reginald-d-hunter-in-the-midst-of-crackers_31435If you like your comedy rat-ta-tat, three gags a minute, there are plenty of stand-up comedians at the Edinburgh Fringe who will satisfy your desire. To use an alcohol metaphor, downing copious amounts of lager and having a belly full of laughs would be akin to watching the likes of Al Murray, still going by the name of Pub Landlord. If, however, you prefer your comedy to be thought-provoking and philosophical, watching Reginald D. Hunter perform at the Pleasance is more like supping a fine brandy and puffing slowly on a long cigar the end of a hard week, contemplating what life is all about.

The large queues of people waiting to see Mr. Hunter certainly knew what to expect. Most of them, I suspect, had seen him before as I had, at previous gigs at the Fringe and were attracted by his sanguine if sometimes controversial views on life, family, sex and relationships. And if I can continue on the alcohol theme, like a good wine he didn’t disappoint. From his views on Jews, to his brother and father, to his relationships with several girlfriends, Reginald’s opinions may not have been shared by everyone and I suspect he probably embarrassed a girl in the audience when he asked her if she had ever looked at a particular part of her anatomy. But the man who has been a memorable guest on national television shows such as Have I Got News for You had his public hanging on his every word.

Some of the things he said struck a chord with me, particularly when he spoke about men dreaming about being with their ideal girl but, in reality, not totally enjoying it on the basis of why would their ideal girl choose to be with them anyway? He also urged his audience to always be honest as honesty reduces your fear about life and without fear you can be anything you want.

Deep stuff from a man who would make a brilliant philosopher.

For now, though, Reginald D. Hunter is simply a fine comedian and well worth visit.

Submitted by Mike Smith

3 COMMENTS

  1. Would Mike Smith please explain why this review is accompanied by three star rating? By Edinburgh standards that is a not-too-bad-but-nothing-special show. Mike Smith obviously personally thought highly of the show, states that the audience were clearly captivated by a performer, raises no critical points of objective comparisons with other shows, performers, genres or context to indicate, and frankly restates the general public opinion on Reginald D Hunter with a few notes on the content of the show. This is not a review, this is a vague but highly favourable rave . However, by appying the star system, this amateur, generic review becomes a factor in influencing the opinions of the ticket-buying public. This review exemplifies the degenerating standard of reviews and increasing ignorance of reviewers which is endangering the quality standard of the “Edinburgh” product on the world circuit. For Reginald D Hunter – great that this seasoned performer is significantly unaffected by poor quality reviews, great that this reviewer enjoyed his show. Shameful that this reviewer has not the basic knowledge of his craft to understand that good reviews should contain essential elements which his does not, and that if the star system is being used, the stars given should reflect the tone of the review. Pity that the Edinburgh Reporter as a new-ish publication on the Fringe scene clearly adds nothing to the quality of the reviews, except another quality-diluting distraction from the good review work of publications like the List, Scotsman, Chortle and many of the broadsheets. Ironically, Mr Hunter clearly does stirling professional work in his craft. His reviewer, by contrast, presents as a half-hearted amateur producing critically disappointing work. Two stars, Mr Smith.

  2. Thank you for your comment, which we welcome. We are not, as you say, a newish publication on the Fringe scene, except perhaps in comparison to The Scotsman, a publication of many years standing.

    Please do not be swayed by the fact that Mr Smith used our Submit your Story feature to upload his review. Our reviewer is well known to us and is not an amateur, but a well-seasoned writer who you will see has written several reviews for us this year. He gave what we considered a balanced view of the show, and expressed that view clearly.

    Our site has so far attracted 70,000 unique visitors since the start of the Festival, and an average of 50,000 pages read each day. None of this number have been moved to criticise our reviewers in the manner you have.

  3. Ms May, if everyone left a comment about a review they didn’t particularly agree with, or post a scathing diatribe about the reviewer, the world would be an even more confusing and complicated place. If you want to become a reviewer yourself, or express your views about an act, then please do so. Your posted views seem to be of the ilk of far too many people these days who are frustrated writers or journalists, who therefore post overblown wordy ‘comments’ on several blogs/forums. I went to see Reginald D Hunter myself last night at the Fringe and the review above wholeheartedly reflects how I felt about his act. Good, but could do better, would be a fine philosophical writer. 3 stars.

Comments are closed.