DON'T THINK TWICE

REVIEWS NO-ONE ASKED FOR
by Ashton Brown

DON'T THINK TWICE

written & directed by Mike Birbiglia 

HILARIOUS. TOUCHING. REAL.

"Let's watch a brainless comedy" I said to my wife on a lazy, rainy Saturday night on the couch. So I scrolled through some online trailers and thought that Don't Think Twice certainly looked enjoyable and brainless enough. I was only half right. What unfolded was some of the most grounded, believable and hilariously touching comedy that I have seen in quite a while.

The story follows a group of improv artists who perform a late night show to reasonable size audience on a weekly basis. They all have aspirations to make it BIG by being scouted to perform or write for 'This Weekend Live' (AKA Saturday Night Live). The story follows these performers as they deal with the reality of some of them being granted with the opportunity to move up in their careers while the rest of them just watch from the sidelines - no less deserving of the success and thus unable to escape the bitterness and jealousy that naturally arises even when they are happy for the success of others.

The thing that makes this film soar so well is the brilliance of the cast. Mike Birbiglia has assembled an extremely talented group of performers (himself included) who carry the comedy and the reality and the drama with completely honesty. Special mention to Gillian Jacobs and Keegan-Michael Key as the members of the group who are also dealing with dating one another on top of all the other situations that struggling to be an artist in your 30s brings about.

Perhaps as a comedian and performer myself I found the story particularly poignant. It never glamorises the fame or the success nor does it suggest that one path is necessarily better than the others. What it does do is show a very honest look into the struggles of artists in a world where there are very few places for many, many talents. It portrays the difficulties of watching those around you gain the success that you too deserve but also the difficulties on being the ones who have the success when you are no more deserving than your peers.

Also it's hilarious. But it isn't brainless. It's beautiful.

4 out of 5  

Don't forget to subscribe if you like what you read here. Or publicly argue with me if you don't. Seriously tell me what you think. I'm so lonely. 

YEAR IN REVIEW

REVIEWS NO-ONE ASKED FOR
by Ashton Brown

THE YEAR IN REVIEW


Ah the final day of 2016. It's been a pretty crazy year with celebrity deaths, American Presidency and most importantly - film and television. I was going to do a 'top 10' of films from the year but instead I am going to recap some memorable films from a few genres that I recommend you see if you haven't already and also reveal my film of the year. A couple of these film came out last year - but this is more of a reflection of recent films I happened to have watched this year. Please note a lot of these films have full length reviews and I have posted these links at the bottom of this post.

ROM-COM

I'm a sucker for a funny romance film. I like the feels and I like the romance. Bridget Jones's Baby turned out to be suprisingly more watchable than I expected. Despite not featuring classic douchebag Daniel Cleaver (Hugh Grant) in a starring role it still managed to not be the steaming pile of crap I predicted. I also thoroughly enjoyed Man Up with Simon Pegg and Lake Bell and honourable mention has to go to People Places Things with New Zealands own Jemaine Clement - a beautifully elegant story about a struggling single dad raising two daughters and arguing with his ex wife. My biggest suprise this year was the terribly named Mr Right with Anna Kendrick and the extremely underrated Sam Rockwell - don't let the awful title fool you it is a brilliant and hilarious black comedy, action romance. However my rom-com of the year has to go to Sleeping With Other People staring Jason Sudeikis and the perfect Alison Brie. Despite the typical set up it had a grounded approach to storytelling and the chemistry between the leads was my pick for on screen chemistry for the year. Highly recommend.

DOCUMENTARY

I watched a HUGE amount of documentaries this year. Not strictly 2016 releases but I binged watched an amazing variety of documentaries. The first one that stood out for me this year was For The Bible Tells Me So, a doco that deals with the issues that arise between Christianity and Homosexuality. The thing that really made this stand out is the fact that rather than it being about Christians saying how the bible condemns homosexuality -it was Christians who believed that the bible doesn't necessarily condemn homosexuality and that love and acceptance is the bigger message that so many Christians are missing in order to condemn the love between two same sex partners. It was thoroughly fascinating to hear priests and deacons talk about having homosexual children and how they have changed their opinions and teachings to be more accepting. For those looking to fulfill their Making A Murderer desires then I highly recommend Murder On A Sunday Morning. Similar to the essential and captivating Making A Murderer, MOASM follows the defense lawyers of a 15 year old African American boy who is accused of shooting a white tourist in the face. What follows is a thoroughly intriguing story of bad police work, fascinating footage of the court case and a heart stopping ending. Special mention also has to go to The Jinx - a mini series that follows accused and acquitted murder Robert Durst - more twists and turns than you can shake a stick and but not for the faint hearted. My runner up for the year of docos has to be the excellent Tickled by Kiwis David Farrier and Dylan Reeve. In true Kiwi style, Farrier delves into the awkwardly dark and sexual world of online tickling videos. Well worth the watch.

