Surprise Development Surprises No-One
Sure, we said we weren’t going to cover the Melbourne International Comedy Festival – but we never said we weren’t going to cover the coverage of the… well, you get the idea. Anyway, seems like the Herald Sun – official sponsors of MICF despite not giving a flying fuck about live comedy the rest of the year – have done it again. And by “done it again” we mean, as you have no doubt already figured out, given someone a horrendously crap review based on non-performance elements of their show. Also, astoundingly sexist, but you knew that.
Hilariously, this review was so kak-handed and offensive that even though the Herald-Sun has already removed it from its website, the very first line – which is all that we could find on google* – is bad enough in and of itself:
YOU wouldn’t look twice at Alice Fraser if she walked past you on Collins St in her black business dress that unfortunately only half covers a…
That’s a review of a comedy show? Slightly more details come from Fraser herself:
@justinhamilton_ @mrtonymartin the herald sun said I looked like a "Plain Jane" and wore a "hideous green" (actually blue) shirt. Top critic
— Alice R Fraser (@aliterative) April 5, 2014
… and while no doubt if we had access to the original review we’d be able to quote even more rubbish (though we believe the overall review was positive), we think you get the picture.
So many questions, none of them new. Who are they getting to review comedy at the Herald-Sun? Where are the editors in all this? Why would anyone think that talking about a comic’s appearance was in any possible way relevant to a comedy show (unless they were wearing a wacky outfit that was part of the act, which, it’s amazingly safe to say, is not the case here)? Haven’t we been here before?
As we’ve said in the past, the Herald-Sun and live comedy are an odd fit. Worse, the Herald-Sun‘s general lack of live arts coverage means that when MICF rolls around, they don’t have the experienced reviewers to handle it. MICF is a very tough reviewing gig at the best of times – comedians are very touchy about reviews, and there’s not the history of consistent live reviews to give readers any of the context (is four stars a good review or just average? Does a certain reviewer consistently give out bad ratings to good shows?) that’s needed if reviews are really going to be of much use.
But having this happen yet again points to a systemic problem with the MICF / Herald Sun dynamic. As in, the Herald Sun doesn’t really give much of a shit about comedy and their promotion of the festival is basically about promoting themselves. So long as that’s the case they’re going to be handing out reviewing gigs to anyone they can find who’ll take them, and that includes people who don’t have a clue.
The MICF management seems fine with this: whether the comedians themselves get much of a say seems doubtful.
*edit: the full review can now be found here.
‘Why would anyone think that talking about a comic’s appearance was in any possible way relevant to a comedy show …’
Just checking, is the umbrage because
physical appearance was referred to unflatteringly;
physical appearance was referred to at all; or
the fact the subject in question was female.
because I’m kinda of the view that if you’re a comedian or comedienne who makes gags about others appearance — eg. Clive Palmer. Nathan Tinkler. Gina Reinhart. Why is morbid obesity a prerequisite for becoming a mining magnate ? — you gotta be prepared to take as good as you give.
>you gotta be prepared to take as good as you give.
Well yeah, maybe if you’re at a roast. But this was a critical review by a critic in a newspaper. The difference is obvious and the lack of humour in newspapers makes the sexism apparent and bizarre.
Could you imagine a review of Seinfeld discussing how he’s not all that attractive? No, that would be absurd and it would also be offensive, not just to the comedian but to the purity we expect from critical reviews. Exceptions would be comedians who appear odd, such as Paul Foot, and the above post covered that point. This particular comedian had nothing about her appearance worth noting.
It was that her physical appearance was referred to at all – yoyo has that side of things covered.
And if you think multi-millionaires who freely use their money to buy political influence over all of us should be treated with the same level of respect as an average person on the street – or a small time stand up comic – you are seriously lacking perspective.
Those people being of large stature is in many ways a reflection of their rapacious appetites for money and power, appetites that affect us all; a stand-up comedian’s outfit and looks has fuck-all to do with their act unless they make it so.
I haven’t seen the show but from what I have also read, her outfit was part of the show, wasn’t it?
Obviously it should have been explained better but if that is the case, then her clothing can be commented…
They altered Anjelah Johnson’s review as well where the reviewer went on about her being hot. Still up on his website
I’m not at all surprised by this. Its a shame when comedy is not judged by its humour. I did a show two years ago and the reviewer marked me down for having cheap production values.
And if you think multi-millionaires who freely use their money to buy political influence over all of us should be treated with the same level of respect as an average person on the street – or a small time stand up comic – you are seriously lacking perspective.
…
nope, dry that out and you can fertilise the lawn.
if you decide to step into the firing line, you don’t get to cry diddums, pwease don’t hurt my widdle feelings when they don’t toss bouquets.
You just look like a pathetic hypocrite and a spineless whinger when someone calls you on it.
But then that could be your shtick. Works for Andrew Bolt,
What “firing line” are you talking about? Do you honestly believe there’s a level playing field out there where billionaires and stand up comedians duke it out? That stand up comedians and politicians have equal standing and power in our community? That a reviewer deciding to talk about someone’s looks instead of their act is a reasonable response to their act?
There’s a difference between comedy and bullying that boils down to power and status in the community. It has nothing to do with “stepping into the firing line”.