Part 1

While Gareth Malone’s concern for boys’ literacy is admirable and the lagging behind of boys in the classroom is a concern, those boys will still go on to earn more than girls doing the same job when they eventually find themselves in the workplace.

As a tutor myself, I think Gareth Malone is inspirational and his methods genuinely innovative and exciting, but I couldn’t help feeling sorry for the girls who were stuck inside with no opportunity to work with Gareth and no reward for their hard work (aside from, of course, the reward that hard work brings in itself).

I also don’t think pitting boys against girls is necessarily the right way to go. If anything, it encourages separation, difference and an “us-against-them” culture. Every pupil is an individual and it is those individuals we should be teaching rather than lumping together all the pupils into clumsy brackets of “boys” and “girls”.

We were never shown the pupils’ exact scores, presumably due to confidentaility, but one lad, who was supposedly one of the pupils in need of the most attention, said he was 6th-8th in his class, depending upon the subject. The class sizes seemed fairly standard (about 25 with around equal numbers of boys and girls) so that means there *must* have been girls below him in core subjects including literacy. But those girls didn’t receive Gareth’s help because they weren’t considered the correct gender to be requiring help. Conversely I’m sure some of the boys were fine with literacy and enjoyed the classroom, but, no, they’re BOYS and therefore require help. Maybe the school overall is underachieving and all the students’ literacy scores were below par but there was no mention of that and even if it were the case, why then only focus on the boys’ scores?

There is certainly a problem with social conditioning of both boys and girls; girls must all be princesses in pink and boys must be naughty and bad at school. If you don’t fit into those boxes, you are weeeeiiiirrrrd. No kid wants to be weird, so they (happily or reluctantly) fall into line. That is I believe, where the problem lies. And it is that, that needs to be challenged.

Sadly, the only incentive the boys were given for wanting winning the debating competition was to “beat the girls”.  Surely the boys should want to win the debate for their own sense of achievement, not just to “beat the girls”. That’s an empty reason and only fosters divisions. Gareth Malone himself said to the whole school that “it pained him” to award the prize to the girls. Imagine an award being handed to you like that. Nice. He later said “damn those girls for being so good.” So it became clear that this was not about awarding achievement, it was just being reduced to beating the other team.  A real shame.

Part 2

Gender is just one aspect to take into account when teaching young people literacy.  Here are some others;

1) Are their parents together or separated? A single parent might, understandably, have less time to read to a child and consequently normalise the act of reading.

2) Are there any family problems (drink, drugs, violence etc) that might affect concentration in the classroom?

3) How affluent are the parents?

4) How involved in their children’s education are they?

5) Are the parents themselves literate? Parents whose own literacy is not too strong tend not to read to their children or encourage reading or writing at home. This is entirely understandable as illiteracy or problems with literacy can be a difficult thing for an adult and particularly a parent to admit to.

6) What is the level of the parents’ education? Parents who have higher educational qualifications are more likely to encourage this academia in their children.

7) Is the child’s birthday in the autumn term, making them the oldest in the year, or the summer term, making them the youngest? Pupils who go through school as the youngest in the year often find school life harder as those few months make a big difference at that age.

There are hundreds more, I’m sure. These are just a few I thought of off the top of my head.

All these factors are just as significant (if not more so) than gender when considering why a pupil might be struggling with literacy.

I just think this programme might be a little simplistic, that’s all. And I speak as someone who loves Gareth Malone’s work. I even had a press photo from The Choir as my desktop wallpaper for a while.  I really like Gareth Malone. Even though his definition of “superlatives” was slightly wonky.

When asked why they hadn’t prepared and learned the lines as requested, far from apologising, many of the students became rude and, in some cases, aggressive.   They were completely unused to being challenged about unacceptable behaviour.   It’s true, I won’t let standards slip in my class- but I don’t consider myself particularly strict; although I seem to have developed a reputation as a strict tutor. It set me thinking about whether I do indeed rule with a rod of iron or whether I am too lax.  I always respected the teachers at school who managed to forge a delicate middle ground of a seemingly laid back classroom but at the same time, absolute control and authority. It’s a very difficult thing to achieve.  I think it’s mostly done with charisma.

I worked out that everything I require of students boils down to three things.  I have set them out below in a charter that I might well print off and give to students in their first lesson with me.

Harold Leek (Howard Keel)

So, Maurice Micklewhite became Michael Caine, David McDonald became David Tennant (after Neil Tennant from the Pet Shop Boys) Francis Ethel Gumm became Judy Garland, Norma Jeane Baker became Marilyn Monroe and (perhaps my favourite) plain old Archibald Leach became the deliciously sophisticated Cary Grant. Oddly, names become free again once an actor dies, so presumably I could legitimately call myself Laurence Olivier, should I wish it (I don’t).

Tony Beke

Anyhow, let’s get to the point.  A student recently asked me for some advice when choosing a stage name.  These are the points I came up with.

1. Don’t change your name unless you really have to for Equity reasons.

2. Always change your surname rather than your first name, if possible. Your mind is hardwired to respond to the combination of sounds that make up your first name. Changing it will mean a period of readjustment and slow reactions to the new name.

3. When changing your surname, try to pick something related to you in some way. A middle name or a mother’s maiden name. You’ll feel more connected to it rather than it being this alien word attached to your first name all of a sudden.

4. “Cool” sounding names quickly lose their shine and become embarrassing.  They can date quickly as well.  Try to choose a timeless name.  Ask colleagues and tutors for their opinions if in doubt.  I know quite a few people who have chosen peculiar exotic names like Foxy Banjo and changed them quickly the following year.  However, even once you’ve changed it, you still have to suffer a byline under your new name reading “formerly known as…” for a few years.  So, don’t take the decision lightly.  Think about it.  A name helps to define you.  Along with your headshot, it is the first thing most directors, agents and casting directors will learn about you.  Don’t make a damaging first impression with an (unhelpfully) peculiar name.

How was the idea of Relic: Guardians of the Museum pitched to you?

I had auditioned for Rob Hyde the series producer and Andy Potter the assistant producer before. Andy had seen me on the comedy circuit performing as Darren, an academically gifted school boy- and had got me in to audition for School of Silence, their previous series. I didn’t get the part as they were looking for a six footer which you’ll know, having met me, I am most definitely not. But about a year later I got a call about this new series, then just called “Relic”. They got me in for a very intense first audition which involved improvising in character for about an hour. I guess it was originally pitched to me as “Knightmare meets The Crystal Maze”. The series was produced as part of the wider BBC collaboration with the British Museum “A History of the World in 100 Objects” which is still running on Radio 4. It was intended to choose 13 of the 100 objects (usually those with a particularly interesting history) and wrap around them a hunt through the museum, at night, to find them. Rob Hyde was keen that at no time should the viewer “realise they are learning.” Indeed, this is CBBC policy generally. It is very canny in my opinion. Especially having worked as a teacher, I can honestly say it’s always better to slip knowledge past students in the form of entertainment

Can you explain a bit about the character of Agatha the ghost and her role in the series?

