** SenorBeef** but you’re predicting how people will react based on YOUR interpetation of what ‘those’ people will do, not what they did do…based on a soundbite of a movie you haven’t seen.
That’s not kneejerking? What’s is it then, a well researched and studied conclusion?
Your point that if the roles were reversed rings hollow considering the majority of the times, the roles are reversed. Yet I don’t see riots in the streets or people complaining, like you guys are. Over a movie, none of you have seen.
That’s a little more detail than the Black Father doesn’t want/trust boy BECAUSE he’s white theme you attribute to it.
It’s interesting that you think you’re such an expert on both Hollywood’s double standard on the subject of interracial marriage and the way the general population would react to films dealing with the subject. Upon what do you base your assumptions? You’d never heard of the most famous and influential film about interracial marriage ever made until we told you about it. When you wrote the OP, your entire body of knowledge about Guess Who? came from a seven sentence summary of the premise you stumbled across online. Did it not occur to you to at least read a review of the film from a real film critic to check your hunches?
*Or, again, you could have troubled yourself to read AN ACTUAL REVIEW of Guess Who? before deciding that you knew all about it.
(Later post)
Okay, I have to ask – have you ever seen a comedy film in your life? I was surprised enough that you’d never heard of Guess Who’s Coming to Dinner?, but the above displays an even more shocking lack of knowledge about the basic nature of humor. “Daughter brings home undesirable fiance, and father has perfectly normal and justified negative reaction” doesn’t sound like a real barrel of laughs. It might play as a drama, but I don’t see a lot of room for humor in that premise unless the fiance seems undesirable due to misunderstanding and/or the father’s reaction is exaggerated.
People (of any race) who actually believed that mixed-race marriage was inherently undesirable, that everyone should “keep to their own kind”, and that any good father would do anything to prevent his daughter from marrying outside her own race, would be the last ones to make a comedy dealing with these issues. It would be like Christian fundamentalists making a comedy about abortion. Those who sincerely oppose interracial relationships don’t think it’s a laughing matter. They perceive such relationships as a serious threat to their culture and society at large.
Why on Earth would you think that? Seriously: what evidence have you observed, either in the arts or in American society, that would lead you to make that conclusion? How did you think the movie would end, if it portrayed Bernie Mac’s character as both racist and righteous? Did you expect the movie to end with him convincing his daughter not to marry Whitey? Do you think a romantic comedy starring Ashton Kutchner is going to end with him not getting the girl? Have you ever actually seen a movie before? Any movie?
Have you seen the movie? How can you decide what the premise of the move really is without checking it out yourself? Or at least reading a review a bit more thorough than a paragraph of seven incomplete sentences from yahoo! of all places?
Perhaps the part in bold holds the solution to all your woes in life.
White people don’t tend to take offense when people make “white jokes”, even if it is a non-white making those jokes. Just like most skinny people don’t tend to get upset when fat people make “skinny jokes”. Likewise, rich people laugh at “rich jokes”. Guys with big penises laugh at “big cock” jokes. Blondes laugh at “blonde jokes”. Straights laugh at “straight jokes” Starting to see a pattern here?
When white people start being bothered by “white jokes”, and start expressing it–without first whining about what other races are getting away with–then maybe folks will feel less inclined to make “white jokes” out of fear of negative controversy. But that day hasn’t come, yet. Just taking a look at this board, it’s obvious that most times a Doper is offended by something race-related, the thing they are really offended by is the notion that “blacks can say cracker, but whites can’t say nigger, sob!” Infrequent is the instance that someone is truly offended because they feel demeaned and disrespected because of race.
PCness at its worst is the fervent condemnation of something even though no one is offended by it.
I’d say Guess Who’s Coming to Dinner (one of my favorite films) was a comedy/drama, or a drama with comedic moments. Humorous moments include Hepburn’s reaction to the friend and employee who reveals herself to be a bigot, and to Tracy when he finally acknowledges that the ice cream isn’t boysenberry … but still ain’t bad. Not to mention Isobel Sanford’s reactions to … well, everything! (She’s hilarious as the cook who’s suspicious of Poitier’s motives.)
