Was Ricky Gervais Set Up?
Over the last week or so, film-culture observers witnessed an odd phenomenon sweep the country: A palpable, recognizable feel of anticipation -- for an awards show. Even rarer was the reason behind it. When the Hollywood Foreign Press Association announced that Ricky Gervais would return for a third stint emceeing the Golden Globe Awards, we expected a return to last year’s delirious exercise in blunt-force celebrity accountability.
After all, it was only a year ago that a parade of offended A-listers and scandalized organizers protest the infamous ruthlessness delivered from the podium. The Elite let it be known they did not appreciate digs at Robert Downey Jr.’s drug history, or as Ricky commented about the Sex and the City cast, “Great job girls, we know how old you are – I saw one of you in an episode of Bonanza." Thus it was with no small amount of surprise -- and not just a little apprehension within Hollywood -- that we received word of Gervais agreeing to host again this year. However, after the British comic appeared to have wilted over much of Sunday night, we have to ask: Was this an orchestrated hit-job by the studios, the HFPA and Hollywood as a whole?
It wasn't supposed to be this way. Despite all the vitriol directed back at Gervais following last year’s caustic turn, NBC's ads for the 2012 iteration featured the host snipping a silken mouth gag away with scissors, as if to promise an ensuing controversy and a reason to watch. Prior to the telecast, Entertainment Weekly published a lengthy column from Gervais proclaiming his duties as a comedian to eviscerate the pompous, and then detailing specific jokes he had uttered at the last telecast. (Because nothing helps a failed joke better than explaining why it is funny.) Indicating how he would not let up this year Gervais quoted Horatio Nelson, regarding men doing their duty. “I did,” wrote the comedian about his previous stint, “And I will again.”
However, last night we saw not only Gervais's (arguably) inevitable failure to reach last year’s superstar-tweaking heights, but what felt like a coordinated effort to both muzzle and get even with the acerbic host. As it turned out, all of the most amusing lines came not from the host but the presenters, and those that cut deepest were aimed at Gervais himself. In and of itself, this is not a bad thing -- Gervais can take it. However, where was the give-and-take? As the night evolved we saw stars wielding knives and a host reduced to using safety scissors.
At least things began well for both Gervais and viewers. “Tonight you get Britain's biggest comedian, hosting the world's second biggest awards show on America's third biggest network," he said before catching himself. "Sorry, is it? Fourth. It's fourth.” Gervais also looked like he wouldn’t pull any punches when he remarked, “The Golden Globes are just like the Oscars, except without all that ‘esteem’.” From that point, however, his trademark edge dulled its way through a bloodless monologue. (Digs on Kim Kardashian and Justin Bieber!) The very first presenter was Johnny Depp, one of the megafamous who notoriously had their noses out of joint following the 2011 show. Gervais asked Depp if he had actually seen The Tourist (a wry jab at Depp and Angelina Jolie's critically reviled yet Golden Globe-nominated film from a year ago); the actor admitted risibly that he had not, then made a curious turn and stalked Gervais as he walked offstage.
For those watching at home and at the Beverly Hilton alike, the exchange tipped the mood for the night. At best, Gervais and Depp shared a laugh, as if to say, "We're in this together." At worst, Depp reclaimed the Globes for the stars, offering a dour aside about the host -- “Oh, he’s fun" – and thus opening the gates for his fragile peers to have their way.
Amid the other celebrities having fun at the podium, Gervais waded and ultimately faded into the low-hanging fruit. We endured stars repeating cock jokes and references to how brilliant “Bridesmaids” had been (though, to hear numerous presenters tell it, the only funny part was a crapping-in-the-sink scene), all glued together with Gervais's tepid commentary. He bum-kissed George Clooney by way of intro. (Did he actually call him the “Cloon-meister”?) Then he introduced Madonna with a joke well beyond its expiration date -- about her being "like a virgin" -- that paved the way for Madge to get triply acidic in return. “If I’m still just ‘like a virgin,' Ricky, then why don’t you come over here and do something about it," she sniped. "I haven’t kissed a girl in a few years.”
The exchange came as a welcome jolt, a return to the Globes' contentious recent form. But then... nothing. Gervais did not return volley. The fix was in.
