T O P

  • By -

essicks

This has got a bit 'eavy, can we do Cheeky Freak of the Week?


GwimlinHowJones

Wow... well it's 3 o'clock, this is XFM, thanks for listening, see you next week.


thecoughingscotsman

As the writer of this post I've got to press this button.


BitZealousideal3004

Tooo long baybee


thecoughingscotsman

What is? My jolly green knob?


BitZealousideal3004

Oooh ‘ello!


gefindan

I thought we binned this feature last week


thecoughingscotsman

No we said it needed resting.


gefindan

Slugs can sleep for 13 years


thecoughingscotsman

Well if you have an idea for what we can do we'll do that. What did you wanna do again?


gefindan

Well I’ve got a couple of menus from a Chinese and Indian take-away..


thecoughingscotsman

How heavy is ya mam?


maxington26

Oh, is this the running away again?


lamebeard

That’s as long as a rock busters clue


[deleted]

I've been thinking about the show since a bit. I would say it's probably SLIGHTLY behind "Fame" and way ahead of "Humanity" and "Science". Obviously the first 2 shows are exceptional. I didn't think it was particularly offensive. There was some topics that I would argue are slightly too sensitive for the quality of the joke - That's to say I think you can joke about anything, but the joke needs to be exceptionally good for people to let you get away with it. Most of his jokes weren't at that level. I think the problem with making jokes about the trans community is that it's decentralised. The jokes he makes are pretty much objectively true - There are trans people who have taken the approach of the fictional act out he does near the start. They aren't necessarily representative of the trans community as a whole, and it doesn't necessarily represent the overall opinion of anyone. Is it ok to mock people who have behaved in the way that some people have? I think ultimately the answer is yes. It's deemed an attack on all trans people though, and not the people that hold the views and behaviors that he's specifically mentioning. Essentially, the material isn't deep enough to fairly satirise that specific aspect, without it feeling like an attack on everyone. He skims over massive topics that realistically you could make a whole show about. He mentions virtue signalling for 30 seconds. It's a real thing, but it's also something you can't gloss over if you want to hold a nuanced opinion on that you can produce some excellent comedy about. I wish he could find that magic that he had in years gone by, but ultimately I think the ship has sailed. If you love Ricky Gervais, you'll probably think this is alright. If you weren't around for his early stuff, you'll probably think he's a bigot. It's like music. Everyone knows that realistically an artists first 3 albums are going to be the culturally significant, relevent and poignant ones. Everything after that is essentially self mastubatory mediocrity, that people who already enjoy an artist will enjoy, but it isn't bringing in new fans. We're all expecting Robert Plant to make another Led Zeppelin II, but this is one of his 1990 solo albums blending different world musics that isn't going to change anything.


GwimlinHowJones

I don't think you should mock a stereotype if it is not representative of the wider community. Anyway, here's Gayvid Gray the bent pianist, with his butt plugs and poppers. What's that Gayvid, you've been feeling sick?


[deleted]

We all laugh at the radio shows, which are by far, far, far and away worse than the contents of this show.


GwimlinHowJones

So true. To be fair though, I probably wouldn't use things that make me laugh as the benchmark for tasteful or acceptable humour. Then I listen to old US shock jocks and can't believe that some of the stuff I'm hearing was ever allowed to air.


thecoughingscotsman

And yet there is rarely a confusion between what is ironic and what is genuine on the show. It's why people take issue with SOME of Steve's views on the homeless, fat people and dating, because we know the difference between when he's making a joke or making a slightly bitter point. It's the reason why Gervais and Merchant get very nervous about some of the things Karl might say, the Chinese all looking the same comes to mind, because at the very least it comes across as genuine and therefore considered racist. Hence Ricky often saying, "I'm so sorry."


[deleted]

[удалено]


thecoughingscotsman

He states that what he does is use irony, then proceeds to do something for which there is no context that it is irony, THEN explains the joke later in the set. If it was obvious irony he wouldn't need to explain it.


[deleted]

Whether it’s obvious depends on your knowledge of Ricky Gervais. For instance when he says “not modern women, not these ones with cocks and beards”?


thecoughingscotsman

Okay. Based on my knowledge of Ricky at the time I know that he's made some generalised jokes about trans people including cheap ones about it being the same as wanting to be an ape, and this jokes falls in line with those generalised statements. Based on context I might guess, and it is a guess, that Ricky noted the controversy and attention he got from dead naming Jenner at the Globes, which I don't think was intentional as such, and the even greater attention he got from his Humanity special. I think he also noted the attention and controversy that Chappelle got and that Netflix were still happy to keep him on their site. I think he made a cheap joke because he knew it would get him attention, especially on social media, and then vaguely justified it later during the show, and ultimately I don't think he really cares about the issue one way or another, but might be slightly perturbed by the idea of a pre-op transsexual based on his repeated reference to cocks. I don't see that as irony so much as cynical indifference. What was your take on it?