My pick for documentary of the year has to go to the light hearted but darkly sinister My Scientology Movie by the always exceptional Louis Theroux. When he sets out to make a documentary on Scientology - Louis soon learns that no-one is going to speak to him from the religion. So he goes about to recreate a Scientology film of his own, hiring actors to play the members of the church, recreating accounts told by ex members. With his perfect mix of deadpan humour and ballsy face to face confrontations - this is my pick for documentary of the year.

OSCAR BAIT

I was going to call this category drama - but some of them are as comedic as they are dramatic so this is my category for the more mainstream, celebrity soaked films. I have three strong picks that I watched this year. Firstly I suprisingly loved War Dogs. It's not one of my picks nor am I going to go on about it - but it's good. It's typical but Jonah Hill continues to show us that he is an A Grade actor.

My first pick for this category is Demolition with Jake Gyllenhaal and Naomi Watts. A beautifully told and performed story about tragedy, grief and the unlikely ways in which we find the relationships that end up helping us put our lives back together. Only in the past few years I have fully appreciated Gyllenhalls ability. His performance in Demolition is nuanced and provides the audience with just the right amount of pathos. Well worth checking out.

Secondly I have to recommend (a bit slow on this one I know) the film Room. Based on the novel by the same name by Emma Donoghue, Room is a small cast film that follows a mother (played with pitch perfect accuracy by Brie Larson) and her son who are captives in a room and have been for as long as the child has been alive. A gorgeously told and heartbreaking story about the bond between a mother and child and the desire to always fight to make things better for the ones you love.

And my pick for this category has to go to the The Big Short. This comes as little suprise due to it's many Oscar Nominations earlier in the year. A superb ensemble cast, a hilarious and intriguing script and an edgy and unique directing style left The Big Short as one of my films of the year. I think the reason that this suprised me so much is because I usually can't stand films about financial related things let alone American financial things. But the way Adam McKay (Anchorman, Talladega Nights - wtf?!) bought this exceptional cast together to tell the story made it a thoroughly entertaining to watch and explained financial terms in a way that were both fathomable and entertaining. Steve Carell continues to amaze - Christian Bale continues to be perfect. Highly, highly recommend.

HORROR/THRILLER

I am reluctant to lump these two categories together. Thrillers are usually higher budget, better written and less based on jump scares. However this year my top picks sort of transcends both genres and it's my blog so you can't tell me what to do mum. I watched so much horror this year that all the crap ones sort of blend together in one b grade mess of bad downloads. There are a couple of honourable mentions however that stood out to me in particular. After being highly disappointed by the failed potential in Blair Witch and then slightly underwhelmed by the good but not great Don't Breath I was delighted to have at least seen 10 Cloverfield Lane - a film that excels in it's genre. A sort of sequel (but not really) to Cloverfield, it follows a intimate cast of three actors through an intense and claustrophobic tale where you never really quite figure it all out until it spells it out to you at the end. Fantastic, haunting and edge of your seat - with John Goodman absolutely smashing his role in the face with skill and terror.

Lights Out was also up on my list -although jump scare based I though it was chilling enough in it's material and having been such a fan of the original short that it is based on I was delighted to see the first time feature director given the opportunity to turn his brilliant short into a full length himself.

Hush proved to be a fantastic watch - a story of a deaf woman being hunted by a killer in her house in the woods. A usually formulaic setting turned into something much more terrifying due to the protagonist lacking one of her most important senses. A thrill ride from start to finish.

The Conjuring 2 was certainly enjoyable - the ghosts were fantastic but I think it's hype and excellent marketing paved way for a film that couldn't live up to the expectations laid before it. The Nun is an excellent ghoul and I am looking forward to her stand alone horror excursion in the coming years. I found the addition of the Crooked Man into the story forced and irrelevant and it lead to the film ultimately been spreading slightly too thin.

