Give me irony or give me offense!

Back when "The Last Temptation of Christ" came out, a group of people in the small town I lived in at the time put together a petition to have the film banned from the town's theater. I was approached, on different occassions, by people wanting me to sign it. "But I want to see it" was my reply. "It'll be a sin to see it" was the reply I got. "How?" I asked. "Well......IT JUST WOULD BE" was the most typical response.

Needless to say, I didn't sign the petition, but many did, and the city council passed the ban, which for all I know is still on the books there.

Incidentally, after I bought a laserdisc player back in '91, one of the first purchases I made was "Last Temptation". As I still knew a couple of the people who approached me a few years before with the petition, I made a point to invite them over to see my new player. I had the laserdiscs laid out very nicely and watched, with delight, their horror as they thumbed through "High Noon" and "Notorious" and came across LTOC. Absolute terror on their faces!

"You...you.....Wade! YOU BOUGHT THIS?"

"Yep, sure did. Wanna see it?"

They left so quickly....

As it turned out, I liked the film okay but it's not one of my favorites. I just considered the ownership of that film my own little protest against the ignorance that drives people, so many times, to do so many stupid things.

Doesn't the fact that you re-print lyrics from the Randy Newman song mean that you, too, are against the vertically-challenged?

See that guy outside your window right now with the picket sign? That's me.

I wrote a comedy bit for a sketch show we did in college, 20 years ago - speaking to this very point ... and specifically to how people miss the fact that it's members of that very group that are creating the "art" while outsiders take it upon themselves to protest for them. For example - Kevin Smith and Scorcese being devout Catholics, making Dogma and Last Temptation.

It wasn't exactly SNL, so probably better off that I can't link to it ... but the gist was ...

- it's a writer's meeting for the show, they're trying to come up with the next bit
- a clearly over-the-top gay guy suggests a parody of "Home Alone" called "Homo Alone" ... the head writer rejects it as potentially offensive and that people won't get the joke
- a clearly over-the-top Jewish guy, complete with payes, suggests rushing a Jewish frat, where they pound Manischewitz and swallow live gefilte fish. Rejected for being offensive
- the token female on the staff suggests a bit about a token female ... rejected
- a ridiculously outrageous mentally challenged person mumbles his suggestion ... rejected
- finally, with nowhere else to turn ... someone pops up and suggests "what about a fat man in a Burger King crown?" ... at which point, it dissolves to a man majestically posing for the camera, in a robe and his crown ... getting rave Broadway-like reviews, etc.... "If it was MacDonald's hat, it just wouldn't communicate the same message" ... "Of all the shows I've seen with fat men in Burger King crowns, this was by far the best..."

Thank you - have a nice day :)

I think the whole controversy over the recent "New Yorker" cover depicting every right-wing nightmare about the Obamas is another example of the general public not being able to appreciate or comprehend satire when they see it. What most people failed to understand was that the joke was not on Barack and Michelle Obama themselves, but on the perceptions of them that many conservative voters have. The fact that the joke flew over the heads of many (including the Obamas)is a perfect example of people taking things too literally and failing to grasp the concept of irony.

another famous example is neil young's music video for "this note's for you," which mocks product placement in videos, which young found deplorable. mtv, of course, wouldn't play the video because it had too many conspicuous product placements.

August 12, 2008: the day Jim Emerson actually descended into self-parody. I shall mark my calendar.

jim,
stop attacking short people, for God's sake. First George Bush came out against us, and now you.

I think it as Chris Rock who said (and I paraphrase), "If at least one person isn't offended then I'm not doing my job."

Let's face it. There are people out there who feel it's their calling to strip multiple layers off their emotional skin so they can be mightily offended at a moment's notice.

The catterwall by these organizations rather reminds me of the reception Monty Python's Life of Brian got from any number of religious groups in the US and Great Britain. Rather than having at least the intellectual honesty to watch the film before they demanded its removal from cinemas, they demonstrated to the world their small-mindedness and complete lack of any sense of irony or humor by going on record in every medium they could calling for bans. The real irony was, of course, that they can claim no small credit in making the movie famous (the fact that it is, overall, the best cinema effort the Python's put out not withstanding).

I suspect that the same thing is going to happen here. While I haven't seen the movie yet (I have every intention of doing so, by the way), it sounds like a reasonably funny but not terribly legendary film (like Brian is), but they are about to turn a somewhat lighthearted poke in Hollywood's eye and turn it into a very big movie that will live on for many years to come, simply because of the manufactured controversy.

Josh: I am Sam. I am a parody, I mean. Not a parody of Sam. A parody of me.

