Posts Tagged ‘controversy’
15 items.
Before I get into today’s blog, I want to make sure everyone is on the same page first.
Be sure to read this article over at EntertainmentWeekly.com. It’s the same article about Ben Stiller’s new movie Tropic Thunder that’s being referenced in the strip.
To save a little time, here’s the photo that’s causing the controversy:
In the movie, Stiller, Robert Downey Jr. and Jack Black play spoiled actors making a Vietnam war film. Downey Jr. plays a method actor so serious about his craft, he surgically alters himself to look African American when he finds out the role he was originally hired to portray was written with a black actor in mind. Stiller and Downey Jr. aren’t making fun of African Americans. They ARE making fun of ridiculous actors. Personally, I think it sounds hilarious, especially if Downey Jr. plays it completely straight.
Of course, there are going to be some people out there who will reduce this down to it’s bare element – a white man in black makeup – and be offended. These people are looking for something to offend them. If you can’t see the potential for satire in this, you don’t see very many movies.
That said, is it bad that when I saw that picture that I thought Robert Downey Jr. looked like Don Cheadle? While we’re at it, I think Jack Black there in the background kind of looks like Philip Seymour Hoffman. If you kind of squint, Ben Stiller sort of looks like Tom Cruise.
Incidentally, I didn’t mean to imply that The Wayan Brothers making White Chicks was in any way equal to the decades of minstrel shows that depicted African American’s as lazy simpletons – reinforcing racist attitudes that still survive to this day. But rather it’s meant to reflect that blackface or minstrelsy is all but a dead art form all but abolished except for use in satire by a society that has is trying to shed the casual racism of our predecessors. The fact that The Wayans Brothers are able to pitch and sell a movie featuring them as white women speaks directly to how far black America has come. I don’t mean to assign to much importance to White Chicks (it was an awful movie, after all), but can you imagine a film like that being made 50 years ago? Even 30 years ago? Probably not.
Don’t forget about actors like Eddie Murphy, who has portrayed white characters in films like Coming to America and on Saturday Night Live. There is a latitude to how race is portrayed and by whom that didn’t exist before. Race baiting used to be a one way street. Look how much we’ve grown! ;-D
I don’t want to get overtly political about it. But when it came down to trying to write a joke about College Road Trip and Tropic Thunder, I went for Tropic Thunder.
What do you guys think about this controversy. Is it that big of a deal? Does it have the potential to blow up in everyone’s faces? Let me know!
Until then, I hope everyone has a great weekend. See you here on Monday!
[ No Comments ]
I’m probably going to make this worse, but here it goes.
I got into a pretty intense argument with someone in my LiveJournal feed regarding Friday’s comic and the entire issue of whether or not Tropic Thunder and Robert Downey Jr. in make up is racist.
I guess I can say it’s given me a lot to think about. As a white guy from the Midwest, I’ll fully own up to the fact that I am not the most well-versed person there is in regards to the subtleties and politics of racism. I just try to treat others as I’d want to be treated and go about my daily life.
Looking over Friday’s comic and the blog post, I realize that I may not have made the best case for myself. I already explained that, obviously, White Chicks doesn’t make up for minstrel shows, institutionalized racism and 400 years of oppression. But I was making an exaggeration for comedic effect and sometimes that doesn’t always work out the way you planned it.
So, if anyone was offended, all I can say is that I’m sorry.
It’s probably best if I leave it at that.
[ No Comments ]
Back in March I did a comic about Tropic Thunder when the first teaser image was released and received some pretty harsh criticism for it.
Last Friday I did a comic about Pineapple Express partnered with a bit about annoying people in movie theaters and was criticized for that one, too.
When Tropic Thunder came around again and there were news reports of advocacy groups representing the mentally handicapped picketing the premiere (they object to the film’s repeated use of the word "retard"), I knew I was setting myself up to put my foot in my mouth once again. So I decided to beat my critics to the punch and have my characters silence me before they could.
I don’t feel like I’m kowtowing to the vocal minority by editing myself in this way. Truthfully, the reaction of these critics played only a very small role in my decision.
Basically, I decided that when it comes to matters of race, gender, disabilities or any other sensitive subject, I’m simply not intelligent enough to create comics that tackle the issues in a constructive way. Invariably, I am always left to explain myself and what the comics actually mean. And, frankly, I think I’m doing a piss-poor job representing myself to you, the audience.
I don’t consider myself to be racist, sexist or discriminatory in any way. I don’t harbor ANY ill will toward anyone because of superficial differences.
However, I will admit to being ignorant and not often understanding the complicated facets of a given issue. As a white guy in my 30’s, I’m not often forced to approach things any differently. I try to remain open to different points of view. But in my attempts to learn and eliminate my ignorance, I believe intent and context are shoved to side and what’s left is an irresponsible cartoonist left to explain himself to angry readers.
