I personally do not believe that past works of comedy should be viewed through today's moral scope. When watching a comedy from a bygone era, one must remember the social state of the world at the time the work was produced. Could a movie such as Blazing Saddles be produced and released in today's world climate without Mel Brooks being socially ostracized and the movie banned, or dropped from the theaters due to massive demonstrations? I think not, and that is okay in today's society but in 1974, I would ask how many people who would now condemn this movie laughed their butts off in 1974? Does that make them racist today? No, it does not and I still laugh my butt off when I re-watch Blazing Saddles and almost every Mel Brooks movie ever, which I bet, not one of them would ever be made today as they were back then. I believe that we must accept the past for what it was then, but move forward with the proper consideration of all people.
That's pretty much what I was saying here when I spoke of the movies I saw as a teen that make me cringe now. The key is moving forward with the proper consideration of all people, and Chapelle doesn't provide that context - rather he amplified the conspiracy theories. Meanwhile, Kanye and white nationalist, Holocaust denier and antisemite Nick Fuentes dined with the former president this week and not a single Republican Congressperson has had the guts to speak out about it.
I haven't seen the Dave Chappelle bit but it was discussed by John Stewart and Stephen Colbert. My sense is that Colbert wasn't in full agreement with Stewart and I'm not sure I am either. Anti-semitism, and racism in general, is like a herpes virus; it lays in a dormant state until the immune system is engaged elsewhere and then bursts out in an ugly blister. Racism is often a sign of societal stress caused by other problems - covid, fascism, inflation. In any case I'm more in favor of confronting the racist than engaging them as Stewart is suggesting. Here is the link to the interview;
One of the things I learned from writing SKOH is that we DO need to engage. In that, I agree with Jon Stewart. I also agree that suspending Irving wasn't the best solution. If we don't have conversations, then we will never solve these problems. BUT I do think that they way Chappelle ended his monologue was dangerous, and he could have totally avoided the controversy if he'd pointed out who wins when our communities are divided. Jon didn't address that. He made light of it, which is a strategy I've employed myself many, many times. But given the widespread nature of the antisemitic conspiracies I'm seeing, I'm finding it harder to find the humor.
I personally do not believe that past works of comedy should be viewed through today's moral scope. When watching a comedy from a bygone era, one must remember the social state of the world at the time the work was produced. Could a movie such as Blazing Saddles be produced and released in today's world climate without Mel Brooks being socially ostracized and the movie banned, or dropped from the theaters due to massive demonstrations? I think not, and that is okay in today's society but in 1974, I would ask how many people who would now condemn this movie laughed their butts off in 1974? Does that make them racist today? No, it does not and I still laugh my butt off when I re-watch Blazing Saddles and almost every Mel Brooks movie ever, which I bet, not one of them would ever be made today as they were back then. I believe that we must accept the past for what it was then, but move forward with the proper consideration of all people.
That's pretty much what I was saying here when I spoke of the movies I saw as a teen that make me cringe now. The key is moving forward with the proper consideration of all people, and Chapelle doesn't provide that context - rather he amplified the conspiracy theories. Meanwhile, Kanye and white nationalist, Holocaust denier and antisemite Nick Fuentes dined with the former president this week and not a single Republican Congressperson has had the guts to speak out about it.
I haven't seen the Dave Chappelle bit but it was discussed by John Stewart and Stephen Colbert. My sense is that Colbert wasn't in full agreement with Stewart and I'm not sure I am either. Anti-semitism, and racism in general, is like a herpes virus; it lays in a dormant state until the immune system is engaged elsewhere and then bursts out in an ugly blister. Racism is often a sign of societal stress caused by other problems - covid, fascism, inflation. In any case I'm more in favor of confronting the racist than engaging them as Stewart is suggesting. Here is the link to the interview;
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6V_sEqfIL9Q
One of the things I learned from writing SKOH is that we DO need to engage. In that, I agree with Jon Stewart. I also agree that suspending Irving wasn't the best solution. If we don't have conversations, then we will never solve these problems. BUT I do think that they way Chappelle ended his monologue was dangerous, and he could have totally avoided the controversy if he'd pointed out who wins when our communities are divided. Jon didn't address that. He made light of it, which is a strategy I've employed myself many, many times. But given the widespread nature of the antisemitic conspiracies I'm seeing, I'm finding it harder to find the humor.