|
Post by Crunchy Col on Mar 11, 2019 13:09:43 GMT
Both have popular shows right now (Gervais' Netflix thing After Life, Coogan's ongoing Partridge arseabout on the BBC), it seems everybody on social media has an opinion on these two cunts and their shows.
What do you think about their new efforts, if you've seen them? Have they peaked already? When were they best? And....(yes it's an EXCITING BONUS QUESTION!) - who would you rather be stuck in a lift with?
|
|
|
Post by DarknessFish on Mar 11, 2019 13:36:33 GMT
I've not seen their new shows, but I've always been fairly suspicious of both of them. Ricky Gervais, I have a quite low opinion of, I think a lot of what he's doing is couching straight-forward downward-punching humour in a thin veneer of irony. There's not that much that separates him from the bad old days of Jim Davidson. Steve Coogan, my problem is more that I just don't think he's particularly funny. As an actor, he doesn't carry much in the way of charisma, and Alan Partridge never should have lasted outside The Day Today, imo. The fact he's still dragging material out of the same character feels very Partridge-esque.
|
|
|
Post by Reactionary Rage on Mar 11, 2019 14:05:05 GMT
Partridge casts a big shadow over Coogan’s career and rightly show because it’s a great, timeless creation but he’s done other good stuff like Alan Calf and The Trip. He’s a real talent but Partridge as its best has me laughing like few other things.
I’m coming round to the new one after a slowish start. The last episode was the best yet. It’s the kind of thing I suspect is a grower and will improve on repeated viewings. I don’t think it’s as LOL as the best Partridge stuff – Knowing Me and I’m Alan Partridge – but it consistently entertains and he inhabits the character like few other comic actors these days. He’s magnificent.
I haven’t see the new Gervais. I’ve always viewed his career like the band whose debut album is great but every album afterwards is a pale retread of diminishing returns. I had little time for Extras and found all that celebrity sending themselves up shit tedious. I watched the first episode of Derek and found it boring but it was nice to see Karl.
Unlike DF I like the fact that he’s abusive and transgressive and he’s not scared to go there. Too much comedy is so tediously “safe” these days and I think there is value in just being a bit “offensive”, especially when so many people are so right on about shit. Right on comedy is like political pop music to me. I see little value in it.
As to the lift question I imagine Coogan is probably a bit less socially savvy, more awkward and standoffish though maybe a nicer bloke. I’d ask him what Courtney Love was like.
Gervais can be perfectly charming in person but he can also be a bit smug and patronising when talking about religion and what not. I suspect it would be less awkward than spending time with Coogan though who strikes me as more serious (the Trip of course uses this to great effect in his relationship with the more relaxed Brydon)
|
|
|
Post by Inspector Norse on Mar 11, 2019 14:19:15 GMT
Yeah, The Trip shows a really interesting side of Coogan and it becomes, certainly in the later series, a quite serious look at his anxieties about growing old and his desires for his career, and the friendly rivalry with the less successful but more at-ease Brydon.
And like you I haven't been able to interest myself in anything Gervais has done since The Office. I can't really see him doing anything as natural or real as The Trip: he'd be too defensive about the moments of weakness or insecurity, and too puffed-up about the successes and happier moments.
|
|
|
Post by Reactionary Rage on Mar 11, 2019 14:23:03 GMT
He's no Karl Pilkington
|
|
|
Post by driftin on Mar 11, 2019 15:26:06 GMT
I was impressed by Steve Coogan in 24 Hour Party People and Philomena. I'd love to see more properly dramatic roles from him.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 11, 2019 15:50:22 GMT
I saw Coogan this weekend in the Other Guys, Will Ferrell and Mark Wahlberg. I want to see the new Gervais one. I read an interveiw and it sounds interesting.
I think Gervais is an interesting mix - not quite an actor, not quite coming from the classic stand-up or improv background. But I like him - when he's good.
Coogan is in stuff here, but for me he's hit and miss. I think he's almost too British for American audiences to appreciate. Gervais seems to have tapped in to that sensibility more.
