This is in response to my comment on "Genocide and Humor." I referenced a scene in "The Producers," a Mel Brooks movie that uses comedy on a touchy subject. Was it successful or distasteful?
This didn't seem as offensive as the clip posted by Thom, yet although I know it is a famous play and movie, I still felt a bit uncomfortable watching it. Certainly not as appalled as a felt watching the other clip, but still thinking about what they were saying and then about what actually happened didn't seem very funny to me.
this makes me think, what exactly is it that makes something funny while its making fun of genocide. I am assuming that most people were less offended by the producers than by Thom's clip (could be wrong), but why is that?
I agree with Rachel that this clip was not as offensive or difficult to watch as the one that Thom posted. Nonetheless I do not believe that it is right to poke fun at or laugh about something as serious as genocide, especially the Holocaust in which millions of people were killed. In response to someone's comment earlier about using humor to get over an event such as the Holocaust, I think that it may help some individuals move past and/or forgive the events of the past, but I don't think that using humor is a proper way to address something like the Holocaust to a large audience (i.e. a large production that the public can view). While this is just my opinion, I am brought back to the fact that this play, or the movie that Thom posted, were both forms of free speech and so who's to say that what they did was wrong? Both were expressions of the opinions of those who made them and there is no crime in doing so...
In response to Rachel's question about why this clip seemed less offensive, I found it to be so for a number of reasons. The first video used derogatory language (ie, retards) which made fun of the people killed in the genocide, which I really don't see as ok. As was mentioned after Thom's post, I think there is a difference between making fun of a leader and making fun of a genocide. Elias was talking about Mel Brooks' comment about not giving respect to Hitler, which I think is very interesting considering that a lot of Hitler's campaign revolved around his image and people taking him seriously. He was a skilled public speaker and the admiration he built up for himself among the Germans was one of his strategies, so if this is contesting that image by ridiculing him, is that acceptable, or is it offensive regardless of what the intention was? One of the premises fo the Producers is that for monetary reasons they pick the script they think will bomb the most as a show, and assume everyone will be so offended by a play about Hitler that they will leave, but ironically the audience loves it and it becomes a hit. So, the movie is more of a commentary on what people can or cannot laugh at than something that makes fun of the genocide. On the other hand, those lines about the genocide are included, and I'm really not in a position to judge anything here because I didn't experience any of the horrors of the genocide, so I can't know if I would enjoy the movie if I had.
These past two video postings have caused me to think about what it means to embrace past horrors to empower oneself. A lot of times certain groups who have experienced prejudice or derogatory language will embrace these stereotypes and words and use them. For example, I know many Asians who joke around and call each other "chinks" and "FOBs." It's cruel when non-Asians call Asians these things, but amongst Asians, it is a step towards empowerment and victory over the word. Following this example (which holds true with many other ethnic groups and minority groups), do you think that this follows with genocide as well? I feel like the reason why these videos are offensive as well is because I can only imagine what genocide victims could be feeling while watching it. Is humor empowering for any genocide victims as it is often empowering for victims of prejudice and racism?
in response to melanie's comment, i sorta get where the words like fobs and chinks come from, and how in context of asians, it's alright... but i think in genocide, where millions of civilians die, humour wouldn't be as empowering... an asian calling another asian fobby would be alright... but i think it's because it's not associated with the deaths of millions of poeple. I'm not sure if that makes snese, but like Elias said in Thom's other post, humour often is needed to get through something, but at the same time, when that something is the cold death of one's ancestors, i personally wouldn't know what to do at all. I wouldn't be able to laugh at death in genearl (similar to casey's comment). Also, with The Producers, i am a little lost because it's still offensive to some level, being able to regard it just as another historical event to make a movie about, but i could understand since it's a huge production and it's supposedly supposed to be funny, so people wouldn't associate it with something as grusome as the Holocaust... it could also be a distance, such as by not being Jewish... or just not living during World War II could even account for some of these poeple to watch the movie with less difficulty. There could be more reasons, but especially after being exposed to genocides in genearl, i would have a different atittude about these videos.
