Friday, November 03, 2006

On Obscenity

I must have been about 17 when my mother handed me a little pink booklet containing maybe 15 heavy pages, scented with damp basement fumes and brown with age. She was always handing me things like this that she had discovered while scrounging in antique shops and little out of the way places. Once she had giggled with me over a little booklet written in 1926 advising young girls on how to become the ideal woman. According to the author, the perfect 1926 woman was 5'4" and 126 pounds. Oh how times have changed.

I digress.

The little pink booklet of which I speak is still in my possession. Every few years it gives me great cause to think about how I choose to express myself, both privately and professionally.

The booklet is entitled The Blush of Shame: A Few Considerations On Verbal Obscenity In The Theatre by Barrett H. Clark. Reading through his essay, I've come to think that I would have liked Mr. Clark had I been fortunate enough to be his contemporary in 1932- the year in which he wrote this piece. His style is conversational, almost breezy as if it were merely a transcript of your most recent post-performance dissection at a favorite watering hole. I tend to agree with his position that an artist should not be restricted from certain words or subjects simply because it may cause discomfort to the viewing audience. I completely agree. And yet...

Can we go too far?

For my own personal tastes I say we cannot go too far as long as the word(s)/subject matter/ images are important to the telling of the story. After all, I LOVE how absolutely disgusting and filthy Dean Martin is in Billy Wilder's Kiss Me, Stupid, and I have recently enjoyed the anti-Semetic, misogynist antics in Borat, knowing full well how important these unpalatable things are to the story, to the commentary and satire. But I am often found wringing my hands late into the night, wondering if these brazenly funny tactics always hit their mark or if they can (and are) often dangerously misconstrued.

Maybe I shouldn't worry about that. Maybe I should just leave well enough alone. Those who get it, get it. Those who would idolize Borat's anti-Semitism already had that in them to begin with. So it isn't as if the humor would be creating anything new. Would it? Or is it fuel to the fire? Of course there is an incredible need to point out such behavior and cathartic to laugh at it. This has great value, but still. I worry.

Ultimately, this comes down to a fundamental question about the purpose of art. Is it to hold a mirror up to life or to transform it? Which is it? Is it an either/or situation? Or can we transform ourselves by holding up a mirror? I approach the latter with great trepidation as I am loath to put so much importance in paltry entertainments. And yet it is so often the simplest things that change our lives.

In earlier days I would have easily jumped onto the loudest most offensive piece of work I could find and rallied behind it. YES! Attack the status quo! Revolution! While I still believe in all of that, I find myself peeking over the precipice wondering if this is a fight on which I would stake my life and career. This is the trouble with my questioning stance as an artist. It is the corner that I back myself into when the only statement I can truly declare is "I DON'T KNOW!" I don't. I really don't know.

When rudeness and crass behavior become socially acceptable, even expected, it is often a sign of a wounded society. Whose job is it to stem the flow of blood? Or do we put a tournequet on the offending limb and hope we are able to grow a new one? I make constant pleas for reasonable, intellegent and polite discourse and yet, when I hear Katie Couric preach on the evening news that we should all watch our language I can only respond with an angry, "Who's this fuckin' bitch to tell me how I should fucking talk? Thanks for your infinite wisdom ya judgmental old fart." And who's to say that isn't an appropriate response? After all, my business cards read "Smart as a Whip. Mouth Like a Sailor."

In my humble estimation, our times are quite complicated and there is no "correct" approach. I will probably see fit to take both sides of this issue depending on the circumstances. Hell, even Mae West took a look around her and commented on how there was just too much sex in the movies. Our perceptions can and should change. That's how we mark growth.

2 comments:

Scott said...

I think what's most dangerous about Borat is not his anti-Semitism or misogyny, but rather his satire of Kazhakstan and its citizens.

Don't get me wrong, I think Borat is hilarious. Pants-wetting hilarious. However, I don't think this would be funny if he were making fun of stereotypes of some kind of ethnicity more present in our daily lives in such a manner.

Can you imagine an African-American version of Borat? Yeesh...not funny. So, yeah, I've been having a similar internal debate.

Bree O'Connor said...

I was just talking with a friend about how that bothered me as well. But an African-American Borat would not be funny because we have a point of reference and the inaccuracies would not ring true to us and therefor we would just be shaking our heads and saying "what the hell was that?"

There is something psuedo-Arab about Borat which the film tried to disspell in some of the rodeo sequences. I don't know if that worked. There is a general ignorance in this country about Arabs and Muslims and I am afraid that this film adds some misinformation into the mix. Yes, I am afraid there is something seriously irresponsible about this characterization.

What audiences are laughing at is this idea we have of "ferners" and the joke is truly on us. However, many will not get the joke and that scares me more than a little bit.