Gervais welcomed Antonio Banderas and Salma Hayak, getting bleeped as he commented about not being able to understand what they say; Banderas replied with a lengthy Spanish-language diatribe towards the host (translation forthcoming eventually? Maybe?). Meanwhile, Robert Downey Jr., one of the most outspoken Gervais critics from the 2011 awardscast, simply ignored the comic he'd once excoriated as "mean-spirited and sinister." Huh? Now we knew the Globes had been neutered. Gervais returned, pint in hand, and makes a comment about being paid to drink and say whatever he wants, but it had long become obvious he was completely muzzled.
Next up was Colin Firth, whom Gervais described as an “evil” racist who punches blind kittens. The host was clearly having fun, and one got the sense that they're actually friends. But then Firth took over, describing a group of protestors in front of the ballroom. “Some very angry religious people are outside with big placards threatening us all with brimstone and pestilence and perdition for our sins," he said. "What they don't realize is, we have Ricky."
Firth and Gervais may in fact have worked this out, but the Oscar-winner sounded as full of contempt as Downey and others had been last year. It underscored the feeling that Gervais had been targeted -- or at least, in the instance that we'd witnessed a pair of compatriots breaking each other's balls, it suggested that he was in on the joke, toothlessly playing along with Hollywood's public revenge without once returning fire.
It reminded me of a scene from Animal House, of all things: Throughout that film, Tim Matheson’s character Otter mocked the establishment and thumbed his nose at the fraternity brethren, while taking liberties with their women. In the third act he is called to a rendezvous with one debutante, but instead enters a room of angry frat guys who have their way with him. Gervais persevered as the HFPA's Otter: invited back to the party, yet placed on a short leash, while the stars were encouraged to let fly. And however justified the industry elite felt in their retribution, much like that decades-old revenge scene, Sunday night’s ambush came off as neither funny nor particularly entertaining.
In any case, it certainly was not what we had been sold. Take those scissors away from Gervais, and the gagged likeness on the 69th Golden Globes poster was a truer representation. The biggest problem? It wasn't why people tuned in.
[Photo: Getty Images]
Subscribe to the new Movieline on YouTube
Comments
Glad I didn't take the time to watch the thing. I only tune in to the interwebs for the highlights anyway. Who watches the whole thing through anymore?
Good insight though, and a tad disappointing. Perhaps Ricky really, really doesn't want to be invited back?
Brad - Nice job voicing what many of us thought as we watched in horror, realizing that the third time was not the charm for Gervais.
Maybe it was all some sort of meta-joke , and the joke was on us, the viewers, all tuning into this stupid awards show hoping that someone would make fun of everything for our amusement, when all along the best entertainers... were ourselves.
Your mind is the scene of the crime!
BWAMMMMMM!!!
...Robert Downey had no problem whatsoever with Gervais. If the "sinister undertones" quote was too subtle a joke, you could have at least watched the clip in which he explained to Graham Norton that this "controversy" was a sham.
I'm sorry, Brad Slager, that Ricky's performance and the celebs' reactions weren't suitable fodder for your sensationalist, conflict-hungry, sub-tabloid writing style. On second thought, David Foster Wallace "wrote." Perhaps I should consider your work something different entirely.
A recent study commissioned by the United Nations indicates that the United States has a literacy rate lower than expected - around 75%. You, Brad, make a great case for this being not necessarily a bad thing - if more people could read tripe like yours, how much dumber would we be as a nation?
It's always a good idea to fling insults when trying to avoid conflict.
You sound a bit peckish yourself.
Uh, I'm not trying to avoid conflict, Andrew.
Well Jane...you're certainly not avoiding coming across as a pompous, arrogant, condescending faux cognoscente. So...cheers. Go back to sending unpublished missives to McSweeney's.
Wow. What a b%$ch you come across as, Jane. Which is unfortunate, because you do have a point in one of your paragraphs. I DVR'd the show and basically just flew through it in about a half an hour to watch Gervais' stuff. Not sure what everyone was expecting. Is every episode of The Simpson's better than the last?
Yes, it wasn't quite as funny as last year, but so what? It was still funny. And Gervais was hardly in it. All his stuff was about 15 minutes of screen time in a three hour program. I don't agree with the personal attacks against you, Brad. You are a perfectly fine writer. But I think this article, like many others with it, just shows what happens when expectations get pumped too high. Awards shows are almost always boring. Gervais is still a good host. I wish his jokes were a little funnier, but I'm not crying my eyes out over it.