I get the joke as well, but theres also a part of me that doesn't necessarily understand why I get it. I just sort of do. So what I would ask then, is what makes this satire and what would make it not satire, and therefore offensive?

Justin: Man, you honed right in on it: the $100 million question. It's something I'm always asking myself, and that (in all my comedy exploits) I've always tried to figure out, piece by piece: What is the idea (or the wording or the delivery, or the context) that makes something funny (to me), or not? There are so many things lots of people think are hilarious (Andrew Dice Clay, Dane Cook, Adam Sandler) that I don't. (Although I've seen Sandler be very funny -- and not.) And, of course, the same is true in reverse. But as Roger Ebert has said, you can't fake what you find funny: You either laugh or you don't. (Another example: I don't think Chaplin is all that funny -- to me, Harold Lloyd is funnier. And I worship Buster Keaton, who can move me even beyond laughter because he's so funny and expresses an entire way of looking at the world that I feel down to my core. I can understand it: Chaplin, as someone once wrote, basically points the camera at himself and Keaton places himself within an indifferent universe. But does that account for it? I could write a book and still maybe not quite capture what I see...)

I don't think Chaplin is all that funny -- to me, Harold Lloyd is funnier.

As a self-proclaimed representative for People Who Prefer Charles Chaplin, I demand that you take that back!

Funny that you use that as your example. Chaplin vs. Keaton is always my go to example whenever I feel like people in an argument seem to forget that having a positive opinion about one thing doesn't mean you automatically have a negative opinion about "the competition".

Jim,

I have several issues with your view and analogies.

The alleged satire in Tropic Thunder is not direct on this point (such as satirizing short people with a song about short people) .. In this movie Hollywood stars are being satirized using the intellectually disabled. This means that the satire of Hollywood and the deeply offensive treatment of the intellectually disabled are not exclusive .. Stiller could easily "succeed" at both ..

There is a great irony that this film entertains its target audience by using the same techniques it intends to satirize .. it allows the "in" crowd to get the satire while the laugh at the cheap "retard" jokes ... I am sure all the folk buying the "full retard" shirts .. and all the people that will add that phrase to their lexicon in offices and schools this fall will be using it in a deeply satirical view of Hollywood and not to dehumanize the disabled ...

If you could see what my son faces every day of his life .. every minute .. and then add that to the societal acceptance of not celebrating him but consistently using whatever is the current term for his condition as a synonym for subhuman ignorance maybe you would "get it"

By the way nice cheap shots pointing out that the groups changed their name once the term "retard" started being used as a way to dehumanize people .. and the little comment about "claiming to represent" .. maybe you should do a little research and spend some time with these organizations ..

Saw "Tropic Thunder" today, and uh... yeah, it was pretty good. But it was no "Pineapple Express," that's for sure. It kind of reminded me more than anything of the last "Rambo" movie, if that movie recognized how re... ahem, ridiculous it was. But yeah, after seeing the film, it just makes the uproar over the whole Simple Jack gag even more foolish -- how you can misinterpret the joke is beyond me.

As for why something is funny, well damn -- how long has humanity been searching for an answer to that question? In all of my comedy exploits, such as they are, I've deduced at least one rule that tends to hold true: One of my favorite kind of jokes is where the punch at first seems shocking and completely unexpected, but then immediately feels just right. It's an odd chain reaction that occurs in the mind, and it happens in a split-second. "What?! ...Well, of course!"

I think it's one of the many reasons the Apatow line of comedies are so good. There are hundreds of ways any given joke can proceed, but they always seem to choose exactly the right one, no matter how small the joke is. "Of course Saul's lifelong dream would be to become a civil engineer," I'd think to myself. "What else could it have possibly been?"

But then there is no one right answer to the question, not just because humor is subjective, but because there are so many different kinds. I'm a big fan of surrealist/Dadaist comedy (12 Oz. Mouse is one of my favorite shows ever), but then what makes one seemingly random, surreal gag hilarious, and another completely ineffective? Figuring that one out is like trying to cram Pandora back in his box.

To JohnTheFool, who wrote:

"There is a great irony that this film entertains its target audience by using the same techniques it intends to satirize .. it allows the "in" crowd to get the satire while the laugh at the cheap "retard" jokes"

...

John, that is not irony at all. That is the very essence of good satire.

But there is a point of failure. I point to Natural Born Killers as a good example of failure. It reveled way too much in what it was supposed to be satirizing. I don't blame Stone for trying - I blame him for failing.

I don't like the tenor of this either.

I'm with you in that I plan to go see the film and expect plenty of laughs. And I agree that this boycott represents a misreading of the artist's intent, and is doomed to fail, but that's not the point.

