Eric Holder, our nation's first African American attorney general, made a very controversial statement earlier last month (celebrated as Black History Month). He said that we are a nation of cowards when it comes to discussing race. Race always seems to be the 2000 lb gorilla in the room-the thing that no one wants to talk about but is always present. For the most part, I think that many white Caucasians are reticent to speak honestly on race issues because they cannot win. If they speak highly of African Americans, they are seen as needlessly pandering to that population. If they speak ill IN ANY WAY of African Americans, they are immediate viewed as racists. As a member of neither group, I have seen this in action, and it is indeed sad. It is no wonder that we are a nation of cowards. Everyone walks around on egg shells trying not to upset the status quo. So where is a person to go where someone does not follow the status quo? Where are people fearless enough not to succumb to easy race baiting and state things in such stark terms that people should be forced to discuss race issues?
Ladies and Gentlemen, I give you the comedy genre-most notably "Family Guy" and the Mel Brooks classic, "Blazing Saddles". Now, mind you, the central concept of these works-"making you feel uncomfortable enough to talk about it"-is not just limited to race relations. Sexual orientation and gender relations are also a part of the larger equations. Abortion, violence against women and gays, pedophilia-these are all very real problems in our society that are NOT going away unfortunately. People just do not discuss these topics at parties or other gatherings. As individuals move beyond high school and college, there are no fora where discourse on these topics can occur-and it does need to occur-not just in the news media but among the citizenry.
So what are we left with? Why, we are left with the satirists-those individuals who poke fun at our society and make us uncomfortable enough to face some real hard truths. Take "Family Guy," for example. There are more racist, sexist, anti-Semitic, misogynistic jokes per minute on "Family Guy" than on any other show on television. These jokes, alternatively, make me laugh and wince in uncomfortable silence. It is during these moments that Seth MacFarlane, "Family Guy's" creator, is at his most effective. On the surface, his show panders to the lowest common denominator, but the more intelligent television viewer ( I know, quite the oxymoron) will see the show as a stage upon which MacFarlane is able to strip away the curtain and focus in on the problems in our society, including racism, homophobia, violence against women, pedophilia, the great numbers of the poor and homeless in the wealthiest country in the world, and the lack of accommodation that all too often face the disabled. While it would be all to easy to dismiss MacFarlane's creations as ignorant caricatures of American society, I view them as providing the opportunity to demystify the taboo topics that we never...seem...to...talk about. I have actually had conversations when people are discussing a particular scene that may have been racist or sexist, and I am able to stop them and ask them "what was so funny about it?" More often than not, they stop and reflect on how their own passive acceptance is contributing to the problem rather than formulating a solution. Of course, the major problem with the shows is that the lowest common denominator likely fails to look beneath the surface and recognize it as satire. The optimist inside me would like to believe that the true leaders of society would be able to educate the lowest common denominator and address these very real problems in our society. Hopelessly naive? I prefer to think of myself as hopeFULLy naive.
It is interesting how 5 different people can watch something like "Blazing Saddles", and those 5 people can walk away with 5 different opinions. You will have someone laugh throughout the entire film and see it as "the way things are." These people are what is classified as the lowest common denominator. You then have the people who do not laugh at anything and repeatedly utter the phrase :"this is not that funny" or "I don't get it." These we classify as either humorless or those who are offended to the point where they cannot laugh. I classify these individuals as the ones who are the opposite of the lowest common denominator; at the same time, their refusal to find ANY humor leads me to believe that satire in any shape would be completely lost on them, thereby short circuiting any intelligent discourse that might otherwise have arisen. We then get the people who are ONLY offended by the racial material OR the sexist material OR the homophobic material, but not ALL three (as they should be). We deem these people the truly myopic. The fourth type of person is the transitional person-the one who laughs but who feels, in their heart of hearts, that something is amiss. These are the ones who can learn the most from the movie, especially at the hands of the fifth kind of person-the enlightened movie watcher who recognizes the issues, laughs at the ignorance in our society these films are clearly poking fun of, and educate (in reverse order) the other 4 types of people.
Don't get me wrong-sometimes you can just go to a movie and just enjoy yourself and laugh. I do, however, find it extremely short sighted for ANYONE to write off satire just because it offends their delicate sensibilities. My challenge to those people is to USE the material as the vehicles of change. It is too easy to change the channel to watch something as vapid as "Rob and Big", "Paradise Hotel", or "Rock of Love." It is much more difficult to watch something that offends you and use it as a vehicle for discussion.