Before Agatha, the series was going to be hosted by several characters. The main one being an Aztec goddess. As such, they were initially auditioning six foot blonde amazonian women. Then they thought a goddess would be so different from the children playing the game and the children watching at home that it might be quite alienating. CBBC is keen on “audience identification figures”. Someone the kids can look at and associate with. A good example would be Rose in Dr Who. They didn’t make her 30 and working in a bank. They made her 19, working in a shop. Far closer to the young people watching. That way they can imagine they were being taken away from school or a paper round by this mysterious Doctor. The goddess was ditched and, after numerous changes, Agatha is what was settled on. She is shorter, friendlier and 100% behind the kids. At the same time however she must also run the show so she is also authoritative, clever and stands for no nonsense. Quite a tricky balance.

The auditions were basically to audition Agatha as the character CBBC and The British Museum wanted to host the show. After my initial audition tapes had been viewed by the heads of department at the Museum, I did a second audition with children, showing them around the Blue Peter garden as Agatha. I had to give them facts about the garden such as where the tortoises were kept and then mix in some mad made up facts such as the whole of the BBC building is made of damp flannels. That sort of thing. The kids were then asked what they thought of Agatha, I was given feedback and we did the whole thing again with another group of kids, taking on board what the first group had said. These tapes were then sent to the head of CBBC and the same panel at the British Museum. After weeks and weeks, I was finally offered the part. But not before they called me in and got me to do the opening lines of the show in every accent they could think of. The BM were initially worried that an RP accent (Received Pronunciation, sometimes referred to as “accentless English”) would make her too fusty. A faint London accent was tried for a time (to give her a common touch, presumably) but it really didn’t work and RP was the only way forward as far as I was concerned. I made her quirky to make up for her poshness. I think it worked.

That settled, to give me an idea of what they were looking for, for Agatha, Rob told me to think of Joyce Grenfell, Mary Poppins and Nanny McFee. They continued to be big influences throughout the filming. Particulary Grenfell at the beginning. I am a big fan of Joyce Grenfell and have done impressions of her for years so it was very easy to slip into that voice. But slowly the character of Agatha emerged on her own and now she’s quite distinct in my mind.

How did it feel taking on such a character at the British Museum?

I have played quite a few lead roles since I started acting in 1997, but in that time I don’t think I felt the weight of responsibility in the same way I did with Relic. There is not just a responsibility to be good as an actor, but a whole heap of other things. You are working with kids so language has to be tempered, naturally. I have teaching experience so didn’t find that too tricky but generally speaking, actors have mouths like sewers. There’s a great deal of  editorial policy that you don’t even consider as a viewer.  If the contestants are eating leeches, you must make it clear that it’s really just licorice dipped in treacle and no-one at home should try eating leeches. It’s called “copyable behaviour”. We usually covered the rather dry disclaimer with a gag, something along the lines of “you should only take leeches if you are accompanied by a dead tour guide.” That type of thing.

Alongside this you have the responsibility to the Museum. Such an institution carries so much weight and you do feel it. The researchers put the script together every week but I was also given a delightful amount of freedom to add bits, take things out or change things to make them more “Agatha-y”. Which I did but everything is checked and double checked. Either one or two members of the Museum staff were with us every night we filmed there; fact-checking or double checking pronunciations. I remember I pronounced “Tenochtitlan” with a schwa for the final syllable “tit-lun” when we filmed the games at Elstree but by the time the show was in post production, someone at the Museum had stated it should be a very definite “LAN”  for that final syllable so I had to re-dub it in the edit. You can tell, but only if you’re listening out for it.

But yes, the amount of work that went into making the series was genuinely immense. Right down to the detail in the costume and makeup. Agatha’s uniform was handmade and every aspect was checked with the Museum. She was originally meant to have glasses for instance, but the BM decided that would make her look too old. This tied in with BM’s image as a modern, vibrant institution that viewers of CBBC should go along to.

What were the criteria for choosing the children who appeared in the show?

Diggy Hicks-Little and Melanie Taylor were the researchers on Relic and they went to schools up and down the country seeking kids appropriate for the show. They initially played some games with a large group of kids and observed which took to it the best. They selected a few and then filmed interviews with them. These interviews were then passed to the producers who made their choices. These choices were mostly based on personality. A child can be wildly intelligent and still be deeply introverted which might not make for good TV. Ultimately good telly is always the goal.

It is CBBC policy to have a diverse mix of ethnicity, gender and background something Relic entirely adhered to, as well as including one disabled child in a wheelchair and another with facial disfigurement. Kids were from all over the country, some knew one another, some didn’t but all were extroverted and made for good TV.

What were the responses of the contestants to the challenges they faced and the objects they learnt about?

I would say all responses were positive. All the games had gone through months of testing and revisions to make them exciting, appropriate and safe. I was genuinely amazed by how much the teams remembered from the visions in preparation for the final battle. You have to remember all the bits in the Museum were being filmed through the night on a Sunday as we couldn’t film when the Museum was open, months after the games had been filmed at Elstree Studios.  I thought they would not pick up on much from the detailed “visions” they were shown. Yet they would often test each other before the final battle to make sure they all had all the information to face the Dark Lord (actually just the Dark Lord’s head on a string, waiting to be CGI-ed later on).

Were you involved in any events at the BM/elsewhere to publicise the series? How was it received by the audience?

I attended the launch of the “Relic Trails” at the BM a couple of weeks after the first episode went out in January. The trail involved a few of the objects from the series; the double headed serpent, the Rosetta Stone etc. and children, along with their families, were invited to answer questions and solve puzzles in order to receive clues that would lead them to the correct object in the museum. I think they could also print out a “Guardian of the Museum” certificate if they completed all the tasks. There were two trails; one for younger kids and one slightly more taxing trail for older children. On the same day there were three exclusive showings of the third episode of Relic in the theatre. It was the episode with the Brighton team and didn’t go out until the week after so there was a great feeling of excitement int the room. All the showings were more than two thirds full, the first showing completely full. I was there in character and had to introduce the episode. I had a script written for me but when I went went out in front of the crowd and they were so lively and interested, I quickly threw the script out of the window, save for the important pieces of information I needed to give out, and just improvised. Hands went up and I was asked how I walk through walls (you have to go backwards), who my favourite famous ghost is (Ann Boleyn) and many other questions. Throughout the episodes, the kids (and their parents) were shouting out answers and booing when the Dark Lord appeared. Afterwards, and completely to my surprise, a long line of children queued, actually queued, to get Agatha’s autograph and have their photo taken with her. I was asked questions about the Egyptians (had I met Cleopatra? Yes, of course) and time travel (can I travel without my magic torch?- no)

Depending on the age of the children, some really believed I was a ghost. Slightly older children knew I was an actor and played along with that beautifully, mainly for the sake of their younger siblings. But all were polite, interested and engaged. There didn’t seem to be any belligerent moody teenagers scoffing at the lameness of the whole thing.  The BM genuinely is available to everyone. It is free. All these events were free, too. This leads me on to your next question…

What feedback have you received about the series? Do you know whether ‘Relic’ boosted audience figures at the British Museum, for instance?