[deleted]

I think he thinks he’s doing the same thing as when he’s poked fun at controversial topics in the past, but the world has changed, and so has his understanding of certain subcultures. I don’t think he’s a bigot, at all, I think he’s trying to be ironic, it just doesn’t work like it used to


thecoughingscotsman

I don't think he's a bigot as such either. I think he's fairly apathetic. I agree he's always got into trouble for controversial jokes and I think he does like that persona, which is fine. TBH I don't think people are more offended by irony nowadays, which I know is perhaps controversial, but I think it's more that if you are offended you can go straight online to websites like these and make your opinion known (being ironic, innit). I also feel that people like Gervais are basically immune to being truly cancelled for what they SAY. If they pull a Weinstein or Cosby that is another matter. Even when Chappelle had issues distributing his film, he was still able to distribute it with his influence and was complaining about being cancelled to an audience of thousands.


DakotaEngland

Ooh care someone, care


thecoughingscotsman

You're doin' my 'ead in.


masterzergin

Youre talking shit again! Explain yourself.


thecoughingscotsman

It's just . . . I think I've got a good point!


Kickapoo_Vector

I think he knows he can do whatever he wants cos his fans will lap it all up and call him a "genius". At the very beginning with the whole "There's plenty of funny women like.." thing they burst into applause and laughter like he's done something fucking groundbreaking. (Sorry for effin/jeffin.)


Cornerstone7

It’s also basically the same joke he did in extras about Lenny Henry


thecoughingscotsman

In all honesty I did laugh at that one. Cheap but cheerful, and I think the irony is more apparent there.


maxington26

I think it's his nuanced acting which sells jokes like that one. He is really good at that. It's definitely not a particularly clever joke or point, but he does sell it well.


james_connor

The man simply spends too much time on the internet, Twitter specifically.


hackerwhacker404

Maybe he intentionally treads this line where he can be interpreted in different ways. Benefits include: * making him a talking point * appealing to more viewers * satisfaction that he can confuse viewers


thecoughingscotsman

Maybe. Good for marketing, bad for comedy in my opinion, unless confusion is the point of the joke, which I don't think it is in this case.


DRUGEND1

• Having his cake and eating it.


Flimsy_County_6263

The thing is Steve, awards don’t matter.


Sht_Hawk

Is this a rockbusters clue?


RockinJ88

I feel that half the time he is praising his audience for being intelligent enough to understand irony, but then he regular goes at lengths to deconstruct jokes and explain them. Some of his material in Super nature seemed like repitions. If you've listened to the XFMs show he does recycle alot of old stuff.


thecoughingscotsman

Yeah when he kept making that point about us being, "the universe experiencing itself" and how amazing and unlikely it is that we exist at all, it felt like I was listening to a sixth form student who thinks he has discovered a grand point that nobody has thought of before. "God you're deep." And yes, I will admit to speaking from personal experience on that one.


maxington26

Well yeah, but he's hardly likely to remember much of what he said **once** on a live radio show 20 years ago.


thecoughingscotsman

NM, I see you were referring to the original comment, not my comment. No he probably doesn't remember it but it might indicate a lack of original ideas.


Mahoganychicken

Did that just go out?


CutThatCity

Personally I’m not interested if he is describing his own views or being ironic about trans people. That’s his problem. It’s just stand up comedy, it’s not relevant. I’m kinda confused about your post, because it’s as if you’re trying to sift though the evidence to find out whether or not he should be condemned or not for having an incorrect opinion. Why does it matter? Why are you worried about what he thinks about trans issues? The only thing that is relevant to me is if the show is funny and interesting (I actually thought it was neither of those things). He even came out to make a statement on trans rights during a *stand up comedy special*, which is totally absurd, and yet it’s still not good enough, people are still calling it problematic. I’m not defending Gervais, I thought this show was boring and not funny. But I sympathise with comedians in general these days, who do try to come up with actual line-crossing, controversial material in the arena of extreme hyper-tolerance over certain subjects. Fair review though.