Of course it doesn’t hurt that, as always, Poitier is positively yummy. For me, two of the most touching speeches in movies are Poitier’s mother’s poignant remarks to Tracy about men who forget what love is like, and Tracy’s final monologue that seemed to sum up his real-life, heartfelt feelings to Hepburn.
On topic: I’m with the folks who think the OP jumped the gun and is taking a less-than-informed stance. Nowhere does the commercial imply approval of bigotry. Laughing at bigotry of all kinds has been done for ages; hell, it’s been turned on its head before, too. Either way, in a standard Hollywood formula comedy, you can almost guarantee that someone spouting racism will be punished, rebuked, or reformed. Predictable, really.
I’m sure SenorBeef didn’t intend this to come across as one of those “oh, life is so tough for the white man these days!” moans, but … well, it kinda does. And as usual, the moan is misplaced.
Well yeah. And unfortunately, the eagerness people have to jump down your throat about your OP does prove a point, just not the one you mentioned. It’s not that people will get all outraged about white-on-black racism but not black-on-white racism; it’s that people will get all outraged about anything.
I haven’t seen the movie, and don’t plan to – the only thing I’m truly outraged about is that movies are still getting made with Ashton Kutcher in them. But the impression I got from the traillers is that nobody in the movie is given a “pass” for being racist. It seems to be making fun of the stereotypes, not saying they’re okay. Bernie Mac is playing Spencer Tracy’s character from the original, and just as in the original, he’s neither made out to be an inhuman monster or a noble fighter stickin’ it to whitey. He’s just a normal guy who’s got prejudices and is confronted by them.
As I said in the other thread about it, I actually think it’s kind of cool on some level that it’s a broad comedy instead of an Earnest Look At Social Issues Facing Our Culture Today. It’s a sign that people are acknowledging that it’s a silly but inevitable flaw in humans. It’s not saying that “white people are racist,” or even that “black people can be just as racist as white people!” It’s just “people are racist, and that’s dumb.” I don’t see how anyone other than Spike Lee could object to that sentiment.
I don’t think so at all. I think a tasteful comedy with this premise can be put out in this day and age without any major controversy. I’m not sure where you’re getting this idea from.
I won’t start on how amazed I am that people are unaware of that movie. But I’ll point out that you’re arguing a hypothetical. It’s not a real argument when you make up a position for your opponents and insist that they’d take it under certain hypothetical circumstances.
Sorry, but I have no sympathy for white people who can’t tolerate even the slightest racial satire (which, judging by the previews at least, is clearly not the focus of the movie. Which makes it even scarier: white people can’t tolerate seeing interracial movie casts.) That’s what satire is - it’s social commentary. Depicting a racist character in a movie (to whatever extent this movie does so) does not imply some sort of endorsement of it. To argue that it does is just bizarre.
Prove it, dude. You’re attacking a strawman here.
So you’ve made up an imaginary plot for a movie and are enraged about it? Find some evidence to support your conclusions, buddy. This is getting just pathetic.
Don’t you even understand the concept of satire? If this movie indeed deals heavily with racial issues (which, again, the previews at least don’t suggest in the slightest) then it’s probably a satire - it deals with an uncomfortable subject in order to comment on society. Your knee-jerk insistence that you’re a victim is just sad.
You’ve decided that (1) this movie is mainly about interracial marriage, that (2) it contains a lead character who is racist and (3) that his racism is depicted in a positive light. All without seeing the movie - and number three is just purely ridiculous.
Then you decided that (4) if this movie was made with the color of the cast reversed, many people would be outraged and (5) this demonstrates a double standard on the part of society. Again, no proof. Just your own feelings. You have no evidence to support any of this; point four is probably the most egregious thing here - your assumption is just completely baseless.