Everything I’ve heard has been very positive. I mean that genuinely. As an actor I am a freelancer and don’t work for the BBC beyond the particular days I work for them so I am not particularly biased aside from being very fond of the show, that I will admit. The Radio Times and the TV Times gave Relic good reviews. The Radio Times made the series “Children’s programme of the week”. I don’ t know about audience figures for the show. I do know that Relic beat Horrible Histories in the ratings on BBC ONE for the first few weeks it went out. Horrible Histories is a huge and established franchise so that’s quite a feat in itself. The few things I’ve heard about audience figures at the BM have been favourable but I really don’t know details and I wouldn’t want to skew your data by making some up.

How important do you feel it is to get children interested in museums? And why?

In short, hugely important. I teach students aged 16-25 and a great many of them become fearful and glassy-eyed if you mention Shakespeare or even reading a book. In the overwhelming majority of these cases I’ve found this is because school has been so uninspiring that it has quashed any possible love of these subjects out of them. Shakespeare is very often taught by getting your fellow students to read aloud in dull, monotonous, non-comprehending voices. Well, that’s a sure fire way to turn people away from the Bard, I’m quite sure. And yet it is the way the majority (though by no means all) schools teach it. I think the same can be applied to museums. I personally love them, but I was dragged around some duds as a child and if I hadn’t been persistent I would probably feel the same way as my students feel about Shakespeare. I think these outreach programmes are important to remove the fusty feel of the places and remind people that these buildings house exciting and vibrant collections. I almost think a museum’s purpose should be to inspire its visitors to find out more. When I visit the Natural History Museum, I usually pop into a library or a bookshop the following day and take home some tome concerning Darwinism. If it’s the Science Museum, I’ll probably buy an astronomy or physics book the next day. That, to me, means a museum has done its job well. It’s whetted your appetite and made you eager for more. It’s like a museum should say “you like this? Well, let me tell you, this is only the tip of the iceberg…”

I also think outreach such as Relic is important because, to people unused to visiting museums, they can be seen as very intimidating. This is something one can forget when you’re “on the inside” as it were. Any institution has its own jargon and rules which may not be obvious when you’re setting foot inside a museum for the first time. This is not intended to be patronising. Quite the opposite. I tend to assume everyone goes to museums and art galleries all the time and only go to the theatre when they’re not seeing concerts. It is a very narrow minded middle class attitude. A great many years ago I taught a summer school in Birmingham involving Greek Theatre and the culmination was to attend a theatre performance. It was nothing high brow; just Beauty and the Beast, but I found out that a great number of the students (aged between 11 and 16) had never set foot inside a theatre. Not even to see a panto. The moment when the Beast turns into the Prince at the end held them captivated and was met with gasps. They never realised that theatre could be like this; light, exciting, inspiring and fun. The same is true of museums and galleries. Seeing a Roman vase in the British Museum could be the moment a kid decides to become an archaeologist. A painting in the National Gallery could inspire a child to be an artist or a an expert in restoration. It’s a highly romanticised view but I really believe it. It’s so easy to access information with the internet and TV on demand etc. but nothing, really nothing, beats standing in front of something. Actually being in the same room as an artifact. To think that seeing a picture of the Mummy of Hornejitef on the internet is the same as standing next to it is as foolish as thinking listening to a CD of Michael Jackson is the same as seeing him live. Real life is still better and always will be. The internet is a great resource, of course it is, and every museum would do well to have a lively and active website but no website can ever recreate the tingling excitement of seeing something in the flesh.

I understand you’re hoping for a second series? Can you expand on that at all?

I think everyone who worked on Relic would deeply love for there to be a second series but it requires so many things to happen to make it work, especially with the cutbacks that are now occurring.  Would we do it at the BM again? With another 13 objects? Would the BBC consider this to be giving undue prominence to one institution? Would any other institution be happy with the disruption filming necessarily causes? (There were so many restrictions filming at the museum; no tape on the floors which customary during filming, to set marks. No heels in the Enlightenment Gallery; if you look closely you can see I’m tiptoeing in those scenes as I couldn’t lower my heels onto the delicate surface.) Plus it was a relatively expensive show for CBBC so, all in all, a lot of factors would have to come together to make another series possible so I won’t hold my breath until I get the call.

All I can say is Rob Hyde, the series producer, said his ideal scenario would be to do The National Gallery and the V&A and then The Eden Project as a futuristic spin off. And, yes, he did indeed mention jumping into paintings a la Mary Poppins and also paintings that move a la Harry Potter. I can only cross my fingers, however. There is no guarantee Agatha would host future series, athough I sincerely hope they would want to keep her given the apparent popularity of the character. But that is the precarious and unpredictable life of an actor.
Hope all that’s enough.  Sorry if I’ve wandered off topic on occasions.  Let me know if you need clarification of any of my whitterings.   Relic continues anyhow.  The Relic Trail has been rolled out at about 30 museums across the country including;

Manchester Museum
Fitzwilliam Museum in Cambridge
Cromwell Museum in Huntindon
Reading Museum
Ure Museum of Greek Archaeology
Guernsey Museums and Galleries at Castle Cornet
National Museum Cardiff
Swansea Museum

I’ll let you know if anything else of use to you comes up

The marvellous Derren Brown

A good and oft-recreated demonstration of the apparent accuracy of these generalised statements was carried out by psychologist Bertram R Forer.  So popular is this demonstration, it has found its way on to programmes by Derren Brown and Penn & Teller as well the great James Randi (all of whom you should look up and start enjoying right away if you haven’t already).  Many psychology professors use it as their first lesson for undergraduates.   Basically, a group of people is told of a new personality test.  They are asked to provide a little information about themselves, this could be a date and place of birth or the outline of their hand, something that seems personal but is in fact unimportant.  Their information is then supposedly sent away for analysis.  Upon its return a few days later, all the applicants are asked to read their results and rate them in terms of accuracy.  Usually around 80% of people say the analysis is “accurate”  or “very accurate”.  You can guess the rest, I’m sure.  Of course, everyone has been given exactly the same statement.  Many feel rather foolish for having been taken in by nothing more than clever use of language.  It is a sobering example of how gullible we can be.  And how desperate for meaning amongst the chaos.  There is a link to the full text used at the bottom of the page.  Forer took every sentence from a genuine published horoscope.  But why does it work so consistently?  I would argue it’s because we’re all human.  We all have the same worries and troubles.  Everyone (pretty much) is worried about money and love and work.  Those are the major things in one’s life so it naturally follows that they form the basis of our worries.  Really, we should see this as humbling.  We are all in the same boat.  We are not alone.  We all worry about the same things and have the same desires.  In a way, these people were seeking answers by applying for the personality test.  They thought, when they learnt it was a fake, that they hadn’t received those answers.  But maybe they did.  Maybe our common humanity is really all the explanation we need for our behaviour.

