Ricky Gervais Live

[Emergency Lalla Ward Ten]

My concern is that the industry is so sewn up that The Next Peter Cook (or whoever) won't be able to get through. Simply because too many people in said industry want an easy life. Whether you agree with me about Gervais or not, it is true that there are currently no Angry Young Comedians out there isn't it? it's all textbook stand-up patter and surreal whimsy. Would a comedian who genuinely worked outside the industry and didn't play by the rules ever get anywhere in 2004?

Also, in order to be truly original and refreshing and visceral and great, the deus ex machina would have to reject the previous generation (like the 80s comedians did with Bernard Manning, or the current generation do with Ben Elton). But how would a comedian who was anti-Gervais be viewed? As a bitter spoilsport probably. You know how squeamish the industry is about any kind of criticism - almost to the point where they simply Don't Want To Have The Debate about whether things are on the slide or not. Grumpy old men, rose-tinted specs, la-la I can't hear you, etc.

People have these concerns about music too - how you never get quirky weird shit in the charts any more, how The Sex Pistols Would Never Happen Nowadays, etc. But with comedy, nobody seems too bothered about it.

[Munday's Chylde]

My concern is that the industry is so sewn up that The Next Peter Cook (or whoever) won't be able to get through. Simply because too many people in said industry want an easy life. Whether you agree with me about Gervais or not, it is true that there are currently no Angry Young Comedians out there isn't it? it's all textbook stand-up patter and surreal whimsy. Would a comedian who genuinely worked outside the industry and didn't play by the rules ever get anywhere in 2004?

Perhaps not no, which means there'll be an even angrier one along in 2006. I do understand your concerns but look to the past, nothing ever grinds to a halt in the arts no matter how complacent the world seems - a shake up is always on the cards eventually. Thats not me lighting up a pipe and saying "everything will be fine." just for the sake of a sleepy existence. It's something I genuinely believe.

People have these concerns about music too - how you never get quirky weird shit in the charts any more, how The Sex Pistols Would Never Happen Nowadays, etc. But with comedy, nobody seems too bothered about it.

Oh I think they are - they just dont view comedy as a little genre all on its own. I'm sure it's included in all rants about how theres never anything good on television anymore, or how nobody goes to the theatre any more.

[Robot DeNiro]

One of the things that put me off about The Office was that it seemed so designed to push certain buttons and tap into certain comedy trends emerging at the time. When did he make the pilot - around 1998/99 wasn't it? Right at the height of the docusoap boom.

So you are criticising the show for being topical and looking at current TV trends?  Isn't that what The Day Today did?

I'd love to believe he made 'this little show' on a shoestring for his own amusement, but I just don't buy it. I don't think the show would have got anywhere if that had been the case.

Well, I agree with you here (I think).  The pilot was made as part of Stephen Merchant's production training course at the BBC.  Presumabaly he made it because he had ambitions to make comedy shows.  Have either of them claimed otherwise?

My concern is that the industry is so sewn up that The Next Peter Cook (or whoever) won't be able to get through. . . Would a comedian who genuinely worked outside the industry and didn't play by the rules ever get anywhere in 2004?

Didn't a complete unknown just win the Perrier award?  I don't know much about his act, so maybe he's "playing by the rules" (whatever they are and whoever sets them), but he definitely counts as someone who "genuinely works outside the industry."

I think most people who "make it" must play by at least some of the rules.  Cook was Oxbridge educated, which must have helped him find an audience to start with.  Chris Morris worked his way up through BBC local radio, which is on page one of the rule book (at least it is in the version printed by the BBC ).

Also, in order to be truly original and refreshing and visceral and great, the deus ex machina would have to reject the previous generation (like the 80s comedians did with Bernard Manning, or the current generation do with Ben Elton). But how would a comedian who was anti-Gervais be viewed?

