I think it's obvious. When you're a black homophobe, the most respectable thing to do once you've been fired for causing undue controversy to darken a show's reputation is to point out the obvious - You were the victim here. A victim of racism.
http://www.cnn.com/2007/SHOWBIZ/TV/06/29/people.isaiahwashington.ap/index.html
Yes, the man is indeed putting Isaiah down. They were completely offended by his refusal to walk around the hospital gnawing on a watermelon and be whipped when a surgery went poorly. As we all know, "Grey's Anatomy" creator Shonda Rhimes wants nothing to do with well-spoken, well-represented black people on the screen. It was all about his color.
Sure, Rhimes herself is black in a predominantly white-run industry, but she really doesn't know what it's like. She hasn't had the experiences Washington has had. She hasn't seen what he's seen. She didn't have to live through minstrel shows and Jim Crow laws. Isaiah Washington did. Because he is, in fact, 97 years old.
They say black people age better than white people, but my god. Isaiah looks good. And back in his day, when vaudeville demanded even he put on black-face and shuffle around the stage, Washington had to deal with so much more than the white-ified Shonda Rhimes. He had to deal with racist laughter coming from the audience of boater-hat-wearing Fuller Brush salesmen. And, being in theatre, he also had to deal with them. Big old homos.
It's not his fault. Ask any 97-year-old black man and he'll likely tell you he's seen a lot of change in the last century. Isaiah relates to that situation better than any of us can possible imagine. Part of that change was the over-abundance of queers. We need to open our hearts to Isaiah. We need to understand that he deserves a break.
Like the old saying goes: When the chips go down, the race card trumps the douchebag card.
Friday, June 29, 2007
Wednesday, June 20, 2007
We've Got Politics Covered
About that...
Comedy Central usually has a policy against taking new political humor. Yet somehow... God, somehow the worst piece of "political satire" made it not only across their desks but onto the air, and without the scent of a celebrity or sense of humor in site. I'm speaking, of course, of "Lil' Bush."
There are too many points to detail here, like the horrible Bush impersonation that sounds like the actor is just straining to say everything and kind of has his mouth full, or the horrible animation that I could honestly accomplish with much less money than they're likely given to do it. What's important to discuss is how this show ever got on a channel with "Comedy" in the name.
Let's begin with how to accomplish good political satire. Firstly, all of your jokes should have some kind of real-world analog - hence, the point of satire in the first place. And that seems to be where "Lil' Bush" stops being political satire. It has a starting point, but it makes the same jokes over, and over, and over. Take the 8-year-old version of George W. Bush's use of the word "decider" - If they had picked a good point in their story to use it, it might have been a little more than a tired joke. Instead, they say "decider" at least twenty times, not counting the song in which it's featured another twenty or so.
Somehow the writers get away with being more juvenile than their titular character, hitting you over the head constantly, whether Lil' Dick Cheney's dad is Darth Vader or whether Lil' Dick Cheney himself is drinking blood fresh from a chicken, there's not an ounce of subtlety. And as we know, an ounce of subtlety is worth a ton or so of ham-handedness.
If you're going to do political satire, do it right. Don't do another show surrounding Bush, thinking it will somehow succeed ("That's My Bush," a mock-sitcom, by the creators of South Park, was a miserable failure) and then tell young undiscovered talent that you have politics covered. Maybe you do, but the people who write your shows don't.
And looking at their credits on IMDB, other than one of them working on the most recent miserable failure in Comedy Central's history, "The Naked Trucker and T-Bones Show," there's not much to write home about. These aren't the tried-and-true satirists of The Daily Show or The Onion (from which TDS likes to recruit). These are comedy writers. Give them another sketch show. Give them some other cartoon. But leave politics and, frankly, any kind of satire, to people with smaller hands. You know what they say about guys with big hands. They hit too many keys at once and write crappy scripts.
Comedy Central usually has a policy against taking new political humor. Yet somehow... God, somehow the worst piece of "political satire" made it not only across their desks but onto the air, and without the scent of a celebrity or sense of humor in site. I'm speaking, of course, of "Lil' Bush."
There are too many points to detail here, like the horrible Bush impersonation that sounds like the actor is just straining to say everything and kind of has his mouth full, or the horrible animation that I could honestly accomplish with much less money than they're likely given to do it. What's important to discuss is how this show ever got on a channel with "Comedy" in the name.