You have to understand the kind of guy I am. I’m not the kind of guy who seeks to offend anyone. I don’t get off on making people uncomfortable. And while I like to comment on controversy, I don’t like to be the center of it because that’s not the kind of attention I want to attract.
I know some of you will read this blog and think to yourself "What’s wrong with those comics? I thought they were funny!" If so, thank you. Sorry for wasting your time with this entry.
But, like I said, I’m starting to cultivate a reputation that is in conflict with who I really am and what I really feel as a person and I seek to reverse that course.
I want Theater Hopper to be a positive experience for everyone who reads it and I think I am setting up road blocks in regards to reaching that goal by making jokes that really have nothing to do with movies directly. So, moving forward, I think it’s best for me to stick to what I know and resist the temptation to make an easy joke that might end up offending someone unintentionally.
With that said, the controversy surrounding Tropic Thunder will not be enough to keep me from seeing it. But, at the same time, the controversy is not what attracts me to the film, either. As I perceive it, the movie is about the self-centeredness of actors and the bloated entitlement of big-budget Hollywood films and I think the subject matter is always ripe for parody. I feel sorry for anyone who might be legitimately offended by certain aspects of the film, but I’ve decided to reserve judgment and see the film first. That’s really the best I can do.
…
Moving on, I wanted to let you know that response to the donation drive for my crashed hard drive has been strong out of the gate and I want to thank everyone who has donated so far! Right now I’m trying to respond to the e-mails and get started on the initial batch of custom artwork. If I haven’t contacted you already, you’ll be hearing from me soon.
To help keep people up to date on our progress, I will be uploading a progress bar to the homepage with a rough estimate of the money we need to cover the data recovery process. With luck, I’ll be hearing from my representative at OnTrack Data Recovery today. So keep your fingers crossed!
Thanks again to those who have donated and for those of you who haven’t, click here to learn more about the drive and what your donation can get you. Custom art all around!
Even if you’re not able to meet the minimum donation amount for custom art, please consider other ways you can help spread the word. Link to Theater Hopper through forums, web sites and social bookmarking sites like Digg, Reddit, StumbleUpon or del.icio.us, buy advertising on the site or buy merchandise from our store. Every little bit helps!
If you have suggestions for other ways we can raise money, please e-mail me and let me know. I’m entertaining all ideas!
That about does it for me. Thanks for stopping by and I’ll see you here on Friday!
[ No Comments ]
May15
I had a hard time with today’s comic basically because it relies so heavily on the caricatures of Ron Howard and Tom Hanks to help sell the joke. I’ve convinced myself that caricature is not my strong suit. All you need to do is look through my archives to see how long it took me to get comfortable drawing my own characters, let alone internationally recognizable celebrities.
I’ve bought a few books about caricature and it has helped me to understand some of the fundamentals. Basically, you take the most obvious feature on someone’s face and exaggerate it while minimizing their less noticeable features. Ultimately, what I end up doing is looking at what OTHER caricature artists have done and use that for a source image.
I don’t think I’m beyond help when it comes to learning how to caricature, but I do think some people have an innate talent for it. Thursday’s strip parodying Lost over at PvP was excellent. It not only clearly communicates which characters are being parodied, but Scott retains his signature style throughout. I’d be lying if I said it didn’t inspire me a little bit to try my hand at caricature again for today’s strip.
Joe over at Joe Loves Crappy Movies does a great job with caricature as well. Check out his Jason Statham or his comic for Slumdog Millionaire. Joe makes it look so easy.
I tried to stretch a little further by doing another caricature of Tom Hanks for today’s incentive sketch. I think it turned out pretty well. To see it, vote for Theater Hopper at Top Web Comics. I would be curious to know what you think!
Turning the Lens of Introspection away from myself for a minute, let’s talk about Angels & Demons coming out today. Considering how big The DaVinci Code was when that came out, it’s weird that no one I know is talking about this movie.
Do you remember the sequel to The Silence of The Lambs? Hannibal? I think we’ve got another one of those on our hands here. Angels & Demons looks like the kind of movie that was green-lit based on the financial success of the first movie without anyone stopping to consider if it was a product anyone wanted to see.
The comic addresses the controversy surrounding The DaVinci Code which, at the time, was palpable. But very few are even raising an eyebrow over Angels & Demons. In fact, the Vatican’s official position on the film seems to be “So?”
Director Ron Howard insists that there is still a controversy and believes the Vatican is holding a grudge. That very well might be true, but it seems they learned their lesson from the first time around and aren’t lending the new film any credibility by addressing it directly.
I’m not a church-goer, nor am I a fan of the Catholic church and their policies. But, in this case, I say “Good for them.” Frankly, the Catholic church shouldn’t be commenting on works of fiction. (I could make a real easy joke about The Bible right here, but won’t)
My point is that the Catholic church is a global organization with incredible influence whose leaders support the faith and give comfort to millions of people around the globe. If you can find me one person who read The DaVinci Code or saw the movie adaptation and said, “You know what? Catholicism? Not for me. I’m out,” then maybe you’d have an argument.