I think it's just a bit early for the Gervais backlash.  The Office finished less than a year ago.  I don't imagine the Ben Elton backlash started within a year of the final Blackadder episode.  The Gervais backlash will happen eventually I'm sure.

[Johnny Yesno]

I thought "Animals" was pretty funny. I liked the snake gag - I used to wonder about the legs thing myself when I was at school.

WRT the tastelessness of parts of Gervais's act, isn't he just playing a character? I'd always assumed that, even as far back as the 11 O'Clock Show, he was playing the part of an ignorant, immature tabloid twat, with his sexism, homophobia, racism and inability to let go of old schoolyard rivalries. Isn't it the Bevis and Butthead technique of using sad, stupid losers to make a satirical point? Mike Judge doesn't get accused of being a bigot. Why does Gervais? Do his critics believe he really thinks that the way to deal with foreigners who have trouble understanding you is to "shout louder and, if that doesn't work, smash the place up"? C'mon...
I still think The Office was better, though.

When did he make the pilot - around 1998/99 wasn't it? Right at the height of the docusoap boom.

When it was most relevant, you mean?

[alan strang]

So you are criticising the show for being topical and looking at current TV trends?  Isn't that what The Day Today did?

No - The Day Today didn't set out to adopt the trappings of a TV genre which was considered a surefire success with 'the masses'.

[What I do believe is that any performer, no matter how savy, would be hard pressed to manufacture a titanic degree of popularity if there's no genuine talent there in the first place.

I'm not so sure - try applying that argument when the next PR-manufactured boy band sensation hits the charts with a hook-laden button-pushing pop tune. The participants in that exercise aren't completely talentless - they can carry a tune, follow the choreography, look the look, etc. You'd be hard-pushed to see them as 'artists' worthy of respect in their own right (and even less likely to have respect for the PR teams who put them together and sell them), but you might  just hum the song on the way to the bog.

Gervais is a PR man creating, as it were, 'comedy you can hum'. Comedy with hooks, pushing the right buttons. And the idea of a PR person gaining artistic respect is somewhat ludicrous (in fact the only time this happens is when other PR people eulogise about a clever selling tactic).

It shouldn't really be surprising that whenever old clips of Gervais' musical career pop up on TV they're always of him doing some watered-down copy of other chart successes/styles.

Whenever this argument comes up I'm always reminded of Nicky Campbell interviewing Frank Zappa in 1991. Campbell had asked Zappa about rock groupies and whether they still existed:

ZAPPA
The whole motivation when they first began seems to me a little bit different because the groups that they're chasing after are a little bit different.

CAMPBELL
How are they different?

ZAPPA
In the early days the groups were actually interested in saying something. Today they're very interested in creating a piece of product which will be easily connected with another product which will then yield an endorsement.

CAMPBELL
And 'shift units'!

ZAPPA
Shift big units!

CAMPBELL
(DEVIL'S ADVOCATE) So in the early days - the 'good old days' - all those groups in the 60s weren't interested in selling records!

ZAPPA
No, they were, they were interested in selling records but the record was what was important, not the commercial tie-in with the beer, the soda pop or the tennis shoes. And I think today you have a situation where a lot of people who write songs have one eye on its secondary usage and may shape the song or the album itself so that it becomes more adaptable to that commercial application.

You can apply the above to modern comedy quite easily. Comedy writers shaping their output with one eye on the American market; buying into non-existant genres like 'dark'; or, Gervais writing a comedy which specifically aims at a docusoap-reared audience, or indeed yer Green Wing desperately trying to suck in idle Chris Morris fans with sub-Jam video-twattery and  screaming "Look how modern this comedy looks" despite having spent no time whatsoever developing a script.

"A piece of product which will be easily connected with another product which will then yield an endorsement."

[Tibetan Singin' Bowl]

You can get an Office DVD free with cornflakes.

Sums it up for me, really. Comedy as "product".

[Village Branson]

Well I guess Monty Python are the prime example of this, their stuff being merchandised to the stars.

