Gervais - what a complete c*nt. Page 7

Quote: ContainsNuts @ July 9, 2007, 7:02 PM

Like I say he is not. And his radio show is not about embarrasing Karl as he doesn't get embarrassed its about exploring his bizarre theories and making funny comments, how is that the same as the Office and Flanimals?

My point about Pavarotti is that they are both fat. No, that can't be right. I mean, that his style why should he change it? Some people just write gag-only, or dark comedy, should they also change? Basically you want him to change into the comic you would want. He deals with reality humour, and the stats show that more people like his work than anyone else, so why should he change?

View original

Reality humour? So you feel uncomfortable around disabled people and/or black people? Or do you generally spend your days making a fool of yourself in front of hugely famous celebrties?

I think I've worded things wrong, it's not that he's doing the same type of comedy it's the fact he's doing the same damn 'joke' all the time. 'Say something offensive in front of a black man....cringe"..."Say something inappropriate in front of a woman in a wheel chair...cringe"..."Say something horrible about a woman with cerebral pausy...cringe"..."Say something embarrasing in front of a kid with down syndrome - cringe"...do you see a pattern emerging? And then you have the plotlines and character traits he writes for the celebrity guests..."Ben Stiller - acts really arrogant and big headed"..."Orlando Bloom - acts really arrogant and big headed"..."Robert Lindsay - acts really arrogant and big headed"..."Kate Winslet - acts really arrogant and big headed"..."Ross Kemp - acts really arrogant and big headed"..etc etc.

And I didn't say Flanimals was the same did I? I said apart from his books the rest of his material follows the same suit. Was The Office good...YES it was, it had funny and relatable characters and lots of great moments...was it original..NO. Was Extras a good follow up...NO it was pretty damn awful.

Quote: Aaron @ July 9, 2007, 8:17 PM

I think she just wants to bonk Brent. Well, Gervais anyway

View original

Moi?

Quote: Aaron @ July 9, 2007, 8:17 PM

I think she just wants to bonk Brent.

View original

What - the whole of the borough?

That's just grim. >_<

Quote: ajp29 @ July 9, 2007, 3:36 PM

I think hie dance is ironic now because whenever he does it he's is embarassed and is cringing when he performs it.

View original

I reckon its got to the stage where if an audience isn't crying out for the little fat fool to do his amusing little jig, then as much as he might be embarrassed (yeah, right!), his ego would be lost without it.

Quote: Martin Holmes @ July 9, 2007, 8:23 PM

Reality humour? So you feel uncomfortable around disabled people and/or black people?

View original

If that's what you think, then you missed the joke.

We're not laughing with David Brent and trying to relate to his awkward situation. We're laughing AT David Brent for putting himself in that situation.

We (the audience) are the third person. The first (being David's target), the Second (being David himself).

We are meant to sympathize with the third person, either US the audience or whoever is stood next to Brent and his target.

The joke is like going to your mates and saying, "My boss said the most shocking thing at work today, I was so embarrassed for him."

I think the point was Leevil that Gervais always picks minorities like jews, blacks, the disabled. To induce the embarassment, it can appear that the subtext is 'why do these people hang around me they only cause me embarassment.' Also no doubt some people in the audience will agree with that viewpoint. In fact thinking about it the only third person who actually is empowered by Gervais in Extras is the posh white woman in the shop. His humour only works because the characters are subconsciously predjudice and it slips out. Thats why Shandling ask him why he used those specific third parties to enduce the embarassment it could be so easily done without them e.g. Maggie, Barry and the Agent do it to Andy all the time. Also it seemed a bit lame that all his guest stars acted like arrogant idiots except Samuel L Jackson. Analyse that.

Yeah what AJP said. I haven't missed the so called 'joke' or lack there of, I know we are suppose to be embarrassed for Brent/Andy (when did been embarrassed become the new comedy?), but why those specific things, it's always at the expense of a minority as if everyone in real life is like that.

