your least favourite shakespeare play ?

[Jackson Richardson]

Like you, cacian, I don't know but I strongly advise you not to get involved in this sort of exchange..

[Pompey Bum]

Sorry for the confusion but I was conflating two different parts of our discussion.

Okay, you are absolved.

Sorry about that, I did misunderstand your point. But even now as I understand your point I'm not sure I agree with it. There was a time when the Klu Klux Klan WERE seen as heroes to certain people in the south, and we really have no idea as to whether or not a situation like that depicted in BOAN ever happened or not, just like we usually don't know if what's depicted in historical fiction happened that way or not as we're usually quite limited in detailed accounts of such events (and it's worth pointing out that the particular part of BOAN in question isn't meant to be depicting a specific historical event like, say, Saving Private Ryan depicts D-Day).

I was not arguing that the objectionable aspect of Birth of a Nation was its lack of historicity (although I'm sure it's quite limited); simply that claims to the same sort of authenticity did not pertain to both works, making the comparison you sought somewhat facile. A historian would no doubt make mincemeat out of Birth of a Nation, but a high degree of historicity is not necessary to a successful work of art. Richard III, for example, is a Tudor whitewash, but poetically it is to die for--Jonathan's eccentric disdain notwithstanding. (If you are reading this Jonathan, please explain! ) Likewise the Battles of Harfleur and Agincourt were fought with sword and longbow not canon and ball (no breach for the dear friends to charge unto once more).

I've never watched Birth of a Nation, but the parts I have seen are unconscionable. Even worse, since cinema was new when it was released, throngs of relatively naive Americans--many without advanced education--were literally ushered into a dark room to receive the myth of the heroic Klansman; no doubt with deadly consequences to some. I can see its use today by history teachers in showing how Reconstruction was perceived by many in the early 20th, and how the those perceptions helped fuel violent conflict and laid the background for the Civil Rights struggle. Since I haven't seen the whole film (or even very much of it), I can't speak to its artistic value.

No need to get defense, I understand you now.

I apologize for my impatience last night.

[mortalterror]

I certainly wouldn't endorse any kind of banning or censorship, but part of free speech is the ability to denounce the content of what free speech we find morally repugnant.

Obviously BOAN is on the opposite end of the spectrum in just about every way, but that was part of my point about asking where, exactly, to draw the line. Very recently there's been a lot of controversy over the morality of comedians telling rape jokes, so I don't think it's a simple manner of "serious historical drama" VS "frivolous comedy" since even comedy is usually promoting some perspective while making fun of another (though some comedy tries to mock every perspective).

Yes, political correctness is the death of comedy. Everybody at the nightclub laughed at those jokes and then one uptight person went home and wrote a blog claiming they weren't funny.

Traditionally, though, comedy has been aimed at the powerful, establishments and privilege, as they're the ones that benefit the most and suffer the least through existing social structures. It gets very tricky when you start making light of groups that aren't privileged.

That's a modern myth propagated by the PC crowd, all that comedy is about speaking truth to power, punching up nonsense. That's just the only type of humor that suits their agenda. What truth to power do dead baby jokes tell? What power does a homeless person, a drug addict, or a fool have (all familiar targets in comedy)? What part of society are jokes about bodily functions aimed at? As far as Taming of the Shrew goes, that's every comedian's act ie gender conflicts and relationships.

Woah buddy, as a Native American member of the lGBTQWERTY community I think you had better fix that ire on someone a little more privileged; your post is honestly quite 'problematic'. I find your microaggressive use of sarcasm, levelled at a member of a minority group, to be quite 'tricky'.

You see, now that's funny.

[Clopin]

what is the meaning of that?

LGBPTTQQIIAA+:*any combination of letters attempting to represent all the identities in the queer community, this near-exhaustive one (but not exhaustive) represents*Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Pansexual, Transgender, Transsexual, Queer, Questioning, Intersex, Intergender, Asexual, Ally

Basically a way to self identify as something unique without actually becoming a unique or interesting person. As Morpheus demonstrated earlier you can also have a lot of fun moaning about 'privilege' and being easily offended by jokes. Off topic, but here's a joke that pokes fun at a sexual minority and is, in fact, quite popular (how tricky do you find this, Morpheus, on a scale of 1-10).

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=mL7n5mEmXJo

[MorpheusSandman]

Woah buddy, as a Native American member of the lGBTQWERTY community I think you had better fix that ire on someone a little more privileged; your post is honestly quite 'problematic'. I find your microaggressive use of sarcasm, levelled at a member of a minority group, to be quite 'tricky'.

What nonsense. My "ire" (more an attempt at pointing out your blatant hypocrisy) was directed at what you said, not you or any group you're a member of.

[Clopin]

What nonsense. My "ire" (more an attempt at pointing out your blatant hypocrisy) was directed at what you said, not you or any group you're a member of.

What blatant hypocrisy? You criticised humour which is delivered without the social agenda of battling 'privilege'; or at least you suggested that toppling existing social strictures is the primary function of humour. This is a lunatic concept, and a point of view which deserves scorn.

