Ricky Gervais does it again.

rickenvox said:
By the way I did appreciate Patricia Arquette’s comments. I was just wondering when her boobs got so big. I don’t think that took place during that 10 year long movie she did.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Maybe she moved to Pittsburgh? I knew a guy from there who called it 'Titsburgh'. He said all the women from there had huge tits.
 
It seems whether or not you think actors should talk about issues other than acting depends on whether you agree with them or not. I think Ricky's portrayal for the most part was accurate although I'm sure there are some intelligent thoughtful actors in the room (they are probably not the ones speaking politically though) I typically don't and would prefer they stuck to being funny or pretty or whatever their particular talent is but the bigger issue, for me anyway, isn't that they talk about any particular subject but rather the fact that they believe they are that important.

For example, Lebron James made a statement at some point about him being too important to society not to speak about political issues. I thought about that and the way I see it, he is currently important to certain brands or manufacturers because he sells a lot of merch. His importance to his team is actually secondary if we are looking at his importance to society. So his contribution is that he generates revenue. What I don't think he understands if if he goes away tomorrow the industry doesn't die. There will be the next personality to step in and sell jerseys and shoes. But clearly he has gotten to a point where he BELIEVES he is important. This is where it falls apart for me.

I have worked in local government for over 20 years. Every time someone I know tells me they are considering running for office I always tell them the same thing. Everyone I have ever known before they were elected were significantly changed once they were elected. Or more accurately after they were elected and at the point they started to believe that made them important. Then all of the sudden everything they had to say was not only correct but supremely important. The reality is the only requirements for the position are to be over 18 (in some cities), live in the city, and get more votes than the other guy. Yet for some reason most tend to think they are instant experts on all things and they go from trying to do what's right for the community to projects to put their name on, for example. I've probably worked with 2 elected people in all my time that weren't significantly negatively affected. Our resident Mayor is an example, at least as far as I can tell, of someone who completely gets it and would be fun to work with.

Having a platform doesn't make you smart and it doesn't make you right. Tons of forums have outlawed such discussions for this very reason. Guitar forums should talk about guitars and award shows should talk about movies. I don't get the fascination with the roasting type of humor but it apparently sells. I'm a fan of old school stand up because it was creating. I find a lot of today's comedy lazy but then again that lends itself to the instant gratification loving youth we are raising. Although it was pretty funny, I don't think that type of monologue belongs at an award show any more than political acceptance speeches.
 
Johnny N. said:
It seems whether or not you think actors should talk about issues other than acting depends on whether you agree with them or not.

Guitar forums should talk about guitars and award shows should talk about movies.
Click to expand...

I think your fundamental assertion is wrong (people like actors’ politics if they agree with them) but your incorrect assertion illustrates what is actually at play here.

It’s an issue of text vs. context vs. subtext. For those of us inclined to identify political subtext within seemingly apolitical texts regardless of the shiny, presentable superficial context, everything is “political.” And therefore attempts to ban/discourage/reject explicitly political texts while favoring seemingly apolitical texts that have a subtext that doesn’t rock the boat (i.e., subtexts that implicitly endorse the status quo and current hegemonic structures by virtue of assuming some kind of “that’s just how things are” worldview) seems like a reactionary move.

Avoidance of “political content” is a move only afforded to the comfortable and privileged. For example, Guatemalan economic refugees in this country without legal right to work status live their lives as political issues by virtue of their being. Same with a trans woman simply trying to pee in a state enacting a bathroom ban. Or a homeless guy getting run out of a suburban bedroom community for panhandling and vagrancy.

Ricky Gervais (and myself too if we’re being honest—and probably 80% of this forum) have the privilege of deciding to ignore politics and “keep it out of our entertainment” because we’re just here for a good time. But that, too, is a political statement. Or maybe just a hyper literal reading of things. Either way, it’s a naive proposition.
 
Last edited:
Peen Simmons said:
I think your fundamental assertion is wrong (people like actors’ politics if they agree with them) but your incorrect assertion illustrates what is actually at play here.

.
Click to expand...


Nope. I'm pretty sure my post was accurate and your reply is a perfect illustration.
 
Peen Simmons said:
Ricky Gervais (and myself too if we’re being honest—and probably 80% of this forum) have the privilege of deciding to ignore politics and “keep it out of our entertainment” because we’re just here for a good time. But that, too, is a political statement. Or maybe just a hyper literal reading of things. Either way, it’s a naive proposition.
Click to expand...
As I mentioned before, I don't believe that an awards show is the time or place for individuals to go on political rants. Take it to a talk show if you feel the need to tell everyone your opinions.

Could you imagine if you went to a <insert industry here> seminar/conference, and the speaker went off about how much they hate Trump, or their position on abortions, etc? They'd probably get escorted off the stage by security. The irony here is that I'd actually be more interested in the conference speakers' opinions that those of actors/actresses who are only famous because they have the right look and are able to memorize a script and deliver it with emotion...or they slept with Weinstein. </Gervais>
 
shoeless said:
Could you imagine if you went to a <insert industry here> seminar/conference, and the speaker went off about how much they hate Trump, or their position on abortions, etc? They'd probably get escorted off the stage by security. The irony here is that I'd actually be more interested in the conference speakers' opinions that those of actors/actresses who are only famous because they have the right look and are able to memorize a script and deliver it with emotion.
Click to expand...

Not only can I imagine your scenario (or a variation on it), I’ve witnessed it. Risk management association meetings where the head of the TBI takes the stage to laud Patriot Act provisions that allowed for combined allowed for resources to be used in the drug war.

Franchisor industry groups praising the light hand of the Trump admin re: NLRB issues and basically preventing union attempts to organize around understandings of joint employer.

