Jump to content

Outrage Over Transgender Character in Zoolander 2


Manhole Eunuchsbane

Recommended Posts

While some of those films  are negative portrayals, such as the hyperfeminization of Bree in Transamerica, the absurd series of situations, the "psychologist" who should have lost her license , there are others that while not negative portrayals, per se, are nonetheless, problematic.  While I have personal issues with Boys Don't Cry, that make me view it less positively than others, what it portrayed must certainly have had an impact on those transgender people considering whether to transition.  I honestly don't know how movies such as that can avoid unintended collateral damage. I only know that I have to come down on the side of helping people get on with their lives, than with concern about a movie studio's bottom line.

That actually sheds a bit of light for me and puts some nuance on your initial post regarding those movies. I understand that it is an extremely emotionally loaded decision, and how a movie could actually push someone in one direction or another. I can certainly relate to your position given the gravity of the issue.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There's no doubt at all that the 'joke' in that trailer is the latter, so I'm not sure what your point is.

There isn't? Isn't this what this entire discussion is about? That some find it just a joke while others see it as a ridicule of transgender folks?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

None in my mind, no. I've seen no substantial argument or point made in this thread or elsewhere that would explain why this is not ridicule but instead a 'comical portrayal' (although these two things are not mutually exclusive, and you've not defined what you think the distinction is).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ah, people bemoaning the fact that the world is becoming resistant to humor that is offensive to others.  When humor is directed at a specific group, which finds it offensive, there are usually two reasons.  The first is that you're as ignorant as fuck as to why they'd have reason to be offended.  The second is that you believe you have the power to offend them, without their being able to do anything about it.  Okay, maybe there is a third reason...that you're a sociopath.

People are offended by humor that they perceive as harmful to them, so what justification is there for such humor, except to say we don't care what it does to them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

All I can think of whenever someone brings up the Seinfeld thing

Just sounds like someone whining that people don't find him funny anymore. Louis CK is one of the biggest comics in the world right now. His act is about as non-politically correct as you can get (this is a white dude who uses the n-word in his act) and you never hear him whining. Maybe Seinfeld should try being funnier. Or at the very least understand that not every comic can play to every audience. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

None in my mind, no. I've seen no substantial argument or point made in this thread or elsewhere that would explain why this is not ridicule but instead a 'comical portrayal' (although these two things are not mutually exclusive, and you've not defined what you think the distinction is).

I have tried to.

While they can be conflated, a comical portrayal is trying to make a simple joke about anything. In this specific case, part of the humour lies in in the apparent overblown character, the hyperbole is the joke.

Ridicule, for distinction's sake, is the intended, constant, negative harassment of something specific.

Your argument can go both ways, that is, i haven't seen anything in here that justifies the action taken. That itmay offend someone's sensibilities and it may enable further and harsher targetting of the group in question doesn't constitute enough reason to give it validity.

Not to mention this all seems like a simple case of someone being offended in someone else's place. What about all the other people, which can include transgender people, that find it funny and/or don't give a damn?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, that's something that Bill Burr talks about on occasion on his podcast and I've heard both Chris Rock and Jerry Seinfeld bring it up in interviews. Many headline comics simply won't do college gigs anymore because the crowds are so PC.

 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KXDHjwaUtPI

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm confused about something. Aren't the targets of ridicule in the clip Derek and Hansel for being so goddamned stupid and not the trans woman?

I'm still pretty sure the most ridiculous people here are Derek and Hansel.

More to the point, I want to hear Robin and Karradin respond to my question as I respect them and their opinions on this issue, and their respect for my sincerity in asking.

I think this is a pretty obvious misreading of the text.

It's obviously true that Derek and Hansel are ridiculous characters - but they are both still the protagonists of the story and our viewpoint characters into the world. What makes Derek and Hansel ridiculous is their involvement in the caricaturized version of the high fashion industry that the movie presents. The initial premise of the movie seems to be that they're getting dumped back into an industry that has grown even more ridiculous in their absence. Hence, Kristen Wiig's character in absurdly overdesigned costumes with a ridiculous accent that Derek can't understand. She is undeniably "weirder" than Derek and Hansel. Hence, Mugatu, who is even weirder than Derek and Hansel. Hence, "All" - the exemplar of high fashion and the epitome of weirdness in this world. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think it is time for me to leave this conversation.  When people are posting links where comedians are upset about the erosion of their "right" to gobsmack whoever they damn well please, for the sole purpose of making a buck, nothing I can say will make a difference.  And for the record, using Jerry Seinfeld as an example is offensive, because he has an a number of occasions, used transphobic "humor."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have tried to.

While they can be conflated, a comical portrayal is trying to make a simple joke about anything. In this specific case, part of the humour lies in in the apparent overblown character, the hyperbole is the joke.

But exaggerating features to the point where they're 'overblown' is pretty much the standard way to ridicule someone.

Not every comical portrayal is ridicule. But some are. And this is one of them.

I'm not saying I support a boycott, but I don't oppose people calling for one, and I don't think their feelings are phony, or exaggerated, or misplaced.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think it is time for me to leave this conversation.  When people are posting links where comedians are upset about the erosion of their "right" to gobsmack whoever they damn well please, for the sole purpose of making a buck, nothing I can say will make a difference.  And for the record, using Jerry Seinfeld as an example is offensive, because he has an a number of occasions, used transphobic "humor."

So comedians don't have a right to express an opinion (really mostly just an observation with the exception of Seinfeld and say Bill Maher) about an atmosphere that directly affects their craft? That's kind of right in their wheelhouse. Whether or not you care for their point of view, it's kind of intrinsic to the topic at hand. 

One aspect of their beef that I find to be somewhat disingenuous is that College shows are traditionally low paying gigs that really only up and comers bother to book anyway. They're not really not the sort of venue that a headliner would bother with anyway. So for guys like Seinfeld and Rock to bitch about them from a PC standpoint is not entirely honest. The fact of the matter is they don't pay well enough for established comics to bother with.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think it is still vital but it seems like they are becoming an endangered species. 

There's no doubt that the landscape for stand-up has changed significantly, but I personally feel like it's better now. It used to be that you'd do your club and college dates until you built up a name, then you started headlining, then you got your shot on Carson/Leno/Letterman, then you got your TV show or film role, etc, etc. Now it's a little more complex I think. You have to have some sort of online presence, whether that's a podcast or a blog or a Twitter account or what have you. I guess it's not all that different in that it all leads back to touring and doing dates. It seems to me the most successful stand-ups these days are really good at building an online presence, which leads to larger crowds when they work the clubs. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm talking about how times are changing and more and more topics are off the table. Not about how aspiring comics break into the business. 

Ah, sorry for the misunderstanding. Yeah, I can see that being a concern. I would say it's slightly overblown in that you have a ton of really fearless comics that are well established and refuse to edit their material based on a negative response or PC concerns. The pure stand-up people are kind of immune to it, in a way. If you are just doing club dates, the only mitigating factor is whether or not you're drawing a crowd. It's not like say having a TV show, where you have to be wary of offending enough folks that sponsors start to walk away, or a network drops you due to potential backlash. They truly can set their own terms, just so long as they can put butts in seats.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...