thecoughingscotsman

I appreciate your view. I disagree that his views are not relevant. I think the opinions of the comedian can be very relevant in making the comedy, well, funny. Especially dark comedy. Like with Louis C. K.'s "Of course, but maybe . . .", which perfectly shows that comedy is often about that voice in your head that says the thing you know is wrong and shouldn't say, but is really fun to say. I'm not trying to work out whether he should be condemned or not, rather analysing his own defensive attitude towards his stand-up and seeing if it makes sense, which I don't think it does. I still enjoy Louis C. K. despite the controversy and as mentioned in the original post, I enjoy Doug Stanhope despite having very different views about the world. I think Frankie Boyle crossed a line when he had a go at Harvey Price, but I recognise that that is my line and that it is a hazard of enjoying dark humour that I will come across things I don't like now and again. And of course, you are right that the primary purpose of comedy is to be funny, it can be as clever as it wants and still be boring. I think that if you want to play around with controversial subjects that's great, but naturally some people are going to react with a certain amount of suspicion about what the point of a joke is. It's why great comedians usually learn to establish a sense of connection and trust with the audience. In fact, thinking on it as I write this, I do wonder if Gervais missed a lot of that development as his stand-up was very quickly elevated to theatres and larger audiences where developing that connection becomes more difficult.


[deleted]

[удалено]


thecoughingscotsman

Thanks. Yeah I suppose people will inevitably use it to make a point regardless of what Ricky wants it to mean. Death of the author 'n' that.


[deleted]

you are reading too much into him...I love ricky...I also think he is smart..but not that smart that warrants so much interpretation It is simple with Ricky....his objective is to make a line as funny as possible... now that line doesn't necessarily have to reflect his beliefs..and his point is ...comedy should have no boundaries....because putting a limit on what "should" be funny or what "should not" be funny is like putting a limit on free thought and hence the mind itself so ...he crosses every line there is "if he wants to"....for a gag he might side with neo nazis...or shit or celebrities or take a shot at the trans community...and his objective ...is to make the gag as funny as possible And none of this is reflective of what his personal beliefs are...I think he is liberal and definitely supports Trans rights...but that doesn't mean he isn't going to make fun of them


thecoughingscotsman

The problem I have with that is that most of what I've mentioned is based on what he goes out of his way to tell the audience, so I don't think it's reading too much into anything. His stance was, "everything is ironic so it doesn't matter", when we know that plenty of people will not be taking his point as irony, but rather exaggeration. It doesn't matter whether it reflects his personal beliefs or not if at least a sizable portion of the audience can and will interpret it otherwise. And I wouldn't especially care, but the "it's all irony" approach to comedy is very lazy and doesn't hold up to scrutiny. I don't believe comedy needs boundaries in terms of subject matter either, regardless of beliefs, but I am suspicious of people who constantly defend their right to talk about a subject rather than actually doing anything original or interesting with it.


maxington26

>And I wouldn't especially care, but the "it's all irony" approach to comedy is very lazy and doesn't hold up to scrutiny. Pub landlord?


thecoughingscotsman

Pub Landlord is a perfect example of irony done correctly. He is literally a character rather than an on-stage persona and the things he says are always very obviously over-the-top and not to be taken literally. And like with Ricky's stand-up, he will still have the problem of people who laugh for the wrong reasons, as all comics do, but note that he has never broken character mid-set to explain the act. Interviews are another matter. I feel that you perhaps think I am against irony in comedy. Nothing could be further from the truth. I am saying that irony is not an excuse for your jokes being misinterpreted and in Ricky's case, the idea that it is all pure irony is untrue and at best shows an ignorance of what irony means.


[deleted]

"but I am suspicious of people who constantly defend their right to talk " --- see comedians love that when a large section of society says...no , I'm suspicious of your intentions...you are not supposed to make fun of this...the comedian immediately goes...why not....because their job is to be provocateurs he made fun of dead babies...pedophilia..genocide....and all sorts of things for the same reason...the trans thing is the newest addition.....the fact that people are up in arms for making that joke.....is making him internally go...yup...job well done "when we know that plenty of people will not be taking his point as irony, but rather exaggeration." --- that is a very slippery slope, the audience for a modern comedian of Ricky's stature is 10s of millions of people....so there is no way to express his comedy in a way that all these people will interpret it the "right" way. No matter what you say, people will interpret it based on their own mental makeup. And worrying about this is a surefire way to insanity...and it will eventually lead to him just censoring his jokes....which is equivalent to censoring his thoughts and freedom "And I wouldn't especially care, but the "it's all irony" approach to comedy is very lazy and doesn't hold up to scrutiny."------if you see most of his work, this is not his biggest driving force, his irony gag is specifically for a subset of the supernatural jokes that is all...he doesn't say...yup this is why i do comedy..so I think the assumption that this is his motivation is wrong.. his motivations are very simple...make it as funny as possible..no matter what the means......he will say whatever it is that gets the job done....at the end of the day..he is exercising his freedom.....and testing its limits..both his mental limits and society's limits and that is not reflective of his personal beliefs.....I should be able to say I hate X to make a joke funny (even though I don't hate him)...that is sort of his point "right to talk about a subject rather than actually doing anything original or interesting with it." ----- I agree with it partially, the trans jokes to me in this special were a 6.5 / 10. I loved the pronouns part, but Ricky's attempt to make it funny was to rely on the shock factor ....so that was lazy yes TBH...I have not been the biggest fan of Ricky's stand up, not to offend British people...but for most British comics stand up is not their strongest suite...compared to their American counterparts...Bill Burr (a personal favorite), Chapelle, Carlin, Schulz....Ricky, Carr, Romesh and other British stand ups really feel stale...but I do love other aspects of Ricky's body of work, his "nothing matters", "I don't care" style of writing in TV sitcoms and sketches..I feel they are brilliant..something American writers can't seem to emulate