And do I really need to walk through the free political insights I encountered in sessions or even on the vendor floor at the International Chiefs of Police conference? (That’s the conference Hunter Thompson trolled in Fear and Loathing just as a point of insight).

And, no, you would not be more interested in conference speaker’s presentations. They’re awful.
 
Well, Ricky Gervais wants to have his cake and eat it, and he's been repeatedly paid by the Golden Globes to have his cake and eat it. He (a comedian and scriptwriter) historically has no problem making statements about politics or religion, but he'll roast other showbiz folks for the same thing. Maybe he thinks they are all abject hypocrites and thus have voided their right to soapbox, in which case then he is morally correct in casting the first stone. Or maybe he's a hypocrite. Or maybe he nihilistically thinks 'fuck you all, I'll have fun bringing you down to size'. Or maybe he thinks 'I'm an edgy comedian, this is what I do. It's just business'.

I don't really have a dog in this fight. I think a lot of his comments were bitter medicine for some of the people in attendance. I think some of them needed that medicine. I think some of his comments gave people at home the feeling 'yes! someone's calling these f**kers out!'. That might be good too. But I also I think that the statement that everyone should shut up and take their award then f**k off was facetious.
 
shoeless said:
The irony here is that I'd actually be more interested in the conference speakers' opinions that those of actors/actresses
Click to expand...
And there you have it.

It's not about the awards show, you just don't like actors and arbitrarily believe plumbers will have smarter opinions about things with no explanation how that can be so. :embarrassed:
 
Bones McHorror said:
And there you have it.

It's not about the awards show, you just don't like actors and arbitrarily believe plumbers will have smarter opinions about things with no explanation how that can be so. :embarrassed:
Click to expand...
Nice job totally ignoring the first part of my post, and clipping it from your reply. :thu:

I will however, admit that I do not understand the elevated status that so many seem to give to the Hollywood crowd. But that's just me I guess. :shrug:
 
I enjoyed the show. I thought Ricky was funny. It was in the flavor of a Comedy Central Roast. I took it in as a comedy bit he wrote and nothing more. If it was unfunny and preachy, I would have been gone. The Leo joke about his date being too old at the end of the 3 hour premier of Once Upon A Time was funny. Leo laughed too, so it was all good.

Speeches I enjoyed: Tom Hanks, Ellen, Brad, Quentin, Joaquin. Probably a couple more.

I was rooting for Bill Hader, The Fonz, De niro, Peschi, or Pacino to get on stage.

Selma Hayec.......wow!
 
Last edited:
shoeless said:
Nice job totally ignoring the first part of my post, and clipping it from your reply. :thu:

I will however, admit that I do not understand the elevated status that so many seem to give to the Hollywood crowd. But that's just me I guess. :shrug:
Click to expand...
Problem is you're pretending it is about the awards show, but it isn't.

If it was just the awards, you would more or less think all professions are equal. But you go out of your way to say acting is just being paid to look pretty/be a whore and therefore they are stupider than people with real skills like plumbers. That seems to betray the statement about neutrality and/or concern about the medium of the message.
 
Bones McHorror said:
Problem is you're pretending it is about the awards show, but it isn't.

If it was just the awards, you would more or less think all professions are equal. But you go out of your way to say acting is just being paid to look pretty/be a whore and therefore they are stupider than people with real skills like plumbers. That seems to betray the statement about neutrality and/or concern about the medium of the message.
Click to expand...
I've tried to be as clear as possible.

1. I don't think an awards show is the time or place for political rants.
2. I don't hold the Hollywood crowd in high esteem for more than their acting & production talents, which is what the awards show is supposed to be about.

If you want to extrapolate that into some fundamental character flaw of mine, knock yourself out. I bow to your superiority.
 
Johnny N. said:
For example, Lebron James made a statement at some point about him being too important to society not to speak about political issues. I thought about that and the way I see it, he is currently important to certain brands or manufacturers because he sells a lot of merch. His importance to his team is actually secondary if we are looking at his importance to society. So his contribution is that he generates revenue. What I don't think he understands if if he goes away tomorrow the industry doesn't die. There will be the next personality to step in and sell jerseys and shoes. But clearly he has gotten to a point where he BELIEVES he is important. This is where it falls apart for me.
Click to expand...

As someone who lives in Lebron's hometown of Akron and sees the kids around here on a regular basis, I assure you that he's important to more than just the brands he's representing. The kids around here revere him for having escaped the poverty cycle of inner-city life and see him as a role model to better themselves, too. So when he speaks up on a political or social issue, these kids are listening. What they're hearing isn't necessarily a particular stance on specific issues but the general act of speaking up when you see an injustice and that's an act that they can take to heart and exercise in their own lives.
 
I hope this conversation is still going a few weeks from now when the Super Bowl turns into a military circle jerk.
 
shoeless said:
I've tried to be as clear as possible.

1. I don't think an awards show is the time or place for political rants.
2. I don't hold the Hollywood crowd in high esteem for more than their acting & production talents, which is what the awards show is supposed to be about.

If you want to extrapolate that into some fundamental character flaw of mine, knock yourself out. I bow to your superiority.
Click to expand...
I think I addressed what you said and not yours or my character.

To me, it seems like you can either be neutral to any profession in the same situation or you can say well their profession is worse or particularly unworthy to form opinions. And it seems like you're saying worse.

This thread started off in a circle jerk of Two Minute Hating Hollywood. And only later calmed to okay but let's just stop talking politics so much in the wrong avenues. Psychotronic said they are "the most out-of-touch idiots you'll ever see." And you liked that post, which I assume means agreement that they are not just specifically unqualified but the least qualified. Not just people who do politics at inappropriate times, but people who should never discuss politics.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top