Seeing that thus-far there has been such a one-sided response to Series 2 I feel it my civic duty to try to restore some balance in the universe of critical review. In my humble opinion, Season 2 is so far inferior it is frightening. I say frightening because up to that point everything Gervais & Merchant had done, while not perfect, was of such a high caliber that I felt convinced they had their finger firmly on the pulse of not only what makes a comedic concept work but also of the pitfalls so typically experienced by other successful comedy creations that they seemed determined never to fall into it. That is, of fearing the loss of greater public appeal and so resorting to cheap clichéd one-joke formulas to replace genuinely intelligent and insightful comedy. But incredibly after episode 1 which actually maintains the same level of quality and intellect of all of Season 1, the rest of the Season 2 descends into committing this very crime Gervais (semi-autobiographically through Milman) identifies. Every subsequent episode features the scenario of Milman going to the next level of utter humiliation in the most extreme and absurd of circumstances. David Bowie breaking into song of the sorry state of Milman's life to a crowded wine-bar, a standing ovation to the destruction of his sitcom's toy doll at the BAFTA's by Richard Briers followed by his ex-girlfriend, Patricia Potter's angry award acceptance speech revealing embarrassing personal information of his sex life, ruining a stage play by running around trying to avoid the scripted gay kiss while being pushed back on stage by Ian MacKellen... sorry, am I missing something? What happened to the "write about what you know" philosophy both Gervais and Milman so passionately preached and practised up to that point? Granted, Series 1 had its ludicrous comic scenes, but they served as moments of light relief from the weightier themes of the main plot. Series 2 on the other hand seemed to have snatches of the weightier message in a plot of nonsense.
So what happened? Is this simply yet another case of the writer becoming so pressured to maintain the same level of success that rather than taking the riskier line of forcing us to see the world through his eyes, the vision actually becomes adjusted for the perspective and wider appeal of the broader audience? Or did the BBC actually do in real life to Ricky Gervais with Extras what they were doing to Andy Milman with When the Whistle Blows, that of taking the story out of his hands and making it into their own homogenised product? There certainly seems to be an uncannily striking parallel. Somehow I don't think this latter 'conspiracy theory' is the more realistic option as, unlike his fictitious counterpart, in real life Gervais' writing talent had been so well established from the success of The Office and Series 1 of Extras that I doubt anyone would have dared interfere with whatever idea he next concocted. A dangerous recipe. Therefore, and judging by the reviews of the great majority, it seems Gervais' work was predestined to be deemed genius by the BBC, media critics, and general public alike before anyone would ever stop to consider whether it really had any further merit.
Bizarrely though, Gervais committing the very same sin that he had so consistently been condemning in Extras creates such a paradox that it transforms Extras from being a mere comedy series to being more like that of a perfect crime comparable to the one seen in the movie se7en, where self-destruction is the final stroke of genius that completes the masterpiece. Was the very self-destruction of Extras so perfectly preconceived and executed that rather than be a complete failure it is actually a work of genius? Maybe we'll never know. In reality however I believe neither of the aforementioned scenarios are true. It appears to me that Gervais, who genuinely sees himself as just 'the man on the street', was so overwhelmed by the exponential growth of his overnight success that he became sidetracked from his true artistic cause to instead using his universally recognised and acclaimed profile to indulge the gratification of having his most revered celebrities act out his most wildly imaginative and ironic fantasies. He was a child in a candy store, and I suppose if any of us were to be in that position, would we be able to resist using the power of having our most adored heroes at our mercy? Speaking for myself, very possibly not, so rather than cast the first stone, while frightened at the thought of losing one the world's best comedy writers I will maintain my confidence in his artistic integrity, hope he comes to terms with his celebrity status, comes back down to earth and once again joins the human race, because I sure do love his take on it.
So what happened? Is this simply yet another case of the writer becoming so pressured to maintain the same level of success that rather than taking the riskier line of forcing us to see the world through his eyes, the vision actually becomes adjusted for the perspective and wider appeal of the broader audience? Or did the BBC actually do in real life to Ricky Gervais with Extras what they were doing to Andy Milman with When the Whistle Blows, that of taking the story out of his hands and making it into their own homogenised product? There certainly seems to be an uncannily striking parallel. Somehow I don't think this latter 'conspiracy theory' is the more realistic option as, unlike his fictitious counterpart, in real life Gervais' writing talent had been so well established from the success of The Office and Series 1 of Extras that I doubt anyone would have dared interfere with whatever idea he next concocted. A dangerous recipe. Therefore, and judging by the reviews of the great majority, it seems Gervais' work was predestined to be deemed genius by the BBC, media critics, and general public alike before anyone would ever stop to consider whether it really had any further merit.
Bizarrely though, Gervais committing the very same sin that he had so consistently been condemning in Extras creates such a paradox that it transforms Extras from being a mere comedy series to being more like that of a perfect crime comparable to the one seen in the movie se7en, where self-destruction is the final stroke of genius that completes the masterpiece. Was the very self-destruction of Extras so perfectly preconceived and executed that rather than be a complete failure it is actually a work of genius? Maybe we'll never know. In reality however I believe neither of the aforementioned scenarios are true. It appears to me that Gervais, who genuinely sees himself as just 'the man on the street', was so overwhelmed by the exponential growth of his overnight success that he became sidetracked from his true artistic cause to instead using his universally recognised and acclaimed profile to indulge the gratification of having his most revered celebrities act out his most wildly imaginative and ironic fantasies. He was a child in a candy store, and I suppose if any of us were to be in that position, would we be able to resist using the power of having our most adored heroes at our mercy? Speaking for myself, very possibly not, so rather than cast the first stone, while frightened at the thought of losing one the world's best comedy writers I will maintain my confidence in his artistic integrity, hope he comes to terms with his celebrity status, comes back down to earth and once again joins the human race, because I sure do love his take on it.