This is the best explanation I've ever head between the differences.
A good example of this is Gervais' role in the Office versus the way Carell handled it.
|
|
|
Post by DarknessFish on Mar 11, 2019 16:21:57 GMT
Unlike DF I like the fact that he’s abusive and transgressive and he’s not scared to go there. Too much comedy is so tediously “safe” these days and I think there is value in just being a bit “offensive”, especially when so many people are so right on about shit. Right on comedy is like political pop music to me. I see little value in it. I'm not against being offensive. I think Frankie Boyle can still occasionally come out with something magnificent. Jimmy Carr can still be funny and offensive, and in no way political. But Gervais comes up with shit like this: Which isn't funny, and is pretty much laughing at the disabled, but pretending not to. It's weak.
|
|
|
Post by Crunchy Col on Mar 11, 2019 16:48:41 GMT
I agree with all of this: I've not seen their new shows, but I've always been fairly suspicious of both of them. Ricky Gervais, I have a quite low opinion of, I think a lot of what he's doing is couching straight-forward downward-punching humour in a thin veneer of irony. There's not that much that separates him from the bad old days of Jim Davidson. Steve Coogan, my problem is more that I just don't think he's particularly funny. As an actor, he doesn't carry much in the way of charisma, and Alan Partridge never should have lasted outside The Day Today, imo. The fact he's still dragging material out of the same character feels very Partridge-esque. I haven’t see the new Gervais. I’ve always viewed his career like the band whose debut album is great but every album afterwards is a pale retread of diminishing returns. I had little time for Extras and found all that celebrity sending themselves up shit tedious. I watched the first episode of Derek and found it boring but it was nice to see Karl. Yeah, The Trip shows a really interesting side of Coogan and it becomes, certainly in the later series, a quite serious look at his anxieties about growing old and his desires for his career, and the friendly rivalry with the less successful but more at-ease Brydon. I was impressed by Steve Coogan in 24 Hour Party People and Philomena. I'd love to see more properly dramatic roles from him. This is the best explanation I've ever head between the differences. I think the Gervais series, as deeply flawed as it is, is much more rewarding and interesting than the Partridge thing, which I find desperately unfunny (I've never found AP amusing in the slightest but this latest incarnation is preposterous in all the worst ways). There are similarities between David Brent and Alan Partridge - the lack of social awareness, put simply - and although it's all well observed and well written (so they tell me) as far as I'm concerned that isn't enough for long-lasting world-beating humour, and never was. I don't think someone calling someone a cunt by accident, or being slightly racist in front of a black person will date very well. CaB despise Gervais and nobody dare say anything positive about him (I think this dates from the Derek days) - this thread is interesting in its relentlessness and its one-sidedness: www.cookdandbombd.co.uk/forums/index.php/topic,71940.0.html
|
|
|
Post by driftin on Mar 11, 2019 18:05:12 GMT
Unlike DF I like the fact that he’s abusive and transgressive and he’s not scared to go there. Too much comedy is so tediously “safe” these days and I think there is value in just being a bit “offensive”, especially when so many people are so right on about shit. Right on comedy is like political pop music to me. I see little value in it. Being abusive and mean for the sake of it isn't comedy, it's bullying. Shock comedy is much funnier when its pointed, aiming high, and coming from someone who actually understands or has experience in the thing they're ridiculing.
