Jump to content

Outrage Over Transgender Character in Zoolander 2


Manhole Eunuchsbane

Recommended Posts

Well, like i've tried to say several times now, i believe you can say whatever you like. Words are just that: words. The moment that speech takes form of Action is when one should have some caution, and if im not mistaken, a boycott is exactly that.

I would also be carefull to associate the validity of an argument with number of people who profess it.

 

Edit for poor english which gave the wrong message.

Words are just words?  Now, I know you are trolling.  You cannot be that ignorant that you do not realize words are used to provoke both thought and action in others. Be cautious about boycotts, but not telling people it is okay to laugh at marginalized people?  A great concept...for bigots.

Sure, but the inverse of that is also true. This offends me, therefore it should not be produced/should be censored, etc.  

Freedom of speech does not mean that speech is free of consequence.  I'm just waiting for a movie that mocks the hell out of straight white men.  I'd love to see a thread here, on that.  And before anyone can react to that, any movie that holds people up to ridicule for what they are, rather than what they do, ought to be boycotted.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Freedom of speech does not mean that speech is free of consequence.  I'm just waiting for a movie that mocks the hell out of straight white men.  I'd love to see a thread here, on that.  And before anyone can react to that, any movie that holds people up to ridicule for what they are, rather than what they do, ought to be boycotted.

 

I agree completely to the first part. To the 2nd...you're waiting for this movie? I'm a fat white male. I would put forward that there have been more movies mocking fat white males than any demographic in the history of like ever. You don't have to wait for this movie. You can rent it right now.

 paul-blart-mall-cop-2-movie-poster_zpse8

/The ineffective, overweight, bumbling white male might just be the most prevalent Hollywood stereotype or trope ever created. I don't think it's even close.   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Overprivileged and clueless white man bumbles through life, unaware of the challenges faced by others, and eventually triumphs" describes some huge percentage of the comedies ever made. This includes Zoolander and Ron Burgundy. These movies are premised on the fact that these white men are so privileged that they can fuck up and make tons of mistakes and not pay much of a price for it in the end. So yes, white men are mocked a lot in Hollywood, but it's a mockery that is only possible because of the privilege baked in.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Overprivileged and clueless white man bumbles through life, unaware of the challenges faced by others, and eventually triumphs" describes some huge percentage of the comedies ever made. This includes Zoolander and Ron Burgundy. These movies are premised on the fact that these white men are so privileged that they can fuck up and make tons of mistakes and not pay much of a price for it in the end. So yes, white men are mocked a lot in Hollywood, but it's a mockery that is only possible because of the privilege baked in.

Doesn't change the fact that it's mockery.

/ETA: I think TV is even worse for this, especially because the product itself is often terrible. Mike and Molly would be my main example, especially seeing as how the two primaries are talented comedians. Despite this, the whole show seems to be a 1/2 hour fat joke. I'm not even offended by this as a fat guy so much as I'm offended by it as a fan of comedy. I love a good fat joke, but when that's all you've got, it gets a little tired.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sure, but the inverse of that is also true. This offends me, therefore it should not be produced/should be censored, etc.  

That's why I said the whole feeling behind it is patronising. It's other people (mostly of the time white) telling me what I should be offended by because me, being a minority, can decide it on my own and need their enlightenment because we cannot decided that on our own. For example, listening them to call us "people of colour" without realising that for many latino countries, such word is in fact more offensive. The concept of racism in Latinamerica, for starters, is completely different from the one the latinos living in USA/Europa have, btw. So, when people jump to defend us, many comments are like "why are they trying to speak on our behalf? We're not offended!". (Kelly Osboure's comment of "cleaning bathrooms" was taken here in a complete different context).

That's why I wondered above why the article didn't include any opinion from transgenders or androginous that actually feel offended by it.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Do we actually know that the character is for sure transgender? I kinda took it as a play on the SNL character Pat. Regardless I think it would be wise to wait until the final product is out to determine if a boycott is needed. Cumberbatch could end up being the hero of the movie, trans or not.

That said I totally get the outrage. I can't think of any group more ostracized than the trans community. They're outsiders in their own movement (LGBT). Normally I think it's good to be able to laugh at one's self, but this is the rare exception in my book.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Words are just words?  Now, I know you are trolling.  You cannot be that ignorant that you do not realize words are used to provoke both thought and action in others. Be cautious about boycotts, but not telling people it is okay to laugh at marginalized people?  A great concept...for bigots.

Freedom of speech does not mean that speech is free of consequence.  I'm just waiting for a movie that mocks the hell out of straight white men.  I'd love to see a thread here, on that.  And before anyone can react to that, any movie that holds people up to ridicule for what they are, rather than what they do, ought to be boycotted.

 

See? I'd be offended by your words and attempt of insult if i chose to make them important, alas, i do not.

No, i am not trolling. Words are just words and if you want further elaboration or that thought put differently, words only have the meaning we choose to award them.

Like such you can wonder and think about one's words as much as you like, but it's inherently your choice to act upon them.

As for your does not mean that speech is free of consequence, i thought we went over this already. The consequence - in a society that doesn't impose limits anway - is that your speech is put out there to be countered by someone who holds an opposing view and the ultimate consequence is one's argument being completely invalidated.

What you apparently seek is to impose some sort of legal measure to restrict and punish speech that one may find distasteful.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Do we actually know that the character is for sure transgender? I kinda took it as a play on the SNL character Pat. Regardless I think it would be wise to wait until the final product is out to determine if a boycott is needed. Cumberbatch could end up being the hero of the movie, trans or not.

That said I totally get the outrage. I can't think of any group more ostracized than the trans community. They're outsiders in their own movement (LGBT). Normally I think it's good to be able to laugh at one's self, but this is the rare exception in my book.