Surely Gervais would have gone after something where you could really cash in on the merchandising-there isn't really any Office 'products' out there, the few that there have been were normally free extras you could get when buying the DVDs, and they varied depending on which shop you went in.

As for taking the style of the docusoap, surely he would have also gone to the lengths of making the comedy in the show more 'broad' if he was just after success with 'the masses'. I've seen people watch the show and not realise it was a comedy, or not realise it wasn't real (depending on how funny you think the show is).

I know Gervais is guilty of getting as much as he can out of the media when it comes to playing them (I'm sure he puts a lot of work into his acceptance speeches compared to everyone else in order to make him seem that bit more appealing to the judges), but it seems like people are suggesting The Office had no effort put into at all. It just cashed in on a current trend (so it was satirical, boo hoo) and all the gags came from Gervais mugging.

Watch the special this monday and tell me that it hasn't been crafted with some small amount of feeling. And that maybe just maybe Gervais actually wanted to make something good.

(which would let him live off piss poor shit for the next few years. still, bet that american market's still wondering who the fuck jeremy spake is...)

[alan strang]

Well I guess Monty Python are the prime example of this, their stuff being merchandised to the stars.

Hardly . One new LP per year throughout the 70s (each featuring mostly newly-written material) and a couple of books. The whole thing didn't become an accepted 'product market' until much later on (with all the cuddly stuffed Gumbies, Dead Parrot quilt covers, collector cards and tediously repackaged compilations), by which time the team weren't even working together anymore.

As for taking the style of the docusoap, surely he would have also gone to the lengths of making the comedy in the show more 'broad' if he was just after success with 'the masses'. I've seen people watch the show and not realise it was a comedy, or not realise it wasn't real (depending on how funny you think the show is).

I suspect the 'docusoap parody' element was as much about selling it to the BBC as to the viewing audience. A cynical hard-sell tactic: "The public will definitely go for this - they'll get it because docusoaps are popular at the moment".

The pilot even had a docusoap-style voiceover - which was removed after advice from Jon Plowman (or someone similar), his argument being something along the lines of "well, not all television has to be about television". Ha - easier to market as a 'sit-com' more like - especially since, by the time the thing went out, the idea of docusoaps (parodic or otherwise) had gone off the boil anyway.

Watch the special this monday

Oh my dear God - they've stitched them together!

and tell me that it hasn't been crafted with some small amount of feeling.

I watched them the first time round. I could see all the joins - even without all the press-releases which basically said "Watch out for the emotional bit we've stuck into the second one - it'll induce a nice feel-good factor just in time for Christmas".

[Village Branson]

Maybe they just set their minds on making a docusoap parody? So what if this means the BBC are more likely to buy it, it doesn't mean they making the show with a completely cynical attitude and not caring about making it decent.

Losing the voiceover-something to help 'sell' the show, or something that in fact made it better?

Also, they haven't stitched the special together, it was made as one show and the BBC split it up originally. Will be nice to see how it runs as one.

Think of it this way, is there any show out there which you couldn't view at with a completely cynical eye? That doesn't just hit the buttons if that's what you're looking for? If anything the creator has said publically about the show can be dismissed as spin?

The sincerest stand ups, who really bare their soul on stage and don't care what people think, or how popular their show is or care at all about making any money....just playing an angle them. Be a bit different, get noticed, get rich. There isn't a person with integrity left in the world.

[alan strang]

Maybe they just set their minds on making a docusoap parody? So what if this means the BBC are more likely to buy it, it doesn't mean they making the show with a completely cynical attitude and not caring about making it decent.

True, but, with that kind of salesmanlike attitude permiating throughout, you do have to wonder exactly how much of the 'creative process' involves the writers saying "yeah - that's really funny" rather than "yeah - the viewers will find that really funny". You have to wonder whether they said "Hey - won't it be really lovely if Tim & Dawn get together at the end" rather than "Hey - we can cap that whole ongoing Tim & Dawn will-they-won't-they soap-opera in the final show - but we'd better plant some hints about it in the press beforehand, just in case everyone's forgotten about it - you know how fickle the public are..."?