After 3 years, this weekend I finally got around to watching "Good Night, and Good Luck", George Clooney's film covering CBS newsman Edward R. Murrow's face-off against Wisconsin Senator Joseph McCarthy during his anti-communist crusade of the 1950s. It is hard to believe it, but newsmen used to be respected. The media was not separated into "the right" and "the left"-before the drive of the all mighty dollar, newsmen heard a higher calling-that of the truth. Edward R. Murrow exemplified this in his confrontation with McCarthy. Everyone was too scared to take him on for fear of being labeled a terrorist...I mean COMMUNIST. Oops...anyway, it was only through the efforts of Murrow and his fellow newsmen at CBS that McCarthy was taken down and censured by the Senate. The media was looking out for the people-how sad that this ideal, so commonplace in the 1950s, should seem so revolutionary today. In the 1950s, we could look to reporters as the ultimate arbiters of truth and honest discussion of our nation's ills. Now? All we are left with is a never ending parade of political pundits trying to force their own agendas onto the American public. There seem to be no more heroes, especially not in the media, so who can we look to?
The changes need to start with US-The People (as in "We, the People of the United States"). The discussion of these very real problems with the world start with us. Although it may be easier for us to just focus on what the American Dream has come to mean (designer clothing, high living, and unbearable debt), we need to focus on what the dream COULD BE-accessible heath care not just for women but for ALL, in a system that does NOT punish those of us who work the hardest (i.e., the highest taxes paid by the those who have worked hardest to make the most money). We CAN have a society where racism by ALL races (yes, all races are guilty of it) is condemned in public by everyone. Our society can be the one to put an end to homophobia, violence against women, hunger and poverty, but it can only be that way if we stop being so focused on ourselves INDIVIDUALLY.
Unfortunately, Holder is right-we ARE a nation of cowards. In our struggles to not be contrary and hurt people's feelings, we allow these societal evils to flourish and grow even as we make noises as to how we need to stamp them out. It has to start with us. It has to start with painful honesty. There has to be an end to hypocrisy.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
2 comments:
I appreciate what you are going for with your analysis of shows like 'Family Guy' - but I have to say I disagree completely. I don't think my dislike and often downright disgust for the jokes on that show are due to a "myopic" worldview. You are right, some people get the "deeper" joke there, but so so so many other viewers watch and think, well a cartoon can make rape and pedophilia jokes, jokes about how little women are worth, etc. so it must be ok to say and think those things. I think there's a difference between intelligent dialogue about the issues of racism and sexism and other prejudice - a dialogue that can use humor and that can indeed discuss stereotypes - and shows that merely allow people to say the misogynistic and racist things in their heads because, "oh! it's cutting edge humor! if you don't find it funny, you must be some horrid troll/feminist/uber-p.c. regulator". Perhaps if there were more honest and open dialogues about these issues and I actually believed that more than 5% of people considered the effects of "-isms" I could say such "jokes" added to the discourse. Currently though, there isn't much to be said for the larger discussion of how ingrained and inescapable prejudice still is. No, I don't think every show or movie should be restricted by the "one" person who might be offended, but I don't think those who are offended should be dismissed as too sensitive or unfunny - because the issues are real and palpable and deserving of further discussion and understanding. So there's my two cents, and a little more.
AH, I respect your opinion, but a careful reading of my post would reveal that I did not find "myopic" the fact that people were offended by the jokes-on the contrary, I find that only the most enlightened would understand that these jokes are, indeed, offensive. What I found myopic was the view that the shows are offensive "just because" they were offensive of one particular social class. Indeed, I found it far more alarming in our discussion that that you had no opinion on the overt and disgusting racism in the arts and instead focused solely on the sexism and misogyny that was present (as you did in our conversation and even within your comment above where you completely ignored homophobia, racism, and other societal ills in choosing, "myopically", to focus on rape and pedophilia. While these are two of the most important problems in our society that need to be addressed, they are not the only ones that are out there. And I never said "oh! it's cutting edge humor! if you don't find it funny, you must be some horrid troll/feminist/uber-p.c. regulator," my commentary was that refusal to watch it and then tear it apart for what it is-a symptom of greater problems in our society-simply exacerbates the situation, for if the people who should KNOW better ignore the shows because of their content, how can they knowledgeably speak on their problems? It is reminiscent of the Christians protesting "The Last Temptation of Christ" when not a one had seen the movie. It is akin to book burning without having cracked open the volumes that are being thrown onto the fire.
While I applaud the fact that you do not tolerate such things in what is purported as entertainment, I was disappointed that your dismissal of said "entertainment" was based on a single point and not the work in general. Had you mentioned the fact that you were offended because of the racism, sexism, and overall deplorable content that, on the surface, permeates shows such as "Family Guy", I would be more understanding and not view your opinions as myopic, for that would have enabled us to enter an intelligent discourse on the overall problems in society without simply ranking some as more important than others. That, unfortunately, did not happen. Furthermore, I never said that "one" person is offended. Indeed-I said that only the lowest common denominator would see these shows as pure entertainment. I suppose we do disagree, as you see that only 5% of people recognize the commentary inherent within the shows. I prefer to be more optimistic and think that more people than not are offended-after all, controversy results in ratings.
And I would never dismiss anyone who is offended by the show as oversensitive or unfunny-indeed, if one were to watch the show and NOT be offended in some way, I would be horrified. I suppose that is why you and I can have a spirited discourse on this and yet still be friends :-)
Post a Comment