Insidious 3 did suprise me however. I thought it was terrifying. I admittedly wasn't a huge fan of the first film - finding Sinister a much more enjoyable alternative. However Insidious 2 provided a much better side to the story and Insidious 3 was so gloriously filled with effective jump scares it was hard not to enjoy it.

Overall it wasn't the year of horror I had hoped it would be. With the excellent It Follows and the likes of As Above So Below from previous years, 2016 had a lot to live up to and I don't feel it quite met the mark - despite the hype. Next year though!

MOVIE OF THE YEAR - RUNNER UP

My runner up for movie of the year (meaning movie I watched this year - I know it was released last year but I don't care.) is The Invitation. An absolutely stunning thrilling drama about grief, friendship, love, loss and the things we do to deal with said grief. You wouldn't expect the director of Jennifer's Body to have such a masterful grasp over the excellent subject material. What follows is over 90 minutes of absolutely edge of your seat storytelling with a twist and an ending that still sits with me today. If you haven't seen it then do it. A good film with relatively unknown actors like this is few and far between and this one stands out even among the higher budget films.

MOVIE OF THE YEAR

Finally my pick for film of the year that absolutely no-one asked for. Swiss Army Man. That's right. My film pick of 2016 is the film where Harry Potter plays a multi-purpose farting corpse. I know - I was reluctant as you were before I watched it. Hell I even delayed watching it for a few months rolling my eyes at the thought. However when I finally sat down to watch it what I was presented with was nothing short of a masterpiece. Swiss Army Man is a wonderfully bizarre and surreal story that can seem to pose more questions than it does offer answers. On the surface it's all a bit silly. But then again  it's not. Its a fantastically deep, moving, and thought provoking film about depression, friendship and life in general. With absolutely sensational performances from the always exceptional Paul Dano and the man who continues to suprise me with his ever increasing ability - Daniel Radcliffe, Swiss Army Man is a fascinating look into the mind of a lonely individual and the worlds we create in order to cope with the struggles we face in life. With a genius soundtrack performed largely by the actors themselves - Swiss Army Man is my movie of the year.

Well thanks everyone if you have read this and for following my film blog for it's first year. Feel free to subscribe, comment or whatever.

I will be doing my picks for tv shows one day soon - but in the mean time just do yourself a favour and watch Bojack Horseman - it's the absolute bees knees.


Full review for Tickled here:
http://reviewsbybrown.blogspot.co.nz/2016/04/tickled.html
Full review for The Invitation here:
http://reviewsbybrown.blogspot.co.nz/2016/04/the-invitation.html
Full review for Blair Witch here:
http://reviewsbybrown.blogspot.co.nz/2016/09/blair-witch.html
Full review for Don't Breathe here:
http://reviewsbybrown.blogspot.co.nz/2016/09/reviews-no-one-asked-for-by-ashton.html
Full review for 10 Cloverfield Lane here:
http://reviewsbybrown.blogspot.co.nz/2016/03/10-cloverfield-lane.html

Don't forget to subscribe if you like what you read here. Or publicly argue with me if you don't. Seriously tell me what you think. I'm so lonely. 

DON'T BREATHE

REVIEWS NO-ONE ASKED FOR
by Ashton Brown

DON'T BREATHE

dir Fede Alvarez

THRILLINGLY OK

It's been a pretty exciting few years for horror movies. The genre is becoming more and more popular with mainstream audiences and thus more and more sub-genres are being created. I think a downside to this is that although the quality of horror films are steadily improving, the hype around films is also increasing and the expectations a lot of us have for films before we see them is at times unrealistic and as a result it is having an impact on the amount we enjoy said films. I went into Don't Breathe hearing that it was going to be one of the scariest films of the decade and was extremely pumped to be crapping my pants for its 88 minute run time. Director Fede Alvarez did a solid job of the Evil Dead remake a few years back so it's fair to say my expectations were extremely high.

Now I wouldn't go as far to say that I was disappointed by Don't Breathe - it's a pretty solid thriller. It has elements of horror for sure but I think its marketing focusing solely on it being a horror film is a little bit misleading. The storyline is pretty typical - 3 young criminals (the hot one, the douche-bag and the nerdy awkward one - nothing new here) decide to rob a blind war veteran in an empty street to start a new and better life with the settlement money that he obtained when his daughter was killed by vehicular manslaughter. Needless to say it goes wrong. Very wrong. The films "twists" are ok - I don't think they are amazing, although once or twice I did find myself being pleasantly suprised with the direction the story took. However overall it was fairly standard to the genre.

