When I proposed the idea of writing about offensive and inaccurate facets of this production, the question was brought up, not only by my professor but by peers, “why does it matter?” Well, why does it matter if something is offensive?
In our modern culture, it matters a great deal. Inaccuracy in journalism can be slander or libel; overplaying the negative aspect of a person or a group of people can be considered defamation of character; and personally offending someone can cost an individual a great deal of money, opportunities, and reputation. So, why does it matter if an opera offends someone, or inaccurately represents a whole culture of people for the sake of humor? Do authors/librettists have a moral obligation to accurately represent others?
In our modern culture, it matters a great deal. Inaccuracy in journalism can be slander or libel; overplaying the negative aspect of a person or a group of people can be considered defamation of character; and personally offending someone can cost an individual a great deal of money, opportunities, and reputation. So, why does it matter if an opera offends someone, or inaccurately represents a whole culture of people for the sake of humor? Do authors/librettists have a moral obligation to accurately represent others?
I will once again quote critic Michael Beckerman, who raises an excellent question by making the following point: “Of course, the larger issue of offensiveness is a subjective one and has to do with the complex relationships which exist between the portrayed and those who are portraying. The question, for example, of whether a work like Porgy and Bess is ‘offensive’ can be answered in many different ways depending on the relationship between blacks and whites in a particular time and place" (307). Do you agree or disagree with this point? Can someone outside of both cultures (the portrayed and those doing the portraying) be offended by this portrayal?
The first modern connection that came to mind while reading The Mikado was the cartoon television show Family Guy. This may seem like a stretch, but consider it: Seth Macfarlane’s politically incorrect world is built and supported by perpetuating stereotypes (i.e. the Mexican housemaid), mocking the misfortune and mistakes of others (i.e. Laura Bush committing involuntary vehicular manslaughter), and judging the actions of whole bodies of people (i.e. innumerable references to Catholic traditions/political associations).
Can you think of any other modern connections similar to this satirical representation, including television shows, books, movies, public figures, etc.? Does their mockery/satire make you enjoy the experience less? If you disagree with the satire of a show/movie/book, does it make you less likely to watch/read again? Have you ever been personally offended by any of these mediums?
The first modern connection that came to mind while reading The Mikado was the cartoon television show Family Guy. This may seem like a stretch, but consider it: Seth Macfarlane’s politically incorrect world is built and supported by perpetuating stereotypes (i.e. the Mexican housemaid), mocking the misfortune and mistakes of others (i.e. Laura Bush committing involuntary vehicular manslaughter), and judging the actions of whole bodies of people (i.e. innumerable references to Catholic traditions/political associations).
Can you think of any other modern connections similar to this satirical representation, including television shows, books, movies, public figures, etc.? Does their mockery/satire make you enjoy the experience less? If you disagree with the satire of a show/movie/book, does it make you less likely to watch/read again? Have you ever been personally offended by any of these mediums?
"Program of the Original Production of The Mikado." 1885. Photograph. University of Rochester Department of Rare Books and Special Collections, Rochester.
Gilbert, William Schwenck, and Ed Glinert. The Savoy Operas: The Complete Gilbert and Sullivan. London: Penguin, 2008.
The other medium that comes to mind is South Park. I enjoy both these shows because I've come to expect the satire they consistently provide. I dislike other television shows that don't set out with a satirical purpose that take on political and or social stances and proceed to shove them down the viewers' throat. But back to the point, I feel like The Mikado is more of a mockery of Japanese culture than a satire of it. It seems ill-informed and stereotypical to me.
ReplyDelete-Riley (I'm recycling an old group project's email so ignore the Taylor)
Authors don't have an obligation to do anything, really. They don't have to be fair, kind, accurate, or anything. It is their job to entertain. It is our job, as citizens of the world, to find out if these authors are correct or incorrect in the assertions they make in their works. Now, are there published authors out there with really crappy morals and crazy stereotypes running throughout their works? Probably. But I tend to stray away from those works. Or I'm oblivious to masked drivel I read. Does it matter if people are offended by literature? Sort of. But I've always been of the belief that one person can't decide what everyone else reads. So I'm sorry if you were offended by the witchcraft in Harry Potter and you're worried that your kid is going to start carrying around a stick, casting spells, and (naturally) worshipping satan. But I seriously doubt it. Kids are pretty good at separating reality and fantasy. (Though my brother, sister and I did look for my letter from Hogwarts because I was the only one young enough to still get in when we started reading the books. BUT THAT'S NOT THE POINT HERE!) Be informed. If you're in the charge of, say, a younger human whom you've spawned, then you get to decide what your spawn reads. Congratulations. You're a parent. Do you job. Know what your kid is reading. If you find it offensive, then talk to your kid about it. But a dialogue about homosexual parenting is probably better than just taking away And Tango Makes Three without explanation. (Penguins are so cute when they're gay.)
