. . . but wluld never fly on network television today.
As a comic, I think “adult” comedy has its place in an adult context, where adults can seek it out usinv their own judgment. But I’m also glad that we’ve progressed to the point where we can openly discuss the aspects of comedy that plays off of marginalized groups or cultures. Today we’re a little more aware of the distinction between punching up and punching down. Just a couple decades back, not so much.
Somehow, to me at least, Men on Films never felt like it was punching down. I’m not sure why. Maybe because it seemed good-natured ribbing instead of mean-spirited caricature. Maybe they got a pass in my head because they’re black. Maybe other reasons less creditable to me. The whole premise of In Living Color was to be iconoclastic and objectionable, this seemed of a piece with most of the rest of the show.
Please provide your own examples!
Pretty much anything in this movie:
A relevant discussion I think
Is this among the worst of the worst? At least since Bertha V. Nation?
I don’t think anybody laughed at Soul Man ever. For a film with a cameo by James Earl Jones, it was awful.
The school financial aid rep: “We give money to people whose parents are poor, not people’s whose parents are assholes.” This after Howell’s character explains that though his parents are rich, his father’s decided to by a Ferrari rather than pay for college.
It’s not a masterpiece, but it has it’s moments when discussing race in America, especially re. college.
From the OP, and regarding the issue of depiction of those who are gay, how many folks remember the recurring character of Marty, on Barney Miller? I liked it when I saw him, even if the depiction was flamboyant.
Sixteen Candles represented my high-school years, including all the demeaning jokes. In the social sense, high school in the late 70s and 80s was quite demeaning. But we learned a lot (both good and bad).
For the sake of accuracy, I’m fairly sure no one laughed at, “Soul Man” back then, either.
Yeah, I recall thinking that it was in pretty poor taste, even when I was 14.
Agador Spartacus IS funny. Not because he’s gay, but because the character himself is funny. The bit with the shoes kills me every time, for example. Or the whole soup saga.
And it’s an important distinction to make that Spartacus was a kooky character who happened to be gay, and not a kooky character because he was gay. That I believe, makes all the difference. And if there’s extra kookiness to be had due to some aspects of his sexuality, that isn’t necessarily offensive either. I mean, the part with him cleaning in the thong was not exactly a straight man thing to do, but it was hysterical nonetheless, and not punching down either.
Y’know, I am becoming slightly suspect of these threads discussing what we used to “get away with”. To me they are dangerously close to a fig leaf for repeating awful homophobic/racist/misogynistic stuff. All you have to do is frame it as: “Man, this old stuff is awful! Here are 100 examples.” And were off to the races, with some cohort able to laugh at the same awful stuff over again.
But maybe that’s just me.
From actually watching the movie, or just from knowing about it?
I think I saw it when it came out, but I remember nothing about my reaction to it.
Speaking only for myself-
When I said it was awful, I didn’t mean it was in poor taste. I meant the acting was poor and the jokes not funny. OTTOMH Dave Chapelle is often in poor taste. But, he is very funny.
Due to it being on cable when nothing else was on, I saw it multiple times start to finish. I don’t know how C Thomas Howell has an acting career
Yeah, I agree with you on that one. The Living Color sketch made it to air ostensibly because it’s making fun of gay people, but it still feel somehow representational. I think it helps that you could basically make that sketch into a full 30-minutes-with-commercials TV show today, and have a pretty decent chance at success. I don’t think it’d work if you tried it today with straight guys, but call it RuPaul at the Movies and rotate in contestants from Drag Race as hosts? I mean, I’d probably watch.
Matt Baume has a great video about producer Danny Arnold fighting to include gay representation on Barney Miller. Marty and his partner were fairly stereotypical but they were included when the network and politicians didn’t want them there.
I disagree. Chapelle’s stuff has a serious subtext and uses humor to emphasize the absurdity of real life and the injuries of history.
“Men on film” has zero subtext, and is clearly laughing at the characters and nothing beyond that
I remember seeing the ads for the movie, and seeing C. Thomas Howell in blackface in them and being fairly surprised as a 14 year old in 1986. I wasn’t even aware of what blackface was exactly, but the movie did seem to be out of bounds in that regard.
It’s not just you.