Extras: Having Your Christmas Cake and Eating It?
Talk about television eating itself, I've spent the last few days trying to get my head around the final episode of Extras. Was Ricky Gervais's tirade against the modern obsession with fame biting the hand that feeds him and having his Christmas cake and eating it? Opinion seems to be divided. Some loved it, some have said there was something hypocritical about Gervais's closing rant, suggesting that he is extremely fortunate in being secure enough to criticise the culture of celebrity, whereas the Z listers who claw their way up the greasy pole with barely enough talent to find their way to the television studio are only trying to earn a crust. And who can blame them for that?
The actual programme was always going to be too inward-looking to be as powerful or touching as the final episode of The Office, when Tim and Dawn walked off into the sitcom sunset. But there were some great gags in it. Telling the paparazzi where George Michael was on Hampstead Heath when he was told that George was doing the Catherine Tate special was a beautiful touch of art imitating life – did Gervais actually know George really was doing the Tate show when he wrote the scene? (and by the way, did George's face look kind of odd on Tate's show?)
Other moments were not so effective. This was supposed to be the sitcom that took Andy Millman, hardly a tortured soul, into a new dark place. And what was that dark place? Not Dave Pelzer-type misery. Not even Tony Soprano-type angst. One where you can't get a table at the Ivy without booking three months in advance. The dark place where you have to appear on Dr Who – one of the the most lauded dramas in years – to keep your profile up. That is hardly as dark as bereavement or not being able to feed and house your family. And as for the Reality-TV-as-Victorian-Freakshow rant at the end, commentators have been saying precisely that since the first series of big Brother aired in 2001. People know it already. The real trouble is that they know it and keep watching it and no fictional sitcom character saying "Shame on you" is going to change that. This was real hall of mirrors stuff. What is the fundamental difference between someone raising their profile by appearing on Extras and someone raising their profile by appearing on Big Brother?
Maggie's character was supposed to portray a dark side too, but, although great at times, she was fabulously inconsistent. One moment she was showing true integrity and standing up to Clive Owen's abuse, the next she was an idiot pretending to be Millman's PA who thought that Ridley Scott was actually "Wrigley Scott".
As for this idea that it is possible to fight back against fame, there are very few people able to resist the lure of true populist success. The only name that springs immediately to mind is stand-up comedian Daniel Kitson, who won the 2002 Perrier Award but then turned down endless TV offers, preferring to gig to a small coterie of fans who "get him". Luckily Kitson is gifted enough to be able to make a living, but I have still heard rumours of him talking to TV companies about possible projects in the past, so given the right vehicle even he might be sucked into the celebrity beast.
The greatest irony of all of this is that Andy Millman's predicament is precisely the same as Ricky Gervais's real-life fix. Gervais wants to make people laugh and I get the increasing feeling that he also wants to be taken seriously. But maybe his real strength is making the nation split its sides. Gervais says he wants to write more dramatic work, so the real test comes now. Somehow I can't see him taking part in Big Brother if his future projects fail, but neither can I see him walking away from comedy altogether. The clown might want to play Hamlet but I would imagine he'll miss having a laugh too much to give the clowning up completely. And after all, I'd much rather have another series of Extras than another series of To The Manor Born.
Oh, and by the way, Stephen Merchant was as hilarious as ever. Particularly when falling over the BBC security gate. Also, was it just a coincidence that Merchant, Shaun Williamson and Dean Gaffney's characters ended up working in Carphone Warehouse – the company that used to sponsor Big Brother?



Episode reminded me of Chaplin's "The Great Dictator", not for any comedic greatness but because of its unartfully out-of-context speechifying. (Chaplin had slightly more important things to address.)
Posted by: Andrew J.Lederer | 02/01/2008 at 01:09 PM
There wasn't anything in the Extras Special that we didn't already know. There were no huge surprises.
Posted by: John | 02/01/2008 at 02:55 PM
It's obvious Gervais harbors dreams of being taken a lot more seriously, in which case he should probably stay behind the camera from now on. He's not a great comedy actor, but writes comedy well up to a limit. He's also a bit one-dimensional, and often chooses easy targets to make jokes out of - not very original, so he'll need to change direction to really prove himself. Let's face it, whilst extras is enjoyable amusing, it's not as classic as Blackadder, Fawlty Towers or Alan Partridge - nowhere near.
Posted by: James | 02/01/2008 at 03:11 PM
I continue to believe that Merchant is the greater talent of the two and will prove to have greater longevity, both as a writer and performer.
Posted by: E | 02/01/2008 at 04:48 PM
I loved it and watched the repeat the day after which must be a first for me. It may not have been perfect but it was head and shoulders above virtually any other UK TV programme.