[MorpheusSandman]

I was not arguing that the objectionable aspect of Birth of a Nation was its lack of historicity (although I'm sure it's quite limited); simply that claims to the same sort of authenticity did not pertain to both works, making the comparison you sought somewhat facile.

Well, as I said, the intention with bringing up BOAN was to go in the extreme opposite direction of a play like Taming of the Shrew, where the only common element is whether or not what's objectionable has to do with how each portray a particular group of people. In BOAN there's no ambiguity as to its position on those groups, while in TOTS there is.

I've never watched Birth of a Nation, but the parts I have seen are unconscionable. Even worse, since cinema was new when it was released, throngs of relatively naive Americans--many without advanced education--were literally ushered into a dark room to receive the myth of the heroic Klansman; no doubt with deadly consequences to some.

Actually, the outcry against the film's blatant racism was pretty immediate and DW Griffith spent much of the rest of his life having to apologize for it it. His next film, Intolerance, was in large part his effort at atonement. The racist elements of the film are actually quite self-contained within the film's second half; it's first half is more of a prototypical costume drama done with tremendous artistry. The film is a must-see for anyone interested in the art of filmmaking, but it's equally a must-see for anyone who wants to confront the history of racism in America. Roger Ebert wrote probably the best review of the film that addresses both of these elements that I've ever read: http://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/gr...-a-nation-1915

I apologize for my impatience last night.

I apologize for my failures at reading comprehension. I often post while working so my mind is a bit scattered.

[MorpheusSandman]

Yes, political correctness is the death of comedy.

Or, as one comedian said: "Being PC is what we used to call 'not being an a--hole.'"

That's a modern myth propagated by the PC crowd, all that comedy is about speaking truth to power, punching up nonsense. That's just the only type of humor that suits their agenda. What truth to power do dead baby jokes tell? What power does a homeless person, a drug addict, or a fool have (all familiar targets in comedy)? What part of society are jokes about bodily functions aimed at? As far as Taming of the Shrew goes, that's every comedian's act ie gender conflicts and relationships.

Firstly, I assumed we were talking about comedy that actually IS aimed at certain groups, which would exclude bodily functions and dead baby jokes. There's certainly plenty of comedy to be found that doesn't have to do social structures. Secondly, I'm not sure what you're referring to about the homeless, drug addicts, and fools being familiar "targets" in comedy. Frequently there are homeless, addicts, and fool characters that are sources of comedy, but this is distinctly different than comedy that targeted at denouncing those groups. I doubt very few that watched Chaplin thought it good that there were homeless people, or watched Cheech and Chong and thought all stoners needed to be locked away, or read Lear and thought the fool deserved beating. The question is entirely whether or not TOTS is a play promoting the idea of torturing the will out of strong-willed women in order to keep them in their place. If you don't see the difference between that and the above examples, then I don't know what to say.

BTW, I feel compelled to repeat that TOTS is, perhaps intentionally ironically, at its most hilarious when Katherina and Petruchio are on an even playing field. I haven't actually seen anyone here dispute that. The question is what to make out of the actual taming and the conclusion.

[MorpheusSandman]

What blatant hypocrisy? You criticised humour which is delivered without the social agenda of battling 'privilege';

1. The hypocrisy was you accusing me of using an internet buzzword while using an internet meme ("look ma!") yourself.

2. As I said to Mortal in my last post, I thought it was implied in my criticism that we were merely discussing humor that IS directed at social structures. I admitted there is plenty of (valid) comedy that is not, and that's fine.

or at least you suggested that toppling existing social strictures is the primary function of humour.

No. The post where I mentioned the relationship between comedy and privilege was descriptive ("traditionally comedy was...") not prescriptive ("comedy should be aimed at the privileged."). The primary function of humor is to cause laughter. I'd argue one of the primary causes of art is to reflect and comment on the human condition, social structures being a part of that. When humor does that, we are obligated to comment and reflect on what is being reflected and commented on. I see no reason why humor should get a pass for what it implicitly or explicitly lauds or derides just because it's humorous.

[Pompey Bum]

I feel compelled to repeat that TOTS is, perhaps intentionally ironically, at its most hilarious when Katherina and Petruchio are on an even playing field. I haven't actually seen anyone here dispute that. The question is what to make out of the actual taming and the conclusion.

Well, as I said I think the part where Petruchio is trying to drive Kate nuts is the funniest scene in the play, if only because it is the silliest (doesn't he even shoot her dog at one point, or am I remembering that from a Monty Python sketch?) I don't take it seriously at all, and I think you'd have a better time if you let yourself laugh, too; but if those are your scruples, of course you need to adhere to them.

