This is the kind of revisionism that really annoys me. If the network is too cowardly to air the episode as originally broadcast, it would have been better to cut the clip altogether & post an “edited for content notice”. Hardly an ideal solution, but at least more honest.
I agree with you that some of the Pope’s stands are indefensible and that he’s a valid target of criticism, but I still maintain that O’Connor utterly failed to make a coherent point. Yes, all she did was tear up a picture (of a man who means a great deal to a great many people) and utter some vaguely provocative words (that could have been taken as an incitement to violence), and that’s what makes it bad, if not irresponsible, political theatre. However, I agree with you that Pesci’s reaction was offensive.
You go, boy; IIRC, part of the reason Sinead has given for what she did was because of her outrage at abusive priests in Ireland. I was thinking about this on my walk to work this morning; I encounter messages in the media that I find offensive quite frequently (Mr. Eminem comes to mind as an example), but I am not willing to say that they cannot express themselves even though I personally find them offensive. Then I was wondering if there are things that are universally offensive, and should not be a part of the concept of free speech (promoting child abuse comes to mind for this example). Then I was wondering who is qualified to be the judge of what is universally offensive and what is not, and where exactly would they draw that very fine line?
I did not find Sinead’s actions offensive; I do not agree with them or her, but I will allow her her right to free speech without fear of violent reprisal (like Mr. Pesci was advocating). I did, however, find NBC’s actions offensive when they refused to release a clip to be shown in a documentary of the life of the person in the clip. In my opinion, they have crossed a free speech line by refusing this clip to be shown even in circumstances where it would be an integral part of a story, rather than just for its shock value.
At the same time Sinead was doing this stunt there was a huge amount of debate about the Catholic Church in Ireland. We had a referendum about divorce and abortion ( both failed to be passed, but divorce was voted in a few years later ). This was a really emotional argument and people got very passionate from both sides. Add to that the stories that were starting to come out about horrible abuse of women and children which was covered up intentionally by the church and you may get a idea of what was going on in her head at the time.
Sinead is a few eggs short of a dozen at the best of times ( I saw her about a week ago on Grafton Street with the priest clothes on :rolleyes: ) and most people over here just ignore her or laugh when she starts.
As to weather the thing should be shown on t.v. Why the hell not ???
I see the most horrible things on t.v. all the time. I see comedians take apart other peoples belief systems all the time. I saw Buddha’s being blown up on the news last night, should these things not be shown?
She tore up a photo of the Pope. So what? Anybody who thinks that this act should be banned is taking things a wee bit seriously to say the least. There are a lot more important things to spend your time on.
Interesting that your sig is a quote from Mahatma Gandhi, yojimbo.
IIRC, when the movie Gandhi was filmed, there were a few hard cases in India who thought it irreverant to have an actor portray the “great soul,” and lobbied to have him portrayed as a floating point of light.
I don’t know if that story is apocryphal; it was reported to me by a professor of south Asian history, so I’m inclined to give it some credence.
Point is, people do take their icons seriously.
Count me among those who were more appalled by Pesci’s comments (and the crowd reaction to them) than by Sinead’s stunt.
I never said that people don’t take their idols seriously.
I merely said that I find it silly that somebody tearing up a pic of the pope is not shown on t.v. but lots of other things that I would class as equally/more offensive to certain people are shown all the time.
Sinead O’Conner was the musical guest on Saturday Night Live a few years ago. After her last song, she held up a photograph of the Pope and ripped it up, while saying “fight the real enemy.”
The “Puerto Rico Day Parade Episode”, one of the last regular Seinfeld eps, involved the Seinfeld group being stuck in the Parade-day traffic and mixing in with the crowd in their usual self-centered annoy-everyone-around style. Kramer (being careless with a cigar) sets fire to a PR flag, and upon noticing, tries to put it out by throwing it on the sidewalk and stomping upon it. And, logically, this segues immediately into the crowd around him becoming a lynch mob.