Losing the voiceover-something to help 'sell' the show, or something that in fact made it better?

In terms of 'creative process', did the excec say "lose the voiceover - it'll be a better show without it" or did he say "lose the voiceover - not all TV has to be about TV"?

Also, they haven't stitched the special together, it was made as one show and the BBC split it up originally. Will be nice to see how it runs as one.

I don't buy this for a second. The end of the Blind Date sequence just happened to occur at exactly the right point within a 90-minute episode to act as a viable punchline? Nah, c'mon. The writers must have known in advance that this would happen. Plus, those two halves are far too distinct from each other for the thing to have been written as a complete entity.

Think of it this way, is there any show out there which you couldn't view at with a completely cynical eye? That doesn't just hit the buttons if that's what you're looking for?

Well, I view everything with the same eye, and the more instances of obvious button-pushing there are, then the less something impresses me. A good example being something which ELW10 brought up in another thread - the cynical use of running gags, back-references, catchphrases and the like in Blackadder Goes Forth. I find the attitude in terms of getting laughs between that final series and Blackadder II (which had practically no such gallery-playing) quite obvious and jarring, yet few people would suggest that there was any kind of artistic tail-off towards the end of the run. It's just 'Blackadder' innit.

The sincerest stand ups, who really bare their soul on stage and don't care what people think, or how popular their show is or care at all about making any money....just playing an angle them. Be a bit different, get noticed, get rich. There isn't a person with integrity left in the world.

It's certainly true that anybody who displays a hint of true integrity would probably never be taken entirely at their word in this media climate. But that's down to a far more prevalent form of cynicism -  the whole "Aw, come on - you must be in it for personal gain - everyone else is!" factor. I think this probably accounts for the reason why so few people are willing to go against the grain in the first place. Far easier to just play the game - or fake it by jumping on what's left of the Chris Morris bandwagon - 'integrity' you can wear as a convenient badge.

Not that the notion of such 'integrity' isn't considered attractive as a selling point in itself - but it only ever seems to be wheeled out for people who've played the media game every step of the way - hence the selling of Gervais as a backwater hero of the British sit-com who 'had to fight the men in suits to get his vision on the air'.

[Village Branson]

Ok, firstly, I did read about the specials originally being intended as one special. I can't find a link to back this up, but even if I could, it would just be Gervais spinning the media again wouldn't it? I can't work out what the angle he's playing is here, but look hard enough and I'm sure you'll be able to find one. Seeing how it flows as one will probably settle this matter.

The Tim/Dawn thing was always going to be a talking point as it was the only ongoing plotline that had been there for the first two series. There are a lot of details in the show that you just wouldn't get if you weren't a fan of the show-the appearance of Geoff Lamp, Monkey Alan getting a mention, Pete Gibbons anyone?

the selling of Gervais as a backwater hero of the British sit-com who 'had to fight the men in suits to get his vision on the air'.

I'm gonna have to ask you for sources on it because I've never heard him utter a word about creative differences or arguing with Jane (fucking) Root or anything other than the line that the BBC training video he made with Steve Merchant was good enough for them to get a commission.

There is one thing you've missed out on, if you think the whole thing's constructed to pander to the public, and I'll leave you with a lovely bit of PR bullshitting from Gervais himself:

I think the other reason that people hit with it, and this wasn't intentional – it wasn't a cynical piece of marketing – but I think everyone's worked in an office at some point. I don't think we watered down the realism... There've been loads of things set in an office, but they've not been realistic. They've had convoluted plotlines and too much incident. And ours was about the fact that not a lot happens on a day in the office. I've been in an office before where there was a screech of brakes and 23 adults ran to the window to look out. Now, you must not be really getting on with your life...