Let's begin with how to accomplish good political satire. Firstly, all of your jokes should have some kind of real-world analog - hence, the point of satire in the first place. And that seems to be where "Lil' Bush" stops being political satire. It has a starting point, but it makes the same jokes over, and over, and over. Take the 8-year-old version of George W. Bush's use of the word "decider" - If they had picked a good point in their story to use it, it might have been a little more than a tired joke. Instead, they say "decider" at least twenty times, not counting the song in which it's featured another twenty or so.
Somehow the writers get away with being more juvenile than their titular character, hitting you over the head constantly, whether Lil' Dick Cheney's dad is Darth Vader or whether Lil' Dick Cheney himself is drinking blood fresh from a chicken, there's not an ounce of subtlety. And as we know, an ounce of subtlety is worth a ton or so of ham-handedness.
If you're going to do political satire, do it right. Don't do another show surrounding Bush, thinking it will somehow succeed ("That's My Bush," a mock-sitcom, by the creators of South Park, was a miserable failure) and then tell young undiscovered talent that you have politics covered. Maybe you do, but the people who write your shows don't.
And looking at their credits on IMDB, other than one of them working on the most recent miserable failure in Comedy Central's history, "The Naked Trucker and T-Bones Show," there's not much to write home about. These aren't the tried-and-true satirists of The Daily Show or The Onion (from which TDS likes to recruit). These are comedy writers. Give them another sketch show. Give them some other cartoon. But leave politics and, frankly, any kind of satire, to people with smaller hands. You know what they say about guys with big hands. They hit too many keys at once and write crappy scripts.
I Think, Therefore It's True
http://www.cnn.com/2007/SHOWBIZ/Movies/06/20/travolta.drugs.ap/index.html
As always, more and more Scientologists are doing a great job of painting a great picture of themselves, at least partially. Let's say half of the numbers have been colored in. John Travolta had a few things to say, in an interview mind you, about psychotropic drugs:
"I don't disagree with anything Tom says," Travolta says in the July issue of W magazine, on newsstands Friday. "How would I have presented it? Maybe differently than how he did, but it doesn't matter. I still think that if you analyze most of the school shootings, it is not gun control. It is (psychotropic) drugs at the bottom of it."
"I don't want to create controversy; I just have an opinion on things, and there is nothing wrong with stating your opinion if you are asked," he continues. "Everyone wants that right, and because you are famous doesn't mean you have less of a right."
He's right. He does have an opinion. But what needs to be looked at, again and again, is how so many Scientologists are filled with and love to express OPINIONS rather than scientific fact. He said "I still think that if you analyze most of the school shootings... it's drugs at the bottom of it." Fine, I think that if you analyze the Earth's composition, you'll find a gooey marshmallow filling.
Descartes never said "I think therefore it's true." But that seems to be the tenet of famous Scientologists who, for whatever reason, be it a balance of the spiritual or fiscal nature, want to believe something and express it as fact because L. Ron or one of his closer disciples determined it to be so. It's unfortunate that the "E-Meter" they use to judge stress started out as a medical tool, because I'm sure that's something they use to feel legitimate.
John Travolta, like Tom Cruise (as much as he's trying to distance himself from Tom's image) is blatantly irresponsible. Not to say that he shouldn't be able to speak. But he shouldn't be speaking unless he understands the science of what he's saying. It's reckless, like Tom Hanks coming out and telling the world "You shouldn't be wearing cotton, because I believe it to be a fact that cotton causes AIDS." No, Tom, you're wrong. You should do your research.
Has John Travolta ever read a paper? I won't say you should always believe what you read, but it seems obvious that the most deadly school shooting in history was perpetrated by a kid who was mentally ill, who wasn't on psychotropics, and who, had he found Scientology, would at some point have gone off the deep end somewhere in Hollywood. You can't save everyone by talking to them. Me, in high school, with fantasies of fake school shootings (my daydreams consisted of me, pre-Columbine, in my trenchcoat, pulling out a toy shotgun and scaring everyone), you could have saved by talking and proper attention. I was, in fact.
But some people need extra help. Not all psychologists will flat-out dope up their patients. Yes, it happens. Yes, it can be irresponsible, as in the times many friends and relatives of mine have been diagnosed with depression and given drugs that made them arguably more suicidal. But if you find a responsible psychiatrist, you'll find someone willing to talk, to explain the problem, and to medicate only if necessary, only for balance, and only along with regular therapy, aka "Talking shit out."
