I stopped to buy the third boxed set in the "Looney Tunes Golden Collection." Loved the first two: Daffy, Bugs, Porky, beautifully restored, tons of special features. But, for some reason, this new set begins with a special announcement by Whoopi Goldberg explaining what it is we're not meant to find funny: "Unfortunately at that time racial and ethnic differences were caricatured in ways that may have embarrassed and even hurt people of color, women and ethnic groups," she tells us sternly. "These jokes were wrong then and they're wrong today"
Well here, actually, I agree with Steyn. The thought of this makes me cringe. Some humor of that time does have to be put in context, but there must be a better way. Leonard Maltin's introductions on a fantastic videotape compilation called "Bugs & Daffy: Wartime Cartoons" come right to mind, they made the point without making my skin crawl.
But Steyn goes on to make the same mistake that I've seen people make when they want to dismiss charges of insensitivity, from "24" to "Buffy":
It's true you don't see many positive images of people of color on "Looney Tunes," but then the images of people of non-color aren't terribly positive either (Elmer Fudd, Yosemite Sam). Instead, you see positive images of ducks of color, roadrunners of color and tweety birds of color. How weirdly reductive to be so obsessed about something so peripheral to these cartoons that you stick the same damn Whoopi Goldberg health warning on all four DVDs in the box.
For the 57, 000th time (seemingly): Yes, but "people of non-color" had (and still have) dozens of other places they could go to see positive images of themselves. "People of color" and other minorities did not and in some cases, still do not.
Power Line's Scott "euphimism for a phallus" Johnson uses this as a launching pad to praise the late Elia Kazan. I suspect he does this at least in part to bait Democrats, some of whom, not unreasonably, are known to have certain issues with Mr. Kazan, on account of his being a rat-stoolie.
It seems a non-sequiter leap otherwise. I did find it interesting, however, that he thinks:
Kazan could make a great, angry film about the phenomenon represented by the Whoopi cushion, as you can see for yourelf in his "A Face in the Crowd" (screenplay by Budd Schulberg).
Everybody's entitled to their own opinion about the films they watch. For example, I've always seen "A Face In The Crowd" (which is indeed a great movie) as being about the phenomenon most recently represented by George W. Bush...
Only semi-related update: Elsewhere on Power Line, Paul "not man enough to have a phallic name" Mirengoff asks Cheney or McCain, who is the hero? Those are our choices? Shoot me again. I enjoy it.
Let's see, hero, hero, hero...ah, here we are. According to dictionary.com, which I believe is derived from the American Heritage Dictionary:
A person noted for feats of courage or nobility of purpose, especially one who has risked or sacrificed his or her life.
Well, it's got to be Cheney then, hasn't it?
No comments:
Post a Comment