[mr suit]

without wanting to go too far off topic, because it does link in to something that was said elsewhere... re the motivations of comedy writers. i think it's always very shaky ground to start second guessing that sort of thing.

ZAPPA
No, they were, they were interested in selling records but the record was what was important, not the commercial tie-in with the beer, the soda pop or the tennis shoes. And I think today you have a situation where a lot of people who write songs have one eye on its secondary usage and may shape the song or the album itself so that it becomes more adaptable to that commercial application.

okay. Zappa may have a slight point regarding some songwriters. but certainly not many.

1991. you had records in the last few years from My Bloody Valentine, Public Enemy and the Stone Roses.... but what was lurking in the Indie charts isn't my point.

SAW's songs, trash as they often were, were not about secondary usage ever. whenever Waterman is chatting about the music, i think he's a twatty cunt, but above all else he respects the song. that's what it's about for him. yes he wants to sell a billion "units" (ugh), but it's not because of the money. he has plenty... he just likes the validation that selling records gives him.


linking it to Comedy stuff... i don't think it's fair to second guess Gervais's motivations for The Office in such a confident manner, at least not with some sort of interview/sources to back it up. otherwise it's just mindless speculation based on your opinions of (i) the show and (ii) your perceived character of the bloke.

you may well be right... i dunno... but i think that if you liked The Office  (a show i've only seen one episode of....) then you wouldn't be worrying so much about what motivated Gervais to write/sell it in the manner he did.

[TJ]

SAW's songs, trash as they often were, were not about secondary usage ever. whenever Waterman is chatting about the music, i think he's a twatty cunt, but above all else he respects the song. that's what it's about for him. yes he wants to sell a billion "units" (ugh), but it's not because of the money. he has plenty... he just likes the validation that selling records gives him.

I could be wrong, but my recollection is that those lucrative 'Hitman Roadshows' were sponsored up to their ears by big bad corporations. Plus there's the whole pop/soap opera crossover issue...

[mr suit]

SAW's songs, trash as they often were, were not about secondary usage ever. whenever Waterman is chatting about the music, i think he's a twatty cunt, but above all else he respects the song. that's what it's about for him. yes he wants to sell a billion "units" (ugh), but it's not because of the money. he has plenty... he just likes the validation that selling records gives him.

I could be wrong, but my recollection is that those lucrative 'Hitman Roadshows' were sponsored up to their ears by big bad corporations. Plus there's the whole pop/soap opera crossover issue...

no no, you're almost definitely right... but i don't think that these things ever affected the songwriting, only the packaging, selling and what-not.

Sound Of The Underground is a hit, it was a hit the second whoever jotted it down thought it up. that it effectively had a bunch of half hour adverts on ITV again and again for the band and the singers is annoying, tacky, and a horrible perversion of the Pop process, but the songwriting is another thing altogether. there are a few songwriters i fully expect have half an eye on adverts and such, but not all that many, and not necessarily the worst ones.

[Emergency Lalla Ward Ten]

I don't think all those SAW records could be viewed outside of their context , though. The whole concept of Rick Astley remained slightly horrid no matter how great the chord changes were.

Which is what I was saying about Green Wing (arguably the SAW of comedy) - it's holistically wrong/annoying from the outset, so no matter how good the gags are it'll remain impossible to love.

[minge]

I preferred him that sitcom based at werner and hogg. is it possible he is really a fat chris morris with a beard?

[gazzyk1ns]

I watched "Animals" tonight, a mate had taped it from when it was on C4 a few days ago and showed it to us all tonight. I've just spent about half an hour reading all of this thread, and I've got so many things to pick up on/talk about, that I'll just bash them out, sorry if the post seems to lack flow or structure...

I really like The Office, but I thought "Animals" was complete rubbish.

This first talking point is a really complex one, please read the whole paragraph, because I can see some people rolling their ees and assuming I've missed the point after the first sentence(s).