This isn't even sort of about the artist's intent. The meat of these two pieces is an attack on people who feel hurt already. And I fail to understand why there's so much anger here towards them.

You know the legislation isn't going through. You know the boycott isn't going to happen. You've won already. Why is it necessary for you all to paint these groups as insincere, or say that they "feel it's their calling to strip multiple layers off their emotional skin so they can be mightily offended at a moment's notice," or to insist repeatedly that the offended parties must, must not be getting the joke?

You've all had it explained to you in the comment section of the last entry on this. No one responded to Erik's last post there, and I see that no one is responding to John's point here either.

I mean, have any of you considered that a lot of the people in these organizations are involved because they have loved ones that are mentally challenged? Because they are personally affected? These people aren't just bored and trying to fill up their time, you know.

I think the refusal to feel empathy is further illustrated by the accusation in the Silverman article that people who don't appreciate her stand-up lack "political and cultural awareness." Give me a break.

And Emerson wondered there how she might do on the Blue Collar Comedy Tour. Well, I can't speak for anyone else, but I am a southerner. I'm not stupid, I graduated with honors*, and I've probably seen a lot more films than a lot of you here. I read all the time, mostly sci fi, classic lit, history, psychology, and sociology. I've watched and/or read the news every day for as long as I can remember. Even though I have a lowly CS degree, my closest friends went into art and literature. Is that adequate?

Anyway, the paper in my hometown has the KKK parade on the front page every year. I know people who have done violence on others because of their race or their sexual orientation, and I know victims. I hear and see genuine discrimination all too often. And I think Sarah Silverman sounds like a racist jerkbag.

You say her comedy comes from a place where people can collectively assume the best intentions out of each other. Well, that just isn't where I come from. Now I get what she's doing and understand that she doesn't mean it. I just think it's low. I think it's bottom-feeding, and it isn't funny to me. I don't take it literally. It just doesn't make me laugh because, you see, it makes me think of the institutionalized injustice that surrounds me.

If you guys want to keep on laughing at anything in the world, then god bless you. Have a great time, that's what you're on earth for. But some people have a perfectly fine reason not to enjoy the exact same comedy that you do. And when you attack them, you just make yourself look unnecessarily vicious, and in the case of quite a few posters here, ignorant.

* It's "caterwaul," by the way.

John the Fool--

Why is, say, Stiller's over-the-top stereotypical depiction of a cognitively disabled man more offensive than Downey's over-the-top stereotypical depiction of a black man? In both cases, the joke is about how ridiculous the performance is, not about the group of people being satirized. Nowhere in the film is the actual behavior of a disabled person made the object of ridicule--rather it consistently satirizes how disabled people are treated by self-absorbed cads.

"John, that is not irony at all. That is the very essence of good satire."

I don't think so Adam, that's the essence of "having your cake and eating it too" Good satire would make the distinction clear. Jim's argument is that the point of the humor is obvious in it's critique of Hollywood and nothing else. John's argument is that there's some cheap laughs to be had at the expense of the mentally disabled, irrespective of the overall intent. Now, I think I HAVE to see to it find out for myself...

I'm the father of son who is mentally disabled, and I'm seeing the movie this weekend.

It all depends on the context, I think. When Matt Dillon's character in "There's Something About Mary" says "I work with retards," I laughed like crazy because Dillon's character was an insensitive ass and the line was something an insensitive ass would say.

When Andrew Dice Clay makes one of his inane comments about women, I cringe. Maybe thats because the Diceman really IS an insensitive ass.

Whenever I see this kind of senseless over-sensitivity on the part of professional complainers, I think of the whiny customer in "Clerks", who cried, "I don't an apology is sufficient. You've HIGHLY OFFENDED me!"

If you'd like irony, I submit this:

One of the groups who is organizing protests against TROPIC THUNDER for it's making light of the mentally disabled by using the term "retarded," is the ARC - Association of Retarded Citizens.

Part of making a presentation to an audience (which can include a joke within a film) is knowing your audience. Let's face it, your typical audience member is going to be too mentally challenged to even get the point, if it is indeed what Jim is saying it is (I haven't seen the film). For a lot of people, the joke is that the actors "making fun of retards." Is it irresponsible to make such a joke when you know that most of the audience will perceive the joke to be something other than it is? In this case, it probably does more to further the negative stereotypes of the mentally handicapped. The joke can be in bad taste even if it wasn't intended to be interpreted the way that it will be by most. Or, perhaps I should say it was probably conceived through bad judgment because that puts the onus on the writers rather than the audience.

