Tag Archives: satire

Stay Classy, Comic Book Fans

Posted on March 1, 2013 by | 2 comments

I don’t necessarily identify as a “nerd” or a “geek,” but I definitely identify as a comic book fan. As such, it hasn’t been hard to notice how I and others like me are stereotyped by popular culture, whether it be Comic Book Guy from The Simpsons, Kevin Smith and his pals talking about which superheroine they’d most like to bang on AMC’s Comic Book Men, or the gawking crowd of guys in a particular episode of The Big Bang Theory. These stereotypes, like most, are not as true as people think, but every now and then they ring true, much to the shame of those who share in that group.

ComicBookMovie.com is one of my favourite comic news sites, and one that I check on an almost hourly basis. It’s great because it gives a lot of news about upcoming comic book movies, as well as previews of upcoming comic books. One issue the site has, however, is that all of the content is completely user-generated, meaning that certain things may get to the front page that aren’t exactly high quality stuff.

Take, for example, an article in response to actress Shailene Woodley being cast as Mary Jane Watson in the upcoming The Amazing Spider-Man 2, titled “EDITORIAL: Making Shailene Woodley Hot Enough To Play MJ In TASM 2.”

As a little bit of context, the first shots of Woodley as MJ were not met with a great deal of enthusiasm. They depicted what appeared to be a very plain-looking redheaded girl, and not one who was anything like the “super-hot, incredibly bone-able character from the comics,” to quote the CBM contributor Mark “RorMachine” Cassidy. Below is an image I took from the article which shows Woodley side by side with a very popular image of the comic book character.

Upon skimming this article I was disgusted. The four areas that Woodley could work on in her portrayal were listed as “TITS,” “FACE,” “HAIR,” “ASS,” and “ACTING ABILITY,” in that order. I’m going to pull the first, and most offensive, of the paragraphs out to explain exactly why I was so repulsed:

TITS:

Look at the pic – comic MJ has lovely big disproportionate ones, Woodley doesn’t. Now obviously surgery would be the best route, but that’s highly unlikely so I recommend padding. It’s very simple, just stick a stuffed Wonderbra on the chick, and any scenes requiring actual semi or full (hey, we can hope!) nudity can utilize CGI! It’s a magical age for cinema folks.

To help restore your faith in humanity the article was met by others who were just as offended as I was:

I’m not sure if it was present the first time I skimmed it, but posted at the very bottom was the following note by Cassidy:

NOTE: This article is meant as satire. It’s a response to the – genuine – backlash Miss Woodley received when she was cast in the movie, and then again when set images of her were posted online. No offence to Miss Woodley or anyone else is meant, and I (meaning me, and not the absurd persona I wrote the article as!) genuinely think she is a beautiful, talented actress who will do a great job as MJ 

As is the case with the internet, users popped up to comment and agree that clearly this was satirical, and began waging war with those who were “making too big a deal out of it.” Then, over on CinemaBlend, Katey Rich wrote an article in response titled “If You Think Shailene Woodley Isn’t Pretty Enough For The Amazing Spider-Man 2, You Don’t Deserve The Movie.”

In it she decries the shallowness of complaining an actress isn’t “hot enough,” using some very choice words to address realistic beauty. Rich exhibits just as much, if not more, disgust at the article, but more importantly addresses the topic of Cassidy’s article being a satire. She claims, and rightly so, that:

The “satire” was so close to the real thing that most of [CBM’s] commenters didn’t get the difference, and reading it makes your skin crawl because you just know that’s exactly how a strong handful of fanboys feel, no irony intended.

Thankfully, and again, people restoring your faith in humanity, another contributor named “Jack Sparrow” [in quotes because I’m fairly sure that’s not his real name] posted on the site featuring Rich’s rebuttal to the offensive editorial. He essentially agrees with her, summing up why it can’t truly be seen as satire, but more important he apologizes:

We are sorry, Shailene Woodley. We are sorry, comic book fangirls. We are sorry, women that came across Mark “RorMachine” Cassidy’s “satire”. He doesn’t speak for all of us.

We are not all mysoginistic pigs. And in the light of the recent The Amazing Spider-Man 2 announcements, I couldn’t be more excited to watch Shailene Woodley start her journey to bring Mary Jane Watson to life.