But as it is, there is enough REAL LIFE problems in the Catholic church that is causing followers to question their faith that I think the institution should be addressing if they want to continue tending to their flock. Addressing Ron Howard or the novel’s author Dan Brown doesn’t help anything at all.
Henry is staying with his grandparents tonight, so Cami and I are going to see Angels & Demons. I’m practicing a little bit of willful ignorance and ignoring some of the negative review headlines I’ve been scoping out in my travels around the web. I’m not worried about it. If it’s dumb, it’s dumb. Between Howard, Hanks and Ewan McGreggor, there’s enough talent in the pool to hold my interest. And besides, it’ll be nice to go to a movie with Cami for once. I see a lot of crap movies she doesn’t have an interest in seeing anyway, so it’s a treat the two of us can go out together. I’m really looking forward to it.
What about you? What do you think? Not about my date night with Cami, but about Angels & Demons? Are you planning on seeing it this weekend? Do you think it looks good? Do you think there is any controversy or is it all part of the film’s marketing plan? Can movies about religion avoid controversy, or is it built in? Leave your comments below and let’s get a discussion started!
[ 12 Comments ]
Yesterday the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences announced that it would be widening the field of nominees for Best Picture from 5 to 10.
When I first heard the news I though, “Hmm, that’s interesting.” But the more I think about it, the more upset I become.
This isn’t the first time the Academy has nominated 10 films for Best Picture. In fact, it was par for the course when the awards show was created back in the 1930s and was a practice they continued well into the 1940s.
But the big difference these days is that there are FAR fewer studios producing movies and a much smaller number of films being released each year. Also, the Oscar’s weren’t broadcast until 1953. So what’s the real reason behind widening the field to 10?
Follow the money.
If you ask me, this is all one huge money-making scheme. 10 films get nominated and now 10 films are “must see” in the theater. If you don’t catch them in the theater, now studios can slap the “Oscar nominated” title on the DVD and claim their film is an avatar of quality. If you don’t catch it on DVD, maybe you’ll watch the Oscar broadcast because – hey – something is new and different! Nevermind all of the entertainment media that will now be forced to write about, speculate, categorize, rank and rate 10 Best Picture nominees.
Remember the Oscars last year when they didn’t have a host and instead had actors come up and give little speeches to the nominees about how great they are. Remember that Zac Efron was one of those presenters?
Yeah… this 10 nominations thing is just another gimmick, but on a much larger scale.
My question is, if they’re going to nominate 10 films for Best Picture, then why not 10 nominees for Best Director? How many films have won Best Picture without their directors winning in their categories? Why not 10 Best Actors, Best Actresses?
Some of you probably think that 10 Best Picture nominations is a good thing. Would Wall-E or The Dark Night have been nominated last year under this structure? Will this open the door to more independent movies being recognized by the Academy and a larger audience? Perhaps.
But if they’re going to widen the field this far, then the Academy needs to get ride of “ghettoized” categories like “Best Foreign Language Film,” “Best Animated Feature Film” and “Best Documentary Feature.” All of them are ridiculous categories to begin with and treats their genre’s like second class citizens. Any of the films nominated in those categories can stand shoulder-to-shoulder with films from other genres.
Well, except Bolt. Seriously, what were they thinking nominating that last year?
What the Academy fails to realize – especially when they attempt these naked gimmicks to boost their ratings – is that movie goers haven’t lost interest in because they’ve become bored with the tradition. If anything, that’s THE REASON they huddle around their television each year.
No. People have become disenfranchised from the Oscar’s because their choices reflect no sincerity, originality or taste. That, coupled with the fact that a Best Picture nomination has become a political campaign among the studios to jockey for a position at the end of the year that will increase their odds of the Academy (and their narrow memories) to nominate their films.
The Reader, for example, was sent to theaters in limited release on December 10 to meet the Oscar deadline but wasn’t released wide until January 9. By then, reviews were ancient, no one was talking about it and demand for the film was nil. It barely reached middle America except in a few art houses. How are we supposed to get excited for a film like this when there is no opportunity to see it?
If this change results in sincere diversity among the Best Picture nominees, then I will happily eat crow. If Up is nominated alongside The Hurt Locker, no one will be more pleased than me.
But I see no reason for the Academy’s decision to remotely change how Hollywood does business. The studios have a formula and they’re sticking to it. The rest of us are just along for the ride.
What is your reaction to the Academy’s announcement? Are you excited for the change of pace or do you thing the Academy has an ulterior motivation. Do 10 Best Picture nominations dilute the value of the Oscars or is the trophy bragging rights and not an indicator of true quality?
Leave your comments below! Let’s get a dialogue going!
[ 13 Comments ]