I'd agree with that except for the faux cognoscente part. My standards are actually pretty low. 🙂
OMG, I cannot tell you how much I LOVE when petty little people like Jane use these high-falutin' I'm-so-intelligent arguments to argue something completely pathetic. The fact of the matter is, it is well-documented that many celebrities WERE upset by his comments last year, and because of THOSE WHINERS we, the people who pay for all of this, were subjected to a show with almost NO entertainment value. People who enjoy being under-entertained shouldn't crap all over those of us who would like to be.
Hi, Kev. The fact that you refer to my argument as "high-falutin' I'm-so-intelligent" - when it's actually pretty bourgeois - reveals a lot about you lack intellectually.
Seriously, if you think *I* am pretentiously pedantic, you're obviously not very well read.
Also, I didn't talk about other celebrities. They are irrelevant.
Oh, straw man arguments.
I destroyed Brad's counter-argument in my second response, but it was moderated out.
Nothing was "moderated out." Your comment got caught up in a spam filter for some reason.
Thanks for mentioning it; I tracked it down, and it's restored now.
Obviously the spam filter is a staunch member and supporter of the patriarchy.
We do try to keep it set firmly in "Patriarchy Mode" whenever possible, but I'm afraid this time was just an honest accident.
S.T. VanAirsdale is my favorite.
[Bashful eye-batting]
Well Jane, I'm sorry my Graham Norton-ignorance offends. What I find interesting however is while railing against my desire for for venom from Ricky you expressed no complaints about the venom we saw from the celebs. Somehow I'm a plebeian for wanting to see more from the host, and you are an elevated for enjoying Madonna's wit.
Strawman. Not addressing Madonna's comments isn't an implicit admission of enjoyment.
It's also irrelevant to the issue I raised, which is about shoddy, sensationalist reporting. Madonna's comments were obviously pointed; report away.
The Gervais-Downey situation - something upon which a significant portion of your article is predicated - didn't really occur as you claimed. Bad reporting.
Finally, I'm not particularly offended by you. I just view you as something less than a human being overall. We can still be friends.
It is amusing that while trying to tear me apart with hyperbole and condescension you discredit yourself by exhibiting a remarkable lack of reading comprehension.
To wit, the "Gervais-Downey situation" you say made up a "significant portion" of my column comprised exactly ONE sentence of my lengthy piece. Now,whatever Mr. Downey may have said on a fey British talk show is irrelavant because -- again if you had read what I wrote -- I was referencing what Downey said DURING that awards show. (My quote regarding Downey's words: "from the 2011 awardscast", meaning spoken during said show.) Ergo, it did occur as I claimed.
However you have already discredited your views with your wildly inaccurate and unattributed claims to U.S. literacy rates (which hover around the 98% mark)and by the fact you are defending an awards telecast that has been widely panned as an unwatchable affair.
And on a last note, the entire purpouse of Gervaise hosting the telecast was PRECISELY set up for him to evicerate the celebrities once again. The promotions, and his column in Entertainment Weekly, were all centered on him being controversial. For you to say I was out of line,sensationalistic, and conflict-hungry (Find where I called for Ricky to do such)because I expected to see the very thing that NBC and the HFPA promised they would deliver is abjectly naive on your part. Re-read my last paragraph again (or, for the first time) to grasp the purpose of this article.
I thought Firth missed an opportunity to have the best joke in an otherwise mirthless and dull affair.
"That kitten deserved it."
And the Madonna part...ugh...non-funny pompous a-holes should not try and be funny, it just makes them appear more pompous and unfunny while floundering their way through a badly told joke.
It was funny to read some stars before the show being wary of what Ricky would say.
And they certainly had their revenge but they didn't look good. Some of them just looked foolish, other were boring, most of them were unfunny.
Some of them tried raunchy jokes and all of them had to be aware of one thing: complimenting one another and basking in their own awesomeness can be boring to watch for us, little people. And if they can't take a Ricky Gervais, then they will have to think of something to make themselves more interesting to avoid those ratings dropping any further.
All this just seems like backlash backlash, or backlash fatigue, or something. So it wasn't as nasty and offensive as expected, and people are disappointed? Oy.
