There is an increasing culture within cinema to create comedies which hit racist ideas and prejudices head on, such as Borat, Four Lions and, as talked about in class, Harold and Kumar. These films use common racial stereotypes and use them to highlight how ridicules it is to use them in modern society. For example Sacha Baron Cohen's eastern European accent in Borat and the automatic assumption that Harold and Kumar and terrorist in Harold and Kumar: Escape from Guantanamo Bay. However the problem with this approach is the assumption, on the part of the film maker, that the audience is privy to the joke. The exaggeration of the racial stereotypes and the knowledge that these stereotypes are wrong and offence is something lost on a lot of viewers and this causes some confusion. Although many see and understand the statement being made, these are often the people who understood the issue in the first place, it is the people who do not understand the issue being addressed that can misunderstand the massage. Unfortunately it is these viewers the film hopes to influence and expose to the true of their actions.
A good example of this comes from Four Lions, a 2010 British black comedy film about 'homegrown jihad terrorists'. The film has the same aims as Borat and Harold and Kumar, to highlight the ignorance of modern racial prejudices, however since the films release I have personally witnessed, on a number of occasions, scenes from the films reenacted towards Islamic people as a racist comment.
Four Lions
Four Lions
These scene is an example. This film was set and shot in Sheffield, which is where I grew up, the city has a very large Islamic population, which has come under attack from racist comments and groups for a number of reasons over the years. After the release if this film, the community came under attack from racist comments again.
These films, and films like them are trying to get people to understand how racist comments and jokes are offensive and prejudice. However the outcome is often very different, instead of seeing themselves in the humour, and understanding the joke, people often take it as a confirmation that their actions and comments are founded. It becomes a symbol that these racial prejudices are normal and that the comments and actions are acceptable. This is troubling and will only increase the problem of racism, not only in the media but in society, many people are unable to understand what the issue is, if it is treated with such comedic value and are unable to take a critical view of their own behaviour. These films are not the problem in regards to such racially prejudice, but they do little to help the problem in anyone who doesn't already see the problem.
I agree completely with your point about the audience needing to be privy to the joke in order for it to be understood in the right context. The importance of execution in satirical comedies such as Harold and Kumar and Borat is key but people tend to forget that no matter what the execution, if the audience is not educated enough to understand the irony behind the joke then it is lost. The adverse effect on this is that people think they can produce the same jokes in everyday life and these films condone that. I think maybe the problem may be less these satires and more the lack of proper education of their audiences. However, i still agree with your point about it doing little to help the problem. As it is clearly easier to ban films like this rather than properly educate those who don't appreciate their satirical approach. My question would be, to what extent is this philosophy acceptable? Moreover, to what extent will society go to ban socio-cultural commentary, just to protect those who cannot comprehend it?
ReplyDeleteIn the experience of myself and many others, minorities commonly use racist stereotypes and jokes about their own group. This may come as a surprise to some. But far from internalised aggression, this seems to be related to the social phenomenon of reclamation, analogous to how the slurs "nigger" and "queer" were used by those marginalised groups as a pushback (see http://www.huffingtonpost.com/wray-herbert/how-to-defuse-a-hateful-s_b_2838743.html for a fuller explanation). This counter-intuitively bolsters subgroup unity and prestige by taking control of the racialised humour for themselves. However when this practice is exposed to the wider audience, such as in the mass media here, it can be read as confirming dominant attitudes so it is a double-edged sword.
ReplyDelete