Aboard my last ship one evening in June of 1998, at around ten minutes after eight, a group of young petty officers came knocking on the Chief's Mess door with a complaint and a demand: Ban the movie "Blazing Saddles", which was the feature being shown that night.
It seems they were deeply offended by the opening scene in which the redneck cowboys demand of the black members of the track laying gang, "Sing us a nigger work song." These young petty officers were, to a man, black. And they found the scene offensive because of the use of the word nigger.
Being the good leaders we were, the chiefs present listened to the complaint, restated it to ensure we understood it, then pointed out that the scene showed the rednecks making fools of themselves attempting to demonstrate what they wanted after the track gang feigned ignorance. That the point of the scene was to poke fun at racists was lost on these young men. It didn't matter that one of the screenwriters was Richard Pryor. All they saw was that a white actor had used the word "nigger", something for which there could be no justification.
Our command master chief called down to the ship's TV station and had the film banned. While he was on the phone, he asked our young petty officers what movie they'd like to have shown in its place. "Friday," they said.
Ten minutes later, the command master chief called down to the TV station and banned that movie, too. His rationale? If a word is so offensive that its utterance in a film is sufficient reason to ban the film, then all films in which the word is uttered are banned. Periodically, for a period of about two months, he'd call down in the middle of a movie and have it banned. Eventually, the group of young men had enough and came back to the Chief's Mess to retract their demand.
Personally, I don't think they ever got the lesson he was trying to teach, nor did they ever grasp the concept that one of the greatest powers of comedy is its ability to illuminate evil. I wish I could have sat those men down and shown them that scene over and over until they understood it. "Look, here...see this group of hard-working black men stroking their chins thoughtfully, pretending not to know the requested song, and refusing to behave in a stereotypical manner? Now, see this group of white cowboys, prancing around, kicking up dust, flapping their arms like chickens? Which group looks idiotic to you? And in the next scene, when their white leader considers a piece of equipment more valuable than the lives of two hard-working black men, doesn't he get thumped over the head for it?" Would have been wasted breath.
Flash forward: present day. The government of the Philippines is seeking an apology from the producers of "Desperate Housewives" for a racial slur. Apparently, during the season premiere, Teri Hatcher's character asked a medical professional, "can I check those diplomas, because I want to make they're not from some med school in the Philippines."
The government of the Philippines. The government.
This is not a group of young men taking on the mantle of disenfranchisement. This is a government. Presumably, these are people in power.
Now, I am not a fan of "Desperate Housewives", and have never seen even part of an episode. However, I have seen an occaisional advertisement for the show, so I know that it is a comedy-drama, and if the ads are any indication, the main characters in the show frequently deserve a comeuppance, and very often they get it.
I don't know Teri Hatcher's character, but I know the type. For the character to say something of that nature, it had to be a setup for a later, well-deserved slap.
This is one way that comedy works. We see a despicable character (a character we "love to hate") get their just desserts and it points to their behavior as inherently wrong. An object lesson is thus delivered to the audience.
You don't have to be an intellectual to grasp this concept, and yet, many smart people miss it entirely. They hear the words, but miss the point.
Worse, the mainstream media reports on such objections as though it's the correct point of view. Over time, many people have come to believe that the context in which something is said is immaterial, that a word uttered must naturally have been chosen for its most hateful definition.
As a writer, I am dismayed by this trend. It assumes the worst of the speaker (which in the case of television and film is the writer), who is often in agreement with the individual who claims offense.
In one widely acclaimed and Oscar-winning film addressing the subject of racism, a white, off-duty cop (a nice guy, by any standard, and who we think is color-blind until this scene) blows away a young black man who, it turns out, is unarmed after all. We see the white cop torch his own car to destroy the evidence of the murder he's committed, including the victim's body.
And no one points to it and says, "See? SEE? That's racist! I'm offended by that scene! The producers should apologize!"
Some advice for those who would cry foul over things like these: Stop. Listen. Think: What is the context of the "offensive" language?
Not everyone is out to get you.
No comments:
Post a Comment