-
Website
http://www.filmschoolrejects.com/ -
Original page
http://www.filmschoolrejects.com/features/tropic-blunder-r-rated-comedies-and-the-new-offensive.php -
Subscribe
All Comments -
Community
-
-
Top Commenters
-
Popular Threads
Small grammatical error in the second to last paragraph though. Should be 'there' instead of 'their' in that first line. Easy enough mistake to make, especially when you're sitting atop a high-horse , balancing on a soap box, which itself is straddling the thin line between common sense and knee-jerk pandering.
And you guys should know that I abhor political correctness so I'm not on the protest side. As far as I'm concerned, if blacks want the word "nigger" erased from the phase of the earth, rappers and gang-bangers need to stop using it as well.
To take your point further (and in response to a couple of comments above) as we continue to push the envelope, maybe eventually we'll get an R-rated comedy that includes "funny" scenes of 50 year old men molesting 6 year old girls.
Wouldn't that be a laugh-riot?
Vic
The difference is that while I'm standing on mine, and you're trying hiding your's.
Pedophilia is already played for laughs, notably and repetitively in "Family Guy." Law & Order deals with it all the time. Is it ok to show it in one art form (drama) but not another (comedy)?
@Cole
I get that you're probably just trying to counter the "Freedom of Speech" thing, but falling back on the "only the Government can restrict" free speech idea is pretty weak. The Constitution protects us not only from our government, but from ourselves. Demanding someone make changes to their film is definitely refusing to acknowledge the right to express themselves. Demanding they make amends is refusing them the right to expression without persecution. While protesters can not "enforce" any of that, they can unjustly disrupt what is a legal and Constitutionally protected display.
@Elisabeth's Mom
Cole is mostly on your side. Many of our writers haven't weighed in on the subject. Is it appropriate to group us all together? Regardless, we're clearly not hiding from a soapbox, considering we post our words for thousands to read, with headlines and pictures. We're not only on the soap box in Speaker's Corner, but we're waving a flag and handing out pamphlets.
Seriously, though, I think we're all smart enough to make a delineation between a partnership between a genius black comedian (and perhaps the best comic of the past 50 years) and a genius Jewish comedian creating a film specifically to take on the issue of race and a side joke that makes fun of a group of people in order to make fun of another group of people inside a much larger narrative.
Then there's the difference between how both films were and are marketed.
And the environment they were and are released in. Being co-opted by the civil rights movement or being shunned by a community that feels slighted.
Plus, in Blazing Saddles, the offensive slur was mostly uttered by the antagonists who are made to look completely idiotic and who eventually get a comeuppance. In Tropic Thunder, the slur is said by the protagonists who the audience is supposed to sympathize with - whether they are anti-heroes or not. Yes, I know Stiller's character is an idiot, but there's a difference in how that idiocy is portrayed.
I'm sure there are other fundamental differences.
We're all smart people here. I get it. They're both potentially offensive. They both have slurs. They're both funny. But the similarities seem to stop there. It'll take another thirty years to tell us whether Tropic Thunder becomes a classic and scores placement in the Top Ten of the AFI Comedy list, but...something makes me doubt it will, and even more, I doubt that those in the cognitively disabled community will embrace it as a positive culturally groundbreaking force.
I didn't say that using offense or even slurs can't be done well, but it takes genius.
Points taken, but I think that it's a dangerous path to say that just because someone is offended that the film is inappropriate. You offend me all the time, and I let you exist...
I never said that the film is inappropriate, only that it has inappropriate elements.
But you raise a really important question that no one's asked yet. How do we decide when a film is inappropriate? Who decides that?
Thanks for letting me continue to exist, my friend.
PC hot buttons. It, like Blazing Saddles, has upset and offended any number
of people. Both are milestones in comedy. Will Tropic Thunder reach this level?
Who knows? Rough and tumble humor has agitated people throughout the ages.
I have been offended and slurred both intentionally and by accident probably a
hundred thousand times. It is a rite of passage called life. Is it fair? No...But it
is life. We all just need to deal with it.
"Is it ok to show it in one art form (drama) but not another (comedy)?"
Yes.