I didn't find the snake joke at all funny, for the same reason as I think the thread starter. He said it and I thought "Er... well, they didn't have to shuffle about on their bellies previously...". Now, as has been pointed out, if you think about it, Gervais must know the real intended "situation" of that story from the bible. So why tell the joke? Well, I bet the audience just took it as a kind of observational humour, I know for a fact that two of the people I watched the show with did. Nothing too serious, you know, just "heh, another thing that's stupid about the bible" . And I bet that Gervais knows that that's how at least 90% of his audience will take it, too. Which brings me on to another point:

WRT the tastelessness of parts of Gervais's act, isn't he just playing a character? I'd always assumed that, even as far back as the 11 O'Clock Show, he was playing the part of an ignorant, immature tabloid twat, with his sexism, homophobia, racism and inability to let go of old schoolyard rivalries. Isn't it the Bevis and Butthead technique of using sad, stupid losers to make a satirical point? Mike Judge doesn't get accused of being a bigot. Why does Gervais? Do his critics believe he really thinks that the way to deal with foreigners who have trouble understanding you is to "shout louder and, if that doesn't work, smash the place up"? C'mon...

Well yes, he must be... or rather, he's got a watertight "get out clause" from any criticism accusing him of being bigoted/homophobic/base-level - "You idiot, I was OBVIOUSLY just playing a character". But he knows that most of the people laughing at him in the audience there don't take it that way. It's a very effective, dynamic "act" to put on... stupid people laugh at you and intelligent people are made to think that they should because it's irony, aimed at taking the piss out of stupid people. A similar phenomenon came into play with Ali G, although unlike Gervais, I don't think SBC intended it at all - to me, Ali G was clearly a character who primarily served to show how out of touch, and willing to do anything (without any research) in order to appeal to a wider audience certain people (mostly politicians) were, and then secondly to have a little laugh at what some kids these days are like. What I meant about the comparison with what I've just been saying about Gervais, is that when Ali G reached a certain level of popularity, i.e. reached, to be blunt, stupid people who don't "get" anything... these people thought that SBC's character was simply a bit of a "cool/funny exaggeration" on people like them/people they knew, and that the interviewee was amusing because they were old and crusty and didn't get "young" things.

I now want to say "Gervais has played on that, and has deliberately attempted to set out to appeal to the 'it's funny because it's ironic!' brigade at the same time as the 'it's funny because he's making fun of spackers, lol!' brigade.", but let's not get carried away... I can't think that he's been that devious and/or shrewd, bearing in mind none of us know him or how he writes material we've surely got to assume that he just goes along the lines of "well they think that's funny... yeah, they laughed at that, too... ooh, something people always mention is this..."

Unfortunately it has resulted in a cack stand-up show. The opening scene, his voiceover of the footage of lions, was probably the worst bit for me... just completely unfunny. It's the sort of things you do when you're primary school age, your parents are insisting that yet another nature documentary stays on the TV and so you find yourself doing stupid little voices for the animals in your head. Even then I knew it wasn't funny enough even to attempt to ever say out loud. I don't want to open myself up to criticism such as "Ahhhh, you watched it not WANTING to enjoy it!", but you know you're in for a rough time when the opening scene of a "comedy" show is a female lion writhing around on the floor, basking in the sun, and there's a voiceover saying "oooh, she wants it, she's a SLUT!".

Lastly, I have to echo Neil and ELLW 10's  thoughts here, what is it with people saying over and over either "Oh well I laughed, probably because I didn't try to analyse it!!", or "Oh well it was all right..."? I'll just tackle those things one at a time:

"Oh well I laughed, probably because I didn't try to analyse it!!"