The jump scares are plenty and very enjoyable and effective but I would say that other than jump scares I wasn't overly frightened. There's tension but not tension that I felt transferred from the onscreen characters to me as an audience member. I think this is mainly because I struggled to feel any real empathy for any of them characters. The film IS very unrelenting. It is scene after scene of chase, gunshots and darkness which was very fun. Not so much frightening but certainly thrilling and action packed.

The sound is absolutely exceptional. I have said it before - music can make or break a horror movie - and the music in Don't Breathe is fantastic at creating a never easing sense of dread. It accompanies the jump scares very well to create an environment of never really being able to catch your breath. Don't Breathe is also a very well shot film with some gorgeous cinematography. The opening scene in particular, is absolutely stunning and the use of aerial footage is very well utilised to create a sense of isolation and dread.

The acting is good for the most part - with 3 out of the 4 characters not annoying me with crappy performances and overall the dialogue isn't too cringe worthy (although the spoken exposition felt very forced at times. Sometimes showing is better than telling). Special mention to Stephen Lang (Avatar) for his pitch perfect performance of a broken, blind war veteran.

Overall Don't Breathe is a good movie. It's a solid thriller with some interesting twists, beautiful camera work and gorgeous sound design. I would highly recommend seeing this at a cinema with solid sound facilities for full effect - I saw it in a cinema with 360 degree sound and it truly added to the experience.

For me personally, it's not the 2016 horror movie I've been waiting for. Let's hope that's still on its way.

3 out of 5  

Don't forget to subscribe if you like what you read here. Or publicly argue with me if you don't. Seriously tell me what you think. I'm so lonely. 

BLAIR WITCH

REVIEWS NO-ONE ASKED FOR
by Ashton Brown

BLAIR WITCH

dir Adam Wingard

HAVEN'T I SEEN THIS BEFORE?

When I was 13 a mate and I watched The Blair Witch Project and we were terrified. I remember watching it in a rumpus room in Whitford and spending the rest of the night prank calling infomercial phone lines to take our minds off what we had just witnessed. It was harrowing. It was one of those films that at the time was new and original and as such I wasn't yet desensitised to the way it presented its scares and the found footage genre was brand spanking new. It was hard to shake the expectations that the original film had created as I headed to the cinema to see Blair Witch.

Director Adam Wingard had once again teamed up with screenwriter Simon Barrett. Their previous collaborations include The Guest and You're Next - neither are terrible horror films - in fact both were above average, which for a horror movie means better than most. The biggest problem with Blair Witch is that it not only fails to shake the success of it's older and more unique predecessor but it also fails to create something different. This almost felt like a remastering of the original - The Blair Witch Project 2016 - if you will. There is only a certain amount of time that you can watch people walking around the woods screaming before you kind of just want the witch to show up and put them out of their annoying misery. Whilst the acting is decent the film is absolutely smothered in horror movie stereotypes to the point where we pretty much correctly numbered the order the characters would disappear.

Having said all that there are some things that Blair Witch does very well. I found the use of the drone camera fascinating as it provided a visual depth that we aren't used to in the found footage genre. It gave us this true feeling of isolation that was almost claustrophobic. Speaking of claustrophobia - the third act is where the film finally becomes it's own entity and really becomes something more than average. The third act is tense, terrifying (and not just because of jump scares) and the film manages to actually make you physically uncomfortable with the atmosphere it creates. This third act literally saves and makes this film and prevents it from being forever remembered as a less attractive and less original younger brother of the source material. Blair Witch also uses diegetic sound very well. Since the found footage genre takes away a directors ability to use non-diagetic sound (music etc) and because so much of horror is sound - I was impressed with the films ability to use "real world" sounds to create the suspense and assist with the scares.

All in all it's still a pretty decent horror - despite a slow first half and a less than inspiring story - horror fans will get a pretty enjoyable buzz out of the third act which actually does manage to get your heart pounding. Although I was overall disappointed with it's lack of originality, fans of the genre will still leave feeling that they got at least a little bit of what they came for.

2.5 out of 5  

Don't forget to subscribe if you like what you read here. Or publicly argue with me if you don't. Seriously tell me what you think. I'm so lonely. 

