Dual Citizenship Tour ramblings

I saw Lewis Black's Dual Citizenship tour on Friday night. My review of the show is up at the Georgia Straight now. It's hard to squeeze all one's thoughts about a show into 400-odd words, so I'll ramble on a bit more now.

I really, really like Kathleen Madigan, who opened for her ex-beau Black. I'd love to see her in an extended set here sometime. Don't know if that'll happen, though, because, like many American comics who are good enough to sell out theatres across the United States, she doesn't have a high profile up north. If Paula Poundstone struggles to sell tickets, I imagine Madigan might, too. Hell, there were plenty of empty seats at Black's show, too, but that might be because they opted to perform two nights instead of one. But who knows? I could be wrong. It would be great if Will Davis brought her up for the Bleeding Media Conglomerate Comedy Festival this fall.

I guess we can't call Madigan the warm-up act because she did her 20 minutes or so, then there was a 15-minute intermission. So much for warming up the crowd. But I'm betting she was there more to allow the stragglers to arrive without missing any of the headliner. I would have preferred she just went an extra 15 – she's more than capable – without an intermission.

I liked his opening act the first two times I saw him, John Bowman, too, but he couldn't get across the border this time because of a 6-year-old DUI charge. Still, Madigan is a step up.

I mentioned Black's relaxed style in the review. That, for me, was a pleasant change. I liked the contrast. When he yelled, it meant something.

He got in some gloating at our expense, both geographically and politically. His tourbus took him from Toronto to Thunder Bay where, "THERE'S FUCKING NOTHING!" and on to Manitoba, where it's much of the same – plus they were coming off the worst winter on record. At minus-30 to -40 degrees for five or six months, "at what point do you not kill yourself?"

And he noted that our prime minister, Stephen Harper, referred to the H1N1 virus as "the Mexican flu" more than once, which is postively Bush-like. He said it was the first time in 20 years of coming to Canada that he's sensed jealousy from us.

The bulk of his act was personal in nature, as I mentioned in the review. And I much preferred it to the political, where he advocated for the legalization of marijuana and alternative energy, although I liked his line about the wonders of his iPhone: "I can download 3 million vaginas in a minute into this. Don't tell me we can't have alternative energy", even though it's nothing more than a variation on "If they can put a man on the moon...".

It was my third time seeing him in concert and this time was my favourite. A combination of a more introspective Black and a fantastic opening act made all the difference.

ADDENDUM: If you're wondering why I didn't review Flight of the Conchords, they were deemed to be a music act so you'll find it in the music section in this week's Straight. Or you can read it here.

The role of the critic

Came across a very interesting article in the New Zealand Herald today. In it, comic Rhys Darby takes comedy reviewers to task for giving away the punchlines in their reviews.

Darby, who plays the manager on Flight of the Conchords, called the practice "rude" and "lazy" and the reviewers plagiarists.

Let's see. Rude? Not unless their fans are, too, for repeating a good bit by a comic they like. You can talk all you want about why a comic is funny, but unless you can illustrate by way of example, you're not going to win any converts over.

Lazy? It depends on the review and reviewer, I'd think. If all they did was itemize the gags without any other insight, then I'd agree with Darby. But if they use one or two or three punchlines, with the precise wording the comic used while providing ample context, to demonstrate how and why the comedy worked, I wouldn't call them lazy at all.

Plagiarists? Uh, hardly. Plagiarism is the practice of taking someone else's work or ideas and passing them off as one's own. Just like I did there with the dictionary definition. If the critic is citing the comedian, it can't be plagiarism.

But the subject is a fascinating one. Many times, it's the editors who demand specific examples of the jokes. My own rule of thumb is that unless I've got the wording exactly right, I won't quote a joke. And I don't want to give away too much. I don't think citing – at most – three jokes from a headliner is egregious. Presumably they have more than a handful of jokes in a set. The goal is to take a representative sample and also, if you can, show why it works or doesn't work for you.

Key words: "for you". It should never be forgotten, by either the critic, the comic or the crowd, that a review is just one person's opinion. It may be a slightly more informed opinion, but an opinion none the same. When I see a show that does nothing for me, but I'm sitting around hundreds of people who are all laughing hysterically, I feel it's incumbent upon me to mention that so the reader can think, "Hmm, it doesn't sound like it was a very good show. On the other hand, everyone else seemed to love it, so maybe the answer is somewhere in between." And then they can decide for themselves whether to check out that artist the next chance they get or not.

Check out this quote from Darby:

"There is a way to review live comedy and that's not the way. If I don't stand up and say it no one will. Comedians won't say it because they'll end up getting a bad review, or they'll be too scared."

I can't speak for other critics, but there's no way anything personal should ever get in the way of a professional review. Whether I like or dislike a comic personally has no effect whatsoever on what I think of their act. If someone wants to criticise me (and they have), I totally get it. Anyone who puts himself out there in the public eye, whether it be standup or critic, has to expect that not everyone's going to love what they do. Of course, I'll defend myself if I think they're wrong about what I do, but I appreciate the fact they're open with me about their opinions.

Here's an example. I once gave a stinky review to Brad Garrett. He then went on the Tonight Show and quoted from my review, and went on to make fun of me. I actually thought that was way funnier than his act. But if he comes to town again, I'd love to see him. He's a naturally funny guy and I've liked him for a long time. There was nothing personal about my review of his show. (See my rebuttal to his Tonight Show appearance here.)

Similarly I gave a less than positive review to one standup show by David Cross, while, at the same time, giving him kind words about his sketch show. He took me to task in a blog he wrote. Okay, he disagreed with me. Big whup. I like David Cross and have liked his standup. If he comes again, I'd hope I like his new show.

What's your opinion on what Darby said? Or Cross or Garrett, for that matter? Are they just overly-sensitive artists? Or do they have a point? What do you like to see in a comedy review?

Anybody? You there, in the back...