December 15, 2008
Funny vs. Offensive, Redux
Is PC Compatible with Funny?
Ah, it wouldn't be a week in entertainment if someone didn't get offended. Now everyone's upset by Fred Armisen's imitation of New York Governor David Paterson, in which the governor says he is a "blind man who loves cocaine" and claims he's looking for an upstate "freak" to fill the post Hillary Clinton is vacating. The main focus of everyone's ire is the fact that the skit "made fun" of Paterson's blindess, or even (according to the National Federation of the Blind) was an "attack" on blind people in general. A few online commentators have also revived the complaint that a white actor is playing a black man, though that has clearly taken a back seat to the other issue.
As with most situations like this, my first question is what, exactly, the skit was making fun of. There seems to be general agreement that the actual target was Paterson and his political abilities as governor--which weakens any argument that the skit's intended target was all blind people as a group. That is to say, the skit did not intentionally demean blind people and their ability to live productive lives. This remains true despite Gov. Paterson's complaint that the skit portrayed blind people as incapable of governing, or the NFB's complaint that the skit implied blind people are "incapable of everyday tasks." Incidentally, this seems to be their stock phrase when they're upset, because it's the same one they used about the movie "Blindness."
It is true that the skit can still imply things that are not deliberate jokes at anyone's expense. Yes, SNL did take cheap shots by havig Armisen's Paterson hold a chart upside-down, then wander around aimlessly. And yes, maybe they shouldn't have taken those cheap shots. But their joke about Paterson's coke use (which he has actually admitted to) was also a cheap shot. Historically, SNL has taken plenty of cheap shots at political figures-- Sarah Palin, for example, or even the parody of Blegojevich that opened the show--and no one freaked out this much. So the underlying assumption is obviously that it is only this particular type of cheap shot that is a problem.
Why? Well, the offended parties argue that disability, unlike cocaine or politics, is not a choice and it is therefore not right to make fun of disabilities in any way shape or form. But the fact that Paterson is blind cannot, does not, and should not disqualify him from enduring satirical attacks on the level of any other politician. How else was Armisen supposed to portray him? In fact, most agree that Armisen did pretty damned good job imitating Paterson. So while many have said that making fun of disabilities is off limits (or at least should be), that's an impratically idealistic pronouncement when you've got a public figure who happens to be disabled.
So is the NFB's demand that SNL be "funny wihout being offensive." On that issue, there is no argument. Laughter is completely subjective to the individual, so there's really no point in arguing about whether something is funny or not. Obviously, it was funny to some people (like Saturday's SNL audience) and offensive to others (like the Governor himself). You can't argue funny, or persuade offensive. Laughter and offense are instantaneous, involuntary, and mutually exclusive responses. It's true that (as Eddie Murphy said and others have quoted) if you laugh at something you're not offended by it. Once you've had your reaction, whatever it may have been, no one is going to change it. So I'm not going to tell anyone what they should or shouldn't have felt about the skit.
For an eternal pragmatist like me, the only question is what exactly anyone wants to acheive with all of this protest. Freedom of speech allows SNL to mock whomever it wants, and also allows any group that's offended to voice its displeasure. All humor arises from breaking some sort of social boundary or taboo; sometimes that process goes too far and becomes unfunny to some--but there is no such thing as funny to everyone, either. Frankly, I think that the real issue should be the actual disempowerment of people with disabilities, and I wonder if some of the extreme emotion directed at this skit stems from frustration about the real world. If so, I hope that everyone can find a way to talk about it in a productive manner, and spend a little less time arguing about the shoulda, woulda, coulda of what's funny or not.