Ruling out everyone in one group just isn't right. Which is why I choose to deal with some Scientologists. They aren't all retarded. But for one group to reject any other whole group so effusively implies that they feel threatened by psychologists. Let me illustrate my point thusly. If I were to go around telling everyone that "Dentistry Kills" that means I can take care of my own teeth. It doesn't mean that no one else should get fillings. And actually, upon closer inspection, I'd eventually realize I need fillings, too. Unless I try to do it myself. And making your own fillings is pretty much nuts.
As always, more and more Scientologists are doing a great job of painting a great picture of themselves, at least partially. Let's say half of the numbers have been colored in. John Travolta had a few things to say, in an interview mind you, about psychotropic drugs:
"I don't disagree with anything Tom says," Travolta says in the July issue of W magazine, on newsstands Friday. "How would I have presented it? Maybe differently than how he did, but it doesn't matter. I still think that if you analyze most of the school shootings, it is not gun control. It is (psychotropic) drugs at the bottom of it."
"I don't want to create controversy; I just have an opinion on things, and there is nothing wrong with stating your opinion if you are asked," he continues. "Everyone wants that right, and because you are famous doesn't mean you have less of a right."
He's right. He does have an opinion. But what needs to be looked at, again and again, is how so many Scientologists are filled with and love to express OPINIONS rather than scientific fact. He said "I still think that if you analyze most of the school shootings... it's drugs at the bottom of it." Fine, I think that if you analyze the Earth's composition, you'll find a gooey marshmallow filling.
Descartes never said "I think therefore it's true." But that seems to be the tenet of famous Scientologists who, for whatever reason, be it a balance of the spiritual or fiscal nature, want to believe something and express it as fact because L. Ron or one of his closer disciples determined it to be so. It's unfortunate that the "E-Meter" they use to judge stress started out as a medical tool, because I'm sure that's something they use to feel legitimate.
John Travolta, like Tom Cruise (as much as he's trying to distance himself from Tom's image) is blatantly irresponsible. Not to say that he shouldn't be able to speak. But he shouldn't be speaking unless he understands the science of what he's saying. It's reckless, like Tom Hanks coming out and telling the world "You shouldn't be wearing cotton, because I believe it to be a fact that cotton causes AIDS." No, Tom, you're wrong. You should do your research.
Has John Travolta ever read a paper? I won't say you should always believe what you read, but it seems obvious that the most deadly school shooting in history was perpetrated by a kid who was mentally ill, who wasn't on psychotropics, and who, had he found Scientology, would at some point have gone off the deep end somewhere in Hollywood. You can't save everyone by talking to them. Me, in high school, with fantasies of fake school shootings (my daydreams consisted of me, pre-Columbine, in my trenchcoat, pulling out a toy shotgun and scaring everyone), you could have saved by talking and proper attention. I was, in fact.
But some people need extra help. Not all psychologists will flat-out dope up their patients. Yes, it happens. Yes, it can be irresponsible, as in the times many friends and relatives of mine have been diagnosed with depression and given drugs that made them arguably more suicidal. But if you find a responsible psychiatrist, you'll find someone willing to talk, to explain the problem, and to medicate only if necessary, only for balance, and only along with regular therapy, aka "Talking shit out."
Ruling out everyone in one group just isn't right. Which is why I choose to deal with some Scientologists. They aren't all retarded. But for one group to reject any other whole group so effusively implies that they feel threatened by psychologists. Let me illustrate my point thusly. If I were to go around telling everyone that "Dentistry Kills" that means I can take care of my own teeth. It doesn't mean that no one else should get fillings. And actually, upon closer inspection, I'd eventually realize I need fillings, too. Unless I try to do it myself. And making your own fillings is pretty much nuts.
Wednesday, June 13, 2007
Words are Awesome...
http://www.courttv.com/trials/spector/photo_gallery/index1.html
Just briefly, here's my favorite part:
"[Spector] faces 15 years to life if convicted of murder and another 10 years if the jury finds he used a gun in the shooting."
