Couldn't see the point of this sex-pest..........and 'porn' wasn't THAT available in 1973, so him harping on about spending all his money on it was far fetched........maybe if he JUST related to prostitutes and Penthouse, we would have 'got it', but this sleazy pig was too OTT, NO young girl working with him would have tolerated his constant going on about sex.
Apart from him, I thought the film was excellent
He was OTT and not very funny in my opinion, but he didn't ruin the film for me, though, just not my favourite character. However, in his defence, porn has been accessible in one form or the other since the dawn of time, and the young girl would've put up with it because it was the 70's and men talked like that in the work place - ugh, gross, I know, but they did- and tbh, that kind of lewd banter still goes on in lots of work environments, not everyone is so sensitive.
According to the trivia, Merchant and Gervais are big fans of his work so I guess they saw something in him that is relevant to the tone of the film.
Porn was pretty easy to get in the 1970s - there was an explosion of porn in the UK after the relaxing of censorship laws in the 1960s. There was a chain of dirty bookshops called 'Private Shops', and London's Soho district (a short train ride from Reading) was stuffed with shops selling pornography.
shareHe played the same character in RG's Derek. To the same effect, it was just too much, all the time.
shareTotally correct. The term "sexual harassment" hadn't yet been coined; the phenomenon wasn't even in most peoples' consciousness; and if it was -- that young woman clearly needed that job, so she put up with it.
When you think of garbage, think of Hakim!