...Well, I didn't watch it whilst "analysing it", I just watched it in the usual way, didn't enjoy it, then I thought about why I didn't enjoy it, then I wrote down my thoughts in here in order to compare and contrast with other people. When people say things like the above, there's always the implication that anyone criticising it is somehow a sad comedy obsessive and/or bitter and twisted about the artist(s) in question, for some suitable obscure and irrelevant reason. That's half the reason I wanted to post comprehensively in here, hopefully you'll have seen me reguarly posting about feeling birds' tits up and not bothering to post much in here because I'm not that interested these days, and haven't got a particularly broad knowledge of comedy... but still, I can state in detail why Animals was, in my opinion, stupid rubbish.

"Oh well it was all right..."

Is that supposed to be a good thing? Someone earlier in the thread posted that most of it "...may as well have been white noise", although the post seemed to imply that it wasn't a terrible thing, that it was simply mediocre. What are you, some kind of zombie? There's nothing worse than watching white noise on your television! If something is terrible then maybe you can laugh at it, if it's offensive or disgusting in some way then at least you might be able to form some interesting thoughts about what offends/disgusts you and why; I don't know, I'm clutching at straws a bit, but the point is that if something "might as well be white noise", then it's got less right than anything else to be on television! This also goes back to the previous paragraph I think. A lot of people seem to come here and say things like "Well it wasn't great, but I was tired and it kept me entertained for an hour." So? What kind of praise is that? A load of people are writing extensive opinions and critiques of a show, and you are countering it with "Chill out, you're saaad, I came home from the pub and it was on the telly when I got into bed and I can't remember forming any strong opinions about it, so it must be 'OK', you're all going over the top.". It's OK not to care about comedy, it's OK to like things which aren't popular, but don't say/imply that people are sad, obsessive, or strangely biased for simply watching something, forming an opinion, and then trying to explain it to others!

[Purple Tentacle]

Fantastic post, gazzyk1ns.


"FYI" The Office Christmas Specials are on tonight at 9 - 10.30.  The first one is a bit shite, but it picks up into the second.

[Emergency Lalla Ward Ten]

I violently agree with everything gazzyk1ns just said.

The whole 'He's playing a character but the audience just laugh at face value' is a troubling accusation, because - like most people - I'll argue this about comedy I dislike (Gervais, Ali G, Al Murray) but not about comedy I enjoy (Alf Garnett, Loadsamoney, the racist policeman in The Young Ones). Is that hypocrisy on my part? I don't doubt that lots of people misunderstood the satire of the latter three and 'laughed with rather than at' them...but I don't think they actually *relied* on an audienceful of 'You tell 'em, Alf' idiots to become popular in a way that Gervais perhaps does. They just did what they set out to do and said 'Who cares if people don't get it?'. I think with Gervais, Ali G and Al Murray it does appear to be more of a get-out clause. Simply because what they're doing ISN'T INTERESTING ENOUGH. Beyond the occasional nice gag, there's nothing clever/brave about what they say on stage. There's no excitement.

The anti-intellectual aspect of Animals was irritating, simply because Gervais seemed to be playing up to the 'I don't go in for all that poncy book-learning' attitude rather than satirising it. Quoting a bit of Stephen Hawking and then saying 'Go for a walk in the fresh air, mate...well, open a window at least' (cue wild applause) is a dismal piece of comedy, attacking and ridiculing nothing. What's he saying? What's his comedy *about*?

[falafel]

Sound Of The Underground is a hit, it was a hit the second whoever jotted it down thought it up. that it effectively had a bunch of half hour adverts on ITV again and again for the band and the singers is annoying, tacky, and a horrible perversion of the Pop process, but the songwriting is another thing altogether. there are a few songwriters i fully expect have half an eye on adverts and such, but not all that many, and not necessarily the worst ones.

I am 'acquainted' with one of the girls who wrote that song... she was in a 'band' - that is to say, a 'girl band' - and they wrote it for themselves, but it was then bought off them for the Pop Idol winners to do. That is to say, I agree with you in that until it became a product, it was not a product. But the fact remains that it became a product. A la The Office.

But enough of this. I don't mind The Office; it's funny sometimes.