Then if you take a Seinfeld for example they pick up on lots of uncomfortable moments but its not always at the expense of a minority it's little things in life that everyday folk do feel like and go through and they also add jokes too.

Quote: Leevil @ July 10, 2007, 1:58 PM

We're not laughing with David Brent. We're laughing AT David Brent. It's like saying to your mates, "My boss said the most shocking thing at work today, I was so embarrassed."

View original

This doesn't wash. If the minority wasn't there, then the gag wouldn't happen. But RG focusses time and again on minorities. The gag is always at the expense of the minority, whichever way the PC intelligensia dress it up.

Gervais - cute and cuddly and so cheeky = non-racist
Bernard Manning - fat ugly northern twat with irritating voice = racist

The clever part is that people now laugh at a racist comment while feeling that they're not involved in the racist act, itself. But laughing is a form of approval.

Imagine if you (the audience) were in the room when a Brent character made a racist comment. What would you think of all those people in the room that laughed? How do you think the minority target would feel on hearing that laughter? Would they feel the room was for them or against them? I think they'd interpret it as laughter aimed at them, not as disapproval at the Brent character. How would the Brent character interpret that same laughter? He'd see it as approval.

But placing a TV screen between an audience and blatant racism (that you'd be angered to see in real life) seems to remove the guilt and make it funny.

What is 'funny' is that someone has publicly emphasised a 'percieved' difference. If there was absolutely no hint of racism or prejudice in the viewer then they wouldn't understand the gag - precisely because they wouldn't be able to conceive of a difference between themselves and the target of the jibe. That we get it, proves that we see and comprehend the 'difference' which serves only to reinforce that distinction but with a subtle nod-and-a-wink.

At least Manning was visibly racist, and as one poster put it, he was less dangerous than the racist who is percieved as non-racist because the message is the same but sweeter to swallow.

Leave off Gervais, he's a funny cu#t.

So in The Office when David makes a racist comment and the camera cuts to Tim and then I laugh at Tims reaction.

Are you telling me that I'm laughing at David's joke and that really Tim is a racist for feeling uncomfortable, because he recognizes the comment as a dig at a minority?

No, we're laughing at 'percieved' difference. If the whole human race was born in wheelchairs and a comedian made a gag about somebody being in a wheelchair, no one would understand it, because no one would know otherwise. It would be beyond our experience to get the joke.

But say a social upper class had gold wheelchairs and the lower ones had silver? Now we have difference and a chance to exploit it for comedy.

But because someone is in a wheelchair and others aren't, we see a difference and the difference is where RG gets his laugh from. Bernard Manning did the same thing.

That there is embarrassment is because the embarrassed person thinks, "yes, there is a difference but it was a social error to bring it up." We recognise that thought process in Tim's head and laugh too. If not we'd wonder why did Tim look embarrassed? It wouldn't make sense to us.

To laugh at Tim's reaction does not legitimise where that embarrassment springs from - racist comedy. But that's the lie we're being sold, we're so adept at thinking in degrees of seperation that the TV screen becomes a degree of seperation that legitimises things we'd never put up with in real life.

So no, we're not all racist because we (I hope I would be brave enough) would speak out if it happened in the street, but the TV screen does not transform a racist or a racist joke into legitimate humour by placing us at a 'safe' distance.

He's taking Benard Manning's racist joke, which is literally what it is and taking the target away from original target and pointing it at himself, defusing the original power of the joke.

Not really because he's still getting the laugh from a situation involving a minority. It wouldn't be so bad if he just did it now and again but especially with Extras it seems to be the only thing he can get a 'joke' from.

Also about the point I was making earlier regarding the celebrity 'characters' on Extras been poorly written, the new News story on this site proves my point perfectly. He's already signed Posh & Becks up to appear but hasn't even written what they'll be doing yet, just shows it's more about getting the 'big names' than the actual characters and plot.

I'll agree with you on the overuse of it in Extras, but not in The Office, which I think was brilliantly executed all rounder.