I watched An Idiot Abroad last night and thoroughly enjoyed it, although I do not believe that Karl Pilkington is what Gervais and Merchant say he is all cracked up to be. They tell the audience at the start of the show that Karl is like all ignorant British tourists and will be so out of place in these far flung locales he will be a riot to watch.
Karl is more interesting and a breath of fresh air than an ignorant frustration. While Karl does seem a little out of place – this is no more than any other tourist in a non-western nation.
While I have seen Karl in other Gervais produced material he only seems to push the envelope in front of Gervais. Karl is alone in this show and is clearly just himself, questioning actions of foreigners but not in a vicious way. He says things that all westerners probably think.
This thinking aloud is a nice change to usual travel programs, and I say travel programs because this is basically what this show is. I did not find the show hilariously funny, it was more like Intrepid Journeys with a comedian who makes wry observations. Also, in terms of being a travel program it was good because there was honesty. He commented on how the Great Wall of China was rebuilt in 1950 and 1980 and questioned its legitimacy – which is nice in comparison with travel shows which just preach how beautiful and incredible places are.
So why am I writing this then? Because it seems that the show title and what Gervais and Merchant expect (and expect the audience to see) is an Onslow (from Keeping Up Appearances) being a bigot in foreign lands commenting on things in a hilariously wrong sort-of-comparative way. But the show so far does not live up to this. Karl does not seem the type.
Karl says what he is thinking but he doesn’t think in a vicious way, he thinks in an interesting way and sometimes just as we do. This is sometimes funny and sometimes not much of a surprise. Hence why the show is not really a comedy but basically a travel walkabout with an interesting man.
Also, Karl is not an idiot. Most of the observations he noted were not silly or dumb, his observations in some respects were intelligent or at least relevant. Karl may not be educated in the scholarly sense but he in no way seems like he hasn’t been around the block – like many of us.
I will certainly be watching next week but not because I want to cry with laughter or wince with frustration – but because it was somewhat enlightening.
What did you think?