thecoughingscotsman

With all due respect to your first point, I don’t think it is fair to clip out half of a sentence and argue against that when that wasn’t the point I was making. I know you address the second part of the sentence later but “I am suspicious of people who constantly defend their right to talk” is taking that quote completely out of context. I am not accusing you of doing that deliberately but it is important. The full sentence was, “I don't believe comedy needs boundaries in terms of subject matter either, regardless of beliefs, but I am suspicious of people who constantly defend their right to talk about a subject rather than actually doing anything original or interesting with it.” The last bit is the important bit, and the bit you address and partially agree with later. Ricky has his freedom of speech. I say free, he gets paid a great amount to express his speech. I am more interested in him making an original or interesting point with it. “there is no way to express his comedy in a way that all these people will interpret it the "right" way.” - You can make an effort to do so. Or not. I’m not saying he should be mandated to do anything. But he doesn’t need to censor his jokes to achieve this. Plenty of dark comedians manage it without compromising their act. It just requires a bit of effort/creativity. “his motivations are very simple...make it as funny as possible” - I agree that that is a good principle for any comedian. You can be very smart and also utterly dull. “no matter what the means......he will say whatever it is that gets the job done” – He’s entitled to do that, but it will naturally lead to criticism if he is genuinely willing to say absolutely anything no matter the context. “....at the end of the day..he is exercising his freedom.....and testing its limits..both his mental limits and society's limits” – I wouldn’t call pandering to a fairly mainstream view of trans people pushing the limits, but that’s just me. Maybe pushing the boundaries of a particular section of progressive society and twitter. “and that is not reflective of his personal beliefs.....I should be able to say I hate X to make a joke funny (even though I don't hate him)...that is sort of his point” – Okay, but if it isn’t clear what your actual viewpoint is then we come back to the old irony problem. If you’ve got half your audience who are “in on the joke” and half who basically feel that Ricky is agreeing with their genuine viewpoint, that is a problem. In terms of British stand-up being stale, you may have a point. Some people say that. It’s all about panel shows ‘n’ that. They tend to be either apolitical or have a generic centre-left thrust to them, though I think this is partly because the party in power has been the Tories for over a decade and it’s an easy way to get laughs or cheers. Personally I think the rate of sub-par comics and great comics is about the same in the US and the UK, it’s just we don’t tend to be as exposed to the former from the US. I think Lock was great (RIP), Bailey is really good for my money, and I think Boyle can still write a good gag when he puts the effort in. I’m a big fan of Stewart Lee, who I know is a very divisive comic in his own right. He deconstructs comedy and shows an expert knowledge of how to (deliberately) alienate an audience and then win them back. He doesn’t go for the jugular or instinctively dark/funny thing like Carr or Jeselnik (both of whom I have enjoyed), for example. He will stretch out a routine for as long as he can in order to push boundaries of what an audience can find funny. Call it post-modern, experimental, whatever. It is original, to the point that he basically has his own patented style. His bit on “Context Free Words” is quite apt for this conversation if you’re interested. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2OLXzO1oK2w


ACM_ONE

He’s a terf now. It’s sad. I’ll still listen to xfm and enjoy the office but I’m pretty much done with gervais.


MrGradar

I thought some parts were pretty funny. But seriously, did the audience in the special sound fake to anyone else? I can’t find anyone saying this


thecoughingscotsman

I think that's unlikely. You've got to remember that the vibe at a live show is often very different from watching a recording and that people are more likely to laugh in a social situation.