dannish Babar lived a decadent homosexual lifestyle at any point, or complaining that Young and Ross's sketch was corrupting the youth of Cambridge.
This debate about what is or is not funny is pointless, ridiculous and frankly impossible to settle, because I didn't go to the Smoker and therefore we will never know whether it was objectively funny or not.
P.S. Can a reviewer for a Wayans Bros movie for once in their life listen to the rest of the audience?
P.P.S. 4 stars for self-hating peen lover
P.P.P.S rob your such a grammer nazi,
Jim here again. I suppose I regret my slightly overblown, if delightful, opening insult, and, if I'm honest, regret my grammatical error even more. However, my point was grounded in genuine dismay, and I want to now slightly more eloquently state my case.
My problem with the review is not the star rating necessarily, although in comparison to other smokers that I've seen I do think that this is a harsh rating, but with the unnecessary differentiation of gender: you yourself almost completely ignore the fact that Ellie Ross and Abi Tedder are both girls, and seem to imply that Ellie is only funny by proxy because she was in a sketch with a member of the inherently superior sex. This already highlights a fault within the review.
Chloe then goes on to tear some performers apart in a way that, frankly, shows an extraordinary lack of empathy. There are ways of being critical without becoming personal, and, call me old fashioned, any reviewer that has to resort to the word 'fucking' to show their critical anger (peculiar given the star rating) should perhaps rethink their vocation. My earlier point was to suggest that you considered the fact that two of the acts that you shamelessly massacred had the audience in hysterics, most notably Katy Bulmer, but then I guess you authoritatively know that 'that's not how it works'.
And to my final, and perhaps most dangerous, point. I do understand that reviewers and critics, particularly outside of a student sphere, are a different breed to those who are in the shows, but all too often the reviewers in Cambridge are either heavily involved in the drama scene themselves (which, although it may give them some greater knowledge about the workings of the theatre is potentially dangerous due to possible bias or worse emotional hurt to friends and peers) or have tried to be and a low success rate at audition has led them to a slightly embittered and would-be superior swerve to reviewing. And sadly I believe this to be the case here. Often being around the ADC and theatre scene (hence why I don't personally review and choose to remain Jim) myself I have seen her at several high profile shows' auditions and a quick perusal of Camdram shows me that she was not successful at any of these.
This does not make her inferior one bit, and that's the last thing I would suggest. I would just humbly encourage her to think about her relative authority and the people that she may have quite badly upset with a review of this nature.
Thanks.
Jim
x
Could Jim in fact be James Moran? I'd be interested to know. If only to congratulate him on bringing 'self-hating peen-lover' into our lexicon.
Its Joey. He likes peen.
I thought the girls wer universally brilliant and lucian young ought to stop stepping ons tage. he can't act, he can't deliver, he rambles, stutters and his stupid hair gets in the way. he writes incredibly but sadly can't perform it!
Whether Jim is James Moran or not I feel I should very quickly respond.
Again, wasn't at the Smoker so I can't comment. It may have absolutely killed the crowd or it may have been about as funny as actually killing members of the audience. I don't know.
I agree that there is a tendency for people to have Footlights envy and that this can effect reviews. One of the reasons I don't review Smokers is that I've slightly dipped my toe in Cambridge's comedy waters (emphasis on slightly here) and so wouldn't want people accusing me of this if I gave it a less than glowing review. Indeed apart from sub-editing one gramatical mistake, I had no part in the selection of the reviewer or uploading this to the site (in fact I was asleep like the lazy cunt I am when it was put up) and this was done by my lovely theatre editor Lottie Unwin. Again, if I ever do end up reviewing a Smoker I'd like to think I'd never be guilty of any envy, as I fucking love Cambridge comedy and love praising people who geuinely make my laugh and to whom I could never even hope to be funny as (see my embarrasingly gushing paean to the talents of Ed Gamble at the end of Sophie Bauer's last Howler review).
Perhaps Chloe is guilty of this, although I don't think it is the case. If she was guilty of this, perhaps it would have been classier to keep this knowledge to yourself. Not getting into shows can be a raw experience as anyone who's ever auditioned knows, and is probably worse than being a firm part of the Cambridge comedy establishment and receiving some negative comments. I think it was far meaner to point this out, especially as you hid behind an ambigious pseudonym, than to criticise an established performer's set. I don't think the word 'fucking' was used in too derogatory a way and I quite like the odd swear word in our reviews, but I do apologise if it caused personal offence to the person in question.
Although I hate to promote one of our rivals, Varsity's review (http://www.varsity.co.uk/reviews/1973) said much the same thing and in fact was even more negative (albeit not using the f word). The reviewer there literally described the routine in question as the 'nadir' of the show, and in fact insulted Bulmer's physical appearance (bug-eyed blonde), something I'm glad to say that Chloe didn't do. Of course Varsity don't have the balls to have a comments section so you can't respond to this, but in fact that review was far more offensive than Chloe's. The fact that they both found the same bit's unfunny perhaps suggest there was some truth behind this, even if in my opinion Varsity expressed it a very cack-handed way. Although maybe now you'll unveil how George Reynolds too is a wannabe ADCer and is using his power to grudge-rape Footlights as well.
Again, I don't know the answer. It has raised an interesting debate which is what the Tab is all about though. If Jim does want to reveal his identity, or if indeed anyone else wants to discuss this with me, in a more private sphere don't hesitate to e-mail me at reviews@cambridgetab.co.uk. We try and have a laugh at the Tab, but we are concerned about putting out good journalism as well. As such I completely stand by Chloe, but if any one has any constructive thoughts on matter don't hesitate to let me know.
Rob.
(Self-hating poon-lover).
"Often being around the ADC and theatre scene (hence why I don't personally review and choose to remain Jim)" In other words – I hang around actor people and I don't have the balls to leave my name with rambling, sugar coated bumlicking.
Typical Footlights Mafia, coming on posting under psuedonyms because they can't broach any criticism. This is always the reaction the committee gives when someone is less than a 100% positive about their shows. As someone who too hangs around the ADC and theatre scene I can vouch that this always happens, although publicly trying to shame a reviewer on the internet is a new low.
Guys show some maturity, you're supposed to the best student comics in the country. You're making reviewing your shows like being on the jury of a mafia trial; soon people are going to demand full anonymity before they even dare approach a Smoker in a critical guise for fear of reprisals from 'Jim' and any other of the losely disguised committee members.
Just to clarify I'm not involved with the footlights at all.
[...] poll has been set up asking whether Toby Parker Rees is an idiot and amongst a heated debate after The Smoker review someone usefully informed us they are ‘so OVER Chloe Mashiter, you are not a writer [...]