I think this is funny precisely because, in our culture, it's taboo to say anything good about Hitler. To see that violated, in the form of a grandiose musical no less, is incredibly unexpected and shocking, and that's why I found it funny. That said, I did still wince a little at "winter in Poland and France."
(Note: I'm not saying I disapprove of the general taboo against saying good things about Hitler. I think it makes complete sense, but seeing it violated for the purpose of humor does make for entertainment.)
I think the main distinction between the two videos to build off of both rachel and others' comments is that mel brooks is jewish. As melanie mentioned this gives him a certain amount of opportunity to use humor about WWII that others may not have.
as ms. finn mentioned... we do not know who made the other video and so do not know its context. for all we know the person could be anti-semetic and trying spread views or maybe a child of a survivor. it is impossible to know and I think this is the main distinction. Intension.
Do You Need Help Working the Blog? a guide to the genocide blog
ANNOUNCEMENT: YOU SHOULD ALL HAVE YOUR OWN ACCOUNTS AND BE ABLE TO POST ON THE BLOG - PLEASE DO NOT POST AS MS. FINN ANYMORE. Thanks!
1. How to Enable Yourself
Sign in as Ms. Finn (she gave you her username and password) and up at the right hand corner, you'll see "customize." Click there, then click "settings." You'll see a nother button that says "permissions." Click there and hit "add new guest) or something like that. Then, add your email. You'll be listed as "guest" - that's fine. Check your email and accept the invitation. Then, sign onto your own account here on blogspot! Voila - you've enabled yourself.
2. How to Post Pics/Videos
IF YOU WANT TO POST PICS AND/OR VIDEOS, YOU MUST POST, NOT COMMENT.
PICS: While you're writing your post, you can click on the button with a little picture of a picture... (it's weird, but you'll see it up at the top right of the editing box.) If you hold your mouse over it, it should say "Add Image." Basically, follow the directions in the popup window that shows up. Then, preview your post before you publish to make sure that it worked. :)
VIDEOS: On Youtube, right under "URL" and right above the box with "Related Videos," there's a section that says "Embed." Copy that line of text and paste it into your post. Then, preview your post to make sure it worked. :)
3. Basic Courtesy
If you see that there is another post that is similar to one that you want to create, DON'T POST YOURS. Instead, comment on the one that exists already. This will prevent clutter and will allow for deeper and more active discussion on topics. :) Basically, comment whenever you can and post when there isn't a topic that relates to yours already.
4. Check all of the Recent Posts
Since there has been more blog activity, there have been more and more posts. Be sure to go back and check on posts that are a bit older - chances are, if the topic was interesting, there are still a few people posting on those as well. Let's not let any topic just die off! :)
5. Check the Lists at the Left side of the page
We will be updating these lists of links, articles, and other fun stuff, so be sure to check every so often and see if there are any new goodies to enjoy. :) Also, we will post almost any link that you all mention, so please keep them coming!
Most of all, just participate, speak your mind, and have fun!
That's it for now. If any other questions come up, we will be sure to give you all more information here, so check back every once in a while. :)
8 comments:
This didn't seem as offensive as the clip posted by Thom, yet although I know it is a famous play and movie, I still felt a bit uncomfortable watching it. Certainly not as appalled as a felt watching the other clip, but still thinking about what they were saying and then about what actually happened didn't seem very funny to me.
this makes me think, what exactly is it that makes something funny while its making fun of genocide. I am assuming that most people were less offended by the producers than by Thom's clip (could be wrong), but why is that?