IMPERIUM

REVIEWS NO-ONE ASKED FOR
by Ashton Brown

IMPERIUM
dir Daniel Ragussis

RADCLIFFE'S MAGIC NOT ENOUGH

Some people find it difficult not to see Daniel Radcliffe as Harry Potter, regardless of the role he is playing. But what I find even more difficult is that he always seems to be a child trying to act like a grown up wearing his dads clothes that are slightly too big for him. I started to realise he was more than Potter with his enjoyable performance in the fantastic horror-comedy Horns. Thankfully in Imperium, Radcliffe continues to find his voice as an actor. His performance is strong, honest, his accent seamless and his character mature. Although Imperium isn't a bad film, Radcliffe's performance is definitely one of the only major highlights. It was a real shame to see the usually exceptional Toni Collette going through the motions (and overdoing the chewing gum cop stereotype to the point where you kinda hope she chokes on it.).

If you have seen a film about white supremacists, you have seen Imperium. If you have seen an excellent film about white supremacists (American History X) then you have seen a better film than Imperium. It has it's moments, but it never truly thrills and it has a third act that fizzles into disappointment instead of blowing you out of the predictable ocean that we have come to expect from these types of films.

First time writer/director Daniel Ragussis is certainly capable of impressing in the future. Although it's not the strongest debut to date he still manages to produce a whole lot of very interesting ideas and components but the overall execution of the film leaves you feeling unsatisfied with the payoff (or lack there of).

As far as the story goes - when a film tries so hard to misdirect you with it's villain it goes full circle and forces us to suspect the one person the film is begging us not to suspect. Imperium also creates character development arks that disappear into thin air and leaves us wondering why we were encouraged to be interested in certain characters only to have them taken away to the detriment of the film. I also absolutely loath the type of exposition that shows us seeing visions of "stock footage" to develop ideals - we know the Nazi regime is awful, we understand that white supremacy is a disgusting movement - we don't need to be blasted with brainwashing YouTube footage to fill out the film. By focusing more on the rising tension between characters and a stronger third act - Ragussis could have created something much better than he did. Tackling both writing and directing can often limit the creative outcome of a film - I feel this is one of the contributing factors that leaves Imperium as something less that it should of and have been. Imperium has a lot of the right elements but with the wrong execution.


2.5 out of 5  

Don't forget to subscribe if you like what you read here. Or publicly argue with me if you don't. Seriously tell me what you think. I'm so lonely. 

SUICIDE SQUAD

REVIEWS NO-ONE ASKED FOR
by Ashton Brown

SUICIDE SQUAD
dir David Ayer

GORGEOUS MESS

I have been excited about Suicide Squad since the moment it was announced. The villains of the DC Universe have always been the most eclectic and interesting and I was very eager to see them come together. The trailers increased this eager excitement - a solid mix of humour, action, interesting character portrayals and badass music. Hopefully the film would live up to the hype created by these trailers.

I arrived at the cinema on a Friday night - the film was released in NZ cinemas two nights prior at midnight and already I had read and heard a large amount of reviews - all of which did not speak overly favourably about the film. Despite these reviews I remained cautiously optimistic. After all, the enjoyment of a film is so totally subjective that we needn't be swayed by what others think (aware of the irony as I type this into my film blog).

Yes. Suicide Squad is a mess. The story line is confusing. In fact - I still don't really get parts of it. Yes. The pacing is a little meh at times. Yes. It's not a perfect movie. But goddamn it is an extremely enjoyable and beautiful mess. The things that make Suicide Squad a success far outweigh the things that prevent it from being exceptional.

Firstly - the actors are fantastic. Extremely well cast - from Will Smith as Deadshot - easily the most developed of the characters, Smith brings an honesty and an integrity to the character which helps the audience to connect with this gang of so called "bad guys". The rest of the gang whilst not as well developed (thank God - I didn't want to sit through a 5 hour movie) all add their own unique skill, humour and personality into the film making it an interesting and thoroughly enjoyable character driven story. Even Boomerang, the type of Australian stereotype that would usually make me cringe is presented with such a grasp of comic relief by Jai Courtney that he never overstays his comedic welcome. All of these characters are just enough of everything to be both entertaining and human enough for us to connect with. Viola Davis - who could well be the true villain in the piece - performs the role of Amanda Waller with the pinpoint precision we have come to expect from the talented lady.