James Randi

So, back to my student.  She brought out what she believed was her trump card.  “Okay,” she said, “but I once had this horoscope that said I’d get a text message from someone beginning with a J and later on, I did.”  She then threw down the gauntlet, “how do you explain that?”  I sighed.  “Okay.  What star sign are you?”  “Taurus.”  “Right, so with 6 billion people in the world and 12 star signs to cover them all, we can assume there are around half a billion Taureans.  500 million.  So presumably, this horoscope applied to all of them as well. Do you really believe half a billion people received a text message from someone beginning with a J on that day?  What about all the Taureans in Africa with no mobile phone on which to receive a text message?  What about all the Arabian and Russian Taureans whose language doesn’t have a J in it?  The fact is, this was written with a British readership in mind.  The vast majority of Britons have a mobile phone.  And J is a very common letter for a name to begin with in Britain, encompassing as it does James, Jim, Jack, John, Joseph, Jane, Julie, Jennifer, Joan, Julia, Jemma, Jenna, Joanne, Joanna, Jackie… In short, a great many of the most popular names in the country.”

I’m not saying the writing of these horoscopes isn’t clever, because it is.  Making general statements appear specific isn’t easy.  I’m just saying there’s nothing mystical or unexplained about it.  But horoscopes also play the odds.  They work out as much as they can about their readership and then they use that knowledge to create tailored horoscopes for that readership.  I suspect that on any one day The Mirror‘s horoscope or Scorpio is different to The Telegraph’s horoscope for Scorpio.  Because they can work out a certain amount about you from the fact you bought and are reading whichever publication.  The Telegraph’s readership is likely to be older, more right wing and have a greater disposable income- because the paper is right leaning and more business oriented than the Mirror which is left wing and contains more celebrity news.  So it naturally follows that the Telegraph’s horoscope might include more about job prospects while the Mirror might play on the idea of celebrity and becoming famous.  (Stay tuned to this blog because I’m going to test these theories in a real life experiment).

All of this is not nice to think about but then, I don’t think horoscopes are very nice things.  They give people false hope and the dangerous belief that we are just puppets and our lives are controlled by outside forces which we ourselves can’t influence.  It relinquishes people of responsibility.  Oh, come on Gemma, you’re thinking, they’re just a bit of harmless fun.  And on a very low level maybe they are.  But they give way to unscientific thinking which leads people down a dangerous path.  Horoscopes give way to Chinese medicine and acupuncture and homoeopathy and talking to the dead and all manner of bullshit that gives false hope to vulnerable people while making the practitioners and peddlers of this nonsense very rich indeed.  I shudder to think of the number of deaths which can be attributed to people taking homeopathic or herbal remedies instead of the chemotherapy they desperately need because they’re afraid and in a vulnerable state and are drawn in by the spurious claims made by the alternative medicine industry (and it really is an industry). It’s deeply insidious and the quicker we rid ourselves of this anti-intellectualism the better.

Her response to this rant was rather gratifying.  “Wow,” she said, “you’ve just blown my mind.”  I would love to think that this 10 min chat sets her on a skeptical track that lasts the rest of her life.    Questioning things its good.  It’s what makes us human.  Healthy skepticism and a free mind is something to be applauded.  I practise what I preach and always tell students to confirm and verify the things I say in class for themselves.  They don’t have to believe me just because I am the teacher.  It’s okay to disagree.  As long as you can back your argument up.  As long as you can show me the evidence.  If you bring to me solid evidence of your contrary claims, I will happily change my opinion.  (And by evidence I mean actual research.  Studies.  Not a few anecdotes about how someone you knew once read a horoscope and then it came true.  Anecdotes don’t prove anything.  If a horoscope came true for you, then you happened to be the person it came true for.  Just like if you win the lottery, it’s 14 million to one against you, but you happened to be the person who won. It doesn’t mean you were destined to win.  It doesn’t have anything to do with planets millions of miles away.  Why would it?  Look at the actual research and you’ll see that horoscopes can no more predict the future than can random guessing.  Which is exactly what horoscopes are.  With a bit of clever linguistics and educated assumption thrown in.)

I will end this with a quotation from Marcus Aurelius (121-180 CE) last of the five good Roman Emperors and a Stoic philosopher, with thanks to the excellent Skeptics’ Guide to the Universe podcast for pointing me in the right direction to find it.

“If anyone can show me, and prove to me, that I am wrong in thought or deed, I will gladly change.  I seek the truth, which never yet hurt anybody.  It is only persistence in self delusion and ignorance which does harm.”

Links

For the full text used by Forer, see this article on The Forer Effect at the Skeptic’s Dictionary

The Skeptic’s Guide to the Universe

I don’t normally do personal reviews of anything because, well, who really cares about my opinion and also I know that reviews by completely unqualified people can be really glib and unknowledgeable. I’ve been at the sharp end of them myself and so have never sought to propagate the phenomenon. But so many people have asked for my opinion on Guy Ritchie’s Sherlock Holmes movie that I felt a blog post was in order. So here it is…

SHERLOCK HOLMES: THE MOVIE: THE VERDICT
My goodness, where to begin. Well, I’ll start by making my position really clear. I adore Sherlock Holmes. I have done since I first read the stories when I was 15. I have hundreds of beautiful copies of the various collected works, shelves of pastiches and Sherlockian scholarship and lovingly packaged editions of the Granada series (complete with Jeremy Brett’s signature). It probably isn’t unfair to say that I was obsessed with it for a fair time. So maybe I wasn’t the target audience. And that’s fine. But I went to see it with someone who knew nothing whatsoever about Holmes, save the stereotypical deerstalker and calabash pipe- and also someone who knew a fair bit about Holmes. All of us left the cinema unsatisfied.

The first aspect that mystifies me is why, when these stories have lasted nearly 150 years, directors don’t trust that the reason they have lasted so long is because they are good. They are exciting. Men and women, children and adults over several generations have loved these stories. If we want to make a Sherlock Holmes film with a good story, we should definitely base it on one of them. Oh no, let’s come up with our own, I’m sure it’ll be better than anything Conan Doyle ever wrote. The resulting film is a bizarre sexed-up version of one of England’s finest literary creations which only diminishes from its subtlety and wit. This part of the film is lacking some pace: stick in a fight scene. It doesn’t have to be in character or make sense. Just make it as brutal as possible. Because that’s exciting. That’s what sells. Is it? I’m not so sure. I like to believe that a great deal of the British public is rather intelligent and shouldn’t be spoken down to. Fight scenes are fine. As long as they make sense in the though line of the action. Here we were treated to a Sherlock Holmes who goes cage fighting in his spare time. What? I must have missed that in the stories. There was literally no explanation given for this other than he was bored and didn’t have a case. Well, we all know what Holmes does when he doesn’t have a case: takes morphine and a seven per cent solution of cocaine. Any sign of that? Nope.