On the flip side, shouldn't art challenge the viewer? ;)

I think it should be noted that the groups that would promote a boycott are probably not really expecting "to win." Their purpose is to use the film as a means for their cause to be heard, no matter what they actually believe the intent of the film to be. Some of them may even not even think that the film is offensive. That won't stop them from politicizing it. That's part of their job. How else do you drum up national press coverage for your association? How better to be heard by the mainstream than to attach your cause to something in pop culture? They have achieved success no matter what comes of the film, or the boycott.

I don't know but it seems to me that all this discussion and analysis of Tropic Thunder lends credence to the notion that Stiller and company have done their job exceptionally well. No comedy (hell, no FILM) is going to appease everyone's tastes. And satire in particular is going to cause people to draw lines in the sand on what is good taste. If this movie weren't being discussed, then, for my money, it wouldn't be an effective satire.

Emily wrote:

You know the legislation isn't going through. You know the boycott isn't going to happen. You've won already. Why is it necessary for you all to paint these groups as insincere, or say that they "feel it's their calling to strip multiple layers off their emotional skin so they can be mightily offended at a moment's notice," or to insist repeatedly that the offended parties must, must not be getting the joke?

I think the very fact that the offended parties must have known that there was going to be no ban, no recuts and no apologies from Stiller or the studio suggests that they have basically been trying to cynically milk this one for all its worth. I'm sure in their own minds, the ends justify the means, the ends being greater focus on people with disabilities, the means being essentially trying to hijack a summer comedy with a couple of scenes that they can wring their hands over.

These advocates have attempted to chain their fortunes to that of the movie's. Rather than do the sensible thing and just ignore it, they've decided that the movie-going population of the Free World is a pack of morons that can't possibly recognize satire. It's not that they can't get the joke, it's that they think everyone else is too stupid to get the joke, and that it will somehow bring on... well, I dunno, what do they think is going to happen? Will there be a rash of wheel-chair tippings, cane thefts and handicap parking spot violations? Even if this movie were truly offensive, and heaven knows there have been movies over the last ten years that are infinitely more offensive to people with disabilities than Tropical Thunder, do they actually think society is going to reverse course on issues regarding the handicapped?

>all this discussion and analysis of Tropic Thunder lends credence to the notion that Stiller and company have done their job exceptionally well

>If this movie weren't being discussed, then, for my money, it wouldn't be an effective satire.

That logic doesn't hold for me. Lots of crappy movies have done well by being controversial. For the most part, the reviews I've been reading have been somewhat mixed beyond these hot button moments. Which, actually makes me want to wait for the DVD. Most people have been focusing on the "idea" of the controversy, over the actual effectiveness of a movie they may or may not have seen yet.

Aaron wrote:
[indent]I think the very fact that the offended parties must have known that there was going to be no ban, no recuts and no apologies from Stiller or the studio suggests that they have basically been trying to cynically milk this one for all its worth. I'm sure in their own minds, the ends justify the means, the ends being greater focus on people with disabilities, the means being essentially trying to hijack a summer comedy with a couple of scenes that they can wring their hands over. [/indent]

I am sure we can all agree that groups who try to improve the lives of those with disabilities are worth helping. As with any other organization they are not perfect, but the core idea is one that is noble.

That aside, I can not get behind protest against art/entertainment. If we are talking about unfair legislation or public policy then hell yes, I am full behind protest. But entertainment? Arguing against this sort of thing is just an academic exercise in discussion on manners. The policy of political correctness is not one that addresses the core of a problem. Changing the meaning of words is hardly going to give us the social change desired.

What's worse, what if these protests were actually successful? What if an offended person or group really could bully entertainers in to bending to their will? Do we really want this trend to gain momentum? Are we really comfortable with the idea of there only being one form of art or entertainment "allowed"? There is a term for this ideology and I would hope that we can all recognize that it is not a goal we want to strive to accomplish.

Eric, the problem with the Obama cover is not that it went over the head of people who understand parody, including Obama and his supporters. The problem is that a lot of people out there don't understand parody and/or deliberately chose to misunderstand... and the ad ended up giving fodder to the mischaracterizations. Those of us who object to the New Yorker cover got the joke, but we feel it was very harmful to Obama because most people don't get it.

Eric, the problem with the Obama cover is not that it went over the heads of people who understand parody, including Obama and his supporters. The problem is that a lot of people out there don't understand parody and/or deliberately chose to misunderstand... and the ad ended up giving fodder to the mischaracterizations. Those of us who object to the New Yorker cover got the joke, but we feel it was very harmful to Obama because most people don't get it.