Posted by: Brent | 02/01/2008 at 07:17 PM
ricky gervais is another case of the british public loving an underdog, and then vilifying him once he's made it, they simple fact is england is a country of losers who can't tolerate others success.
Posted by: daveb | 03/01/2008 at 11:18 AM
Gervais is being anything BUT vilified. While the Office will always remain a classic show, that does not necessarily mean that Gervais will always produce such quality, he needs to be judged on each project individually, which he is.
Extras Christmas show was funny in parts (usually whenever Merchant is on screen) and tedious in parts. Gervais derision of celebrities who take cameos in shows such as Dr Who and Hollyoaks is pretty hypocritical when you see Gervais' poor cameos in A Night at the Museum, For Your Consideration, Stardust etc. Or is it because these are 'Hollywood' productions that they need to be taken more seriously? And what about those dreadful Simpsons episodes? Who was having a laugh? Definitely not me.
Gervais seems to think that shows that have 'cheap' laughs or catchphrases are shallow and talentless. Well Gervais' whole 'ironic' mannerism is basically a catchphrase that he employs at every opportunity. Gervais, come up with something new. Merchant, have a go on your own, son!
Posted by: Chris | 04/01/2008 at 02:29 PM
People who mock him dont get his humour.
The arrogant, cringing but clever style that he delivers, is not seen by a lot. (probably fans of 'comedys' such as Little Britain)
Extras was good and the office was legendary, I can't wait for the next one.
Posted by: Mike | 05/01/2008 at 12:18 AM
Is it that we all want the little fat, Mr Average to come out on top
& succeed ,We certainly expect more from our brighter stars, unfortunately Ricky failed the test at the Diana concert,
Posted by: Jim | 05/01/2008 at 05:40 PM
It is strange to criticise Ricky Gervais as a hypocrite for seeking fame and being a celeb, then delivering his great tirade against it at the end of the series. Gervais was criticising, and trying to understand, this hypocrisy within himself. He was revealing his own battle against the side of him that wants fame and acclaim at the same time that it also disgusts him more and more.
Being honest about the ambiguity and paradoxes of our inner drives in and desires in consumerist culture is not hypocrisy, it's being honest about the human condition. He was trying to get more people to understand how the mass media, consumerist, celbrity-obsessed culture that socialises us into hollow values, basically to make us buy stuff in the pursuit of unrealistic ambitions and manutactured wants rather than needs, may be very alluring, but ultimately will not make us happy.
I found his speech near the end very powerful. Yes we have heard much of this before, but kids who watched it, who are attracted to fame and fortune, but who don't read broadsheet commentators, wont have. And it was more powerful coming from Gervais than from a sneering journalist.
Posted by: Tim | 10/01/2008 at 11:33 AM
Coming from Reading, I have followed Ricky Gervais career with great interest. The Office was indeed sublime,Extras very patchy.
I was really dissapointed with the Christmas special. Ricky himself appeared uncomfortable,and as if he knew it just wasn't quite'there'.
Come on Ricky, pause, regroup and show us that you are not a flash in the pan......
Posted by: Lorraine | 10/01/2008 at 12:35 PM
Anyone with half a brain surely understood already that Extras was designed to show up the cult of celebrity. Unfortunately, it always fell down on the suspicion that Gervais was actually as in awe of celebrity as anyone else.
The celebrity cameos were usually the weakest bits, as well.
Posted by: James | 10/01/2008 at 01:07 PM
I cannot believe that Ricky's CBB speech is being slagged off. It was absolutely beautiful. So wonderfully acted that it seems unlikely that he was acting. Just impassioned, accurate and beautiful. As for the statement that people have said it before. So what? If you can name one example that was as powerful and impassioned as that then I will be amazed.
Posted by: Oscar | 01/02/2008 at 09:28 PM
I think Ricky Gervais is brilliant, I think the first series of The Office is an absoulte masterpiece, and I love this episode (a near-masterpiece, which really holds a candle up to the state of the nation). But there's something which really doesn't sit with me. As great as it was, this episode was spoilt a little bit by the jabs at Peter Kay and Victoria Wood. Yeah, The Office is great, and Ricky Gervais is really clever, but his arrogance and hypocrisy and the chip he has on his shoulder about "traditional" comedy don't suit him well. Who does he think he is taking pot-shots at greats of comedy like Victoria Wood and Peter Kay? He's become a complete snob.
And also, isn't his cameo appearance in "Stardust" essentially exactly the same as Millman's appearance in "Dr Who"? The man is everything he accuses others of. Guest spots on The Simpsons and Alias, and now he's taking the lead in a terrible-looking formula Hollywood romcom ("Ghost Town"). Watch the trailer and cringe. It's exactly the sort of thing he said he'd never do.
Posted by: Niall | 09/09/2008 at 06:56 PM