In Contention


← →

Gervais calls it like it is

Posted by Kristopher Tapley · 8:42 am · January 21st, 2011

Piers Morgan started his new stint filling Larry King’s shoes this week, and last night it was Ricky Gervais across the desk:




Related Posts

→ 16 Comments Tags: , , | Filed in: Daily

16 responses so far

  • 1 1-21-2011 at 10:08 am

    Carlo said...

    Gervais was genius during the Globes and I love how great he’s doing standing up for himself.

    Love the last line of the clip! He put it so well.

  • 2 1-21-2011 at 10:35 am

    James D. said...

    The most bizarre part is that, in the run-up to the Globes, all the advertising material was promoting how he would not be censored or turned down on things. It is such a bizarre controversy.

  • 3 1-21-2011 at 11:33 am

    Maxim said...

    Maybe the problem is that he just failed and wasn’t that funny or (dare I say it witty)? It’s really sad watching a comedian blaming the audience for his own failure.

  • 4 1-21-2011 at 11:36 am

    Maxim said...

    And I am so tired of his hiding behind his whole, I am a poor outsider act.

    Dude, you ARE a Golden Globe winner with some recent film roles. You are better known that most people on that stage You may not be anywhere close an A-List star but enough of that D-List bullcrap.

    Just admit that you are a douche and move on.

  • 5 1-21-2011 at 11:37 am

    Kristopher Tapley said...

    “Maybe the problem is that he just failed and wasn’t that funny or (dare I say it witty)?”

    Not really the problem, seeing as that’s such a minority opinion (from what I can tell). As always, no one projects like you do, Maxim.

    Can you really argue with anything he’s saying here? Or are you content to hide behind weak “douche” insults and stomp off?

  • 6 1-21-2011 at 12:07 pm

    Maxim said...

    “Not really the problem, seeing as that’s such a minority opinion (from what I can tell). ”

    If my opinion is really so uncommon, then how do you explain the fact that Gervais’s hosting became a topic of such controversy?

    I’m not stomping off. What I wrote directly adressed the comments he made after the show (i.e. I am an outsider, could not have done anything else, am stunned at the reception and , this one really gets me the most, do not want to have anything else with that lot anyway – sour grapes).

    I firmly stand by opinion that was Gervais was doing had nothing to do with roasting (which I have no problem with). His entire act was far more akin to heckeling. And like a heckler he took advantage of the opportunity he had. And in the case of what he said about the Globes President were specifically designed to offend. Not, in a “I’m going to give this guy a hard time”, kind of way (and trust me I know the difference) but in a full on, I am going to make this guy my bi1ch and will make him hate me kind of way.

    If you honestly think that this kind of behavior is entertaining or feel like it could possibly be rationalized in any way, then more power to you. Honestly. From where I stand, nothing he says could ever make me see it in a different light.

    My argument remains that as far as pushing the boundaries goes, he was playing it extremely safe, picked the softest targests imaginable and never once uttered a statement that could, by itself be debated in any way. And I am sorry if I am not bothered by the fact that not finding him funny puts me in the minority.

  • 7 1-21-2011 at 12:27 pm

    tony rock said...

    It doesn’t matter if he was funny or not because that’s not what the controversy is about. It’s about people feeling “offended.” And those people are spoiled pussies.

  • 8 1-21-2011 at 12:42 pm

    Kristopher Tapley said...

    Maxim: You’re twisting it. You seem to think the controversy was over his act being objectively “bad,” when a great many seem to prefer his work this year over last. The controversy, of course, is over how far he supposedly went.

    You’re also projecting an awful lot (as usual) onto Gervais’s words.

    I have no problem with heckling, by the way. And what tony said.

  • 9 1-21-2011 at 12:58 pm

    Hans said...

    This is a room of rich, multimillionaire, beautiful people patting each other on the back for three hours. They aren’t aid workers in Haiti. They can afford to take a few jokes.

  • 10 1-21-2011 at 1:20 pm

    Maxim said...

    “You seem to think the controversy was over his act being objectively “bad”.

    If *that* is the impression you got from my words, then it’s unintentional as I do agree with you on what started this controversy. At this point though I think Gervais is just riding this thing, which confirms my impression of it being semi-anticipated.

