I'm sure the Devil needs no mouthpiece, but I'm going to play Devil's Advocate here, and ask: when do we stop with the censorship of art? Censorship manifests in different ways, but they are all just roundabout ways of telling a grown man he can't eat a steak because a toddler might choke on it.
Art also takes different forms. It can be literature, sculpture, painting, or cinematic. Whether a member of the public likes or doesn't care for each form is purely subjective. Some subject matter is offensive, no doubt about it. But the question is: do we ban it? HBO have banned, and are apparently reinstating, Gone with the Wind from and now to its streaming service. The reasoning is the film's offensive portrayal of people of colour. Yes, the depictions are racist. It is set in a very racist society. I'm wondering does nobody these days ever contextualise?
Netflix have removed Little Britain and some of Chris Lilley's series from their platform because some characters are portrayed with the white actors in blackface type makeup. I am well aware why blackface is problematic, but is banning a show the answer? I don't watch Little Britain because I consider it to be about as funny as a fart in an elevator. I didn't mind some of Lilley's earlier shows, and thought Mr G hysterical. Lilley is very good at characterisations, and I see him as a satirist taking aim at preconceived notions of sectors of society. I always saw Jonah as a disruptive kid more than a 'Poly', as he was often called. That spoiled school girl he played - Ja'mie - made me laugh like a drain because I've known entitled, stuck-up kids just like her. I could not get into Angry Boys or Lunatics; indeed, those shows made me wonder had he lost momentum. But ,whilst acknowledging the foul and offensive history of blackface comedy itself, is banning a show because a satirist puts on makeup to portray a character going to resolve the problem of racism? Is banning a movie that depicted a racist antebellum society going to magically fix the problem of racism in our modern society?
Elmer Fudd is now being depicted with a scythe instead of that awkward blunderbuss looking thing he used to tote. ('Be vewy, vewy quiet. We're going harvesting wabbits!'). I'm surprised nobody's banned Pepe Le Pew yet. I'll be honest and admit I cannot stand this sleazy stinking lothario. He's the Harvey Weinstein of the weasel family. He can't tell it's not another skunk, but a cat with paint, and he continues to grope the poor creature when she is clearly trying to get away. That being said, I wouldn't ban the cartoon, but make it clear to my children (who don't watch him, anyway), this is not the way to interact in the real world. I think my kids would understand this because they know a coyote can outrun a roadrunner any day. Hey, what about Speedy Gonzales and his mates, including those two crows always trying to eat him? Do these characters buy into racist stereotypes?
Last night I tuned into Stan and watched, for the first time in my life, an episode of Mad Men. True dinks, I've never seen it in my life. It was the pilot episode, and I found some of the sexist attitudes very offensive. I wanted to reach through the screen and slap the judgemental doctor prescribing contractive pills to a single woman. I wanted to punch the groin of the advertising gronk making sleazy remarks to the new girl on her first day. I wanted to give a colossal wedgie to the dickwad who stormed out of a meeting because he didn't like the way the prospective female client spoke to him - it wasn't want she said, but that she was a woman with which he took umbrage. Other minority groups like Jews and African Americans were regarded with derision. As you can see, these are really offensive characters, to say nothing of the perpetual fug of cigarette smoke clouding every scene. I hate sexism, and I can't bear cigarettes. Should Stan pull the series because some people might think being sexist, anti-Semitic, racist, and stinking up the planet with ciggies is a good and acceptable idea? Or should Stan keep the series streaming, content in the knowledge that the populace have the common sense to know that the series is set in a different time, and by and large mostly know how to contextualise?
Some of these banners are probably the same pussy-arses who would have Huckleberry Finn and To Kill A Mockingbird banned on the basis a character uses the N-word. People these days are well aware this word is monstrously offensive, and therefore wouldn't dream of saying it. However, these novels are set in a time when the word was used, mainly by ignorant types. And if these wannabe-banners took the time to read each book, they would realise there are wonderful and important lessons to be learned from them. Mark Twain was very much against slavery, and he uses Huckleberry's realisation that the ownership of another human being is wrong to make his own views known to the reader. For me, the most powerful scene in that novel is when Huck apologises to Jim after pulling a mean prank, and reflects that this is the first time he has ever apologised to a person of colour (phrase mine, not Twain's) but he doesn't regret it, and furthermore, would do it again.
Here's an idea: if a movie or television show has portrayals or language that are culturally offensive, how about a warning before the show, with a disclaimer that the setting warrants this material in the interests of historical accuracy and integrity? If people don't want to watch it, they don't have to. If people do want to watch it, let them decide for themselves if they are offended - and this includes the sector portrayed in the work.
Can we please stop just banning things willy-nilly?
No comments:
Post a Comment