Cowards
Show type: Edinburgh Fringe 2006
The Cowards are a four-man sketch troupe who write smart,
funny sketches and perform them in jeans and pumps and short-sleeved
shirts. Their sketches straddle the delightfully naturalistic
and the wondrously fantastical and are populated by believable,
flawed heroes and naïve also-rans.
Comedians
Reviews
Original Review:
Just before coming to the Fringe, the Cowards were awarded
a six-part Radio 4 sketch series, and from this show it's not
hard to understand why. Unfortunately that doesn't necessarily
mean they're any good, but rather they're representative of the
worst traits in modern sketch comedy on radio and TV.
To address the positives first: the performers all do a great
job of portraying their characters, even if they happen to be
animals or inanimate objects in sketches that initially omit
that key bit of information, leading to a fun moment of revelation
when it's figured out.
Unfortunately the sketches themselves follow what has become
a very traditional pattern. They have a odd set up, some odd
things happen, there's no punchline, but we move onto the next
sketch anyway. When Monty Python first did this it was fresh,
original and different. When Cowards do it decades and numerous
sketch shows later it just feels like they couldn't think of
a punchline, so decide to say something silly/offensive/weird
instead.
Sometimes they deliberately go out of their way to avoid them:
one sketch contains the wonderful, and almost in-context, line
'The net result of it is she can now see through walls' , which
gets a hearty laugh. But rather than end the sketch on what ought
to be that punchline, they extend it by another 30 seconds for
no reason, ending instead on: 'Well, fuck you then.' The writers
seem to be so desperate to avoid conforming to a traditional
structure for even one sketch that they'll trample over a perfect
punchline to do so, such seems to be their fear of losing that
'weird and wacky' vibe.
There's also a few cringeworthy sketches, one where two men
start talking incessantly at someone that attempts to mug them,
resulting in the mugger shooting one of them as he 'couldn't
stand the banter, it was so contrived', when it's the whole sketch
that feels contrived. A second just has a man who doesn't want
to go into a hall of mirrors. After continuous cajoling eventually
shouts out that he can't as 'they make me want to get my cock
out'. It's the sort of thing you'd expect from a bunch of sixth-formers
who still find shouting the word 'cock' funny.
Cowards isn't a complete train-wreck: there's a couple of
decent sketches, a few that are funny up to a point, and some
concepts that are amusing in themselves.
But it seems far too concerned with being edgy, surreal and
weird that it forgets to be funny, and fails to notice that it's
not being new and innovative either. And perhaps that explains
why Radio 4 have picked it up: they're hoping to seem modern
and forward-looking by picking up a show that features new young
talent, while knowing it follows in a long and established tradition
of 'alternative' sketch shows.
Dean Love
continue
Older Comments
Ben - 05/09/2006
This review is not representative of my experience of seeing The Cowards or, I think, of the audience's experience of it. Everyone seemed to love it. Yes, the sketches are formulaic, but so is the majority of successful comedy. I think The Cowards are doing something new and very gracefully executed too, with flashes of real genius (the only thing that this reviewer picked up on, but in my opinion made the show worth the ticket price). It was a very satisfying Edinburgh experience compared to alot of the dross you might well stumble upon, so don't be misled
James - 29/08/2006
Mark Watson, no. How very noble that you agree with 95% of Chortle reviews but sadly not this one. Well I happen to agree wholeheartedly with it. Agreed, the Cowards are competent actors, especially Tim Key and Tom (the others are more average, which is maybe why they very notably don't get much to do), and the direction is pacy and theatrical. But that doesn't make a trailblazing sketch show, nor (gauging from the audience reaction the night I was in) a laugh-out-loud one. Cos that's the surely the point. For "quiet brilliance" read "doesn't make you laugh very much". Pinpointing the annoying way blokes talk to each other again and again doesn't to me show much imagination. It's samey, mean-spirited, and lacks any joy or warmth. And it's been done endlessly! Some sketches were a little bit better, such as the Winnie the Pooh one, but come on!- they rely on big obvious reveals which are the hallmarks of the trad "black out" sketch comedy that Mark Watson obviously hates so much (I wish I'd gone to these Terrible Six Shows he mentions, they sound fun). Can we all stop being pseudy for a second and call this what it is, a slickly rehearsed piece of cynical fluff. Will still go back next year, hopefully someone will have written some jokes.
Clara - 25/08/2006
55 minutes of high quality sketches. Well paced and beautifully performed. Weird yet poignant. Well observed yet unobvious. Clever yet laugh-out-loud funny. Cowards made me happy.
John Dorney - 21/08/2006
It seems redundant to argue against the review after Mark Watson's eloquent comments below, so I will merely say why I loved this show. For years I'd felt that sketch comedy had gone about as far as it could go. All sketch shows, even the good ones, seemed to be cut from the same cloth. So Cowards surprised me. It's managed to do something genuinely new with a tired genre. To my mind this is because it has concentrated it's innovation on the content and not the form. Python and Q may have radically changed sketch structure, but Cowards changes the very language of sketches. It is the first minimalist sketch show. The laughs, by and large, come from minutely observed detail - such awareness of subtle tics and gestures that it makes you aware of quite how widely the 'beautifully detailed observation' tag is misused in reviews for other performers - and the script sings with a love of language that is almost Pinteresque in its quirkiness. Cowards don't need to get their laughs from grotesques or catchphrases or crudity or gross out, they get their laughs through understatement, warmth, naturalism and sheer wit. A stunning show with effortless charm.
Sketchistheway - 10/08/2006
I think that the reviewer has this pretty spot on. The guys seem nice, inoffensive and quite dull and have, to a great extent, forgotten to actually entertain the audience. Bit disappointed by Radio 4's lack of original thought. The fat one has quite a funny face though
Mark Watson - 10/08/2006
I agree with about 95% of Chortle's reviews, at the Fringe and away from it, but I'm amazed by this one. I know I'm not alone in considering Cowards to be by some way the best show of its kind at the Fringe, and the most refreshing addition to Radio 4's roster in years. Every Fringe there are so many lazy sketch shows with 'what if Tony Blair met James Blunt at a speed-dating night'-type premises. We've all seen these people with their howlingly obvious 'crowd-pleasing' gag and blackout at the end, and their strategy of using each idea exactly three times for that 'please put us on TV' catchphrase appeal. Cowards steer miles clear of all such sketch- show cliches - that is why they've built a cult following and landed a radio show in a very short time. That, and the fact that the script is so laced with quiet brilliance that I imagine you would have different 'favourite bits' if you saw it ten times. I mean, I know reviews are subjective and all that, but it's exasperating to see something as fresh as this being painted as some kind of reactionary Python-lite when it's actually one of the most original takes on the sketch show since those gentlemen. Especially when there ARE people at the Fringe claiming to be 'alternative', while doing versions of pop songs with the words changed to ridicule George Bush. I can name six shows which would be nicely suited to the review Mr Love has written. But not this one. Radio is just the start for Cowards; I reckon this reviewer will end up feeling like those hapless A+R men you read about who turned down famous bands.