On the PC issue, I am definitely with Mort and Clopin. Humor is anarchic and often seems mean, but it has also been said (and I believe) that the measure of a free society is the extent to which it tolerates an Aristophanes (or a Don Rickles or a Joan Rivers). Just to pour gasoline on the fire (), here is Rivers taking down a heckler who got PC on her. In my opinion, it's hilarious:

Warning: language is not office or kid safe.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=GwfZRq57b9Q

[Clopin]

I wasn't aware that 'look ma!' was a meme in the first place nor do I understand how making a joke which happens to be an Internet meme is the same thing as trying to use terms like 'privilege' to dictate who can and can not be made fun of humorously.

And regarding humour getting a free pass... A free pass to what? To making people laugh? To social respectability? To being 'acceptable'? You said it yourself, the primary function of humour is to cause laughter and this supersedes all other priorities.

Should we feel offended that the character of Homer Simpson is a caricature of a big, fat, stupid American guy? Or is this more or less acceptable due to of his being part of a privileged class? Should I take issue with the fact that Canadians are repeatedly portrayed as backwards mountain men with goofy accents and silly scarlet uniforms when they make it into popular media? Should Woody Allen's depiction of the 'neurotic Jew' as a target for comedy be considered unacceptable? How about Larry David or the character of George Costanza? When Dave Chappelle repeatedly makes jokes about African Americans what should our reaction be? I mean, they aren't a very privileged group. And consider something like South Park where nearly every joke is an off colour dig at ethnic or cultural stereotypes and no group is left unscathed; would you consider that acceptable or would it fall in line with the "I don't consider misogyny funny" point of view?

[Clopin]

Anyway some examples of humour which makes fun of the underprivileged and still manages to be (gasp) funny.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=oBSgpHQO-J4

Seinfeld - The Homeless

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Fg6J1Skptbs

Dave Chappelle - African Americans

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=h0dM7oyXV5g

South Park - Asian Immigrants

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=NfgHVSvxZUA

South Park - Severe mental and physical disabilities

[Pompey Bum]

Heh heh. Thanks Clopin (especially for the South Park)

You see, I've learned something today:

Watching those videos (and the Joan Rivers one) made me think that humor is fundamentally Dionysian. When you laugh, you lose control for a second or two and it feels better than great. I think the trouble with PC humor (by which I mean: "Let's all get together and laugh because we agree politically") is the same problem with most Christian humor: it's too controlled to be very funny. Real laughter is scary. It's a kind of madness (in the Dionysian sense). When you come out of it--when you gasp between laughing jags--you understand perfectly well that laughing at disabled people is mean and you're not serious; and you know that too when the madness comes on a moment later. It doesn't make it less funny--it actually just makes the madness safer.

Do disabled people and other groups that "lack privilege" loose out in that equation? Maybe. But less so if they know it's a joke; and not at all if they laugh back. When that happens, they no longer need PC guardians to look after their interests. They can laugh at the stupidity of those who laugh at them: and it feels just as good to them and just and human. Then everyone can laugh together and understand that they like laughing with and at each other, so hey, let's be friends because we want to be friends--not because someone else is making us. Because those people--they never laugh.

Edit: On the other hand, Clopin, my wife says she's going to have your b*lls for the City Diner video.

[MorpheusSandman]

I wasn't aware that 'look ma!' was a meme in the first place nor do I understand how making a joke which happens to be an Internet meme is the same thing as trying to use terms like 'privilege' to dictate who can and can not be made fun of humorously.

1. Yes, "look ma!" is a meme.

2. For the second time, the only time I used the term privilege I was being descriptive, not prescriptive. I never said anything about who can and can't be made fun of humorously; this was all just you being reactionary.

And regarding humour getting a free pass... A free pass to what? To making people laugh? To social respectability? To being 'acceptable'? You said it yourself, the primary function of humour is to cause laughter and this supersedes all other priorities.

A "free pass" from any kind of moral judgment. Yes, the primary function of humor is to cause laughter, just as the primary function of film is to entertain. If Birth of a Nation entertained you, does that mean we shouldn't judge its moral content?

The last paragraph of your post and your follow-up does nothing but reveal you really don't get the point. There's a difference between a character, having a character represent a group, and promoting actions that should be taken against a group. When you can find an example of Chappelle suggesting slavery was OK because blacks should know their place, or Allen suggesting the Holocaust was OK because Jews are indeed lesser human beings, or Sienfield suggesting that homelessness is no real problem or that the homeless should be tortured or put to slavery... then you might have a relevant example.

[Clopin]

The last paragraph of your post and your follow-up does nothing but reveal you really don't get the point. There's a difference between a character, having a character represent a group, and promoting actions that should be taken against a group. When you can find an example of Chappelle suggesting slavery was OK because blacks should know their place, or Allen suggesting the Holocaust was OK because Jews are indeed lesser human beings, or Sienfield suggesting that homelessness is no real problem or that the homeless should be tortured or put to slavery... then you might have a relevant example.

What are you talking about? Humour where the punch line is literally "African slavery is good", or "the holocaust was OK" is incredibly rare and generally limited to very fringe communities (such as Stormfront). It's not likely to provoke laughter at any rate.