|
|
|
Post by Reactionary Rage on Mar 11, 2019 18:51:06 GMT
Unlike DF I like the fact that he’s abusive and transgressive and he’s not scared to go there. Too much comedy is so tediously “safe” these days and I think there is value in just being a bit “offensive”, especially when so many people are so right on about shit. Right on comedy is like political pop music to me. I see little value in it. I'm not against being offensive. I think Frankie Boyle can still occasionally come out with something magnificent. Jimmy Carr can still be funny and offensive, and in no way political. But Gervais comes up with shit like this: Which isn't funny, and is pretty much laughing at the disabled, but pretending not to. It's weak. Well he's in character for starters. I don't find it funny but that's the thing, isn't it? If you find it funny you find it funny, if you don't it becomes more problematic because it's NOT FUNNY. It's interesting that's the first thing you mention, the fact that's it not funny. I don't feel the need to defend Gervais too much because I don't feel that strongly about him really but he clearly likes transgressive humour and I think there is value in that and personally I rarely find humour that is so right on it avoids any possible accusations of being "offensive" funny at all (basically anything on BBC1 around 9pm on one of those dreadful Michael Mcintyre shows). A lot of humour is "punching down", abusive, cruel and that's where the humour comes from. But that's just me. Frankie Boyle's humour is not particularly funny either and he had no problem making jokes about Katie Price's kid or disabled people, you know? Is that is any better than Gervais in that clip? His humour to me is nastier than Gervais's too but then he's become "political" now and moved on from that (still not funny) I think the Jim Davidson comparison is off the mark too. With Davidson he was playing to the crowd, reflecting their prejudices back at them and giggling with each other. With Gervais it's almost like he's playing against the crowd. When he did all those awards shows and you've got all these Hollywood liberal types that was the point of it all. To play against their mores. I don't think his crowd is akin to a Jim Davidson or a Bernard Manning one. I think it's understood they are basically a bit like Us. The frisson arises from that, saying "wrong" things to a crowd that knows it's "wrong". Of course you can still criticise him for punching down or whatever but I don't believe the motivation is to simply mock disabled people or whatever. Plus his humour - at least when I've seen live clips - seems rooted in a general misanthropy. It's an interesting subject because people see it quite, quite differently.
|
|
|
Post by Reactionary Rage on Mar 11, 2019 18:58:48 GMT
Unlike DF I like the fact that he’s abusive and transgressive and he’s not scared to go there. Too much comedy is so tediously “safe” these days and I think there is value in just being a bit “offensive”, especially when so many people are so right on about shit. Right on comedy is like political pop music to me. I see little value in it. Being abusive and mean for the sake of it isn't comedy, it's bullying. Shock comedy is much funnier when its pointed, aiming high, and coming from someone who actually understands or has experience in the thing they're ridiculing. As I said above, a lot of humour is rooted in cruelty and meanness. It just depends who the target is sometimes and whether it makes you laugh. I understand that humour that uses people from specific groups can be seen as punching down and therefore problematic but there is also a counter argument there about treating such people equally by not given them special dispensation. There is no fixed rule here though. It's all about the comedian, their persona, their targets, how they deliver it and so on.
|
|
|
Post by DarknessFish on Mar 11, 2019 22:04:25 GMT
Well he's in character for starters. I don't find it funny but that's the thing, isn't it? If you find it funny you find it funny, if you don't it becomes more problematic because it's NOT FUNNY. It's interesting that's the first thing you mention, the fact that's it not funny. I don't feel the need to defend Gervais too much because I don't feel that strongly about him really but he clearly likes transgressive humour and I think there is value in that and personally I rarely find humour that is so right on it avoids any possible accusations of being "offensive" funny at all (basically anything on BBC1 around 9pm on one of those dreadful Michael Mcintyre shows). A lot of humour is "punching down", abusive, cruel and that's where the humour comes from. But that's just me. Frankie Boyle's humour is not particularly funny either and he had no problem making jokes about Katie Price's kid or disabled people, you know? Is that is any better than Gervais in that clip? His humour to me is nastier than Gervais's too but then he's become "political" now and moved on from that (still not funny) Fuck me, I hope you're not insinuating I spend my evenings watching Michael McIntyre! FFS! It's certainly an interesting topic, and I wasn't holding Frankie Boyle up to be a bastion of taste (I don't think his stand-up material is that strong, either, btw), just that I think he's one of the few comedians who can still properly offend with wit. Just occasionally he steps well beyond accepted bounds, but is either cutting or florid enough to get the laugh. And he does that as himself, not in character, although the person/persona debate may still apply. Which is where I think the problem with Gervais is. The character is often the same, at least from his early TV show, his David Brent, his stand-up. Not seen him for years, mind, because I don't watch much telly. But it's the source material, there's not much that clever about it, you wonder how much is written from the cheap laugh perspective first, and then has the veneer of Brent placed in front. And it always seems to be punching down, aiming for the low-blow, the cheap "ooh, he shouldn't have said that" effect. There's something about the contract between performer and audience isn't there? You say it's not the same audience as Bernard Manning and Jim Davidson, but the people watching them probably didn't think of themselves as cunts either. People turn up, knowing there'll be the transgression, knowing they don't completely agree, so it's all ok and above board. I find it unappealing. And yeah, if Gervais was really funny, I'm sure I'd give him more rope. Which is where my own morality all starts to fall apart.