I'm sorry, your honor, he is guilty of shooting Miss Clarkson dead. That is a known fact. But he didn't use a gun. He did, in fact, use a My Little Pony doll, saying "Pew! Pew!" as he did so. Miss Clarkson then fell dead, the sheer spectacle of Spector's insanity blowing a hole through her head.
Do you think they'll imprison him behind bars of sound? That would be kind of cool.
Just briefly, here's my favorite part:
"[Spector] faces 15 years to life if convicted of murder and another 10 years if the jury finds he used a gun in the shooting."
I'm sorry, your honor, he is guilty of shooting Miss Clarkson dead. That is a known fact. But he didn't use a gun. He did, in fact, use a My Little Pony doll, saying "Pew! Pew!" as he did so. Miss Clarkson then fell dead, the sheer spectacle of Spector's insanity blowing a hole through her head.
Do you think they'll imprison him behind bars of sound? That would be kind of cool.
Friday, June 08, 2007
Minding Mencia
I cringe every time I see a promo for "Mind of Mencia," Carlos Mencia's sketch show on Comedy Central. I can never tell exactly why. Maybe it's because I'm sick of the phrase "Equal Opportunity Offender." It was funny the first time. Find something new, lame comedians, please. But I think it goes deeper. Maybe it's something about the way he plays on camera. Then today I realized what it was:
Carlos Mencia thinks acting is being sarcastic.
No matter what wig they put on him, no matter who he's playing, he bugs out his eyes and seems to be gritting his teeth as though he's frustrated with the character he's playing. He doesn't know that to act comedy you have to play it as straight as possible. Long explanation short, he's not a comedian.
Now he's plenty good at being sarcastic and he can throw out a good anti-racism joke here and there. But if I hear him say "beaner" one more time I swear to God, I will slap him. He has a series of gags and beats he always plays, what they call a "bag of tricks." But unlike comedians of old, he was tired from the second he started. Maybe to some people the things he says are refreshing. But like Dave Chapelle before him (I think it's okay to compare the only two minority sketch comedy stars of the last five years seeing as that's why Mencia was hired - to replace a popular, offensive minority comedian) he doesn't know where to draw the line.
Not that he's crossing it, mind you, that's acceptable if you have a point to make. He just has no idea where the line is, and his offensiveness switch is always in the "on" position. And it rarely makes a point, and never a new one. I get that some people find catharsis in mock-racism, but half the time I'm just not certain he's mocking. I don't think he's a racist, mind you, I just plain don't think he knows how to be funny.
An example: At the county fair in Upstate New York about 10 years ago, I was waiting in line for the swing ride - you know the one, the lame bunch of spinning swings - and I heard a comment come from a grandmother to a companion "Oh, a colored man is running the ride." Normally, I'd laugh her silly, old-fashioned ignorance off as outmoded. Unfortunately, her young grandson was in earshot. Not one to be outdone in offending sensibilities, I decided to blurt out "Yeah, be careful, you might catch black." One of my proudest moments ever. And I knew what I was doing, spelled the joke out for her. Didn't get a response. My job was done. I was sixteen. Carlos Mencia is not. And even if he could muster the ability to write that joke he'd probably bug his eyes out and put up his hands as if to indicate "I don't know!"
As an end note, who the fuck considers "de de dee" a catchphrase? It's not even a phrase! When I sell my sketch show, can I talk to the audience and throw out some onomotopoeia and pretend it's funny? "Crackle, crackle, crackle!" Oh, me, I certainly do tell it like it is.
Carlos Mencia thinks acting is being sarcastic.
No matter what wig they put on him, no matter who he's playing, he bugs out his eyes and seems to be gritting his teeth as though he's frustrated with the character he's playing. He doesn't know that to act comedy you have to play it as straight as possible. Long explanation short, he's not a comedian.
Now he's plenty good at being sarcastic and he can throw out a good anti-racism joke here and there. But if I hear him say "beaner" one more time I swear to God, I will slap him. He has a series of gags and beats he always plays, what they call a "bag of tricks." But unlike comedians of old, he was tired from the second he started. Maybe to some people the things he says are refreshing. But like Dave Chapelle before him (I think it's okay to compare the only two minority sketch comedy stars of the last five years seeing as that's why Mencia was hired - to replace a popular, offensive minority comedian) he doesn't know where to draw the line.
