Mike's Musings: Funny versus Offensive
A while back, I posed a question on the Reelviews forum about the line between a joke being funny, and being offensive. Humor is subjective; James Berardinelli may find "A Fish Called Wanda one of the funniest movies ever, while I find it a lifeless bore. Edgy material is also subjective; one person might find a joke about a Jewish character hilarious, while another might see it as offensive and reprehensible.
Where do you draw the line? It really depends on the material and how it's handled. First off, if the joke lands and gets a laugh, no apologies are necessary. In many cases, humor is a way of breaking down barriers. Humor lightens the mood in any situation and it brings to light the fact that everyone, no matter who they are, is prone to their own human foibles. In dealing with controversial material, which is the lifeblood of many comics, successful comedians use humor to address the material.
Not every joke works, obviously (see "Wanderlust" for an example). Either it's not delivered correctly or just too dumb to be funny. But what about offensive material? Is a controversial joke automatically offensive if it doesn't fly? I don't think so.
The bottom line is intent. Is someone trying to make fun or or poke fun. Jay Leno is a master at this. No one is off limits for his jokes, but his humor is never mean. Leno never insults his targets; it's more like poking fun at your friends. Conversely, there are comedians and comedies that don't get this. In his review of Andrew Dice Clay's concert film, "Dice Rules," Roger Ebert said this: "Of course any subject can theoretically be made funny, but to just stand and point is not the same thing as developing a humorous point of view."
I think he hit it right on the money. In order to make a joke about something, you have to have some sort of respect for it. A gay person isn't funny because they're gay. A gay person could be funny because they embody the stereotypes in a ridiculously over-the-top fashion. Take Albert from "The Birdcage." He wasn't funny because he was an effeminate gay man. He was funny because he took the stereotypes to astronomical lengths.
Another controversial comedy is the TV show "Family Guy" (I'm not going to use this Mike's Musings to defend Tucker Max since I already have). Charges have been thrown at the show for being demeaning to women, anti-Semetic and making fun of people with mental illnesses. The first charge, I'm assuming, is because of how the teenage daughter, Meg, is treated. Meg, a "fat and gross" (the character's own words) teenage girl, is often an object of derision by the other characters. But if you watch the show, she is derided not because she's a girl, but because she's whiny and ugly and so filled with angst. By contrast, Lois (the mother) is portrayed as being intelligent and sexy.
The anti-Semitism charge against the show is not exactly without merit, although their intent is hardly one of insult. In my opinion, the show's funniest episode is "Family Goy," where Lois finds out that she has Jewish heritage. Peter, the buffoonish father, first reacts great to the news; he drags his family to the synagogue, enrolls his kids in a Jewish school, and so on. But after his father visits him in a dream, his reaction changes. He strings Lois up on a cross as if she's crucified and gets completely hammered before crashing Lois's passover seder. He even imitates Amon Goeth in "Schindler's List" when he uses Jews for target practice (by the way, I think this scene goes too far, but that's the price of pushing boundaries).
The material is funny not because Lois is experimenting with Judaism or that Peter hates or fears Jewish people (one of his friends, Mort, is Jewish). It's funny because Peter is such a moron. He completely misinterprets what is actually going on because he doesn't have the intelligence to get it. Peter's mind has never been exactly in synch with reality, and his over the top reactions to situations are a case in point. Earlier in the episode, he has an "affair" with a cardboard cutout of supermodel Kathy Ireland. Peter's stupidity is the true source of humor. It would be just as funny if Lois had discovered that she was of Hindu or Zoroastrian heritage. Then of course Jesus shows up, and that's when Peter (finally) gets it.