I’m mildly excited about TASM2 [I’m way more pumped for this May’s Iron Man 3], and at this point I don’t have any solid opinions on Shailene Woodsley being the girl to deliver the classic line “Face it, Tiger, you just hit the jackpot!” [or some variation thereof]. What’s more important to me is that, as the title of this post suggests, comic book fans stay classy. That the people who love this medium as much as I do conduct themselves in a manner that’s, at best, not reprehensible. The public has a general view of what comic book fans are supposed to be like, and it doesn’t benefit anyone to play to that stereotype even in jest.

Stay classy, comic book fans. I mean it.

2 Comments

Posted in comics, feminism, film, internet

Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Evan and Gordon Talk: Stand-up Comedy, How Far Is Too Far?

Posted on October 3, 2012 by | 2 comments

EVAN: Hey, readers. Welcome back to yet another segment of “Evan and Gordon Talk.” This week we’re going to be discussing the limits of stand-up comedy, specifically in terms of crassness. How far, exactly, is too far?

GORDON: I’m gonna come on out swinging say that there’s really no such thing as “limits,” just inappropriate timing and venue.

EVAN: Alright, well, let’s take an example and see if you can provide an appropriate time and venue. To retread some well-worn territory, how about rape jokes?

GORDON: Before our readers jump to conclusions, please here me out-

Rape jokes aren’t alone in being terrible things. We have murder, the Holocaust, disease, Darfur- you name it. Yet we set rape aside. My best estimation for why that is for us (in the west) is that it’s a clear and present issue- as opposed to starvation and disease. It is, therefore, something that’s close to home- something that we don’t typically joke about on the grounds that it’s, well, “real,” for lack of a better term.

Now I’d be hard pressed to imagine a scenario in which a rape joke would be okay. But then again, if I were living in the late 1940s, I believe I’d be just as hard pressed to imagine a situation in which a Holocaust joke would be funny.

EVAN: I’m still waiting for an answer to the question.

I’ve got a video that my brother is quite fond of where Ricky Gervais jokes about Hitler and Nietzsche, and it’s actually quite funny, and does involve the Holocaust. I suppose it could be argued that time has allowed us to not turn to the oft-used cry of “too soon.” But, again, I am interested to know about a way rape jokes might be considered not extremely inappropriate.

GORDON: My point is- I can’t see the future; none of us can. The fact that I can’t imagine a venue in which such a thing would be funny doesn’t mean that it, like the Holocaust or any terrible event, won’t be joked about years from now and be just as funny as that Ricky Gervais bit.

You see what I’m saying?

EVAN: I think what needs to be discussed is the difference between funny and appropriate.

GORDON: Touché. But before we get into that, let’s clarify our terms here.

We’ve been saying “rape joke,” but the truth of the matter is, we’re not talking about “rape jokes”- we’re talking about ones specifically pertaining to women, aren’t we? I mean, how many “Don’t drop the soap!” jokes do we hear and think nothing of?

*For clarification to our readers- what got Evan and I thinking about this was a Tosh scandal– look it up.

EVAN: Okay, so specifically jokes regarding male on female rape, to clarify. Go on.

GORDON: Well- doesn’t that force us to rethink the entire question? With that in mind, do we have to ask rather “Who can be joked about?”

EVAN: I think that’s a pretty vague question. We can joke about a lot of people: kids, politicians, Americans-

There’s a difference between a priest walking into a bar and a woman who’s been sexually assaulted.

GORDON: Let me offer you this, for clarification. There’s a bit by (awesome) comedian Aziz Ansari which includes a rape joke. In this case the “victim” in the situation is a man. There was no outrage.

Contrast this with the outrage that surrounds rape jokes regarding women. Why is there this difference in public reaction?

EVAN: Again, what I’m asking is to specifically discuss an appropriate time and venue for the type of joke already clarified. To explore the difference is to go back to what you said earlier, that rape for us in the West is more “real” than genocide or drought, etc.

You explained it yourself fairly quickly, I think. For most of the public rape of men is not as “real” as the rape of women.