I am baffled as to why no media outlet or entertainment blog can be bothered to translate Antonio Banderas' rant though. Apparently he was quoting Calderón de la Barca, a Spanish playwright from the 1600s, but I guess we will never know.
Sweet, I find the lack of a Banderas translation odd as well. It wasn't for a lack of looking, but by deadline I found none, including on Latin publications that haile dhim for speaking in their tounge.
I enjoyed the give and take and was not too surprised either way. He's a good host and doesn't seem to take himself too seriously.
The presenters themselves are what crush an awards night. If they can't utter a 30 second blurb in a personable, observant manner, they shouldn't be presenters.
Didn't see the Globes, but the difference sounds to be that Otter DIDN'T LET himself get beat on. Gervais sounds like a guy who mostly just wants to Hollywood count; even if here obsequious and hereafter a done story, no one, he hugs to himself, can take this away from him! Let's file in mind that for something interesting, we need to look to a different kind of person -- THIS was in him from the start.
When someone quotes a master, Calderon de la Barca, it's not a rant- I think Banderas made point- Spanish is a beautiful language with a rich history- Banderas'
English is wonderful compared to Gervais - who knows nothing...
No, Brad. Stop projecting *your* poor reading comprehension onto me. Now, I shall dismantle you point by point.
"To wit, the "Gervais-Downey situation" you say made up a "significant portion" of my column comprised exactly ONE sentence of my lengthy piece."
Oh, the Ron Paul defense! Reread what I wrote. Your article relies on the assumption of celebrity outrage. The only individual you mention by name in the article's text happens to be Robert Downey Jr. Pretty significant.
Note that "significant part of what your article is predicated upon" doesn't mean "what the majority of your article's sentences explicitly state." I'm talking about the premise. I'll gloss over the fact that you refer to the incident in more than one sentence (see third-to-last paragraph).
"fey British talk show"
Dig at Mr. Norton's sexuality noted.
"Ergo, it did occur as I claimed."
Perhaps you missed the part in which I claimed you didn't understand the subtle comedic angle of that remark. Context matters, and you clearly understand this as evidenced by your Firth/Gervais comments - you simply did not apply it to the Downey/Gervais situation. Ergo, sensationalism.
"However you have already discredited your views with your wildly inaccurate and unattributed claims to U.S. literacy rates (which hover around the 98% mark)"
Whoa there, projection machine. *Your* stat is unattributed. *Mine* mentions a specific study commissioned by a specific group! As reading comprehension is important to you I invite you to scroll up and reread.
"the fact you are defending an awards telecast that has been widely panned as an unwatchable affair."
Straw man, again. (I'm 16 and it seems I understand logical fallacy better than you.) I did not defend the awards telecast at all. Whether it was good or bad has nothing to do with my argument. The degree to which others like it is also irrelevant to my argument. You're trying to find strength in numbers, but the numbers don't actually disagree with my point.
(Better to stick with the hordes who think I'm a b word and peckish and a generally unpleasant pedant!)
"I expected to see the very thing that NBC and the HFPA promised they would deliver is abjectly naive on your part."
My communications teacher said you just made her day for criticizing me as naive while simultaneously admitting to believing television marketing hype.
I want to apply for Brad's job! I'm sensationalist enough to lure big-time writers into article-length arguments (and controversy equals clicks, right?), but I also check my facts well enough to preemptively avoid those nasty libel suits!
;)~
You may be a treasure, Jane, but some of us wouldn't want someone so intent to insult and humiliate a person writing on this site. Did your communications teacher happen to say anything about your attempt to dehumanize Brad? He/she didn't just compliment your verve while ignoring your reference(s) to Brad as "something less than a human being overall," did s/he? In every sentence you seem mostly intent to establish yourself as resolutely right, and to poke for any possible opening to cripple your opponent. This isn't fun to encounter.
(I'm 16 and it seems I understand logical fallacy better than you.)
BUT OFFICER, I COULD HAVE SWORN SHE WAS 60.
Oh, and S.T. VanAirsdale is still wonderful!
Not being flippant here, but when reading my posts, Patrick, it may be helpful to note that Virginia Woolf and James Joyce are dead.
Ah, 16 - a time when we have all the answers, even when the questions aren't asked.
