Monthly Archives: March 2019

To Tubby Little Gingers

Review: Ricky Gervais gets spiny and squishy in the Netflix comedy ‘After Life’

Ricky Gervais flourishes in the awkward moment: the uncomfortable silence of a stiff conversation; a tasteless joke that lands with a thud; the boss who tries too hard to impress employees.  That all-too-familiar discomfit works magically on his TV shows and his four stints hosting the Golden Globes,  and less smoothly in his scripted films, which have a record of spotty box office performances.

Luckily, Gervais is back in his uncomfortable wheelhouse with After Life, a new series streaming on Netflix. The show bounces gleefully from hilarity to heartbreak, tenderness to tasteless, absurdity to absolutely inspired in this story about a widower trying to regain emotional balance in what is Gervais’ best role since he created The Office with Stephen Merchant.

Gervais plays Tony, who works on a free British newspaper in a small town, run by his exasperated but indulgent brother-in-law Matt (Tom Basden). Tony’s works the human interest beat, so it doesn’t help that, angry and depressed over the loss of his wife to cancer, he regards humanity as “a plague.” Reluctantly present at work and mildly suicidal outside of it, Tony is a mess at home, pouring cold cereal into a glass because all the bowls are dirty and eating it with water because he’s forgotten to buy milk. All that makes him happy is watching videos of late wife Lisa (Kerry Godliman) and walking his dog.

The tragedy leads Tony to a fateful decision — to do or say whatever he feels because nothing matters anymore (a similar motif to his 2009 film The Invention of Lying).  While the film was a flop, the premise blends naturally with Gervais on the small screen, where his subtle comic timing is impeccable as he reports local “stories” about oddball townsfolk. And his everyday interactions with them are even funnier.

Tony has a spiny shell but a soft center (which could be said of Gervais’ work as a whole) and the show is a series of transgressions and apologies. Tony’s happiness has been replaced by frustrations, irritations, and hopelessness. Tony nearly loses his mind when a man eats his chips too loudly in a pub. He walks by a grade school, where he calls one kid a “tubby little ginger” and moves on, unfazed. When he’s mugged by two older kids, Tony doesn’t hesitate to punch one in the mouth — if they stab him, who cares? He’s got nothing left to live for.

Like The Office, After Life is brimming with delicious side characters — Gervais may be better at creating characters than playing one. Among them are advertising manager Kath (Diane Morgan), with whom Tony debates God, photographer Lenny (Tony Way), whom Tony compares to a cross between Shrek and Jabba the Hutt, and the remarkable Ashley Jensen (who was the soul of Extras) as the nurse caring for Tony’s father. There’s also the likable town junkie (Tim Plester),  the friendly town “sex worker” (Roisin Conaty), and the nosy town postman (Joe Wilkinson).Image result for tom plester after life

The “stories,” too, are not only hilarious, but quite on the nose for small newspapers: A man who received the same birthday card from five people; a couple whose baby looks like Hitler (though only because they have painted a mustache on him and combed his hair forward); and a woman who sells rice pudding made with her own breast milk.

After Life stumbles in a couple areas, particularly grief. We feel for Tony not because he’s established himself as brokenhearted, but because he says so often how said he is. And Gervais uses a couple of his characters for weak strawman debates over his some of his favorite talking points, from atheism to coping with death to common public courtesy. Anyone familiar with Gervais’ humor will see bits of his stand-up routine in After Life.

The series’ intentions boil down to personal accountability and humanity’s responsibility to itself. Midway through the season, Tony is told the meaning of life: “All we’ve got is each other. We’ve got to help each other struggle through until we die, and then we’re done. No point in feeling sorry for yourself and making everyone else unhappy, too.” It’s a common message in the show, and occasionally sounds a bit like a Hallmark card. But that doesn’t make the sentiments any less true or Gervais’ work any less thoughtful and often compelling.

 

The Science of Denial

 

As a boy, I was always intrigued by the commercials for Trident chewing gum. To this day, I can remember the exact wording of part of the ad: “Four out of five dentists surveyed recommend sugarless gum for their patients who chew gum.”

Even then, two things stood out in my mind. One, that wasn’t an ad for Trident; it was an ad for sugar-free gum. And two: Who in the hell is that fifth dentist? Did he also recommend Pixie Stix as part of a balanced breakfast? Image result for pixie stix

Apparently Donald Trump found that doctor. And he’s appointed him head of what was once called the “The Federal Committee on Climate Security.” His name is William Happer, and apparently he took his own advice regarding sugared gums and Pixie Stix. Just check out his chompers. Image result for william happer's bad teeth

But I digress. I say once called Trump’s federal committee because it will no longer be called that. It will instead be called his “advisory committee.” And, in a rarity for the president, it was a canny, subtle shift.

You see, when Trump first called for a new federal advisory committee to offset the findings of the the congressionally-mandated report on climate change (www.globalchange.gov), he was hoping to lessen fears of the committee’s startling findings. The report, written by more than a dozen U.S. government agencies and departments, said the effects of climate change would harm human health, damage infrastructure, limit water availability, and alter coastlines. Agriculture, tourism and fishing industries that depend on natural resources and favorable climate conditions would all be hit, it said. In all, the report concluded, global warming would reduce the U.S. economy by 10% ($1.93 trillion).

That’s bad news for any president who wants at least one more term (and maybe more: Trump publicly stated that “maybe we should try that” when he returned from a visit to China, which recently named Xi Jinping “president for life”).

So Trump launched a new contrarian federal committee, one that consisted of his hand-picked stooges. The problem with the first name, he discovered, is the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) (Pub.L. 92–463, 86 Stat. 770, enacted October 6, 1972). FACA is a federal law which governs the behavior of all federal advisory committees. In particular, it has special emphasis on open meetings, chartering, public involvement, and reporting.