Even if we consider that the character is androgynous or gender-nonconforming, why is that a joke?

See? I'd be offended by your words and attempt of insult if i chose to make them important, alas, i do not.

No, i am not trolling. Words are just words and if you want further elaboration or that thought put differently, words only have the meaning we choose to award them.

Like such you can wonder and think about one's words as much as you like, but it's inherently your choice to act upon them.

As for your does not mean that speech is free of consequence, i thought we went over this already. The consequence - in a society that doesn't impose limits anway - is that your speech is put out there to be countered by someone who holds an opposing view and the ultimate consequence is one's argument being completely invalidated.

What you apparently seek is to impose some sort of legal measure to restrict and punish speech that one may find distasteful.

And if, people choose to ridicule others because of the inherent message that people are an object of ridicule or disdain, because of who they are, then the call to boycott is an act of self-defense.  You may have noticed that movies have stopped, for the most part, targeting Blacks, Jew, Poles, Asians, etc., but still think if they find a group that is small enough, it's okay to go after them.  That's what boycotts are designed to prevent.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Even if we consider that the character is androgynous or gender-nonconforming, why is that a joke?

And if, people choose to ridicule others because of the inherent message that people are an object of ridicule or disdain, because of who they are, then the call to boycott is an act of self-defense.  You may have noticed that movies have stopped, for the most part, targeting Blacks, Jew, Poles, Asians, etc., but still think if they find a group that is small enough, it's okay to go after them.  That's what boycotts are designed to prevent.

In a comical setting almost everything and everyone can be a target of, well, mockery. If one chooses to take a step further and ridicule a specific target thats entirely different.

You're conflating a comical portrayal of something with ridiculing it. While a joke maybe ridiculous, in the sense of it being quite funny, you're refering to ridicule as form to continuously and purposely attack someone. And even so, it should be one's duty to strike back, with discussion, at the attacker.

The boycott has its origins in the thought that it might trigger negative consequences towards the target and so we should act preemptively. What is this? A police state?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

you're so hyperbolic whilst thinking you're totally and completely rational.

 

Do we actually know that the character is for sure transgender? I kinda took it as a play on the SNL character Pat. Regardless I think it would be wise to wait until the final product is out to determine if a boycott is needed. Cumberbatch could end up being the hero of the movie, trans or not.

That said I totally get the outrage. I can't think of any group more ostracized than the trans community. They're outsiders in their own movement (LGBT). Normally I think it's good to be able to laugh at one's self, but this is the rare exception in my book.

yep. when trans people are being KILLED for being trans due to lack of compassion and understanding and outright hostility from the murderers i don't think rude and offensive (even in comedy) portrayals and jokes are at all okay... 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You're conflating a comical portrayal of something with ridiculing it.

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

you're so hyperbolic whilst thinking you're totally and completely rational.

 

yep. when trans people are being KILLED for being trans due to lack of compassion and understanding and outright hostility from the murderers i don't think rude and offensive (even in comedy) portrayals and jokes are at all okay... 

Is the first part directed at me?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And if, people choose to ridicule others because of the inherent message that people are an object of ridicule or disdain, because of who they are, then the call to boycott is an act of self-defense.  You may have noticed that movies have stopped, for the most part, targeting Blacks, Jew, Poles, Asians, etc., but still think if they find a group that is small enough, it's okay to go after them.  That's what boycotts are designed to prevent.

In the case of a good comedy or a talented comedian doing his/her act, this is not the inherent message. It's let me make you laugh. It's let me present you with a situation or a circumstance that is completely ridiculous, but that you can probably relate to anyway. Yes, there are exceptions to this (Insult Comics, maybe movies that are singling out an unsavory demographic, etc) but the inherent message of comedy is simply to entertain, or to make an audience laugh. 

When I think of all the classic comedies that wouldn't likely get made today (Airplane! and Blazing Saddles are the first two that come to mind) it makes me sad. It makes me feel like we're moving backwards in some ways in regards to dealing with these issues. Just to clarify, I think this is more of a "two steps forward, one step back" sort of a situation. I wouldn't trade the advancements made in Civil Rights for LGBT or any other group that has made strides, but I do feel this level of PC is damaging the arts to some small degree.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here's another angle:

The belief that nobody and nothing should be beyond mockery has traditionally arisen from the need of the powerless to use the cover of humour to question and resist those who occupy positions of power without giving rise to further oppression.

To invoke that idea in defence of mockery of the powerless and oppressed by the powerful is, at best, a hollow exercise, missing the point of it entirely.

ps the notion that Airplane! or Blazing Saddles couldn't get made today is absurd and totally contradicted by the existence of the movie we're actually discussing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

ps the notion that Airplane! or Blazing Saddles couldn't get made today is absurd and totally contradicted by the existence of the movie we're actually discussing.

Um, no, it's not. It's actually a great example as to why that is true. We're talking about a 5 second clip of a joke in a trailer setting off a call for boycott. Think about the quantity and scope of racial humor in Blazing Saddles and tell me you could make that film today. Think about the scene with Robert Graves taking the little boy on a tour of the cockpit in Airplane! and tell me you could shoot that scene today. Not likely to happen.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah Django Unchained didn't get released to critical acclaim and loads of money or anything. That never happened. Totally can't release movies with racial humor and white people saying the n-word constantly anymore. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah Django Unchained didn't get released to critical acclaim and loads of money or anything. That never happened. Totally can't release movies with racial humor and white people saying the n-word constantly anymore. 

Solid point, but you're talking about an Indie movie with a really powerful director. Kind of an exception that proves the rule, methinks. But fair enough. I'll edit to say "much less likely to get made today."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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

×
×
  • Create New...