[/iAnimals[/i], on the other hand... Eugh. I watched it because my sister reccomended it, not because I like Gervais (nor, indeed, because I dislike him). The only time I laughed was in the bits inbetween the standup when the Newsnight presenter accidentally came out with some double-entendre or another. And even that shouldn't have been funny.

I agree with gazzyk1ns and Emergency blahblahblah, basically. It infuriates me when someone creates this sort of 'stupid' persona to please all, when all they end up doing with it is cracking stupid jokes that they'd never get away with if they were being serious.

Take the much-criticised Genesis\The Serpent bit. The problem is, it's lazy. Well, actually, the problem was that I didn't laugh at it. I immediately thought "But, surely, the snake must have had legs before, otherwise"..., rather than the response Gervais would have wanted (either "Ooh, that's funny, he's got a point", or "Ooh, isn't he funny, playing an idiot with no common sense\satirising people who take the piss out of the Bible"). Compare it to Bill Hicks going on about dinosaurs, or the bit in Eddie Izzard's otherwise fairly dismal Circle where God creates the universe by accident while he's trying to bake a flan, then sends Jesus down to a saloon full of dinosaurs to try and teach them about "this new book I've just done with my dad, called the "Bibbley"... we're working on the pronunciation". Maybe you reckon that's not funny, but the thing is, it's so absurd that there's no point picking holes in it from a theological point of view. Gervais makes it too transparent and easy, and that for me ruins it.

And I found the bit about gay animals transparently offensive, I'm afraid. "I just can't see how they get any pleasure out of that...". For God's sake.

I've forgotten my point and I have to go and start dinner off now. You probably weren't reading this anyway.

[Johnny Yesno]

The whole 'He's playing a character but the audience just laugh at face value' is a troubling accusation, because - like most people - I'll argue this about comedy I dislike (Gervais, Ali G, Al Murray) but not about comedy I enjoy (Alf Garnett, Loadsamoney, the racist policeman in The Young Ones). Is that hypocrisy on my part?

Not hypocrisy but I think inaccurate. I think we've hit a bit of a circular argument with Gervais, but Alf Garnett was certainly popular with racist fucks even though Warren Mitchel hated them, and coppers were seen doing the Loadsamoney cash waving during the miners' strike without a trace of irony.

[Robot Devil]

What? Of course it's hypocritical if you set out to only argue that point for comedy you like - it's virtually the definition of hypocricy.

[Robin]

Sorry about dredging this old one up, but i was round somebodies house today and they were playing animals, and i caught a bit of it, and it reminded me of something ELW10 said.

His material reminds of that 'Why don't they make aeroplanes out of black boxes?!!!' joke which Douglas Adams objected to - ie, it depends on mutual ignorance on the part of both Gervais and his audience. For example, his joke about how being made to crawl on your belly is a rubbish punishment for a snake. (They had legs in Paradise, Ricky, you prick - that's the whole point.)

Although i agree with Lala's sentiments about  mutual ignorance and Douglas Adams objection, and also think that gervias is prone to these kind of jokes, i reckon that in this particular instance his point is that in the biblical description of pre-sin paradise, the snake is depicted as a conventional snake (i.e  one that doesn't have legs.)  I only just caught this bit and don't have the dvd to check up on it, but i thought that when he re-inacted god telling the snake that he would be rid of his legs as punishment for his sins, he did a physical impression of the snake with no legs ( and hence referencing this descriptive inconsistency. ) Anybody got any thoughts on this? I know its incredibly penickity, but i was thinking about it on the bus back and this was the only place i could turn to for an answer! Cheers.

[Chers penis]

Anybody got any thoughts on this?

when you're an atheist (as gervais is), the concept of a snake ever having legs and walking would be stupid and ridiculous, you also have to bear in mind that not too many people are up on the bibles specific details and this would be an easy area for him to exploit. I think when you consider that a snake has the capabilities to move perfectly well without legs makes the idea that they used to have them quite laughable + how many fossils of legged snakes have been found?