Went to the David Sedaris show with some friends last night and had a pretty decent time, although I think I enjoyed him more last time I saw him. It may have been that last time I was high and drunk and this time I was relatively sober, but, also, I think I was out of the groove because his first story got me off on the wrong foot. It's about him refusing to switch seats with a woman so she could sit next to her husband on a plane because he doesn't like sitting in the "bulkhead" row. He and the woman get into an argument and at one point he calls her a "whore," well, not to her face, but to himself. This drew a big laugh from the audience. I couldn't but recall, however, some of the things I have been reading on Feministing (okay, I already knew this, but since I'm out of academia this is my touchstone for the feminism) about men throwing out the "whore" label when they are wrong. The "ultimate" weapon. I know nothing about you, other than I don't like you, so I will use my privilege to accuse you of being sexually transgressive. Coming from a gay man, this was extra interesting, in that he could disguise his sexual "transgression," but throw out accusations anyway.
Okay, but now I am forced to ponder the fact that I rolled up to this particular show playing Lil' Wayne's "Get Money," which features the chorus, "Fuck bitches, get money, get money, fuck bitches." For some reason, I have little to no problem with this, but I do with Sedaris calling an unnamed woman a "whore" because she disagreed with him. Maybe because Lil' Wayne is so cartoonish. I mean how can you take "Dear Mr. Toilet, I'm the shit"seriously? You can't. Yet, Sedaris is supposed to be "one of us." And I can't imagine too many Eugene women laughing along with Lil' Wayne. In fact, I'd suspect that I'd draw many lectures if I busted out the Lil' Wayne at a GTFF function, yet I bet Sedaris would be an honored guest.
So I spent a decent portion of the show pondering instead of laughing, especially since much more of his show relies on cultural "misunderstandings." I could imagine a right-wing telling some of the same stories about life in France and Japan and not drawing laughs from the same crowd.
More evidence that context is everything.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
you're right, dave: context is everything. i think in this case the source of the humor is david sedaris's constructed persona as the catty little bitch (more so than any thrill that might come from participating in labeling someone a whore). that's his schtick and part of what makes him funny. audiences expect sedaris to play that role and he does so unapologetically.
that makes him distinct from, say, garrison keillor, who has positioned himself as mr. nicey-nice (hence the discomfort when he ventures into "edgy" territory with the "fag" jokes), or don imus, who dug his own grave by apologizing for his racist and sexist remarks--thereby admitting that what he said went beyond just "doing his thing" or being an "equal opportunity offender." had he stuck with the "it's just an act" defense, he might have gotten off as just disgustingly offensive and not disgustingly offensive and out of work.
i think it's clear to sedaris fans that what he is doing is an act--like sarah silverman or sacha baron cohen or dave chappelle. if i thought he were being actually sexist, i would feel differently about his comedy.
we're all hypocrites on this score. imus is a racist pig (amen!), but when 'our' culture icons tread upon taboos we're quick to defend them as 'making fun of that' or whatever. fuck us. i'm still not getting rid of my big black records. nor am i denouncing the stones' _some girls_ just because mick croons
"black girls just wanna get fucked all night but i don't have that much jam."
should i? i dunno. but as usual, i think reducing the question to moral psychology - did Artist A 'mean' to evoke racist stereotypes, or was she really 'making fun of all that?' - is a cop out. a favorite cop-out, one i couldn't live without, mebbe.... but still a rationalization.
context is everything, uncle...bien sur. but i don't think the artist's intentions are the context that need be considered. this dovetails w/ the "who's allowed to say the 'N' word question" we got into recently. i don't think "only those who use it sarcastically" would be a satisfactory answer.
maybe we should turn the gaze to the audience... why are white gen x-ers so turned on to hear language they'd usually decry as "hate speech..." why is "art" the privileged realm for that sort of transgression? when robert v. from AGEL wrote his MA on black flag in the 80s, his committee balked at reading 100s of pages about white men getting their yah-yahs off by saying what they're not supposed to say. i'd venture it made 'em so uncomfortable because it's so goddamn close to home. how much of our cultural canon is built on the back of this kind of transgression? and doesn't that seem crude, in the sense of being un-nuanced?
but i don't know sedaris... (you know me, if too many people i like like it..) if ash's right, and the crowd is really gah-gah for his facade and not his semantics, then i dunno..
i laughed pretty damn hard through the one episode of sarah silverman i saw.. i'll tell you that.
AFL-CIO summer school features a workshop on "Using Pop Culture to Reach out to Young Workers" this year. maybe they will have the answer.
i'll see you there.
Post a Comment