ReplyDeleteAs for modern connections, I recently read a book called The White Boy Shuffle by Paul Beatty. It portrayed both blacks and whites in the WORST ways possible. I didn't particularly enjoy the book because it got kind of weird and extreme and "out there" by the end, but I loved the representations of white people in the book. The author, a black man, exploited how whites try SO HARD to not be offensive/racist but ultimately fail to truly accept the black culture. These parts of the book were incredibly funny because they are so true. He spoofs blacks too by making fun of high school gangs, stereotypes of blacks as outstanding athletes and poets who write about their racial struggle. Though the ending wasn't what I expected or even what I thought would/should/could happen, Beatty does a good job of being "equal opportunity" in his offenses. I think this is the best way to go about satire and offense in the arts. Take no prisoners. Be just as mean to one group as you are the others. Family Guy does the same thing. No one is safe. Macfarlane even perpetuates white stereotypes. Remember the Fat Guy Strangler episode where Lois gets her brother out of the mental institution? And then Peter starts this association for fat people? And then Lois' brother starts killing the fat people? Aren't most of those fat people white? Isn't America fat? Isn't most of America white? Offensiveness cannot be avoided, especially in books, movies, and TV. (Mostly because it seems people are really easily offended. I recently read about a woman who wanted to ban a children's book because the main character said "I hate school." God forbid: an honest work of literature. I think her beef was with the word "hate." Really, lady? I'm facepalming right now in your honor.) But there is a right way to do it and a wrong way to do it. I feel like Beatty and Family Guy do it "right" in that they exploit the worst in everyone. If you are going to offend one, you must offend all. Or don't offend anyone. (But good luck with that.)
--On behalf of Liz Criswell, (sent 9 May), who didn't have a postable account.
I just had a debate in a Shakespeare class on whether or not Shakespeare could be considered a racist author after reading Othello. Characters opposing rule of Othello, a black leader in a predominately white Italy, use slang terms and crude generalities about the African culture. Often they refer to him as animalistic, lustful, and possessing magic to gain the hand of Desdemona and his position as leader of the army. It surprised me to see this racism in the play and the commonalities used to describe Othello.
ReplyDeleteOffensive? To a modern audience, I believe it can be taken as such very easily. Being a tragedy, there is little to no humor involved in the play whatsoever. This opera is a satire - and like Shakespeare, written in a time where harsh generalizations were used more often without a thought to whether or not their works would be well received despite their inherent racist remarks. As an author, I would think you would try to correctly represent a culture you’re writing about, but the game is changed when it comes to satire. Everything is for humor, and if a culture’s toes are stepped on, you just have to remember – it’s all for the sake of popularity. I can’t think of a modern show using satire that can avoid using these elements!
--On behalf of Hannah Corrier, English Education major at Missouri State University.
The connection I made was to modern-day farce movies that spoof off of serious movies, or comedic ones with serious intentions.
ReplyDeleteFarce movies still somehow manage to find their ways into mainstream theatres. These movies use grotesque, offensive comedy and are extremely unimaginative and rely solely on stereotypes. These movies shamelessly exploit bodily humor, stereotypes of obesity, black people, etc. all at the expense for a mild chuckle. Perhaps these movies are made for the age group of 8-14 year olds. However, given the general R rating because of offensive content, this hardly seems like a lucrative business model. In the recent film Date movie, there are many imaginative concepts to hit your funny bone. Want to see a man coughing up a hairball, a woman with a hairy back, and a cat humping a corpse? Look no further. Sadly, this barely even scratches surface of these movies. Delta farce is perhaps one of the biggest travesties even put on the big screen. Nothing like a little stereotypical 80 minutes of redneck humor for a brief chuckle. Sure, not every movie can be an Office Space, but this “genre” is undoubtedly melting brains with overdone offensiveness and no effort for an organic laugh.