I mean, there were so many inconsistencies and inaccuracies it’s difficult to know where to begin. Mary Morstan, Watson’s fiancée, had her back-story taken away from her and replaced with…well, nothing really. We never found out how they met or who she was. At all. In the stories, Mary is Holmes’ client in The Sign of Four and that is how she meets Watson. Here Ritchie clearly wanted a scene were Holmes offends a woman and gets wine thrown in his face and nothing was going to stand in the way of that happening. Not character depth or anything.

Did you know Irene Adler and Holmes once shared a hotel room together? I know, I was surprised too, seeing as she goes from being a King’s mistress to the wife of Godfrey Norton, outfoxes Holmes and then travels around the world with her new husband. Gosh, when does she fit it all in? Especially as this Irene Adler, instead of being the fiery, intelligent, witty adventuress and an experienced woman in her 40s, is a girl of about 24. Seducing the King of Bohemia, getting married to a lawyer and boffing Sherlock Holmes all by 24? Man, I’ve led a boring life. It was a great shame as this new younger Irene didn’t add to the most elusive female character in the Holmes canon. It took away. Instead of “The Woman” who outwitted Holmes, she was reduced to a screaming Hollywood stereotype. A damsel in distress who (of course) requires rescuing. Save me, save me. The women in Doyle’s Sherlock Holmes stories tend to be headstrong, independent women who come to see the consulting detective of their own volition, unchaperoned. They are bright and feisty. It seems we haven’t come very far. Oh dear. Oh, and did I mention Ms. Adler is now in league with Moriarty? Yes. Apparently. Not that this makes much sense or is necessary in any way other than to propagate a sequel (dear god, no.) It was like a Holmes Greatest Hits album but instead of all the songs playing one after the other they were played simultaneously creating nothing more than a noise.

Look, I know Holmes is one of the most recognisable characters in fiction, if not the most. And as such he enters the realm of mythology. And myths are there to be played around with. I understand that. I really don’t mind the Holmes story being tinkered with for the sake of a bit of excitement. I really don’t. There is a wonderful series by the American author Laurie R King in which Holmes, having retired to the South coast to keep bees, takes on a young girl called Mary Russell as his apprentice. It stretches the dating of Holmes to the limit, making him as young as he possibly could be in 1915 when the first book The Beekeeper’s Apprentice begins. I won’t spoil what happens later in the series but suffice to say it would have Sherlockian purist foaming at the mouth in anger. I don’t mind it. And the reason I don’t mind is it’s written with an understanding and fondness for the work it is spawned from. It respects the original’s longevity and never tries to ‘better’ it. The Holmes in those stories might not be as mature as he perhaps should be but he is recognisably our Holmes. The one we’ve read and loved in Doyle’s 56 short stories and 4 novellas. The pastiche, if it can be called that, has been done intelligently and that’s why so many Sherlockians and Holmesians (their US counterparts) approve.

The same can be said of the recent Dr Who and Star Trek revivals (both programmes are close to my heart and were childhood obsessions). They kept the tone and sensibilities of their original counterparts and respected the esteem in which they’re held. Whereas Ritchie’s film strayed so wildly from the original stories, he may as well have given it a different name. Short of making Sherlock Holmes a small child with magical spectacles that can see through time and who goes on adventures with Watson, an android who wants to be a real boy, this couldn’t have been further from the mark. It’s fun playing with the myth sure, but alter it beyond all recognition and what’s the point anymore?

So what is at the very heart of a good Sherlock Holmes story? What did Ritchie sacrifice which made this film into something other than Sherlock Holmes? Some people would say deduction. Deduction and logic is what makes Holmes, Holmes. I think there’s a truth to that and it was certainly lacking. There was one perfunctory scene which I felt Guy Ritchie included as a contractual obligation rather than because it is the cornerstone of what makes Holmes tick as an individual and as a character, but other than that Holmes mainly sorted things out by punching people and shooting things.

I for one think that, more important than deduction, the Sherlock Holmes stories are about a friendship between two people. That’s really what it boils down to and what makes us care. Just like Kirk & Spock and The Doctor and his companion. The show is essentially about them and their relationship. All the rest is window dressing. Watson wouldn’t work without Holmes and Holmes certainly wouldn’t work without Watson. Doyle wrote a couple of the stories from Holmes’ perspective rather than his faithful companion’s and the Great Detective suddenly seems slow and plodding. When Watson doesn’t understand, it’s endearing because he’s such a decent, loyal man, when Holmes doesn’t understand, it’s just annoying. So they really need one another to survive. Literally in many cases. They moved in together, after all, because a mutual acquaintance, Stamford, introduced them as neither could afford their rent. It’s that reliance that makes these stories tick. And it’s that which I feel was lacking from this film. Okay, maybe Holmes is sore because he’s losing his flatmate to a woman but he certainly wouldn’t begrudge Watson happiness to such an extent that he would jeopardise it. Holmes loves Watson. That’s really important. Maybe he’s guilty of being a little unthinking at times because he’s deeply embroiled in a three pipe problem but he would never actively seek to spoil Watson’s marriage. That would make him a bad guy and Holmes, like the Doctor in Dr Who, for all his darkness and vigilantism, must always be ultimately on the side of good. As it happens, Watson continues to go adventuring with Holmes and documenting his cases well into his marriage and possibly his second marriage (if you were a Shelockian you’d be laughing at that quip. I won’t bother to explain. It’s way too boring and involves dates.)

I didn’t really feel like these people were two old friends. That was not, I felt, down to Jude Law who put in, I really must admit it, a rather brilliant performance as Watson. I believed him. I believed he was ex-military, I believed he loved Mary. I believed he loved Holmes. It felt real. Downey Jr, however (and I must stress I like him, I really do. He was fantastic in Chaplin, everyone knows that) well, he seemed to have had his face paralysed for this film. It was bizarre. Why had no-one said anything? I can virtually hear the accent coach saying “do less with your face. That’s what Brits do. Especially if you’re speaking in heightened RP.” But, christ, not so much that you can’t understand what he’s saying anymore. He sounded like a stroke victim. I can understand why he was chosen. Johnny Depp had turned it down and they thought, who else is quirky and can do an English accent? (An English person? A younger executive might have ventured. Hahahahaha, everyone would have laughed. Americans couldn’t possibly be expected to go and see a film set in England with an English director and an English cast. Not unless it’s by Richard Curtis and about upper middle class people getting married. Don’t be so ridiculous.)

