I remember the skit, but don’t recall any controversy. Really though, how idiotic do they think the general public is? That somehow, a “Men on…” host being hit on the head and suddenly being turned straight is a REAL thing, or that it signified anything?
It was whatever the TV equivalent of a literary convention- how many other TV shows prior to that had a character hit on the head and act out of character? They clearly weren’t trying to make some kind of heavy LGBT point, nor were they trying to illustrate the perils of traumatic brain injury.
What does ‘fly today’ really mean? There’s a lot of comedy that is racist, sexist, homophobic, or otherwise disliked by some people that still makes money. It’s a lot less tolerated on a major network, but does something need to be on a major network to be considered ‘flying’?
I think that that’s a good point – I’m not at all sure that a broadcast network (even Fox) would air In Living Color today. Even though the broadcast networks are, generally, airing edgier content now than they did 30 years ago (more overtly sexual content, including the occasional flash of a bare ass, and more swearing), the general tolerance for controversial humor like that is likely far lower now.
But, as you note, the broadcast networks are only one piece of the puzzle now. If not a network like HBO or Starz (which make far more original content now than they did then, and a lot of it on the MA-rated side), then certainly a streaming service.
The only sketch/character that I think would definitely be impossible to do is HandiMan. The others, I think, could work depending on execution and audience.
But I agree. It wouldn’t be anywhere near network TV.
“American Dad!” And “The Family Guy” are way more offensive than “In Living Color”. IMHO.
I think what made ILC funny was the novelty and shock more than anything else. No other shows were doing the kind of gags that NLC did. A half hour where you can make fun of mannish-looking women, gays, ghetto people, homeless people, and black celebrities in prime time, for free? It is a no-brainer. People are going to watch and they will laugh even if most of the jokes fall short.
The gay stuff would not work well today because gay people are pretty mainstream now. It is kind of hard to laugh at a blatant stereotype if you know enough people who buck that stereotype and aren’t afraid to inform you how unfunny that stereotype is. But in the 90s, that wasn’t the case.
It is/was on syndication recently (within the past year on FXX I think?)
Some of it is still funny, some of it never was (which happens with all sketch shows. Sometimes the sketches just really don’t work.), and some of it has aged horribly. The “Men on…” segments, which I remember laughing at back in the 1990s are, to me, just uncomfortable and cringe-y now. There’s a fair bit of misogyny (which I think I missed at the time) and homophobia. There are more than a few sketches that definitely come across as punching down or “laughing at” rather than “laughing with” without being that funny.
It could be that my sense of humor has radically changed or that I’m much more aware of things now than I was then or something else. But to answer the OP, yes, you can air offensive stuff on TV. Some people may not like your work and will have problems with advertisers (but they did 30 years ago, too).
From what I remember, I think most of it would be ok today. They may rethink some of the segments, like Men On Film as mentioned earlier.
I recall back when the first It’s Pat ran on Saturday Night Live I thought it was hilarious. Now looking at it, it is cringe inducing. I think a lot of it has to do with empathy. Back then, I was unaware of transgenderism. As I’ve gotten older, learned more and read the science (trigger warning for modern day Republicans) I realized things aren’t black and white. Gender is a spectrum and other peoples identity is no different than mine.
That kind of "humor "needs to be tossed in the waste bin with blackface, the gay best friend who has no romantic life himself and the magic negro.
I can definitely say that ‘Men on’ skits were shown at quite a few gay bars I went to during the 1990s. I’m sure a reboot would be a bit different. But, keep in mind that Rupaul’s drag race is insanely popular these days.
So, yes, it would never make it to network television today, but they’re not interested in that kind of show anyway. Cable or Netflix? I think it could work.
That is a good point. Our society has always and will always change over time. If one group wants their suffering acknowledged and belittling by a majority to stop what is it that majority would say? Would they be more likely to reflect on their behavior about a culture they don’t really understand and change their ways or rather dismiss the very idea they should be obligated to change.
“Pc culture” is a phrase used by people who don’t believe they’re wrong. And yet whole groups of people are wrong all the time.
I haven’t rewatched any of those, but from what I remembered the skits weren’t actually making fun of Pat, the butt of the jokes was consistently the people trying to figure out what the gender of Pat (and Pat’s various friends and partners who all had names like “Chris” and “Jamie”) without asking. I remember it as making fun of gender roles and not the person who doesn’t fit them, but it’s probably a lot more cringe-inducing than what I recall decades later.
That’s what I recall too- Pat wasn’t a transgender person, they were a person of absolutely indeterminate gender to other people. Presumably they knew what they were, but nobody else could figure it out, and that was where most of the humor lay.
Of course, to get this sort of ambiguity, they mostly smoothed over any gender-specific stuff with peculiar behaviors and appearances.
The “general public” are, in fact, fairly idiotic, insofar as it includes a large number of easily influenced idiots.
Yes, I understand that. The point you’re missing is that there were quite legitimate concerns that the skit would inspire said idiots to smack gay men on the head for laughs. Of course they didn’t really think it would turn the gay men straight, but this is not a behavior born of rational consideration in the first place. Because while “character has a personality change after being hit on the head” is a television convention, “beating up gay men” was - and sadly still is, to a lesser extent - an actual social convention.
While I’m not at all denying or downplaying the seriousness of violence toward gay men, I’m not convinced that concern about it in the context of its role in a silly comedy skit is a whole lot different than the hand-wringing about violent video games and their effect on young men.
I was mistaken. I thought for sure he was a straight man playing a flamboyant gay on a TV show. A little more digging makes me think I mixed him up with Nelsan Ellis
This. To really get it you have to have lived through the 80s, which was all about being fake and maintaining appearances, pretending nonstandard things were so rare as to not exist. Difference was most definitely not celebrated in the mainstream, and conspicuously unaddressed. I saw ILC as saying, “Difference DOES exist. And it’s not as weird or frightening as these characters and you know it. So quit pretending already.” There was the weirdness which is always funny, but the sketches were so over the top as to be clearly not an endorsement of the stereotypes.