The last thing Trump would want is public involvement or documentation of his naysayers’ research methodology. After all, a U.S.-led team of international scientists wrote last month in the journal Nature Climate Change that global warming had hit the “gold standard” of research. They said confidence that human activities were raising the heat at the Earth’s surface had reached a “five-sigma” level, a statistical gauge meaning there is only a one-in-a-million chance that the signal would appear if there were no warming.

And Trump’s going to appoint a federal advisory committee to argue against that? Not a chance. That would be like betting on the Washington Generals against the Harlem Globetrotters. So he switched the title to panel, which does not require any public reporting.Image result for harlem globetrotters vs washington generals

This is the art of subterfuge. Trump can’t disprove global warming. But with a federal “panel,” he can argue the science is debatable. That’s all the ammo his supporters need.

Already, he’s putting climate deniers in key governmental positions. Like Kelly Craft, the U.N. ambassador to Canada. In an interview with the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, she responded to a question on global warming by saying “I think both sides have their own results from their studies, and I appreciate and I respect both sides of the science.”

By the way, her husband, Joe Craft, is the billionaire president of Alliance Resource Partners, L.P., the third-largest coal producer in the eastern United States.

The GOP has done this before, most recently with Creationism to battle the science of evolution. In Texas, for instance, the state is considering a bill that would allow public school teachers to present alternative theories to subjects that “may cause controversy,” including climate change, evolution and the origins of life.

Texas needs a new bumper sticker: “Fuck you, Darwin and physics.” Expect some of those slackwits on Trump’s advisory panel.

We in the media, of course, will play along. Fox in particular, but even CNN and MSNBC are complicit in the deceit. Consider the networks’ debate format: One talking head is pro, while the opposing one is con. This format, either consciously or sub, gives the viewer the impression the scientific community is split 50/50. Image result for cnn split screen global warming

If the panel were truly representative of the facts, you’d have nine scientists debating one on the boob tube. And even that would be underestimating the true consensus.

Alas, consensus has never been part of Trump’s lexicon. For one, it’s multi-syllabic. And has truth ever been high on his priorities list?

If you find it all too much, relax. Just take some Valium, and crush it up into powder form. A Pixy Stick full should do you.

Yo Adrian!

 

Sports makes for natural cinema. You’ve got the underdog hero, the heavily-favored villain, the climactic clash, the clear-cut winner and loser.  That’s what fueled Rocky to eight films and $800 million at the box office in the U.S. alone.

But many forget: Rocky lost the first championship fight. And losing can make for equally compelling viewing. Consider Raging BullThe Bad News BearsA League of Their OwnFriday Night LightsMoneyball and on.Image result for bad news bears

You can add Losers to that list. The new Netflix show is a heartwarming docuseries that examines those who lost in high-profile fashion, but turned defeats into victory, both moral and literal.

Created and directed by Mickey Duzyj, a veteran of ESPN’s 30 for 30 short films, Losers mixes documentary interviews with animation to examine eight sports across the globe and looks anew at some high-profile failures to examine athletes who redefined their lives in the aftermath of loss. The result is akin to eight mini-Rocky Balboas, complete with feel-good endings minus the predictability of a film franchise.

If anything, unpredictability is the underlying strength of a series that could have grown tired quickly. Duzyj features athletes who never wanted to be athletes, stars who never sought stardom and sports you probably know little about, including curling and dog racing. His targets are so eclectic that even if you do know the sport, you probably don’t know the heroes hidden within.

Fittingly, Losers begins with a Rocky-like tale, but with a significant twist: The Miscast Champion follows the life of Michael Bentt, a championship fighter who admits his dislike of the sport’s savagery — and was nearly killed by it. Despite his success in the ring, Duzyj follows Bentt after his near-fatal defeat and chronicles his unlikely path to Hollywood, where he finds his true calling.Image result for michael bentt

The hope of the episode underpins the tenor of the series, though the themes and lessons of the story are vastly different. The Jaws of Victory is a hilarious episode about a perennially awful soccer club whose very existence is saved by police dog that becomes a local hero. Lost in the Desert is a harrowing tale of a marathon held in the heat and sand of the Saraha Desert where simply surviving the race is a victory in itself. Stone Cold tells the story of Canadian Pat Ryan, whose loss ultimately changed and popularized the sport of curling (which is concisely explained, as is its rabid following).Image result for pat ryan curling

Each of the episodes would make for a feature-length documentary or sports film. But at roughly a half-hour apiece, Losers manages to flesh out its heroes with humor and emotion — all within a binge-able timetable. And the animation is brilliant, a dash of flashy graphics that encapsulate events cameras never could capture mixed with the retro charm of an 80’s video game.Image result for losers series animation

Losers is not the place to find tragic stories, which litter all sports and sometimes become the lasting memories of athletes. There are no Greg Normans tightening up on the last 18 holes to lose the Masters, no Roberto Durans, declaring as they walk from the ring “No mas, no mas.” Hope, redemption and the beauty of giving it your all underscore every episode.Image result for roberto duran no mas

If there’s any strike against Losers, it may be the order of the episodes, which lead the series to end on a so-so note. The 72nd Hole, the tale of Jean Van de Velde’s 18th hole collapse at the 1999 British Open, is certainly a worthwhile entry. But it has nowhere near the emotional punch of Ally, which chronicles the story Iditarod dog musher Ally Zirkle, or Judgement, the story of black figure skater Surya Bonaly. Both will leave you fighting back tears — of joy.Image result for surya bonaly backflip

But it’s a minor setback in an otherwise resounding victory for cinematic storytelling. It may be full of tropes about winning and losing. But Losers does, ultimately, remind us that the beauty of sport really is in how you play the game.