And so Downey Jr was cast. And in many respects he did okay. He was distant and eccentric and kept untidy rooms etc etc. But he just looked such a mess. Holmes was a gentleman. An eccentric, yes and prone to mood swings when on the cocaine and bored with no case. Yes, he had untidy rooms but as far as I can see, and I’ve read the books, I promise, I don’t remember him wandering around London in little John Lennon style sunglasses, unshaven and half dressed. I must have missed that part. The guy has taken cases for the monarchy. In the 19th century. He didn’t wear John Lennon sunglasses. He just didn’t. It all seemed rather ridiculous as just a few feet away was a fine actor called Mark Strong playing the bad guy, Lord Blackwood, who fitted the physical and vocal requirements for a good Holmes completely. Aquiline, high browed, cut-glass RP. Perfect. It is just insane that he was standing by while Downey Jr played Holmes. They really really should have organised a role swap because the whole film would have been a hundred times better. Downey Jr would have made a great villain.

Now, I liked the fact that Holmes was played by a man in his 40s. That is a good thing. Holmes should be a young, energetic man. Holmes and Watson meet in 1881 and if we do some boring calculation involving the dates in a story called The Musgrave Ritual, we come up with a birthday of either 1853 or 1854 for him. (Sherlockians fondly give him a birthday of January 6th, Twelfth Night, as this is the Shakespeare play he quotes most from.) So by rights, the Holmes of the 1880s and 1890s which is the golden age of the stories, should be a man in his 30s and 40s. Much younger than the “classic” image of him. How did this image come about? Well, a fellow called Sidney Paget has a lot to answer for. He was hired by The Strand magazine in which a great many of Doyle’s stories were first published, to provide appropriate drawings to accompany the text. They are very beautiful drawings, but Paget based the character of Holmes on his grandfather. This made him much older than he would be if you date him within the stories. Paget is also responsible for the deerstalker hat and the calabash pipe which are never mentioned in the stories. Holmes smokes anything he can put a match to, mostly cigarettes but also pipes (type unspecified), cigars, opium pipes (when undercover, of course), anything. Holmes is seen wearing the deerstalker when traveling to the countryside. Understandable as it was a traveling hat. In the metropolis, however, he would most certainly have worn a top hat. He was a gentleman after all. Or maybe he’d have worn a bizarre wide brimmed affair to look like Quentin Crisp. No, that’s back to Ritchie’s film. Baffling. At least they resisted the urge to say “elementary, my dear Watson” which, like “beam me up, Scotty” was never actually said. Different combinations of those words perhaps, but not those words exactly.

Okay. I didn’t hate it. I think Holmes is so awesome I sort of can’t hate it; even if it changed beyond all recognition- (Basil the Great Mouse Detective is ace and in that Holmes is a cartoon mouse). There is much to like in the movie. London looks beautiful, Jude Law, as I’ve said, makes a more than decent Watson, Holmes shoots VR into the wall when he’s bored: tick, the black magic of the plot is coolly and logically debunked by Holmes piece by piece: tick and Mark Strong makes a very good baddie. There’s also a lovely bit of flatmate dialogue between Holmes and Watson along the lines of who their dog belongs to. (They have a dog by the way. No, that’s not in the books either, but still.)

But, oh, it could have been so much better. Most people favour either Basil Rathbone or Jeremy Brett as Holmes. For me, it is Brett. The Rathbone films, with their plots transplanted from the 19th century to the 1940s will always be a bit glossy and Hollywood for my liking, not to mention good old British war propaganda whereas Brett was effortlessly and accurately Sherlock. Which is perhaps to deny him of all the hard work he put in poring over the text getting every nuance of the character perfect. His bipolar disorder ironically may have helped the role as Holmes, too, is prone to fits of excitement followed by long periods of ennui. When it was suggested to Brett that Holmes might have manic depression he slammed the phone down as the part was affecting him so deeply. When advising another young actor about to play Holmes he said “good luck with the vacuum”. So, as I say, I adore Brett’s performance as Holmes. He is often described as “definitive”. Like David Suchet as Poirot. The actor and character somehow fit together. But- and this is important- that doesn’t mean we all wouldn’t be delighted if someone came along and blew all predecessors out of the water. Everyone said David Tennant could never follow Chris Ecclestone but after Tennant’s first outing in the role my mom turned to me and said “Chris who?”. It is always possible.

I just felt that while a scalpel was taken to Star Trek and Dr Who to regenerate them into their current “cool” incarnations, Ritchie went at Sherlock Holmes with a sledgehammer. It was very much Sherlock Holmes and the Adventure of the Two Smoking Barrels. Holmes inspired by the Steam Punk graphic novels rather than the beautiful intricate stories by Doyle. And maybe I shouldn’t let that worry me because, ultimately, any exposure is good and this film, however bizarre, will have provoked some new people to read the stories. People who would have never dreamt of reading them before. I know someone who works in a bookshop and he reports a huge upsurge in the number of Complete Sherlock Holmes being bought. They’ve even placed a copy in the “in the news” section. That’s got to be a good thing. Many of these newbies will start reading and think “pah! This is nothing like the film” and give up. But a few will carry on. And those that do (and get through the second half of The Study in Scarlet- no Holmes- snore) will begin a wonderful, wonderful adventure and make two really good friends. For that alone Guy Ritchie, thank you. I just hope that as these bright young things read the original stories they are struck by that old adage that applies in all situations with the possible exception of Jaws, that the book is waaaay better than the film.

That is really all I have to say. Well done for reading this far. There seriously can’t be many of you. And please, please be aware that I know, in the scheme of things, none of this matters. I know this is hugely geeky and obsessive. I know it’s not important. But sometimes it just feels so goddam vital to say these things. And what better place than the internet to spew this meaningless diatribe? All done.

PS As a treat for reading all this, take a look at some proper Holmes.  This is from The Adventure of the Red Headed League.

I was Baptised and went to Sunday School as a matter of course really. If my parents had their time over again, I don’t think they’d have bothered. Sunday School is a bizarre institution. Looking back on it, I don’t think anyone there was a Christian. Not really. There was a tuck shop. And games. And a sing song involving only vaguely religious tunes. During the fair few years I attended Sunday School my most abiding memory of the whole thing is the day we make disciples out of peppermint and I ate so much peppermint I made myself sick. I don’t think I learned the true meaning of the gospels. But before any fun could be had, there was the business of church. Some bits were okay; I remember enjoying Christingle You were given an orange with a candle on top and cocktail sticks stuck in the sides with currants and sultanas skewered onto them. All of this represented….er….Well, it looked pretty, and smelled nice and we got to hold candles which was exciting. But that was the exception. Mostly, I just remember church being BOOORING. I’m sure this is unfair. Maybe we had a particularly boring vicar. Maybe there are some superb preachers out there that are inspirational and exciting. But to my mind, preachers fall into two categories. The dreary and boring type mumbling in dusty buildings- and then the creepy charismatic type shouting into microphones and holding vulnerable people in their sway, slowly relieving them of their hard earned money for the “good of the church” Before you complain, I am aware this is hugely unfair and unrepresentative but it’s what I can’t seem to help myself from feeling. No matter how hard I try. Anyway, back to the story. Our boring church. Christ Church, Quinton in case you’re interested. From about 1986 to 1992-? Every week we were given these little purple books with condescending children’s versions of the Bible parables. (I remember finding them patronising even then.) And here’s the thing. We would read the same book every week. There was never any variation. Speaking as someone who was devouring one or two lovely secular books a week by this time, the Bible was severely lacking. Yes, Jesus was all nice and lovely and said we should all be kind to one another and all that. But why was there not a little purple book detailing some of the juicier sections of Leviticus in patronising detail? Or, if you want to play the “well that was the Old Testament; Jesus ushered in the New Testament” card, what about Revelation? Why are there no books for kids about all that Rapture stuff? The end times. Why are you sanitising t? Are you worried it might put people off?