Vic
Like FatRedneckVietnamVetRetard said, South Park has been offending people for years. Why have the groups that are going after Tropic Thunder not going after them? Maybe it's because they are on cable? Or maybe they have but haven't gotten anywhere so they have decided to go after an easire target. OK then, how about Family Guy? That is seen on FOX which I'm guessing most homes in North America have. I seem to remember an episode where Peter finds out he's retarded. That was a full 30 minute show on the subject rather than just a 30 second clip. And I'm not sure about most people, but that show seems to provide myself and my friends with a lot of quotable lines. At least Tropic Thunder is rated R and kids can't just turn on the TV and watch.
If you find it offensive, don't watch it. Go ahead and picket the movie, but don't force the studio to change things just so you don't have to see or hear it. If the studio folds and meets the DEMANDS of the group, then studios will start to turn down borderline offensive comedy. What if because of this a studio passes on a possibly offensive movie that was destined to be the next Blazing Saddles? These groups are ruining it for the rest of us.
That's my piece and I have said it.
* I don't actually find the word FAT offensive, in fact I am FAT, but someone might, so I didn't want to offend them
Perhaps the most important thing you mentioned is that offense is in the eye of the offended - even when it is unintentional.
While many critics of the film may give the impression that is sympathy that we seek, I believe it is actually dignity that we are searching for. I know that's the case for me and my four-year-old daughter, who has Down syndrome.
We don't ask for your pity - just for her and others with cognitive disabilities to be treated with the same respect as the rest of society.
I honestly mean no disrespect, but they are being treated with the same respect as the rest of society. I cannot think of a faction of society that has not been made fun of in some way, shape or form. From race to religion to sexuality, everyone gets offended in some way. Granted people with a disability may not be able to defend themselves the same way as others, but that's what the people around them can do. I'm all for you speaking out against the movie, voicing your concerns. But why am I not allowed to go and see this movie in it's original form to formulate my own opinion? The general public is not as stupid as they are made out to be. We can think for ourselves. Who knows, I may go to the movie, see the entire thing in context and be offended... or laugh - which is my right.
We're also telling people that if they think it's a spoof on action films, Apocalpse Now, Empire of the Sun, etc., & Hollywood industry be prepared for the "retard" gag and Simple Jack spoof because it will make you throw up especially if you have a kid like Jack. It will make you physically sick hearing people laughing at the way our kids act, the way they look, and the way people make fun of them.
I was so sick & so disappointed at Stiller. There was absolutely no need for Simple Jack or the "retard" thingy. The movie is solid and funny especially with nonsense between Downey, Jr. and Brandon Jackson's character. That's hysterical because Brandon calls Downey,Jr. on the carpet so many times.
Stiller made such a great statement in "All About Mary" about how most people can measure the degree of sincerity, honesty, humanity in a fellow human being from how people treat our family and friends with disability labels.
He was so right on track with exposing a lot of the patronizing we get in the industry, but then he does a complete 180 goes for the jugular.
There were other ways to expose the industry without compromising the integrity of our family and friends. He did it because he was ignorant and now that he has the information, he won't do the right thing which proves what?
He's a coward, too.
Now, more seriously. I can't imagine a mechanism how to control the evolution of language. Or at least in a free society - living in Central Europe and having spent some years under communist dictature I still remember the government pigheads' lame efforts to control it. Of course, it brought only bad fruit.
On the other hand, I can imagine how bad it can feel for the retarded people - in fact - BEING a slur. The problem is how (not where) to draw the line. IMHO the only firm lines in language can be drawn by no one, that is by all... But not after some debate and finding some conclusion. It can only "just happen".
The social debate (or engineering) that tried to eradicate the word "nigger" has - like all those hip-hop-gangsta-niggas prove - failed. Language can't be commanded.
My point is that words evolve in meaning over in time. We don't have to ban anything. Just use common sense. Think about context. Better yet, draw from your creative genius to make a point or to get a laugh. Don't take the lazy way or resort to cheap shots or buy into old stereotypes to get a laugh.
Stiller is capable of comic genius. He has to learn how to tame the beast in his head. He's out of control.