Since the WNBC flagship station is the one that actually broadcast the Parade, and about 2 million of WNBC’s potential audience are precisely the folks implicated, the wonder is what the hell were they thinking when they approved the script in the first place…
NBC might have crossed a stupidity or oversensitivity line but not a free speech line. It’s their show. They can choose to show it or not. The government didn’t tell them not to show it – that would be over the line.
NBC yanked it because they were worried they would be labeled anti-Catholic if they kept showing it. The decision might be annoying, but it’s really not their fault that people would overreact.
While the Pope and the Catholic Church are legitimate targets of criticism, a comedy show is not going to be judged the best venue for that criticism. This wasn’t Meet the Press, it’s SNL. And yes, VarlosZ SNL did have her on only so she’d sing pretty songs. That’s their prerogative. You might not agree, but you can’t force NBC to give time on a comedy show to somebody who wants to make a political statement.
You’re right, to an extent. O’Connor’s actions were almost certainly in bad faith as regards her relationship with NBC, and that’s not good. But: 1. NBC does run a live show which frequently features politically opinionated people. They have to accept some measure of risk (and responsibility). 2. O’Connor’s relationship with NBC, and her good or bad faith therein, is (I think) a completely separate issue from the efficacy, appropriateness, and profundity of her protest. As I’ve stated, I see nothing wrong with it on those terms.
I basically agree with you, but with minor quibbles.
Yes, NBC might have to accept some risk. But the acceptance of the risk doesn’t mean they have an obligation to re-broadcast any given political statement.
I didn’t find it particularly profound, given that she had to go on other shows to explain what she was trying to say. But that’s neither here nor there. I agree these are separate issues. I was addressing the free speech argument and just used your comment as an illustration of NBC’s right to not re-broadcast.
Reguarding Pius XII and the Jews, there is some evidence that the Vatican saved over 8,000 Jewish refugees. Also, that’s a delicate situation. I’m not saying the guy was right, just that he was in a precarious situation. Of course, I could be wrong.
Why then, did not Sinead say, “Celibate males should not be in control of my body.” Or something like that. It just seems as if she gets off on angering people. Which is her right, it’s just kind of counter productive. What she said made no sense whatsoever. It was just like, “huh?” I didn’t get it.
Does anyone remember that hilarious skit where Phil Hartman played Frank Sinatra, Jan Hooks was Sinead O’Connor, Chris Rock was Luther Campbell of 2 Live Crew, and Sting was Billy Idol in a panel discussion. Perhaps if Sinead hadn’t had this little JP2 incident they wouldn’t have devised this clever lampoon skit. Hartman was awesome as Sinatra, and he was digging at Sinead, calling her Sinbad, Sine-Aid, and Cue Ball…at one point asking “The bald chick, what’s with her head?” Sting/Billy Idol replied with something like “Oh, she actually looks kind of hot.” to which Hartman/Sinatra replied in a snide voice with something like, “You’re right, just put a bag over her head and do your business.”
I think Pope John Paul II is due some criticism for his record on abortion and birth control among other things, but he has also made positive gestures to improve relations with Protestant and Eastern Orthodox churches. He’s no John XXIII, but at least he’s not a thug like some of the popes of the Middle Ages. (i.e. Pope Urban II who ordered the first Crusade–there’s someone who would really deserve to have his portrait desecrated on national tv, though I don’t think most people would recognize him…thus, less shock value)
I never saw that episode, I was only 10 at the time, too young to stay up that late.
However, I have seen the incident in question. If NBC refuses to allow other channels to air it, and Comedy Central doesn’t air it either, when the heck did I see it?!
In addition to seeing it originally (wow, I’ll never forget how much impact the silence of the crowd was) I did see it again in a news magazine type of show a couple years later that was doing a interview/documentary piece on Sinead. It could have been 60 minutes, 20/20, West 57th, or one of those others…I don’t recall exactly. So you aren’t imagining things…
I’ve always been a huge fan of her music, and seeing her live is unbelievably good…man, does that girl have a set of pipes. She is quite wacked as a person however…
Although I don’t think the pope should be beyond criticism/ridicule/satire, unless you’re Catholic in which case your religion dictates that you be subservient to papal doctrine.