I went to a friend’s wedding a few years ago. I knew both the bride and groom. And I knew for a fact that neither of them were Christians. Not in any real sense. They’d been living together for years so presumably they were picking around all those “fornication” passages of the Bible. That’s if they ever read it. Yet it was a Catholic wedding. Because it’s tradition. They and everyone else had to mumble these awful phrases, hoping they bring their children up “in fear of the lord” What? I don’t wish that. I don’t wish fear on anyone. What an awful thing to wish. I don’t want their kids to be brought up in fear. I want their kids to be brought up with love and happiness and joy and intelligence and freedom. Fear? What a peculiar thing for the Church to pick out. Above anything else. I didn’t say it. I just opted for a dignified silence.

Anyhow, I remember getting through those interminable services by thinking of the tuck shop and switching off my mind. When I hit 11 or 12 (I forget which), I was taken, along with a number of other kids of a similar age, round to the vicar’s house after the service. None of us were happy. We wanted to get to the games and the sweets. We were ushered into his neat and modest lounge. He smiled at us (he was a perfectly nice fellow, just, you know, not very…interesting) and told us that now we were getting older, the fun had to stop and the hard work had to begin. It was time to concentrate on our religion and our belief. Now was the time to get serious. I never went back. The day I’m serious is the day they carry me off in a wooden box and if I still have my marbles I intend to record some tasteless jokes to be played at my funeral. That’s how dedicated to silliness I am. The following week I remember watching Rolf’s Cartoon Club (a superb programme) and my mom calling for me to drive up to Sunday School. It had always been a difficult choice but I in the past I had figured there were sweets and we could run around shouting for an hour so I opted to get myself in the car and go. But this week the words of the vicar were ringing in my ears and I very reluctantly trudged down the stairs. My mom instantly knew there was something wrong and I explained. She asked whether I still wanted to go. It was like Sodom and Gomorrah in the hallway of that little suburban semi. I went back to Rolf. I never went to Sunday school again. Not even for Christingle. Not even for Easter when you were given chocolate and a cross made out of that palm stuff. There are more exciting, worthwhile and, importantly, more edifying things to do with your time.

The following year, when I was six, some ambitious and trendy newly qualified teacher decided that while the younger school did the Nativity for the moms and dads to coo over, the older school would tackle something a little more taxing. He or she (I’ve no idea but I assume it was a she. Then, as now, there were barely any male primary school teachers) wrote a brilliantly witty and entirely secular play let entitled Santa and the Great Sleigh Robbery. Now, I was in the junior school, but I’d obviously done a lot of growing up in that year. I was 6. That was practically a grown up wasn’t it? So I was cast as Santa’s Chief Elf. With it came a whole load of lines. I had quite a good memory, I’m pretty sure that’s the only reason they chose me but for the purposes of this story, let’s suppose it was because they had spotted my overwhelming amount of talent.

I think my lines went something like “Right, so that’s 263 footballs, 348 Barbie dolls and 749 BMX bikes. Come on you lot. Hurry up and get packing. We’ll never get all the presents ready for Santa at this rate.” I might have got some of the numbers wrong but that was basically it. Looking back on it, it’s clear that my role was basically exposition. But at the time it was the most responsibility I’d ever had. I was the youngest person on stage with a speaking role. All the other Year 2s were just elves. I was the CHIEF elf. I totally won over them. The performance went by without a glitch. I fell off the stage at the very end but I don’t think anyone noticed. Nativity play? Whatever. I was in a brilliant new piece of theatre. It was my first step on the road to atheism.

*****   More Than

reviewer: Stuart – Blairgowrie, Scotland

At my first visit to the fringe I had 2 hours to kill and spent one in the wonderful company of Mould and Arrowsmith. The show entertains on many levels and left me realising what I have been missing by not comming to the fringe before. so well done M & A , see you next year !

*****A science-based lollercoaster 17 Aug 2009

reviewer: David Farmer, Scotland

A show we ambled along to quite serendipitously, ‘Mould and Arrowsmith’s Inventions’ is a look at sketch comedy through the goggles of geekery and the eyes of a scientist. Very funny throughout, the two manage to convince us that things such as statistical probability and temporal paradoxes are hilarious while never seeming to leave anyone in the audience behind; an astonishing achievement for any show that features the word ‘eigenstate’. Recommended.

**** Brainy and silly 16 Aug 2009

reviewer: Londoner, UK

It’s a delightful thing to laugh with all sides of your brain and this show certainly does that. Without giving away too many of the brilliantly constructed and charmingly performed gags, there’s something for wordplay fans and a delirious Catchpharse sequence. A terrific hour.

*****go! 15 Aug 2009

reviewer: Deb, Wales

I’ve seen these guys before and have always been amused though this is definitely their best show yet. very clever and very funny.

*****   Mould and Arrowsmith’s time portal makes the hour fly by 12 Aug 2009

reviewer: William T, United Kingdom

This is an astonishingly good show presented by a warm and friendly double act whose attention to detail is evident within the first few seconds, and who give nothing less than a flawless performance for the whole hour you’re in their company. Ostensibly performing their collection of sketches, Steve Mould and Gemma Arrowsmith quietly plant the seeds to an elaborate time-travel plot that envelops the show, while in the process studying the probability theory behind Deal or No Deal (to nothing less than degree level) and offering an analysis of the grammar used in, what else, but newspaper reviews of their own show. Aided by brilliant use of technology (plus some lovely films), they also demonstrate the comedic skill to have written something that continually surprises with its ingenuity, plot twists and clever callbacks. Its rare, perhaps unique, for something as geeky as this to remain both funny and relevant to the casual fringe goer whilst offering a serious mental challenge to anyone prepared to take it on. The best in its genre at the Fringe. (They’re also great at tongue twisters.)

***** Why that’s delightful! 12 Aug 2009

reviewer: A. Bryce, Scotland

I went to sixteen shows in a few days this year and this was one that I had booked in advance. I knew it was going to be popular (from my understanding its began to sell out quite frequently now) and I am so glad I had booked the tickets. This show was an absolute delight. Everything about the show was so charming and it completely won me over – the very clever writing (Mr Mould may or may not mention this but he is in fact the Blue Peter scientist!), the silly gags and the energy that they both possess on-stage is just unbelievable. The show is set around the competition between both Mould and Arrowsmith (or Arrowsmith and Mould, if you’d prefer) and the challenges they set each other. At a tie, they decide to each invent something and the audience at the end of the show must decide which is the best one. I found myself laughing out loud during this show, especially towards the end but I won’t spoil anything for you. Mould and Arrowsmith are a fantastic team – the show was completely seamless with no errors whatsoever, it had silly jokes and it had clever gags. If you’re stuck for choice or if you can only see one more show during your time in Edinburgh, go to the Pleasance Dome and go see this.