The episode "Extra Large Medium" attracted a fair amount of controversy with its depiction of a girl with Down Syndrome. True, it does make a few jokes about Down Syndrome, but the actress who plays the character, Andrea Fay Freidman, has Down Syndrome herself. If it was an actress who didn't have it, it would have been uncomfortable. But because Freidman does, it eliminates the possibility of the show looking like it's making fun of people with the Down Syndrome. The controversy was due to Bristol Palin taking offense at the character's mother being the former governor of Alaska. Freidman countered that she has a normal life and Palin was treating her son as a prop for votes and instead should be treated as normal not a "loaf of bread." And anyone who actually watches the episode will immediately realize that the joke is not aimed at Palin's son. In fact, the episode breaks a barrier because people with disabilities are shown as people who don't demand sympathy (this is also true of an episode of "Law and Order SVU" that starred Freidman). Here, Ellen (Friedman's character) is portrayed as a normal girl, if a demanding and bitchy one (something that every gender has been portrayed as). Not to mention someone who is seen as being sexy.
The bottom line is that the line between funny and offensive is as variable from person to person as is the line between funny and boring. Still, I think it's always better to push the boundaries since humor depends on it. The more things we tackle with a humorous spin, the more barriers will be broken down.
Although I always encourage comments and criticisms, this one case where I beg for it. I'd like to hear what you have to say. Feel free to speak your mind. If you think I'm full of shit or dead wrong, say so. Just say why. It could lead to some interesting discussions.
Where do you draw the line? It really depends on the material and how it's handled. First off, if the joke lands and gets a laugh, no apologies are necessary. In many cases, humor is a way of breaking down barriers. Humor lightens the mood in any situation and it brings to light the fact that everyone, no matter who they are, is prone to their own human foibles. In dealing with controversial material, which is the lifeblood of many comics, successful comedians use humor to address the material.
Not every joke works, obviously (see "Wanderlust" for an example). Either it's not delivered correctly or just too dumb to be funny. But what about offensive material? Is a controversial joke automatically offensive if it doesn't fly? I don't think so.
The bottom line is intent. Is someone trying to make fun or or poke fun. Jay Leno is a master at this. No one is off limits for his jokes, but his humor is never mean. Leno never insults his targets; it's more like poking fun at your friends. Conversely, there are comedians and comedies that don't get this. In his review of Andrew Dice Clay's concert film, "Dice Rules," Roger Ebert said this: "Of course any subject can theoretically be made funny, but to just stand and point is not the same thing as developing a humorous point of view."
I think he hit it right on the money. In order to make a joke about something, you have to have some sort of respect for it. A gay person isn't funny because they're gay. A gay person could be funny because they embody the stereotypes in a ridiculously over-the-top fashion. Take Albert from "The Birdcage." He wasn't funny because he was an effeminate gay man. He was funny because he took the stereotypes to astronomical lengths.
Another controversial comedy is the TV show "Family Guy" (I'm not going to use this Mike's Musings to defend Tucker Max since I already have). Charges have been thrown at the show for being demeaning to women, anti-Semetic and making fun of people with mental illnesses. The first charge, I'm assuming, is because of how the teenage daughter, Meg, is treated. Meg, a "fat and gross" (the character's own words) teenage girl, is often an object of derision by the other characters. But if you watch the show, she is derided not because she's a girl, but because she's whiny and ugly and so filled with angst. By contrast, Lois (the mother) is portrayed as being intelligent and sexy.
The anti-Semitism charge against the show is not exactly without merit, although their intent is hardly one of insult. In my opinion, the show's funniest episode is "Family Goy," where Lois finds out that she has Jewish heritage. Peter, the buffoonish father, first reacts great to the news; he drags his family to the synagogue, enrolls his kids in a Jewish school, and so on. But after his father visits him in a dream, his reaction changes. He strings Lois up on a cross as if she's crucified and gets completely hammered before crashing Lois's passover seder. He even imitates Amon Goeth in "Schindler's List" when he uses Jews for target practice (by the way, I think this scene goes too far, but that's the price of pushing boundaries).