Whether it's fair or not, it matters to the composer of the opera if you offend because it could cost you a variety of things. In prior times, operas were one of the few entertainment mediums, so offending a sector of the audience could mean loss of job, livelihood, and may have even meant being forced to change your surroundings. It's unique to see how little things have changed for entertainers of today.
ReplyDeleteA modern connotation I'm thinking about is comedians. I've noticed that in terms of latinos, Carlos Mencia and George Lopez have used their heritage as part of their stand up in ways that could be considered offensive. In my opinion, it does indeed make the viewing less entertaining. In terms of African Americans, Chris Rock and Dave Chapelle did the same thing, except they added more of a political perspective on a society they though was unjust, at times laughably so.
Going back to what Hannah said about Othello made me think of another example in one of his plays that always comes across more strongly to me. I do think that "Othello" has some points of contention, because a sixteenth century white Englishman, no matter how enlightened, is not going to do a good job portraying a black man. But, there's several scenes in "The Merchant of Venice" (not even including the whole debate over Shylock!) where race and nationality is mocked for humor's sake. When Portia discusses her possible suitors she rejects them all for stereotypes -- the Frenchman has STDs, the German drinks too much, etc. Worse yet, are the scenes were we get a glimpse of these suitors trying to figure out the caskets. The Prince of Morocco, obviously a dark-skinned man and probably back, gets mocked by the English for his skin color. He also makes a series of ridiculous conclusions to pick the casket he does. I remember watching the Al Pacino version of the movie and in this scene the prince and his crew are dressed stereotypically and behave stereotypically, but it's played off for laughs.
ReplyDeleteI think this can really damage a performance and a text. Also, I want to know how forcing someone to convert from the religion they truly believe in can be considered COMEDIC. "The Merchant of Venice" is crazy ridiculous.
-- Gabs
This may be a stretch, but another example along the lines of Family Guy would be the cartoon show the Boondocks. If you haven't heard of it, it's centered on this Black family that moved from Chicago to a wealthy suburban neighborhood. The main characters are primarily Huey, Riley, and Robert Freeman (a.k.a. Grandad). In the show, the writers bring up a lot of black stereotypes (or stereotypes in general) and complications within our country that go overlooked, and can be thought of as offensive to some Americans and for some Black people. For example, Huey is thought to be a terrorist because he brings up a lot of good points pertaining to the way the country is being run and racist because he doesn't agree with President Obama being president.
ReplyDeleteFor the most part, however, a lot of viewers take humor in the stereotypes that Grandad, Riley, and other characters such as Thugnificent, Gangstalicious, etc. (Watch the show or clips to understand this if you don't) One of the biggest examples from this show that I thought offensive was their portrayal of MLK. To me, the show mocked a lot of the triumphs that the Civil Rights Movement overcame.
I have no clue if this makes an sense to anyone reading it. I hope this helps and makes sense. :)
~Jess
Do authors/writers have a moral obligation to accurately represent their subjects? I'd say that journalists certainly do (although most of ours do a fairly abhorrent job of it, but that's an entirely separate debate).. But if you're not a journalist, and you don't claim to be, then I think the answer is no. I would say that it is the audience's obligation to responsibly filter whatever information is coming its way.
ReplyDeleteIf you don't want to be offended by Fox's Sunday prime time lineup, then don't subject yourself to it. It's the free market version of media. So Seth Macfarlane makes fun of Catholics and Jews a lot.. I'd venture to say that his audience understands that the real Seth is probably not a raging anti-Semite (although he does probably have a fair bone to pick with Catholics..also an entirely separate debate). But the point is that it's not hateful, it's just funny. Stereotypes are a natural occurrence in the human brain; they help us categorize and process information. And it's each individual's responsibility to understand that stereotypes are useful (and funny), but individuals themselves need to be evaluated on a case by case basis.
I would say that satire and other potentially offensive media are incredibly necessary to forward thinking and progress (re: Stephen Colbert, perhaps the most brilliant satirist of our time). I'm sorry, I know this post is really broken and scatter-brained..it's just that I could go on and on about all of these questions for a long time, and it's hard to know where to start.