So, tonight I was watching the TVLand special on African Americans on Television.
They talked about the oppression and prejudice many of them had to endure.
Then 45 minutes into the show during the In Living Color segment, they showed the Men on Film bit and didn’t even touch on the prejudice inherent in that broad caricature of gay men.
It was the “Great Balls of Fire” version.
I’d have thought that the people who put this together would recognize how this might look and how hypocritical it could and in my eyes DID come off.
Mockingbird, the two gay people I polled both loved that segment. You gay people need to get your shit together. It’s very confusing when one of you doesn’t go with the herd, you know.
By the way, is it true that all gay men like the color pink? This one gay guy I met was telling me how much he liked pink and I once saw a gay guy on TV wearing pink.
Still – The whole Men On Film bit was typical of the anti-gay humor that is rampant in the work of the Wayans clan. They have this utter fascination with homosexuality as a quality to be relentlessly mocked.
Unless you want to go back to the bad old days when scripts had to be approved by a priest, a minister, and a rabbi, there’s always going to be some offensive content on television, and particularly TV that is aimed at some particular demographic. In Living Color was aimed at the urban black demographic, so its humor focuses on that. That other groups liked the show helped the ratings, and helped keep the show on for as long as it was. But its primary audience was always urban blacks.
And let’s face it. Stereotype has long been a feature of comedy. The blackface of Amos n’ Andy, the hook-nosed, money-grubbing Jew, the Italian mafioso, the flaming homosexual; all of these have been stock characters in comedy since there was comedy. Men on Film simply used the stereotype of the flaming queen as an ironic device to point out that while the two men were biologically men, they could hardly be considered masculine.
Before anyone rips me a new one for suggesting that stereotyping is okay, I know it’s not. I’m happy to see that there are more minority characters played as characters that happen to be black, Jewish, gay, or what-have-you. I’m merely pointing out the unpleasant truth that stereotyping does exist, and that it’s been a comedic device for aeons.
Doesn’t mean I have to like it. I saw that homophobic piece of shit once and avoided the show like the plague thereafter. And in fact, have avoided anything Wayansesque.
It seems very easy to brand me with a label, no matter how reasonable or accurate I may be.
My point was not only is it an offensive stereotype to more than just me, it was being shown on a show about the struggles african american entertainers have had to endure.
These struggles were prejudice based and there were countless examples of the prejudice they went through.
Then they showed prejudice towards another group, which was supposed to be funny.
Amos and Andy was only performed by white actors on radio. The televised version was all black actors.
It’s easy to discount the impact of the portrayal when it is not affecting you directly.
I just find it very difficult to get worked up about Men on Film*. Maybe it’s because I don’t really care that much about whether I’m perceived as “masculine” or not. If they’d been portrayed as a couple of baby-raping reservoir-poisoners on a regular basis, maybe it would have made me angry. But the “nelly” thing doesn’t bug me. It never has. I don’t see “nelly” as being particularly negative in any way. shrug
You pick your battles. I find worrying about a television show that’s been defunct for at least 10 years to be fairly pointless. But that’s just me and I don’t expect to be able to dictate to you or Eve or anyone else who hated it! what you’re supposed to feel. Godspeed and all that.
I either liked MoF when it first came on and then got bored with it or hated MoF when it first came on and got bored with it. It’s been so long ago I can’t remember. There was enough other stuff on In Living Color not to like.
I do agree with Mockingbird that there has to have been another clip from ILC that showcased the talents of the Wayanses without being open to interpretation as homophobic. It’s always rather disgusting when one minority makes it bones on the backs of another minority. Vito Russo makes the same point about Robert Townsend’s Hollywood Shuffle in his book “The Celluloid Closet.”
Otto. “Open to interpretation?” Damon Wayans and David Alan Grier were freaking flagrant with their homophobia those Men on Film skits.
Historically, homosexuality and definitions of black masculinity are time-honored topics in black folk humor and stand-up comedy – and both go to extremes. It’s hard to find a black comedian in the last 60 years who DOESN’T have a gay joke or twenty in his, uh, closet.
There’s another hypocrisy at play here: the number of closeted gay black actors and actresses, comedians and comediannes who
work in films and television using the same material that both empowers them (by their ethnicity) and demeans them (by sexuality).
I mean, anybody ELSE finds it strange that Arsenio Hall and Eddie Murphy don’t work together anymore…? Anybody?
That’s why he was suggesting that it would have been more appropriate to use a clip from another ILC skit–avoid using a bigoted (homophobic) clip, but do include the show, because it did mark a gain for African Americans on TV.
Kallessa. Granted. But think on In Living Color’s classic skits and characters: Homey the Clown, Antwon the Bum, Firemarshal Bill, The Sidekick, The Buttheads, Detective Head, Vera de Milo, etc. Men On Film perfectly encapsuled the Wayans ouvere of homophobic, pro-black and gross-out humor. Hell, I’m saying this as a rabid fan of the show.
There’s layers to this, and while it’s not pretty, its not wholly inaccurate or inappropiate to point out, “Well, they did work hard to make THIS gain, but look what they DID to get there.”
I’m with the OP that a comment or passing criticism should have been made, along with presenting the skit itself. I’m no fan of history by omission.
And yet there are those (including one participant in this thread) who would interpret it otherwise. Many, many gay people I knew in the early 90s thought MoF was the funniest damn thing ever and the whole “two snaps up” thing perseveres in some segments of the community to this day.
I honestly can’t remember what I originally thought of the sketches; I’d be inclined to think based on where I was politically at the time that I didn’t care for them. But as they continued, they commited the cardinal sin of not being funny. I got nothing against sissy humor if it’s done with some wit and style (c.f. Antonio Fargas in Carwash: “I’m more man than you’ll ever be and more woman than you’ll ever get!”) but the MoF sketches didn’t have anything to them beyond that and they were deadly dull.
Here’s another queer vote for MoF; I give that sketch three circles and a backwards round the thighbone snap!
There’s enough anti-gay rhetoric from the Limbaughs, Hagees, and Ashcrofts of the world to get ones metaphorical panties too much in a wad over some over the top humor. Besides- of those who know several gays, who doesn’t know an Antwon and or a Blaine (and probably feel richer for it)? They’re not saying “all gay guys are like this”, just that some gay guys are and they’re funny as hell.