I always enjoy your writing, Jim, and usually agree with your take on things. This article is no exception. I get really tired of people cluelessly protesting or taking offense at things due to a lack of sense of humor or irony.

I do have to weigh in on one thing, though. I'm assuming RL is Rush Limbaugh, and I didn't know his name was so holy that it had to be bleeped out, like G-d. Oh, maybe that's not why. In any case, this line:

Is it "joking" the way R--- L------- used to about "feminazis," implying that a woman's place is in a coma?

caused me some concern. I am far from a Limbaugh defender, but I listened to him enough in years past to know his take on some things. Feminazi was indeed a joking term, but it was never meant to imply that a woman's place is in (a coma, the kitchen, at home with babies, barefoot and pregnant, or anything similar.) In fact, the term was never used to refer to "women" in general at all. Not was it ever used even to refer to feminist women. The term Feminazi was used to refer to a very few specific women who try to pretend they represent the desires of all women, and want to force their beliefs on everyone, male or female. Disagreeing with them is, in their eyes, proof that you are against all women.

This is a minor point in an excellent article, but whenever I see things like this thrown around, it seems like a lazy, cheap shot, and makes me question the whole article.

And before I get tagged as a Rushie, let me say I get just as annoyed with inaccurate things about anyone, regardless of political leaning. My current pet peeve is all the lies being spread about Obama via talk shows and e-mail chains. When these things show up in articles, I usually stop reading, but I can't trust anything else after that.

I haven't seen Tropic Thunder, but I have seen clips, including the "Never go full retard" scene. I get that the point is to make fun of Hollywood portrayals of mentally disabled people, but they're still calling disabled people "retards" to do it.

"That aside, I can not get behind protest against art/entertainment. If we are talking about unfair legislation or public policy then hell yes, I am full behind protest. But entertainment? Arguing against this sort of thing is just an academic exercise in discussion on manners. The policy of political correctness is not one that addresses the core of a problem. Changing the meaning of words is hardly going to give us the social change desired."

The core of the problem here is that people often have little qualm with making fun of disabled people. The reason people ridicule disabled people is not usually because they're just jerks; more often it's because they don't realize that what they're doing causes offense. So by simply saying "Hey, that's offensive" when something offends them, they are addressing the problem.

Take the blackface aspect of Tropic Thunder. Blackface has been done before in offensive ways, but people who were offended made their views known. As a result, people stopped performing in blackface, and Ben Stiller screened the movie for the NAACP to make sure it didn't offend anyone. What if every time someone performed in blackface, the NAACP just threw up their hands and said, "it's art, what are you going to do?". Or if people said "oh, it's just a joke don't be so sensitive." or "those groups just go looking for things to get offended about". And who is anyone to say that people who are offended by blackface should be taken seriously, but people who are offended when you call disabled people "retards" shouldn't?

Greg--

You're mistaking the film-maker's voice for the characters' voices. Having despicable characters do despicable things isn't wrong. Hannibal Lecter was a cannibal, did The Silence of the Lambs promote cannibalism? Just because some of the characters use the word "retard" doesn't mean the film is making fun of the mentally disabled. It's making fun of people who use the word "retard", just like it's making fun of actors who'll go to obscene lengths to prove they can play any roll, not black people.

Greg, I agree with a lot of what you say. It's way too common for those simply voicing their feelings to be branded as anti-free speech; actually they are engaging in free speech. Jim joked about being intolerant of intolerance. The same holds true with being outraged by outrage. I rarely agree with boycotts regarding artistic work or protests that get in your face with the idea of embarrassing you about your personal tastes. But peaceful protests or press releases stating a position are the American way.

I also think (this may have been mentioned before) that the fact that many of the spokespeople in this case are not defending themselves, but others whom they have become accustomed to serving selflessly, may be responsible for some of the vehemence and apparent lack of humor. I saw the movie and thought it was hilarious but this is one case where I have no desire to trumpet my rights or righteousness. For many reasons, it wouldn't be a fair fight. Like the fact that I don't have responsibility for anyone but myself.

Calm down people. First, comedians and filmmakers are not necessarily black, Jew, Mexican or short, so that's a plus. Let them say what they want, and even if they are, let them be! It's not like those groups of beings necessarily have, I don't know... big feet. Particularly not short people. And probably most Mexicans wouldn't either (though... maybe some mixed chicanos? ...yuck!)

I say, stop banning nonsense, if you want to ban something, there you have big feet. I am not saying "kill" those with big feet or anything of that sort, but hey, if society has to pay for jails already, why not put them to use. Plus there is always amputation.

Heck, now, I'm gonna be creeped out all day by the image of feet I now have in my mind. THANK YOU!