GORDON: Then, as awful as it sounds to us now, isn’t it possible that in a world where female rape is as “real” as the Holocaust (or any of the other stuff terrible stuff we joke about today) it’d be just as tame as the aforementioned jokes?

EVAN: But all you’re saying is that there’s a possible future in which rape jokes are acceptable. As an “appropriate time and venue” the same can be said of everything from cannibalizing your own children to bestiality.

I’d also argue that the aforementioned jokes aren’t classified as “tame” even today. Just less sensitive.

GORDON: Fair enough. I guess I should restate my position.

The issue isn’t with what gets put into a joke, so much as who or what is being mocked. Mocking a victim- be it a murder victim, rape victim, holocaust victim- that’s not cool.

EVAN: Agreed.

GORDON: But mocking murder? Mocking racism? (I refer you all back to an earlier discussion of ours on “ironic racism.”) You get what I’m saying here?

EVAN: Let me try to reiterate what you’re saying- We can mock an action, just not the victim?

GORDON: Absolutely- as we wound up concluding in our discussion of “ironic racism,” the point is to satirize/mock/etc. racism for the hideous and idiotic thing that it is.

EVAN: As often exemplified by comedians such as Russell Peters and Dave Chappelle.

GORDON: Exactly.

I could cite similar jabs at that Arch-Dirtbag Todd Akin by political comedians and satirists who used rape NOT to make fun of rape, but to make fun of Todd Akin’s mind-boggling moronic views on the very same subject, and NOT to make fun of rape victims.

EVAN: That’s a really great way of putting it.

And I think this is the first time we’ve actually really broken down a topic, instead of following rabbit trails and culminating with me mocking you for your human failings.

GORDON: You’re just losing your touch.

EVAN: Hey, this has been a fairly deep and legitimate conversation.

GORDON: That it has.

EVAN: And we are now reaching the end of our allotted 45 minutes. The two choices for next week’s topic are:

GORDON: What’s the greatest flaw of our generation?

EVAN: And “Television Wars.” i.e. all of the shows that feel the need to just slap words in front of the word “wars” and have at it.

Once again, thank you all for reading. Feel free to stick around and check out other posts, and definitely come back next Wednesday for our next installment.

2 Comments

Posted in Comedy, Evan and Gordon Talk, feminism, media, sex

Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

The Implications of Charlie Hebdo’s Mockery of Islam and Muslims’ Response

Posted on November 7, 2011 by | Leave a comment

source: gatesofvienna.blogspot.com

On the cover of Charlie Hebdo last week, Mohammed is saying (in English), "100 lashes if you don't die laughing!". Reproductions of images of Mohammed are considered particularly offensive in Islam.

Charlie Hebdo [“Charlie Weekly”], kind of The Onion of France, published an issue last week entitled “Charia Hebdo”, which featured a cartoon of Mohammed saying (in French) “100 lashes if you don’t die laughing!”. The November 2 issue was retitled “Charia Hebdo” (referring to the holy Islamic code of laws called Sharia), and listed Mohammed as “guest editor” for the issue. In response, the publication’s website was hacked, showing a picture of Mecca and the text [in English] “No God But Allah”, followed by a series of questions arguing for theism (specifically Islam, but they were pretty generally theistic questions, like “Have you seen a wonderful delicate work without a worker?”). A 20 year old IT worker in Turkey claimed responsibility for the hacking. Shortly before the issue hit the streets, Charlie Hebdo’s offices were set on fire (via a molotov cocktail, according to telegraph.co.uk) and much of the inside of them was destroyed.

tendancecoatesy.wordpress.com

The hacked Charlie Hebdo website.

Given the recent passing of the bill that banned the wearing of niqabs and burkas under penalty of monetary fine, the demonstration of further European French/Muslim French tension is unsurprising and worrisome. The demographics of France are disputed, with reports from 2009 ranging from 4%-10% of the population being Muslim, but it is agreed upon that the Muslim population in France is increasing rapidly. Muslims have expressed feelings of ostracization by Sarkozy, especially with the recent head covering bill, and it is evident from Charlie Hebdo’s publication that at least some animosity towards Islam is common among the European French.