It’s been pointed out that this movie is a remake of a movie dealing with interracial marriage, one with the races reversed, that is nowadays considered a classic. You insist that even so, were “Guess Who’s Coming to Dinner” to be made today, there would be outrage. It’s still considered a classic film - it’s not been reconsidered by history like “Birth of a Nation”. Your point is just clearly not supported by anything in real life. You’ve made up so many things to be upset about that it’s ridiculous. You saw a comedy with a mixed black-white cast and from there managed to conclude that society is deeply racist. That’s knee-jerk. That could be the definition of knee-jerk.
That’s a very, very good point. I’m going to remember that.
Firstly, I retract my claims. I have no evidence to support my point and there are certainly reasonable arguments to discredit my initial logic.
I still don’t think the reaction would be entirely the same if the roles were reversed, but I almost certainly overestimated the degree by which it would be different.
Parts snipped.
I tend to associate knee jerking with an emotional reaction taken precedence over rational thought. In this case, I had no emotional stake in it. I didn’t think it through as thoroughly as I could’ve, so I guess it depends on your personal definition.
Well, I saw one or two promos on tv a while ago, and they really seemed to be emphasizing that angle on it, so much so that short descriptions of the movie also emphasize that part.
Never did anything close to declaring expertise.
Yes, I suppose I should’ve done that. As I said, the promos/commercials seemed to also play up that angle.
Anyway, my assumptions just come from my observations of society, and for certain instances of apparent racism to be more acceptable than other forms. I’m not specifically using the “oh whites are so oppressed” logic. And that people that people tend to be psychotically oversensitive about any perceived slights based on race.
Fair enough. Racism has become such a Forbidden Thought in our society that I think it can be considered somewhat seperated from other types of “undesirable fiance” premise. Or, maybe not. I’m probably just misapplying the knee-jerk outrage on so many issues regarding race overly broadly.
I never actually meant that it was from the black panthers production studio, just that it was based on a premise that I thought would be unacceptable in other circumstances. Clearly, with the counter-examples provided on this thread, I was wrong.
Do black people laugh at “black jokes”?
I figure if you think it’s distasteful/unacceptable to make a deragatory joke about blacks, then the same should apply to whites, eskimos, just about everyone… except those midgets. Those damn, dirty midgets.
Fair enough. At no point was I actually upset or offended - I thought that I was seeing a double standard in action of exactly that sort of mentality.
Point taken.
It wasn’t a lack of tolerance on my part - as I’ve said repeatedly, I really don’t care even if it was hugely racist, it was my annoyance at perceived hypocrisy that bothered me.
Sorry, how does this follow?
Fair enough. Retracted.
I don’t think I ever declared myself to be a victim.
I don’t think it’s baseless. I certainly do think that society does not give universal treatment to all forms of racism, but that some are generally accepted more than others. I probably have misapplied that to this particular situation, but the notion itself isn’t ridiculous.
Now this is simply unfounded. I didn’t comment about the movie because it had a mixed cast, but because it seemed to be selling itself on the premise I discussed above.
Thanks for reconsidering your initial claims, Senorbeef. That is not always easy to do.
All the time. Chris Rock is notorious for his jokes about “good black people vs. niggers”. David Chappell has gotten much mileage out of that kind of humor, too. But they go places that white comics won’t touch with a ten feet pole. Why? A white comic calling someone a nigger would generate a far different reaction than a black comic saying the same thing. This is not injustice; it is reality.
Chris Rock is also liberal with his use of the word “cracker”. I haven’t seen many white people who are offended by it, though. I see them laughing at it. This tells me that “cracker”–coming out of the mouth of a non-white–doesn’t carry as much baggage and inuendo that “nigger” does when it comes from a white. Again, this is not injustice; it is reality.
You can’t demand people to get fired up over being called a cracker, and you can’t demand people to stop being bothered by being called nigger. Emotions are what they are. Expecting the offensiveness of both insults to be equivalent simply because both are racial slurs is to pretend that offensiveness has nothing to do with whether or not someone is truly offended. It also requires us to forget that the words have very different historical attachments and impart essentially the same meaning.
