As a comedian, I often push a lot of buttons. One, because my kind of rough life experiences and mild deamnor give me a lot of currency to take my humor to the gallows. And secondly, because I like to think that I put a lot of effort into making sure my targets are clear.
It seems The Oscars has attracted a bit of controversy on all fronts: Which may or may not be what they wanted. There were some misgivings about Seth McFarlane coming along and doing what Seth McFaralene was hired to do. As a local from Rhode Island, it's funny to think his stuff actually may have been a bit too cerebral for his "never got off the ground " comedy career. But it may have created a little bit of "pushing the envelope" osmosis.
The Onion caused a stir when, on its twitter account, it made a comment saying " Everyone else seems afraid to say it, but that Quvenzhané Wallis is kind of a cunt, right? #Oscars201". This caused an outrage, first of all, for using the last great four letter word that must not be said. Secondly, because of the racial connotations (the idea that a person of color is fair game, or that they seem more "required" to act demure as possible, with little wiggle room). The Onion says their intent wasn't in targeting Wallis, but in the snipes that people tend to make in light of these Oscar ceremonies. That somehow, the armchair analysts of popular culture have just gotten too mean-spirited.
I kind of have been going back and forth on this. I'm not the largest fan of the gossip industry. Now, I'm hardly going to pretend that the Academy Awards are an untouchable bastion of prestige...the very high school prom nature of it, in addition to the decadence of the jewelry, the food, the party has all pretty much rendered the purity of it all a lost cause. Nontheless, there's a part of me that always winces when the ceremony attracts people who aren't into it because of the movies. And even those who are, will say, glom onto say, the irritating aspects of Anne Hathaway. Hathaway has kind of become the poster child (or at least soup du jour) for how much media gadlfys like to really let Type-A seeming actresses have it. (Or Type-C, with Kirsten Stewart's fog apathy inviting equal criticism). I'm not the first, and I won't be the last, to point out that the one upmanship of snark that's started since "Best Week Ever" (is that show still on) has very few places to go. Making that comment about Wallis is the logical conclusion. "But she's just a girl", they say. "She shouldn't be in the midst of that", but the thing is, with America being on a first name with Brad Pitt and Aneglina Jolie's offspring, culturally speaking, they're already out in the open. The media, the paparazzi, the blogs, they've helped break down barriers turning children into fair game. It was only a matter of time before someone said that about a nine year old actress, and meant it.
But there comes the rub. Sometimes excellent satire (which the Onion comment really wasn't, but anyways) is hard to distinguish from that which it's satirizing. People will take Fight Club at face value. People will take Dave Chapelle's act at face value. The Onions point was maybe to make people feel a little uncomfortable and shocked. But what if not everyone considers that a wake-up splash of water, but a refreshing dip. I've seen a lot of comments along the line of "To be fair, she did seem like a little bit of a cunt". Sometimes the worst thing that can happen to a comedian is to be enjoyed by the very people being made fun of. So I think in the light, we should declare the experiment a failure, where the humor was more appreciated by folks the writers did not want to be appreciated by. Hence, the apology, which some champions of humor felt they should never have had to do.
Ultimately though, let's hope the day doesn't come when the Onion's affected faux-outrageousness doesn't become milder than the real thing. Especially since one wonders where one would take that?