Not that he's crossing it, mind you, that's acceptable if you have a point to make. He just has no idea where the line is, and his offensiveness switch is always in the "on" position. And it rarely makes a point, and never a new one. I get that some people find catharsis in mock-racism, but half the time I'm just not certain he's mocking. I don't think he's a racist, mind you, I just plain don't think he knows how to be funny.
An example: At the county fair in Upstate New York about 10 years ago, I was waiting in line for the swing ride - you know the one, the lame bunch of spinning swings - and I heard a comment come from a grandmother to a companion "Oh, a colored man is running the ride." Normally, I'd laugh her silly, old-fashioned ignorance off as outmoded. Unfortunately, her young grandson was in earshot. Not one to be outdone in offending sensibilities, I decided to blurt out "Yeah, be careful, you might catch black." One of my proudest moments ever. And I knew what I was doing, spelled the joke out for her. Didn't get a response. My job was done. I was sixteen. Carlos Mencia is not. And even if he could muster the ability to write that joke he'd probably bug his eyes out and put up his hands as if to indicate "I don't know!"
As an end note, who the fuck considers "de de dee" a catchphrase? It's not even a phrase! When I sell my sketch show, can I talk to the audience and throw out some onomotopoeia and pretend it's funny? "Crackle, crackle, crackle!" Oh, me, I certainly do tell it like it is.
That Borat... He's so funny when he does things and stuff...
Apparently Borat is writing a travel book.
http://edition.cnn.com/2007/TRAVEL/05/25/books.borat.reut/
I'll bet it's called something long or something foreign-sounding! Like "Advicings on Travellings to Foreign Prefectures Withs Borats!" I'm going to sue them if that's the title. Seriously. (Okay, I just looked closer and found out the two HILARIOUS titles: "Borat: Touristic Guidings to Minor Nation of U.S. and A." and "Borat: Touristic Guidings to Glorious Nation of Kazakhstan." Boy, That Borats!)
He's also getting sued by another person who didn't agree to be in the movie, having been blurred in the trailer but not the film itself - He's a lawyer running away from Borat's hug. He's arguing his civil rights are violated. When's the last time a white guy said that and got away with it?
Anyhow, he makes and interesting legal point, one which is rebuffed by the all-too-protective Fox, though I have to sort of cheer them on for protecting "artistic freedom," aka box office receipts. He didn't sign a release, so he should be protected, but even New York City is defending Borats.
To be honest, I don't care so much that this guy says he was humiliated. What I do care about, however, is the idea that 20th Century Fox is going to get around the age-old rule of needing a likeness release, and in a huge film, no less. I've been making short films for years, and in fact just did some undercover improv, and I've always had to blur out people's faces or get releases. No exceptions. Then again, I don't have Glorious Nation of NewsCorp backing me.
I would just like to see them lose the one case. And seriously, the movie is only good for one watchings anyway. Oh, balls in the face - what a surprise, this second time I've seen it... Ehh.
http://edition.cnn.com/2007/TRAVEL/05/25/books.borat.reut/
I'll bet it's called something long or something foreign-sounding! Like "Advicings on Travellings to Foreign Prefectures Withs Borats!" I'm going to sue them if that's the title. Seriously. (Okay, I just looked closer and found out the two HILARIOUS titles: "Borat: Touristic Guidings to Minor Nation of U.S. and A." and "Borat: Touristic Guidings to Glorious Nation of Kazakhstan." Boy, That Borats!)
He's also getting sued by another person who didn't agree to be in the movie, having been blurred in the trailer but not the film itself - He's a lawyer running away from Borat's hug. He's arguing his civil rights are violated. When's the last time a white guy said that and got away with it?
Anyhow, he makes and interesting legal point, one which is rebuffed by the all-too-protective Fox, though I have to sort of cheer them on for protecting "artistic freedom," aka box office receipts. He didn't sign a release, so he should be protected, but even New York City is defending Borats.
To be honest, I don't care so much that this guy says he was humiliated. What I do care about, however, is the idea that 20th Century Fox is going to get around the age-old rule of needing a likeness release, and in a huge film, no less. I've been making short films for years, and in fact just did some undercover improv, and I've always had to blur out people's faces or get releases. No exceptions. Then again, I don't have Glorious Nation of NewsCorp backing me.
I would just like to see them lose the one case. And seriously, the movie is only good for one watchings anyway. Oh, balls in the face - what a surprise, this second time I've seen it... Ehh.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)