If not even the subject of the joke is offended–and in fact laughs at it–then why must anyone demand that it is a distasteful/unacceptable joke? By your standards, it is hypocritical to laugh at any group of people, because there is always at least one other group that is taboo to make fun of. For an example of your logic run amok:
Jokes about nerds are offensive because jokes about retarded people are offensive. Therefore, movies like ‘Revenge of the Nerds’ are hypocritical. Imagine what would happen if the tables were turned and the movie was called ‘Revenge of the Mentally-Handicapped!’ "
Thanks for reconsidering your initial claims, Senorbeef. That is not always easy to do.
All the time. Chris Rock is notorious for his jokes about “good black people vs. niggers”. David Chappell has gotten much mileage out of that kind of humor, too. But they go places that white comics won’t touch with a ten feet pole. Why? A white comic calling someone a nigger would generate a far different reaction than a black comic saying the same thing. This is not injustice; it is reality.
Chris Rock is also liberal with his use of the word “cracker”. I haven’t seen many white people who are offended by it, though. I see them laughing at it. This tells me that “cracker”–coming out of the mouth of a non-white–doesn’t carry as much baggage and inuendo that “nigger” does when it comes from a white. Again, this is not injustice; it is reality.
You can’t demand people to get fired up over being called a cracker, and you can’t demand people to stop being bothered by being called nigger. Emotions are what they are. Expecting the offensiveness of both insults to be equivalent simply because both are racial slurs is to pretend that offensiveness has nothing to do with whether or not someone is truly offended. It also requires us to forget that the words have very different historical attachments and impart different meanings.
If not even the subject of the joke is offended–and in fact laughs at it–then why must anyone demand that it is a distasteful/unacceptable joke? By your standards, it is hypocritical to laugh at any group of people, because there is always at least one other group that is taboo to make fun of. For an example of your logic run amok:
Jokes about nerds are offensive because jokes about retarded people are offensive.
When society makes movies like ‘Revenge of the Nerds’ it is being hypocritical.
Imagine what would happen if the tables were turned and the movie was called ‘Revenge of the Retards!’ There would be rioting in the street!"
People, it’s got Ashton Kutcher in it. They can CALL it a comedy if they want, but I’m not convinced. Anyway…
You couldn’t pay me to see this movie, but I’m betting that the alleged comedy in the movie will be at Bernie Mac’s expense for being a racist. So it’s not “racism is funny,” it’s “people who are racist are stupid, and that’s funny.” Which is different. I don’t like South Park, but it’s a good example here. Cartman is a bigot, and a lot of humor comes from that. Bigotry is the object of ridicule because Cartman is a complete schmuck.
And to anybody who’s said racism isn’t funny, all I can think is “Where all the white women at?”
I know I’m late to the party, but this reminds me of the Barbershop controversy surrounding Rosa Parks. One character makes a crack about Rosa Parks, and other characters swiftly rebuke him. Rosa didn’t think the joke should be in there at all, and a lot of black leaders jumped on that bandwagon. Personally, I believe it’s better to show a bigot and then condemn him/her, rather than to pretend s/he doesn’t exist at all. Of course someone’s gut reaction at the one-second blurb of the story will go, “Oh my god, they discredited Rosa Parks!”
Are whities not allowed to laugh at “Niggas vs Black People”?
One thing on topic is that doing black face for comedic effect is still verboten (and fine by me, I’m just saying), and yet we have White Chicks.
According to pizzabrat, who I find to quite fair in his assessments, Bernie Mac’s character isn’t racist but overprotective and a bit prejudiced. I know it’s hard to believe that a differing ethnicity has nothing to do with your objecting to an impending marriage, but it does happen that there are some real jackassses who just happen to be of another race/creed/religion.
Rosa Parks, as far as I know, has no opinion on Barbershop. She’s been suffering from dementia since 2002 and is living rent-free in her home; I don’t think she’s aware of the controversy at all. That was The Rev. Jesse Jackson, film critic, who offered up that gem of a protest. She did sue Outkast for using her name in the title of their song. That case still drags on.
Anyway…