**** Geek’s Paradise 12 Aug 2009

reviewer: Alan, UK

We were flyered by Ms Arrowsmith and, as a group of engineers, she promised us we would love it. We did. Great geeky jokes performed at a great pace.

**** Geeky 10 Aug 2009

reviewer: Ruth, Scotland

We went to this show after Ms Arrowsmith flyered us and we thought she seemed lovely. The show was great, it was funny and charming and clever. We laughed afterwards about the snake and the equation and the general geekiness of it all. One of the better ones I’ve seen so far.

***** Just Brilliant 08 Aug 2009

reviewer: Morgan, UK

Very clever, lots of humour, you’ll just love it

Collected from…

http://www.edfringe.com/reviews/read.html?id=16250&page=2

http://www.broadwaybaby.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=4054:mould-and-arrowsmiths-inventions&catid=46:current-edinburgh-festival

http://www.chortle.co.uk/shows/edinburgh_fringe_2009/m/17312/mould_%26_arrowsmiths_inventions

PRESS REVIEWS

The List **** (4stars)

Beyond nerdy, yet playful and ingeniously funny, Steve Mould and Gemma Arrowsmith’s mock-highbrow revue is like a Centre Georges Pompidou of comedy: all exposed plumbing, postmodern form-as-content and paradox fetishism. Hauling a wide load of self-referential, knowingly smartass themes, most of the sketches are far more entertaining than they have any right to be.

Sam Healy

http://edinburghfestival.list.co.uk/article/20119-mould-and-arrowsmith/

Fringe Review ***** (5 stars)

‘Invention’ is aptly named. Brimming with originality and endlessly clever, these sketches are riotously funny from start to finish. Based around a framework of an invention competition, and seamlessly integrating overhead-projected and prop-based comedy elements, this show is a sure-fire hour of laughter.

Mould and Arrowsmith are charismatic performers, and each vignette is framed by a metanarrative of competition between the two of them: which can come up with the best invention. Apart from this narrative are several sketches about popular TV programs such as one particularly brilliant one about Deal or No Deal, but these are just as accessible to those unfamiliar with the format. The show is unashamedly intelligent: sketches about mathematics and grammar abound, but don’t panic – they’re incredibly well-judged and expertly performed so as not to be either patronising or incomprehensible.

The staging features a particularly intelligent use of projection, and is generally slick and glitch-free, impressive stuff for such a technically complex arrangement. The performance is the same, energetic and genuinely funny, and the show fits very well together as a whole.

I found the show hilarious, and the rest of the audience evidently shared these views, laughing uproariously in all the right places, lapping up sketches about probability theory and throwaway lines about Schroedinger’s cat just as much as they enjoyed the simpler physical comedy.

Ultimately, Mould and Arrowsmith have discovered a whole new type of sketch comedy. By taking their show in an unashamedly geeky direction without sacrificing any of the funny, they achieve one of the best sketch shows around.

Nicky Woolf

http://www.fringereview.co.uk/fringeReview/3146.html

Broadway Baby ***** (5 stars)

Once again Mould and Arrowsmith have come up with a blinder of a show, perfectly showcasing their unique and original blend of humour and personality. THe two are an immensely likeable duo onstage and have a fantastic chemistry together in the style of all great comic duos, such as Morecombe and Wise or The Two Ronnies. They take their turns in both setting up and delivering the punchlines in equal measure and, although a large section of their show this year revolves around competitiveness, it is clear that this is a rock-solid partnership which helps propel their show into the strata of excellence.

The main premise of the show is the tiebreaker in a series of challenges they have set themselves. The audience are called upon to help decided which of Steve’s time-portal or Gemma’s counting horse made of pipe cleaners shoudl be the winning invention. Along the way we have parodies of Deal Or No Deal, Catchphrase, Quantam Leap, Harry Potter, Superman as well as an abundance of grammatical and mathematical puns and paradoxes. Make no mistake this is fiercely intelligent comedy with hidden gems hiding at every corner.

Indeed, the level of detail in the show is staggering; in fact, I defy you to find any sloppy corners. From the insertion of a USB connection cord to a deliciously funny literary joke buried in the list of previous challenges, Mould and Arrowsmith have quite literally thought of everything. Yet refreshingly, they do not wave this in their audience’s faces; it is simply present for the auidence to pick up and absorb what they will.

Their real skill lies in their knack of identifying small truths in situations and people, and then expanding these into whole sketches or extended jokes. By basing everything around such truths, it gives the pair such an air of authority that you quite literally believe everything they say, no matter how surreal it may be.

At the heart of this show is a run of strikingly original material. Their slant is so unique, the lines so precise and the performances so natural you almost forget that you are watching a show and instead find yourself feeling priviliged enough to enjoy the company of two fantastically funny and charasmatic people. I strongly believe that if the script of this show was given to another pair of comedians to perform, it simply wouldn’t work, for this show is so tailor-made to these people that no one else would stand a chance. It is extremely rare to find a case like this and the duo deserve much praise for achieving this.

This year there are many sketch groups and partnerships vying for the spotlight. Mould and Arrowsmith may not be as well known as other groups, but they are certainly more than skilled. In a few years time it wouldn’t surprise me to see them at the head of the pack with others chasing behind them. And they certainly deserve it. Catch them now for a real masterclass in originality and talent. And a little tip: make sure you don’t dash out of your seat at the end; the final punchline for an earlier joke is delivered after the “credits” as such, and is well worth seeing!

D Sandys

http://broadwaybaby.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=4054:mould-and-arrowsmiths-inventions&catid=46:current-edinburgh-festival

Scotsgay **** (4 stars)

Steve Mould and Gemma Arrowsmith are a charming double act, and their latest offering, “a geeky sketch comedy”, has some very funny original ideas.

They hook their hour on a recurring ‘time machine goes wrong’ gag, utilising concepts that are deceptively technical in execution.  There are some wonderfully silly PowerPoint skits, and several jokes using advanced maths that er, more than add up (sorry).  Their off-the-cuff banter with the audience is a joy.  They clearly both relish interaction with the customers – either one could steal the march on any improvised sketch show.

Only occasionally do they milk an idea for a wee bit more than it’s worth, but with comedy of this high calibre, no-one cares.

Sketch shows are all over the fringe this year – more than ever.  This is one of the very best.  I recommend Mould & Arrowsmith to you without hesitation.

Martin W

http://fringe.scotsgay.co.uk/category/comedy-mould-arrowsmith%E2%80%99s-inventions/

Wired Magazine

Pick of the Fringe 2009

http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2009-08/05/edinburgh-preview-wired-combs-over-the-fringe.aspx