Comedy Review : Ginger And Black @ BAC, Clapham

gingerandblack1.jpg Do you like musical comedy? Snappy jokes? A good old, proper belly-laugh? Comedy duo Ginger and Black would seem to fit the bill nicely. Their current show hit the BAC as part of the N20 Comedy Fesitval this week, and given the string of accolades they brought with them – from relative success in the So You Think You’re Funny and Amused Moose awards, to regular stints on Radio 2, Radio 4, BBC3 and E4, and a tour supporting the perpetually sold-out Simon Amstell – you’d be right to expect a lot.

But you’d be disappointed.

From the outset their deadpan nonchalance sits awkwardly with feigned arrogance, as they mercilessly parody the kind of luvvie theatre which they seem to have unfortunately succumbed to themselves. A segment on a fictional childhood wartime experience monopolises the show, with an overly complex series of characters with little to differentiate between them (save for visually, via a little accessorising with the odd hat or pair of braces). Highlights include a skit on forced obesity, invisible birds (of the feathered variety) and juggling hamsters, yet the biggest gag is that someone returns with a dinner fork sticking out of their head, as these build to a crescendo of mediocrity.

All is not quite lost, however – there are moments of humour, hinging on cunningly twisted lyrics as their previous forays into musical theatre make a disjointed reprise at the end of the set. Although criticised in the past for a lack of audience interaction, their novel approach to engagement is genuinely light hearted and inventive. More of this would be great to see in the future.

Apparently The Scotsman once said that “This young, wry comedy duo is on the road to somewhere”. Unfortunately we’d hazard that it was Chris Rea’s M4.

There’s plenty of absolutely great stuff on at the N20 Festival – Londonist favourites Colin Hoult, Simon Munnery and Jonny Sweet all take to the stage this week – but unfortunately this isn’t in that particular sector of the entertainment Venn diagram.

  • http://undefined DeanN

    The reviewer is being quite charitable. I don’t really go to much comedy, so perhaps I’m not best placed to comment, but I saw this show, and it was probably the single worst thing I’ve had to endure in my life.

    I came out in a blind rage, mad at the 45 minutes that had just been bikini-waxed from my life by these two unfunny clowns. It confirmed every single prejudice I hold about lowbrow musical “comedy”. Avoid.

  • http://undefined bensummers

    This is an extremely badly written and misinformed review…

    ‘yet the biggest gag is that someone returns with a dinner fork sticking out of their head, as these build to a crescendo of mediocrity’

    This isn’t even gramatically correct, did an editor see it before posting?

    I saw this show in Edinburgh, unlike Dean I do watch comedy quite often and this show is well written and a very funny performance. One of the most distinctive double acts of the current scene.

  • http://thesisavoider.blogspot.com/ RuthL

    Ben – I don’t know if they’ve changed their show since you saw it, but I’d be surprised if you came away from Friday night’s perfomance thinking it was “well written”. I went on the strength of their Edinburgh show two years ago, but the only good aspects were those salvaged from this previous run. The new stuff was, frankly, turgid.

  • Dave

    “This is an extremely badly written and misinformed review…”

    Misinformed? Presumably the reviewer was actually present when the show was performed? I fail to see how the review can be misinformed when it’s based on the reviewer’s experience of actually going to see the show.

    “This isn’t even gramatically correct, did an editor see it before posting?”

    The grammar looks fine to me. It’s perfectly correct, as long as you don’t arbitrarily chop off the first half of the sentence.

    “I saw this show in Edinburgh, unlike Dean I do watch comedy quite often and this show is well written and a very funny performance. One of the most distinctive double acts of the current scene.”

    Ah. So what you’re actually trying to say is that your experience of the show, at a different time, in a different venue, was different from the reviewer’s. So why not just say that in the first place?

  • http://undefined bensummers

    hi Dave, read again, dean wasn’t the reviewer.

    So the highlights build to a crescendo of mediocrity? That still don’t make sense to me

    Fair point though Ruth and Dave, the show may well have changed since Edinburgh. It’s not a bad article, sorry for saying that, I was in a bad mood.