You realize that you have completely glossed over the central point of the article, that Gervais was advertised, promoted, and wrote a personal column promising to be every bit as inciteful as he had been last year? You are trying to ridicule me as "sensationalist". I'll try to spell it out for you and your teacher here; this was promoted as an event on par with year's telecast. It blatantly was not, and I was exploring the "Why" behind that result. I was not rooting for Gervais to be vile, I was pointing out how the promised bile from Gervais was stifled, while the celebrities were free to heap scorn upon the host.
And yes, your reading comprehension is lacking. Did you miss my mention of Johnny Depp BEFORE I mentioned Downey? Yes. Also there is a link in which Judd Apatow, and the HFPA are expressing dismay at Gervais last year, ergo Downey was not central to the article, as you keep insisting.
And as for projection, you said I'm trying to draw strength in numbers, based on the other comments here. I did no such thing. I'm dealing with yourself; I've never mentioned another soul. You are obviously off balance for not finding sychophants, but that is not of my doing. But then this is to be expected from someone who took exception with my accused desire for insults, and then proceeded to hurl insults herself.
I actually kind of feel that I need to soften the aggro persona because I'm starting to feel kind of bad for you, Brad Slager.
I hate to state the painfully obvious, but it's pretty clear I saw the mention of Depp having his "nose out of joint" - I didn't consider that as outrage or criticism, especially considering that Depp and Gervais made fun of the event on Gervais' sitcom "Life's Too Short." YouTube it.
All you've done with your last post is prove that you're blowing Depp's reaction out of proportion, too.
Also, the links are just that - links. That's why I said "in your article's text."
You can try shifting semantics all you'd like, but you won't win that war with me. Downey is the only specific mention of harsh criticism in your article's text.
Jane's reading comprehension 2, Brad's reading comprehension -2.
Your continual rehashing of "I don't get the point" is painful. You're not understanding that by lacking to report/misreporting the contextual backdrops to last year's event - even after they are known and available information to an entertainment reporter - your comparison/contrast with this year's event holds no water anywhere other than the context *you* created for it.
Moving on... Here you are wrong on two counts:
"And as for projection, you said I'm trying to draw strength in numbers, based on the other comments here."
No sir, that's based upon your comment:
"the fact you are defending an awards telecast that has been widely panned as an unwatchable affair."
You're using the sheer number of people panning it against me for defending it; however, as *already* stated (you're at -3 now), I wasn't even defending it, so this is just a diversion anyway. (Based, funnily enough, on another false premise!)
"I did no such thing. I'm dealing with yourself; I've never mentioned another soul."
You did... See above.
"You are obviously off balance for not finding sychophants"
Sycophants, rather. And no - did you not already see me agree (at least twice) with the people chiding my behavior and choice of words? And say that I wasn't averse to conflict? -4, Brad, though I feel I should dock you more!
"But then this is to be expected from someone who took exception with my accused desire for insults, and then proceeded to hurl insults herself."
I took exception with your failure to report that Downey's criticism was in jest, and that such misreporting set a false foundation for the rest of the article.
Now that I see you've equated Depp's reaction to a similar degree of stature as Downey's reaction, the article is worse by an order of magnitude!
I thought that the mention of Wallace in the first post would clue you in on the sort of subversively postmodern "ostensible outrage to ironically unwind report that erroneously elevated the outrage taking place at an event" angle I was taking... If not the patriarchy jokes and mention of Woolf/Joyce should have done it - but I didn't really care if you did take the insults at face value anyway, at least until I started feeling sorry for you.
I think ad hominems are wonderful (if you didn't notice) because they often point out blissfully apt points that may otherwise stay under the carpet. Yes, you make light of the fact that I'm young and "think I have it all the answers" - but in reality, I feel that perhaps because education is something I'm still experiencing and therefore "fresh in my mind," maybe I do have a better perspective than someone who has gotten lazy in his/her particular craft. I've dismantled your arguments pretty effectively, regardless of my lack of etiquette.
Perhaps covering awards shows makes one lose their luster. Or perhaps the freedoms of adult life de-incentivize and (cause the atrophy of) any form of autodidacticism that may have once existed in the mind.
Funnily, you may have won this argument without making a single salient point, Brad Slager - because now I'm scared as hell that when I grow up I'll be reduced to writing tripe and arguing with bored high schoolers on the internet.