I agree with Rachel that this clip was not as offensive or difficult to watch as the one that Thom posted. Nonetheless I do not believe that it is right to poke fun at or laugh about something as serious as genocide, especially the Holocaust in which millions of people were killed. In response to someone's comment earlier about using humor to get over an event such as the Holocaust, I think that it may help some individuals move past and/or forgive the events of the past, but I don't think that using humor is a proper way to address something like the Holocaust to a large audience (i.e. a large production that the public can view). While this is just my opinion, I am brought back to the fact that this play, or the movie that Thom posted, were both forms of free speech and so who's to say that what they did was wrong? Both were expressions of the opinions of those who made them and there is no crime in doing so...
In response to Rachel's question about why this clip seemed less offensive, I found it to be so for a number of reasons. The first video used derogatory language (ie, retards) which made fun of the people killed in the genocide, which I really don't see as ok. As was mentioned after Thom's post, I think there is a difference between making fun of a leader and making fun of a genocide. Elias was talking about Mel Brooks' comment about not giving respect to Hitler, which I think is very interesting considering that a lot of Hitler's campaign revolved around his image and people taking him seriously. He was a skilled public speaker and the admiration he built up for himself among the Germans was one of his strategies, so if this is contesting that image by ridiculing him, is that acceptable, or is it offensive regardless of what the intention was?
One of the premises fo the Producers is that for monetary reasons they pick the script they think will bomb the most as a show, and assume everyone will be so offended by a play about Hitler that they will leave, but ironically the audience loves it and it becomes a hit. So, the movie is more of a commentary on what people can or cannot laugh at than something that makes fun of the genocide. On the other hand, those lines about the genocide are included, and I'm really not in a position to judge anything here because I didn't experience any of the horrors of the genocide, so I can't know if I would enjoy the movie if I had.
These past two video postings have caused me to think about what it means to embrace past horrors to empower oneself. A lot of times certain groups who have experienced prejudice or derogatory language will embrace these stereotypes and words and use them. For example, I know many Asians who joke around and call each other "chinks" and "FOBs." It's cruel when non-Asians call Asians these things, but amongst Asians, it is a step towards empowerment and victory over the word. Following this example (which holds true with many other ethnic groups and minority groups), do you think that this follows with genocide as well? I feel like the reason why these videos are offensive as well is because I can only imagine what genocide victims could be feeling while watching it. Is humor empowering for any genocide victims as it is often empowering for victims of prejudice and racism?
in response to melanie's comment, i sorta get where the words like fobs and chinks come from, and how in context of asians, it's alright... but i think in genocide, where millions of civilians die, humour wouldn't be as empowering... an asian calling another asian fobby would be alright... but i think it's because it's not associated with the deaths of millions of poeple. I'm not sure if that makes snese, but like Elias said in Thom's other post, humour often is needed to get through something, but at the same time, when that something is the cold death of one's ancestors, i personally wouldn't know what to do at all. I wouldn't be able to laugh at death in genearl (similar to casey's comment). Also, with The Producers, i am a little lost because it's still offensive to some level, being able to regard it just as another historical event to make a movie about, but i could understand since it's a huge production and it's supposedly supposed to be funny, so people wouldn't associate it with something as grusome as the Holocaust... it could also be a distance, such as by not being Jewish... or just not living during World War II could even account for some of these poeple to watch the movie with less difficulty. There could be more reasons, but especially after being exposed to genocides in genearl, i would have a different atittude about these videos.
I think this is funny precisely because, in our culture, it's taboo to say anything good about Hitler. To see that violated, in the form of a grandiose musical no less, is incredibly unexpected and shocking, and that's why I found it funny. That said, I did still wince a little at "winter in Poland and France."
(Note: I'm not saying I disapprove of the general taboo against saying good things about Hitler. I think it makes complete sense, but seeing it violated for the purpose of humor does make for entertainment.)
I think the main distinction between the two videos to build off of both rachel and others' comments is that mel brooks is jewish. As melanie mentioned this gives him a certain amount of opportunity to use humor about WWII that others may not have.
as ms. finn mentioned... we do not know who made the other video and so do not know its context. for all we know the person could be anti-semetic and trying spread views or maybe a child of a survivor. it is impossible to know and I think this is the main distinction. Intension.
Post a Comment