Charlie Hebdo’s publication was specifically blasphemous to Islam – more so than, say, Christians would probably find a picture of Jesus saying the same thing [though yes that would be rather upsetting to many people] – because of the specific Islamic mandate against the reproduction of pictures of Mohammed, and the reverence with which the prophet is held.

The French government passed a similiar and vaguer bill prohibiting ‘conspicuous religious symbols’ in 2004. This is just a small demonstration of the staunch secularism in France since 1789, when the revolution removed the huge amounts of power the Roman Catholic Church had over society. After the revolution, France has made it a pretty big deal to avoid giving a religious group such power again, and so has consistently been very intentional about the individualisation of religion and maintaining the separation between church and state.

This separation has worked fairly well for the past few centuries, as devout French Christians became fewer in number and French society as a whole valued an a-religious government, but the increasing Muslim population in France is beginning to disturb that environment. Though the population of Muslims in France is small, the presence of a solid and devout minority in such a staunchly secularist country will foster discord, the beginnings of which can be seen in recent events.

Leave a comment

Posted in Islam, media, news

Tagged , , , , , , , , , ,

Does The Onion Even Have Lines? #CongressHostage

Posted on October 3, 2011 by | Leave a comment

So The Onion tweeted [#CongressHostage] about Congress holding schoolchildren hostage last Thursday. The Internet, as expected, exploded for a bit in a few places and then returned to normalcy.

A rather convincing photograph of what appears to be Speaker of the House John Boehner holding a little girl hostage

The tweets were fake live-action reports of an Onion headline that day that reported that Congress had taken hostage 12 schoolchildren and were demanding, for their release, 12 trillion dollars “in cash”. A less tasteful part of the story involved John Boehner threatening to kill “one child every hour” until the money was given, with a rather amusing photoshopped picture of Boehner holding a gun to a girl’s head.

The US Capitol police responded with a release affirming that there was no situation of any kind at the Capitol, which created a scad of angry tweets ridiculing at anyone who could “be so stupid to believe” the story – and by scad I mean like hundreds, which seems to be many more than the small amount of people who took the story to be actual news. Time asked if The Onion went to far with #CongressHostage, and lots of followers said that they did, which created another scad of angry tweets ridiculing anyone who would be offended by The Onion story and lamented over the lack of education about satire, etc. etc. Basically summarizing the whole debate, @GS_Design responded to Time’s question: “Does the Onion *have* lines?”

Some people compared the event to the War of the Worlds broadcast in 1938; @kevinhamel55 asked, “@TheOnion today, War of The Worlds in 1938; is there any difference?” (the answer is yes, yes there is, because this time nobody thought the world was actually ending and hundreds of people weren’t calling studios panicked, afraid for their lives; whether this makes the Onion more or less successful than the 1938 broadcast is another matter altogether).

Admittedly, in perhaps poor taste The Onion’s #CongressHostage thing started with this tweet: “BREAKING: Witnesses reporting screams and gunfire heard inside Capitol building.“, which wasn’t really funny or entirely unbelievable in any way. Further tweets were more appropriately hilarious: “Reports from those who know Congress say the legislative body had seemed desperate as of late“. Another tweet that isn’t really funny enough to justify its offensiveness was: “Two chaperones are also being held, one of whom is said to be pregnant “. It’s sort of amusing just because it’s so intensely typical of a hostage situation report, but it had nothing to do with the story’s strongest point, the nature of Congress in real life – as exemplified by the tweet: ‘Obama on bullhorn: “John, I know you can hear me in there. Please, you don’t need to do this.”‘

The article was a pretty accurate metaphor about Congress’ sense of desperation, as well as the public and presidential opinion of Congress this year, and the #CongressHostage stunt did a good job of drawing attention to it, at least. @TheOnion’s twitter account gained something like 7,000 followers, and the article received a ridiculous amount of news and blog coverage. The whole event was just another example of The Onion doing what The Onion does – drawing public attention to the nature of veracity and sensationalism in news sources, which is almost always good. The best summary of the situation in the current cultural context, in my opinion, came from @FultonMatt, who tweeted: “@TheOnion’s #CongressHostage has gone too far. Why can’t they just hack dead kid’s phones like a real news org?”

Leave a comment

Posted in internet, media, news

Tagged , , , , , , , , ,