I'm not much of a debater (certainly not a master...debator...) but one of the biggest knock down drag out verbal altercations I was ever in involved the basic concepts of comedy. My friend was arguing that all comedy, no matter what it was, involved a certain level of schadenfreude. To put it another way, there wasn't a laugh to be had in this world that wasn't, at least in the abstract, at the expense of a person or object. I ran the list - knock knock jokes (the joke is on you for being surprised), George Carlin routines, especially his language stuff (the joke is often on those who use the language incorrectly) and many others. The only headway I made in the argument was puns because puns are "clever" comedy and don't really hurt anyone. I was then informed the pun is usually at the expense of a subject. Not always, but often.
I remembered that debate, which I lost, today when I read about the new movie "Tropic Thunder," and how groups who work with the developmentally disabled are complaining about a part of the film where Ben Stiller portrays a special needs person. They feel assaulted, which they have every right to feel. They want to organize protests, which they have every right to do. But as someone who has been laughed at and the butt of a great many jokes (deservedly so), I don't understand how this group doesn't realize that 1) they're picking a bad target at a bad time and 2) if they've ever laughed at anything, anytime, they're complicit in mocking. All we're talking about is a matter of degree.
First off, "Tropic Thunder" is a film with a lot of good buzz behind it and one white actor, Robert Downey Jr., portraying a black man. This movie, straight ahead, says "we're probably going to do some offensive stuff" which doesn't justify doing offensive stuff. When you make a statement as strong as putting a white man in blackface, you're either an idiot, a racist, or pretty damn sure you have something satirical to say. In this case writer-director-star Stiller is lampooning Hollywood conventions. In the case of Downey in blackface, it's an actor making a "transformation" into a different character, something ripe for lampooning. It's the same concept behind "Simple Jack," the character (played by Stiller) who is offending the developmentally disabled advocates.
Again, having something to lampoon doesn't quite equal intent - you can't say "President Bush is an idiot so I'm going to make an art exhibit simulating baby rape." In that case, the intent of your art would widely be misconstrued. But in the case of "Tropic Thunder" there's a long history of people playing developmentally disabled characters for the purpose of winning Oscars, and it's that convention being made fun of. As I understand it, he's not making fun of the developmentally disabled, he's making fun of people who profit by portraying them, which could be called a despicable practice.
Strangely, I also see exactly where the protest is coming from. Politically, if I supported a cause and saw a high level actor making fun of my cause, I might see it as a chance for some publicity. Or I might honestly be indignant and feel that "this is too much" without caring about the context. Again, this is fine. You have a right to ignore context and I have a right to see Tropic Thunder, as the artist intended, free of guilt because I disagree with your position.
Final idea - While Stiller is probably doing this parody in a good way, there's the fratboy mentality of calling someone a "retard" or making fun challenged folks in a mean way that I don't find acceptable. I don't think "Tropic Thunder" is part of this subculture which is truly treating the developmentally disabled in a despicable way. Then again, posters on the Internet are not easy to fight and a $100 million movie starring three recognizable actors is. Again, I understand it politically, I just don't agree with it.
I remembered that debate, which I lost, today when I read about the new movie "Tropic Thunder," and how groups who work with the developmentally disabled are complaining about a part of the film where Ben Stiller portrays a special needs person. They feel assaulted, which they have every right to feel. They want to organize protests, which they have every right to do. But as someone who has been laughed at and the butt of a great many jokes (deservedly so), I don't understand how this group doesn't realize that 1) they're picking a bad target at a bad time and 2) if they've ever laughed at anything, anytime, they're complicit in mocking. All we're talking about is a matter of degree.
First off, "Tropic Thunder" is a film with a lot of good buzz behind it and one white actor, Robert Downey Jr., portraying a black man. This movie, straight ahead, says "we're probably going to do some offensive stuff" which doesn't justify doing offensive stuff. When you make a statement as strong as putting a white man in blackface, you're either an idiot, a racist, or pretty damn sure you have something satirical to say. In this case writer-director-star Stiller is lampooning Hollywood conventions. In the case of Downey in blackface, it's an actor making a "transformation" into a different character, something ripe for lampooning. It's the same concept behind "Simple Jack," the character (played by Stiller) who is offending the developmentally disabled advocates.
Again, having something to lampoon doesn't quite equal intent - you can't say "President Bush is an idiot so I'm going to make an art exhibit simulating baby rape." In that case, the intent of your art would widely be misconstrued. But in the case of "Tropic Thunder" there's a long history of people playing developmentally disabled characters for the purpose of winning Oscars, and it's that convention being made fun of. As I understand it, he's not making fun of the developmentally disabled, he's making fun of people who profit by portraying them, which could be called a despicable practice.
Strangely, I also see exactly where the protest is coming from. Politically, if I supported a cause and saw a high level actor making fun of my cause, I might see it as a chance for some publicity. Or I might honestly be indignant and feel that "this is too much" without caring about the context. Again, this is fine. You have a right to ignore context and I have a right to see Tropic Thunder, as the artist intended, free of guilt because I disagree with your position.
Final idea - While Stiller is probably doing this parody in a good way, there's the fratboy mentality of calling someone a "retard" or making fun challenged folks in a mean way that I don't find acceptable. I don't think "Tropic Thunder" is part of this subculture which is truly treating the developmentally disabled in a despicable way. Then again, posters on the Internet are not easy to fight and a $100 million movie starring three recognizable actors is. Again, I understand it politically, I just don't agree with it.
No comments:
Post a Comment