The Price of Admission
Michael Richards, Kramer, went off on a racist rant, and then denied that he is a racist. Obviously, he does not get it. If he was "riffing," as a comic on stage, then his humor compass was busted. It was magnetically distorted by rage and frustration. What replaced his comic instinct, however, was old fashioned racial slurs and race-baiting.
Commentators have said that it likely will cost him his career. No new shows, no endorsements. He forever will be linked with two minutes of racist bile. And he should. That's what happens to people who transgress our society's compact. An important part of it is that people who act out bias or racial hatred become pariahs.
Except of course for Trent Lott, but then again he's been reinstated by his society. It's fascinating that Nancy Pelosi got skewered for promoting John Murtha, because of ethical challenges, while the Republicans reinstated Lott despite some of the most racist statements to be uttered by a United States Senator in my memory. I chalk that up to Pelosi trying to appoint someone tied to corrupt practices after an election that dispatched a ridiculously corrupt Republican majority and to the failure of the press to go after Lott the way they did Kramer.
I don't think Kramer should get a pass, but I don't think Lott should have either. George
Allen nearly got re-elected as a Senator from Virginia despite his using a racial epithet to describe a person of East Indian descent who had been following his campaign on behalf of Webb, his opponent. It may have cost him the election but just barely.
As an experiment I watched Seinfeld last night. Kramer, tics and legs akimbo, is still funny. His performance was a riot. But I couldn't think about him without thinking of what he had just done.
Last week, my friend and I saw the trailer of the latest Mel Gibson movie. My friend said that he would never pay to see Mel Gibson every again.
"But if you could see it for free?"
"Yeah, I would, " he answered, knowing immediately the hypocrisy of his position. And I will continue to watch Seinfeld. Jerry, George and Elaine have not betrayed the layer of hate under the funny surface. Yet.
Commentators have said that it likely will cost him his career. No new shows, no endorsements. He forever will be linked with two minutes of racist bile. And he should. That's what happens to people who transgress our society's compact. An important part of it is that people who act out bias or racial hatred become pariahs.
Except of course for Trent Lott, but then again he's been reinstated by his society. It's fascinating that Nancy Pelosi got skewered for promoting John Murtha, because of ethical challenges, while the Republicans reinstated Lott despite some of the most racist statements to be uttered by a United States Senator in my memory. I chalk that up to Pelosi trying to appoint someone tied to corrupt practices after an election that dispatched a ridiculously corrupt Republican majority and to the failure of the press to go after Lott the way they did Kramer.
I don't think Kramer should get a pass, but I don't think Lott should have either. George
Allen nearly got re-elected as a Senator from Virginia despite his using a racial epithet to describe a person of East Indian descent who had been following his campaign on behalf of Webb, his opponent. It may have cost him the election but just barely.
As an experiment I watched Seinfeld last night. Kramer, tics and legs akimbo, is still funny. His performance was a riot. But I couldn't think about him without thinking of what he had just done.
Last week, my friend and I saw the trailer of the latest Mel Gibson movie. My friend said that he would never pay to see Mel Gibson every again.
"But if you could see it for free?"
"Yeah, I would, " he answered, knowing immediately the hypocrisy of his position. And I will continue to watch Seinfeld. Jerry, George and Elaine have not betrayed the layer of hate under the funny surface. Yet.
posted by Evan Sarzin at 6:03 AM
2 Comments:
Written prior to your latest:
Dear BR,
I think you may be judging your friend too harshly here. I don’t think that his stance is hypocritical, at least not in an overt sense.
By paying to see a Mel Gibson movie, he might feel as if he were contributing directly to Mel’s ultra-conservative Catholic cult, his church construction, and in all likelihood, to his (and his father’s) clear and prideful anti-Semitism. Now, I realize that when one watches a movie for “free,” i.e., on broadcast TV or via tape or DVD, one is still, in a very small way contributing to the producers of the film through the minutiae of royalties. But paying full price for a ticket, and being counted among a public audience seems to put so much more money in their pockets, and give them some modicum of public acceptance. I also realize that it’s not the money or even the audience necessarily, but the principle.
I think many of us have watched movies which promote objectionable viewpoints, or are produced by people whose politics are reprehensible to us, for “free,” with no moral impingement or hypocrisy. For example, watching Leni Riefenstahl’s “Triumph of the Will,” which glorifies Hitler and Nazism, does not mean one is approving of or supporting, either monetarily or politically, that movement or person. It also doesn’t mean one is excusing either Hitler, obviously, or Riefenstahl for being so enamored of him while making the film. It is a piece of art. Mel’s films don’t rate that description, but they can be considered entertainment, if one likes that sort of thing. I don’t think watching one in the privacy of one’s home rates an accusation of “hypocrisy.”
Your watching “Seinfeld,” though questionable taste-wise (I find the show simply unwatchable, for a number of reasons, and I watch a lot of TV, sad to say), clearly does not mean you are supporting Michael Richards’ racist views, nor do I think you are being a hypocrite by doing so.
Interestingly, as I’m sure you are aware, the recent release of the latest “Seinfeld” DVD, of course “just in time” for Christmas (or maybe Hanukkah!), has sold better than all past releases. Does this mean that all of those people who have bought those CDs are racists or hypocrites, or both? Possible, but I doubt it. I wonder if there wasn’t some collusion here? Michael Richards took the fall so that “Seinfeld” would be in the news again, sales would be better, and everyone would get a larger royalty check? After all, though Jerry is set for life, Jason Alexander has been a failure outside of “Jerry-land,” and Julia and Michael have done little better. Could there be a conspiracy afoot? No, I’m not serious.
-cb
My view is that I would not honor it either by patronage or viewing. I thought Lethal Weapon was a very funny movie, but I will not be able to enjoy it as much as I once did. Gibson's is Antisemetic, and I have zero tolerance for it. I could not sit through Triumph of the Will, even though I watched a part of it for its remarkable propagandizing method. There may be good reasons for me to see Gibson's movie but I have not thought of one compelling enough to make me see it.
Post a Comment
<< Home