Jared Leto proves a very capable Joker. Although I want to see more of him developed in the future, his input in Suicide Squad was enough to let me know that his portrayal of the very difficult character was not attempting to follow in the footsteps of those Jokers who have gone before him but more approach it in a style that was unique to Leto's interpretation. I can't wait to see more.

I have intentionally left the excellent Margot Robbie to last. Much controversy has been swarming around in regards to the films apparent "overly sexualised portrayal" of Harley Quinn. I am confused at how people have reached this conclusion. Sure she's wearing short shorts. But the way people were talking about her in Suicide Squad I was expecting this slap in the face stripper type feel with camera shots focused entirely on her body rather than her character. Not once did I feel this was so. The few times the camera did focus on her in a sexualised way I felt it served the purpose of showing us how Quinn uses her physical form to her advantage - not for the sake of eye candy for prepubescent boys. In a world where we constantly over sexualise the female form in film I was suprised to hear such an uproar about Quinns representation. Robbie is perfect. She nails the role - fully forming the complexity of Quinn - not just the nutcase, but the academic, the lover and the fighter that she is. Pitch perfect performance.

Despite a messy storyline, an underwhelming villain and some pacing issues, I think you have to be trying pretty hard to not allow yourself to enjoy Suicide Squad for what it is. It's a gorgeous mess - a highly entertaining ride and whilst it's a film best enjoyed with popcorn and not with writing a thesis on film in mind - it is entertaining none the less. And this is, after all, the purpose of cinema. Is it not?

I was conflicted as to what to rate this film but what I have ended up with was due to my level of enjoyment not just throughout but also after.

4 out of 5  (just). 

Don't forget to subscribe if you like what you read here. Or publicly argue with me if you don't. Seriously tell me what you think. I'm so lonely. 

JIM JEFFERIES & THE NORMALISATION OF RAPE CULTURE (a review).

OPINIONS NO-ONE ASKED FOR

By Ashton Brown

The below is a Facebook post that triggered a pretty widespread online interest and a mixture of both positive and negative feedback. It was interesting how peoples biggest concern was the fear of being censored as performers - which is something I 100% DON'T condone. I just believe that as performers we can't detach ourselves from any consequences of our performances and remove ourselves from any social responsibility just because we label ourselves as "comedians". 

*Trigger warning - this post discusses rape and references to sexual violence*.

Alright. I would like this particular post to invite discussion. I know that the opinion presented here might not necessarily be popular but I would really like to encourage open discussion on this as I would genuinely like to hear people's thoughts on this as I really don't know where I stand on things regarding censorship and freedom of speech in terms of entertainment and public performance - especially after this evening.

Tonight I went and saw the first hour of JIM JEFFERIES stand up show. (I only left early due to the fact that it started late and I had a show of my own to perform at.)

To be completely and utterly blunt, I have never NOT enjoyed a comedic act as much I didn't enjoy Jefferies. I think the first thing I want to say regarding this is that I am not saying Jefferies isn't funny. I'll admit that I personally don't think he is funny but to say he wasn't funny would be a stupid thing for me to say given that he had 1500 people rolling in audible laughter for entire set he provided. I will accept that I misjudged attending his show. I misjudged thinking I thought he was clever and I misjudged thinking that he was going to appeal to me in anyway. This, going in, was my fault. I was not nor will ever be his target audience. In fact, I was even identified by Jefferies as NOT being his target audience when he made a comment that was along the lines of "anyone who came based on watching a clip of me talking about US gun control laws is going to regret coming" (i'm paraphrasing) but I was one of these people. The only thing I knew about Jefferies was the gun control segment on youtube that had gone viral - and I still think it's genius. Genius to the point that when I watched it I booked tickets immediately, poorly assuming that this was a great example of the genius I would experience at a Jim Jefferies show. I was wrong. I was disappointed. I was offended. Like, deeply offended. Like, I'm still offended. And not in the way I think a comedian should leave an audience member feeling.

Now maybe this is my fault.. Maybe it is my fault I feel offended and I should get over it. Or maybe, just maybe, what Jefferies is doing isn't as justified as he thinks it is.