The material is funny not because Lois is experimenting with Judaism or that Peter hates or fears Jewish people (one of his friends, Mort, is Jewish). It's funny because Peter is such a moron. He completely misinterprets what is actually going on because he doesn't have the intelligence to get it. Peter's mind has never been exactly in synch with reality, and his over the top reactions to situations are a case in point. Earlier in the episode, he has an "affair" with a cardboard cutout of supermodel Kathy Ireland. Peter's stupidity is the true source of humor. It would be just as funny if Lois had discovered that she was of Hindu or Zoroastrian heritage. Then of course Jesus shows up, and that's when Peter (finally) gets it.
The episode "Extra Large Medium" attracted a fair amount of controversy with its depiction of a girl with Down Syndrome. True, it does make a few jokes about Down Syndrome, but the actress who plays the character, Andrea Fay Freidman, has Down Syndrome herself. If it was an actress who didn't have it, it would have been uncomfortable. But because Freidman does, it eliminates the possibility of the show looking like it's making fun of people with the Down Syndrome. The controversy was due to Bristol Palin taking offense at the character's mother being the former governor of Alaska. Freidman countered that she has a normal life and Palin was treating her son as a prop for votes and instead should be treated as normal not a "loaf of bread." And anyone who actually watches the episode will immediately realize that the joke is not aimed at Palin's son. In fact, the episode breaks a barrier because people with disabilities are shown as people who don't demand sympathy (this is also true of an episode of "Law and Order SVU" that starred Freidman). Here, Ellen (Friedman's character) is portrayed as a normal girl, if a demanding and bitchy one (something that every gender has been portrayed as). Not to mention someone who is seen as being sexy.
The bottom line is that the line between funny and offensive is as variable from person to person as is the line between funny and boring. Still, I think it's always better to push the boundaries since humor depends on it. The more things we tackle with a humorous spin, the more barriers will be broken down.
Although I always encourage comments and criticisms, this one case where I beg for it. I'd like to hear what you have to say. Feel free to speak your mind. If you think I'm full of shit or dead wrong, say so. Just say why. It could lead to some interesting discussions.
Some good points here, Family Guy makes fun of everybody, so the humor never really comes across as mean or racist(though I could do without some of the rape jokes) I really like Meg though and I do think the writers sometimes overdo it on the abuse her character(though thankfully that's been toned down in recent seasons), oh and i'm glad i'm not the only who thought "Wanda" was extremely overrated and unfunny, I'm pretty dumbfounded as to why James gave that film 4 stars.
ReplyDeleteAlso Ebert was wrong in his review of Dice, because he mistakenly thought Andrew Dice Clay was like that in real life, when that was really just an exaggerated characterization by Andrew Silverstein, he was an over-the-top parody of a "greaser" and his outdated views on women were part of the act. I can understand why some would find him offensive, but I personally think he's hilarious and that Ebert was WAAAAYYYYY off the mark on him.
I'm a pretty tough guy to offend, I can't think of any comedians that really turn me off for that reason, Tucker Max's isn't that he's misgynostic, it's that he's not the least bit funny, same for Joe Rogan.
I haven't seen anything with Andrew Dice Clay in it, so I can't comment on that. But I am curious.
ReplyDeleteIt also takes a lot to offend me. I tend to see the glass as half full when it comes to film. With the exception of "Soul Plane," I haven't seen a film that struck me as racist or derogatory. I simply found it to be making fun of the character (which is fair game in my opinion). Roger Ebert said as much in his review with Roeper about "Freddy Got Fingered."
Soul Plane didn't really strike me as "racist" or "deragatory" I personally thought it was hilarious, it felt like they were greatly exaggerating black sterotypes for the sake of humor, not like they were playing them straight, plus it helps that i'm a big Kevin Hart fan.
ReplyDeleteBTW, have you ever seen 2 Broke Girls? Some people accused that show of being racist because of the asian restaurant manager speaking in a slight "engrish" accent, personally I didn't see it as "racist" at all.
ReplyDeleteI haven't seen the show, actually, so I can't speak for it. But I will say that it would have to go very far in order for me to see it as racist.
ReplyDelete