Tuesday, March 01, 2005
Chris Rock and Censorship
Listening to the radio on my way home from work in the evenings I generally catch portions of a local talk show hosted by a Washington area host named Chris Core. Mr. Core is a decent host who, by his own admission, is a political moderate, registered independent, and probably leans to the right-of-center, but not by very much. Anyway, last night one of the show’s topics was the Oscars and specifically host Chris Rock’s opening monologue, which to my shock and utter dismay, Mr. Core labeled as "inappropriate" for such an event.
Have we really reached the point where something like the opening monologue at the Oscars is going to be subject to media and political scrutiny? Are we going to have to watch as the freedom, creativity, and expression of our society’s most successful entertainers is nitpicked, criticized, and scrubbed for political correctness or as conservatives tend to label speech they don’t approve of "indecency." Admittedly, when Chris Rock was named host of the Oscars I remember thinking to myself "that’s an interesting choice." It was interesting because I personally didn’t think that Chris Rock could be funny on live network television. Don’t get me wrong, Chris Rock is, in my opinion, hilarious. He is probably the second or third funniest person out there right now (behind only Robin Williams and George Carlin), that being said, Chris Rock is at his best in situations where there is little or no restriction on his ability to use colorful language, racially charged comments, and well let’s face it, ideas that are no longer acceptable for live network TV. Between the 15 second delay, FCC regulations, and Congressional legislation threatening to fine ABC as much as $500,000 for any "indecent" speech, there was really no chance in the proverbial burning location of the afterlife, that Chris Rock was going to be as funny as the host of the Oscars as he is during his live comedy routines, or as he was on his HBO TV show.
All that aside, was Chris Rock’s monologue "inappropriate" as Mr. Core alleged last night on the radio? I don’t even really think this is a close call. Sure, Chris Rock picked on the President of the United States, but he did so in a way that was hardly offensive or inappropriate. Does anyone really equate being POTUS with being a clerk at the GAP? Did anyone really take offense when Chris Rock compared the war in Iraq to a fight between the GAP and Banana Republic? (This joke of course is even funnier if you realize that GAP and Banana Republic are owed by the same parent company, who also own Old Navy. Don’t ask how I know this, but trust me it’s true.) Besides Chris Rock made fun of numerous people throughout the evening, Michael Moore, Tim Robbins, and most of all himself: "If your hoping for Denzel [Washington] and all you can get is me, please wait." Put it this way, I know that there were several people, myself included, out there who would have loved the following to have occurred: 1) Billy Crystal as host of the Oscars (face it, he’s the best that there is for this gig); 2) both Fahrenheit 9/11 and Passion of the Christ nominated for major awards. Why? For no other reason than because we all would have been sitting on the edge of our seat waiting to see how Billy Crystal would have incorporated both films into his opening song and dance routine. Why? Because Billy Crystal is funny, and it would have been great entertainment.
Was Chris Rock as funny as he could have been? No, but in all fairness, as mentioned above, I don’t really think this was possible. Is it fair to criticize Chris Rock for not being funny? Sure, humor is subjective, and therefore, not everyone is going to agree about what is funny and what isn’t (for example, I personally can’t stand Steve Martin, his mere presence bothers and annoys me, so consequently I don’t pay to see his movies or watch them on TV). To use the word inappropriate, however, I think crosses into an area that we don’t really want to tread. Chris Rock’s monologue was a lot of things, but I don’t think inappropriate was one of them. When we start down the path of deciding a priori what is appropriate speech at a pubic event and what is not acceptable we are censoring people. We need to be able to trust our entertainers to use sound judgement. Rules and regulations are fine, to a point, as long as they are not censorship. Parents need to use their judgment as well when deciding what things children should and should not watch.
In my opinion, we can and should have programs that are both acceptable and creative and I think that by and large, with a few noted exceptions, this is the norm for American entertainment. Like I said, criticize away for something not being funny, enjoyable, or suited to your tastes, but don’t ry to censor or label things as appropriate or inappropriate before they happen. I don’t believe that anyone wants to live in a country where everything is run by a censorship committee before it can be shown or TV or discussed on the radio (see Good Morning Vietnam for a reference to what I am referring to). In other words, be careful what you wish for.