Let me break this down. 10 minutes into his set, Jim Jefferies begins to talk about rape. Now I am a massive advocate of freedom of speech. I am an even bigger advocate of a comedians right to talk about whatever the fuck they want to talk about. At least, I thought I was. The topic of rape has always been a massively contentious topic.My understanding of comedy (and life) is that you CAN joke about anything. As long as the thing you are joking about is funny first and offensive second. Jim Jefferies talked about rape. A lot. In fact for at least 15 minutes. He spent a lot of time justifying his right to talk about rape. He discussed the fact that as a comic he is only ever JOKING about rape, not actually condoning it. He then went ahead and spent 15 minutes laughing at rape for being rape. Not in any clever or thought provoking way, but more because he has a right, as a comedian, to joke about whatever he sees fit.

At this point I want to remind everyone that I am certainly not a prude. In fact, many people would consider me to be in the more "not giving a fuck" side of the argument of "who give's a fuck". But tonight I witnessed a comic whose primary joke was "we should be able to laugh at rape because everything should be laughed at if I want to laugh at it." The jokes on rape were never clever. They were never creating social awareness or encouraging societal reflection on the issue. His jokes on rape were never saying "it's fucked up how we deal with or talk about rape" or "we need to get better at talking about rape." His joke was literally (for 15 -20 minutes) "I have a right to make jokes about rape that are simply jokes about rape. If you don't think they are funny then you are a prude. If you don't think they are funny then you are wrong. If you can't laugh at them then you are a pussy" And more literally he justified these jokes by saying thing like "I'm not performing a Ted Talk, I am making jokes."

In essence, Jefferies is correct in what he is saing. He IS joking. He is not actually a rapist. He is not actually intentionally condoning rape. When he says things like "Most of the time I don't condone rape" - he IS joking. But my whole approach to comedy - whether right or wrong - is that a joke should be funny FIRST and offensive second. The whole point of Jefferies was that he was being offensive SIMPLY because he could. If it happened to be funny then that appeared to be a bonus.

But looking at this issue even more intently my personal problem with his approach was the fact that although, as an intelligent individual, he COULD clarify the line between consent and rape, the line between a joke and a crime. His audience didn't necessarily have the same level of insight. So whilst he spent the evening normalising rape culture from the point of view of someone who clearly understood why rape is bad and that it can be joked about (not all men), a huge amount of his audience wouldn't necessarily understand the difference nor be able to distinguish between a man joking about normalising rape and actually normalising rape. A huge amount of his audience weren't as intelligent as him. A huge amount of his audience WOULD go home to their wives or partners and feel even more justified in regards to their degrading opinions towards them. I couldn't help but feel highly uncomfortable about the fact I was in a room where 1500 drunk men were cheering at the mention of rape without the joke having any real weight or message. What Jefferies was doing was normalising rape culture for a laugh. And the laugh, in my opinion, certainly isn't worth the societal repercussions. Nor was it overly funny. Or funny at all.

So what am I suggesting? Am I suggesting that Jim Jefferies is a rapist (since he suggests that anyone who takes issues to his material thinks he is) - no. I am not.

Am I suggesting that Jim Jefferies ISN'T funny? No. I am not. (A room of 1500 men pissing themselves with laughter would prove this thought wrong).

Am I suggesting that comedians should have to filter their material? No - I am not.

What I am suggesting is that if the point of your humour is negative to society for the sake of being negative (because you have a right to be as fucking negative to society as you wish) then what are you offering to the world as an entertainer? It concerned me that the majority of Jefferies fanbase weren't able to establish the difference between rape being a joke and rape being a massive, horrendous societal issue. I could feel this in the room. I believe I was right to feel uncomfortable when people cheered at comments that suggested a males physical empowerment over a female was funny. I believe I was right to feel uncomfortable as people cheered when it was suggested backward that woman had the right to vote and I believe I had a right to feel uncomfortable that I was in a room of 1500 people who thought it was funny to suggest that Bill Cosby fingering woman whilst they were unconscious was more light hearted than it was actually sexually offensive.

As someone who believes in freedom of speech and that art need no filter, I strongly believe that Jim Jefferies offers absolutely nothing to our industry other than being radical for the sake of being radical - and in his fight to justify this radical behaviour he normalises acts that need standing up against rather than patting on the back for the sake of a laugh.

I don't think we should celebrate people just because they are saying what awful people are thinking (Donald Trump anyone?). Based on tonights performance - I don't think Jim Jefferies is a rapist but I think he encourages a world where we laugh at issues for the sake of having a room of fuckwits validate your right to be outspoken.

No stars. No validation. No respect.

I couldn't leave quickly enough.