|
|
|
Post by Crunchy Col on Mar 11, 2019 22:18:48 GMT
Couple of laughs in that Partridge thing tonight.
|
|
|
Post by Reactionary Rage on Mar 11, 2019 22:57:18 GMT
Well he's in character for starters. I don't find it funny but that's the thing, isn't it? If you find it funny you find it funny, if you don't it becomes more problematic because it's NOT FUNNY. It's interesting that's the first thing you mention, the fact that's it not funny. I don't feel the need to defend Gervais too much because I don't feel that strongly about him really but he clearly likes transgressive humour and I think there is value in that and personally I rarely find humour that is so right on it avoids any possible accusations of being "offensive" funny at all (basically anything on BBC1 around 9pm on one of those dreadful Michael Mcintyre shows). A lot of humour is "punching down", abusive, cruel and that's where the humour comes from. But that's just me. Frankie Boyle's humour is not particularly funny either and he had no problem making jokes about Katie Price's kid or disabled people, you know? Is that is any better than Gervais in that clip? His humour to me is nastier than Gervais's too but then he's become "political" now and moved on from that (still not funny) Fuck me, I hope you're not insinuating I spend my evenings watching Michael McIntyre! FFS! It's certainly an interesting topic, and I wasn't holding Frankie Boyle up to be a bastion of taste (I don't think his stand-up material is that strong, either, btw), just that I think he's one of the few comedians who can still properly offend with wit. Just occasionally he steps well beyond accepted bounds, but is either cutting or florid enough to get the laugh. And he does that as himself, not in character, although the person/persona debate may still apply. Which is where I think the problem with Gervais is. The character is often the same, at least from his early TV show, his David Brent, his stand-up. Not seen him for years, mind, because I don't watch much telly. But it's the source material, there's not much that clever about it, you wonder how much is written from the cheap laugh perspective first, and then has the veneer of Brent placed in front. And it always seems to be punching down, aiming for the low-blow, the cheap "ooh, he shouldn't have said that" effect. There's something about the contract between performer and audience isn't there? You say it's not the same audience as Bernard Manning and Jim Davidson, but the people watching them probably didn't think of themselves as cunts either. People turn up, knowing there'll be the transgression, knowing they don't completely agree, so it's all ok and above board. I find it unappealing. And yeah, if Gervais was really funny, I'm sure I'd give him more rope. Which is where my own morality all starts to fall apart. Boyle is on stage so even though it's him it's still Frankie Boyle: comedian. There is always a degree of artifice there I think which of course lets comedians explore things, push boundaries, play with personas and so on. Say things with a knowing wink and talking about shit we think but don't necessarily say. That to me is one of the great functions of stand ups. It cuts through these social norms and adult bullshit and recognises something universal and human. I think some of this applies Gervais but I don't think he's a great stand up, merely a decent one which is part of the problem I guess. Like I said, if you laugh you can overlook the other stuff to a significant degree. I don't have a problem with the whole "punching down" thing like you do. I actually think it's rather patronising but there is no one rule for all. It can be problematic but I generally find it preferable to the alternative. Like political correctness I think it actually gets in the way somehow. Humour is a reaction to something. You can't control it. To judge people who attend a Gervais show like that is a bit odd to me just because they laugh at some shit they aren't supposed to according to X or Y.
|
|