Russell Baillie: Funny business

Rhys Darby. Photo / Supplied

Rhys Darby has made headlines by saying NZ comedy critics were lazy amateurs stealing performers' punchlines for their reviews. We who review comedy felt chastened. But we took it as an opportunity.

And Darby did say that comedians and reviewers need each other. So let's make make this a learning experience. TimeOut emailed Darby for 10 pointers on how to critique comedy ... then we reviewed them ...

1. Don't walk in with your reviewer head on. "Hi I'm a reviewer, look at my serious head and small notepad. Make me laugh, Clownface!"

Reviewers don't like being identified as such. Hence the small notepads and forgettable faces on serious heads. If we shouted "make me laugh, Clownface" at the start would that help comedians know they are being reviewed? No?

2. The size of the crowd doesn't matter. Some of our best shows are in front of six people ...

If two of those are a reviewer and their date, then that's only four paying customers. It's possible - just - the reviewer will be getting paid more than the comedian. Surely that's not fair. Unless they're not very good, that is.

3. I like to feel the atmosphere of the crowd. If it's not pumped, then it's the comic's job to make it so. Remember wankers in the crowd will change the mindset of even the most gifted comic. Anyone causing a ruckus should be carted out. End of story.

Reviewers are usually too busy taking notes to help cart out the wankers, or assist in pumping up the atmosphere.

4. The start of the show should be interesting. I need to be hooked pretty quickly and I want it to be original.

Er, quite. Hopefully better than "interesting". But if the start is dull and derivative, surely it's okay to pinch a few gags to show as much in the the review. No?

5. Does the show make me laugh? How many laughs per minute? Write down your laughs and draw a graph. (I'm kidding.)

If you start pondering that, clearly you're not laughing enough. Actually the graph thing is an idea- the future of comedy criticism might be a physiological meter of laugh-nerve response, cross referenced to audience demographic: "Rhys Darby's bio-funny rating in high 90s for men 30-plus still living at home". Too automated? But don't you impersonate robots?

6. Is there an emotional journey or an arc that keeps me rooting for the comic?

How much do we pity the fool? Is Clownface hiding a sad face? Righto. Noted.

7. The show should build to a point where I'm not looking forward to the fact it has to end. The ending should be big. It is the most important part. I love a big ending with big laughs.

The review should build to a point where readers have an idea of what your act is like, even if they don't read to the end.

8. I like to leave the show listing various points in my head of favourite gags and moments I've just witnessed. If there isn't any then, well it was crap.

Reviewers often leave the shows listing, slightly, but we do try not to drink too much on the job. But yes, quite. If it doesn't leave an impression, it wasn't good.

9. I would write a subjective review at least a day later so I have had time to absorb what I've seen. Were there moments I have remembered with joy?

All reviews are subjective. Writing a review a day later isn't much use in a fast paced media world. We a always require up-to-date new material. Unlike some comedians we've seen.

10. In my review I would outline the vibe, the style, the subject matter and whether it moved me or not. Some of the jokes may have been awesome but I wouldn't list them for ruining the surprise for future audiences. I would just lay hints ...

But live comedy is all in the delivery. That's something you can't replicate in a review. You can on a televised gala or on your live DVD. Not by writing about it. Music reviewers quote lyrics, movie reviewers quote lines, why can't comedy reviewers quote jokes? We do it because it shows readers the comedian has some and that's our job done. Psst ... To get to the other side. Sorry, couldn't help it.