Have we really reached the point where something like the opening monologue at the Oscars is going to be subject to media and political scrutiny? Are we going to have to watch as the freedom, creativity, and expression of our society’s most successful entertainers is nitpicked, criticized, and scrubbed for political correctness or as conservatives tend to label speech they don’t approve of "indecency." Admittedly, when Chris Rock was named host of the Oscars I remember thinking to myself "that’s an interesting choice." It was interesting because I personally didn’t think that Chris Rock could be funny on live network television. Don’t get me wrong, Chris Rock is, in my opinion, hilarious. He is probably the second or third funniest person out there right now (behind only Robin Williams and George Carlin), that being said, Chris Rock is at his best in situations where there is little or no restriction on his ability to use colorful language, racially charged comments, and well let’s face it, ideas that are no longer acceptable for live network TV. Between the 15 second delay, FCC regulations, and Congressional legislation threatening to fine ABC as much as $500,000 for any "indecent" speech, there was really no chance in the proverbial burning location of the afterlife, that Chris Rock was going to be as funny as the host of the Oscars as he is during his live comedy routines, or as he was on his HBO TV show.
All that aside, was Chris Rock’s monologue "inappropriate" as Mr. Core alleged last night on the radio? I don’t even really think this is a close call. Sure, Chris Rock picked on the President of the United States, but he did so in a way that was hardly offensive or inappropriate. Does anyone really equate being POTUS with being a clerk at the GAP? Did anyone really take offense when Chris Rock compared the war in Iraq to a fight between the GAP and Banana Republic? (This joke of course is even funnier if you realize that GAP and Banana Republic are owed by the same parent company, who also own Old Navy. Don’t ask how I know this, but trust me it’s true.) Besides Chris Rock made fun of numerous people throughout the evening, Michael Moore, Tim Robbins, and most of all himself: "If your hoping for Denzel [Washington] and all you can get is me, please wait." Put it this way, I know that there were several people, myself included, out there who would have loved the following to have occurred: 1) Billy Crystal as host of the Oscars (face it, he’s the best that there is for this gig); 2) both Fahrenheit 9/11 and Passion of the Christ nominated for major awards. Why? For no other reason than because we all would have been sitting on the edge of our seat waiting to see how Billy Crystal would have incorporated both films into his opening song and dance routine. Why? Because Billy Crystal is funny, and it would have been great entertainment.
Was Chris Rock as funny as he could have been? No, but in all fairness, as mentioned above, I don’t really think this was possible. Is it fair to criticize Chris Rock for not being funny? Sure, humor is subjective, and therefore, not everyone is going to agree about what is funny and what isn’t (for example, I personally can’t stand Steve Martin, his mere presence bothers and annoys me, so consequently I don’t pay to see his movies or watch them on TV). To use the word inappropriate, however, I think crosses into an area that we don’t really want to tread. Chris Rock’s monologue was a lot of things, but I don’t think inappropriate was one of them. When we start down the path of deciding a priori what is appropriate speech at a pubic event and what is not acceptable we are censoring people. We need to be able to trust our entertainers to use sound judgement. Rules and regulations are fine, to a point, as long as they are not censorship. Parents need to use their judgment as well when deciding what things children should and should not watch.
In my opinion, we can and should have programs that are both acceptable and creative and I think that by and large, with a few noted exceptions, this is the norm for American entertainment. Like I said, criticize away for something not being funny, enjoyable, or suited to your tastes, but don’t ry to censor or label things as appropriate or inappropriate before they happen. I don’t believe that anyone wants to live in a country where everything is run by a censorship committee before it can be shown or TV or discussed on the radio (see Good Morning Vietnam for a reference to what I am referring to). In other words, be careful what you wish for.
# posted by mouldfan : 9:00 AM