    It is unfortuate though, is that in your attempt to margenalize me by selectively choosing which of my arguments to address you side with non-entities like TR here. You are smarter than that, when you care to try to understand the other’s argument. If the starving tough guy would also be so kind as to explain to me in what way, I personally was “offended” by Gervais I would be much greatful. In any case, I guess he felt the same way about people who complained about the remarks about Andrew Sachs’s daughter a couple of years back so I guess there’s no point inn debating with people like that.
    And what I said about Guy Lodge.

    That said, even as I have placed my a fair share of emphasis on the quality aspect of his “work”, I haven’t twisted a single thing. The post-Globes video I referred to is out there, you are free to point out *specifically* what it was that I got wrong.

    “I have no problem with heckling, by the way.”
    Call it projecting, if you will, but I shall take this as a sign that you at least partially acknowledge that this label applies to Gervais. I just wish you’d acknoledge it fully as I would make it so much less confrontational to argue his act based on those types of merits.

    And for someone, who claims not to mind heckling, you sure seem to have a problem when someone directs an insult at you. I’m just saying.
    But it is your site so I guess it makes every disagreement more personal, or, I don’t know, less honest, even if it isn’t.

  • 11 1-21-2011 at 1:30 pm

    Kristopher Tapley said...

    I’m only selectively choosing the arguments that seem asinine, so forgive me if:

    “Maybe the problem is that he just failed and wasn’t that funny or (dare I say it witty)?”

    Followed up with:

    “If my opinion is really so uncommon, then how do you explain the fact that Gervais’s hosting became a topic of such controversy?”

    Seems to be indicating that the controversy is as a result of the perceived fact that his act “wasn’t that funny.”

    I’m not making things up here…

    And I agree with what tony said. So I’ll happily side with him, “non-entity” (what does THAT mean?) or not.

    “Call it projecting, if you will, but I shall take this as a sign that you at least partially acknowledge that this label applies to Gervais.”

    Indeed I do. When Gervais says he thinks it’s a comedian’s job to make an audience think, not just laugh, it’s worth pointing out that he took aim at a lowly organization with jokes about the Cher trip and “The Tourist” being a nominee for obvious reasons. If that got anyone watching at home to think, “Hm, maybe this group is a big joke,” then I’m all for it.

    As for the attempted thin skin comparison, the point remains, when it’s deserved it’s deserved.

  • 12 1-21-2011 at 2:02 pm

    Guy Lodge said...

    I’m intrigued (and not a little amused) as to what Maxim thinks makes him less of a “non-entity” than any other commenter hiding behind a fake handle.

  • 13 1-22-2011 at 12:57 am

    lac said...

    I doubt his appearance would have been controversial if it had been funny. He was trying to hard to be provocative and forget to make people laugh.

    His performance reminded me of Chelsea Handler. Whose more about being mean and shocking rather than being funny. People react not because it is funny but because they are glad it’s not them being talked about or they enjoy other people being but in there place.

    Oh I see on Pier’s shows, he skirted the whole question about who were the two Scientology actors. I guess he doesn’t always call it like it is.

  • 14 1-22-2011 at 4:43 am

    Guy Lodge said...

    I doubt his appearance would have been controversial if it had been funny.

    Like Maxim, you’re taking your own personal response as a given. Plenty of people thought he was funny.

  • 15 1-22-2011 at 5:51 am

    sara said...

    Not only he was rude , he was so unfunny that it made me sad. For me he just looked like a sore loser picking on the popular guys. His jokes were terrible, the one with Hugh Hefner “joke” was downright vulgar, whats so funny about calling Cher old? oh I see old people are repulsive, thast why he also made that ridiculous UNFUNNY joke about the HFPA president.

    I think Chelsea Handler can be very mean most of the time, but at least she is funny. Rick looked pathetic.

  • 16 1-22-2011 at 10:12 am

    Jim T said...

    I thought he was funny but, really, why do something so cheap? Just because you can?

    If you want to be funny, try to be without making people feel uncomfortable. They know the Tourist is bad. Don’t remind them.

    Maybe it’s just english humour. That would only mean english humour is bad. But I’m not sure that’s exactly the case.

    That said, I totally like Gervais as a person. And I do take some sadistic satisfaction to hear the truth. But if I want to be fair, it’s not cool.