I'll catch you in the future, Brad. I'll watch your work hopefully progress, and maybe get in touch now and then. Show me that there's something to be hopeful for, damn it.
This must be some class you are taking. You continually desire to paint me into some kind of war with you (hence the need for you to keep score.) The problem is you are playing an entirely different game than myself. I'm striving for you to adhere to the basis of my piece, while you meanwhile have to stray off the reservation. I've kept things in context of last year's telecast, yet you repeatedly draw evidence from other sources (Norton, Ricky's show, et al.) to prove yourself right. Have they made up, have they made the peace? Sure. That does not change one whit what I originally said, which is they expressed outrage (feigned or otherwise)during last year's show.
You will have a fruitful career probably. You may be a better writer than I am. That's not a contest I care about. But as far as being a churlish, judgemental sort who adamantly refuses to engage intellectually and heaps scorn on others, absent initial fusillades -- hey, you have me beat there. It is pretty clear you place a higher amount of energy towards being considered the better, over being correct. It's actually preferable to be insightful over inciteful. As for writing for this site, maybe someday you will. But it will help if you curb some of the scorn and develop a sense of humor.
To say that I've not engaged intellectually and placed no premium on being correct, notice that I was the one providing facts and evidence.
If you're saying that no other information than what you gleaned from the original telecast is relevant, I'm a bit happier - you were never a journalist to begin with.
If you don't see the humor in my language (even after going through a lengthy explanation of the basis for my persona), you're not much of a reader - or a person with a sense of humor, either.
If you think I actually want to write for this site, well... Work up on that reading comprehension thing, Brad Slager.
I truly am sad to see you reduced to "so what if other knowledge is available that proves the basis of my piece was predicated on faulty assumptions - it doesn't matter."
Well, obviously it matters to those who know better.
Well maybe you should get a better handle on your account, because somebody under your name wrote "I want to apply for Brad's job!"
As for your humor, well . . . it is subjective now, isn't it? I guess I failed to grasp the mirth in your opposition to an entertainment piece leading to a descent into vitriol. My opposition to the Golden Globes telecast equates me as a sub-human. That kind of warm introspection will certainly open doors for you.
Well, I agree that humor is highly subjective.
...Non-sarcastic hug?
(hugs) Believe on this, I'm not trying to deny you your opinion. Hate me all you want: note my lack of demeaning terms with you. I'm simply clarifying what I see as mischaracterizations. Just hate me for the correct reasons.
I don't hate you, sir. Also, your Rotten Tomatoes reviews are really good.
The Butterfly Effect review highlights something true today: accepting Ashton Kutcher as a sort of overachieving prodigy begs for a suspension of disbelief not many can stomach. Two and a Half Men is doomed.
Rock on, Brad Slager, rock on.
(fist pumped over head)
(typing with one hand)
Given your previous summation of Brad as about the worst writer and person in the world, it seems very much like right now you ARE trying to avoid conflict. When you asked for a hug, were you hoping you might be denied one to serve as appropriate feedback from someone you previously did everything you could to humiliate and demolish? Some civility MAY have been your due, but certainly no hug. You have a long journey ahead of you.
No YOU and the writer have a long road ahead you all. Please as if we're supposed to feel sorry for Ricky, please, another elite making fun of another elite crowd. And the media did it's job, hyping it up even though one with sense could see that this year's awards was not going to be anything like last year's at all. If anything last year may have been one big joke itself. Yeah these same stars, whom have been through some things in their separate lives, (of course been rejected by casting agency after agency at the beginning of their careers), have stuff constantly written/said about them over the net daily, couldn't take a few mean jokes. Yeah we're gonna easily beleive that just casue they're "elitist little fools who never laugh at themselves".
While I wouldn't have gone the full direction of Jane, she had a point with her feisty self lol. The "outrage" was just that OUTRAGEOUS and you and every other writer who jumped on that last year know and knew this as well, but don't let that stop any of you from taking up bandwith I guess.
OH, and hugs returned!
[...] Girls dynamic duo will almost certainly bring some pizzazz back to the proceedings following Ricky Gervais's neutered 2012 performance. [GALLERY: The 2012 Golden Globes Awards Show and [...]
Hello There. I discovered your blog the usage of msn. This
is a really neatly written article. I'll be sure to bookmark it and return to read more of your helpful
information. Thanks for the post. I'll definitely comeback.