When you go to see a comedian perform you have an expectation that the comedian will talk about every topic we are not supposed to talk about in public such as politics, religion, abortion, sexually violence and race. It is one thing to make jokes about these unstable topics, but when a comedian takes these topics and then places the blames on the victims, odds are most people wont handle this the jokes lightly. Recently Netflix has placed on their viewing list a standup comedy special The Bird revelation and Equanimity performed by comedian Dave Chappelle. Both shows are about an hour long, in which Chappelle tires to desperately make his audience laugh at the misfortunes of other people.
Dave Chappelle tries to take certain material that everyone in his audience is informed about, some how tries to relate to the subject being made fun of, but then completely back hands the subject by either blaming victims or telling people it is their fault. While Chappelle tries to make his audience laugh, he also continues to tell the audience that America is “too brittle.” He claims that America has become too sensitive and the Untied State use to be a country where no one talked about their feelings or were considered about hurting other peoples feelings. In an article published by The New York Times titled Dave Chappelle Stumbles Into the #MeToo Moment states “he again leans on the gravitas of King to pivot from the pain caused by sexual misconduct. Mr. Chappelle criticizes the “brittle spirit” of the female comic who said Louis C.K. masturbated in front of the civil rights leader, prompting him to give up his movement.” In the second show Equanimity, Chappell continues to take jokes about celebrities who have been caught up in a serious sexual misconduct but plays them out like they are no big deal and rolls off the jokes as to brushing dirt under a rug. The New York Times article also speaks about the victims of the harassment wouldn’t complain if the harassment came from a handsome guy, “When suggesting a handsome man wouldn’t be accuses of assault and rape, he says that if Brad Pitt did what Mr. Weinstein did, the response would be different.” I understand Chappelle is trying to be funny and create jokes that are from recent media outlets, but talking about sexual misconduct is one aspect, but when you speak about the victims in these situations negatively, it comes off as selfless and classless.
When looking at sensitive and serious topics such as politics, religion, abortion, sexually violence and race, for the most part when speaking about these topics, they can lead to arguments among people, which will result in a negative connotation. However, with that being said, taking serious topics and placing them with humor can open up room for discussion that can leave a positive aftermath. With that being said though, in order for audience members to not get offended, there needs to be some kind a line Chappelle cant cross, just because he is a comedian, that does give him permission to rip sexual misconduct victims apart. In another article called Dave Chappelle Can’t Shock Jock His Way Out of the #MeToo Movement by Jamie Loftus, she writes, “As he puts it, this is his way of exercising his right to “fuck around.” Subtext of “fuck around”: not come prepared to talk about one of the most significant national conversations of the decade but still inexplicably devote your entire set to it. Subtext to “fuck around”: assumes he will be able to riff out a comedic symphony, and does not. Subtext to “fuck around”: fuck around, but it’s not funny or effective enough to deserve a major platform release.” If Chappelle keeps up the personalized aimed joke at innocent victims, eventually he will loose a lot of his fan base. Hannah Jane Parkinson author of Kevin Spacey deserves to be scorned. But can I still watch House of Cards?, writes in her article about if we should still continue watching certain films or show who have some kind of ties to people who have caught in a negative scandal. Parkinson states, “Clearly there is a difference between continuing to support an individual’s livelihood and appreciating their past work (especially if they’re dead). If the work is historic we can view it critically without actively supporting or enabling a dubious character. There’s also the consideration that if we cease to appreciate all historic art by badly behaved creators – well, would we be left with any art at all? I have to agree with Parkinson on the fact that the majority of badly behaved creators create the most interesting and awarding winning productions, however as the world continues to evolve, people will no longer allow great productions if certain creators are behaving badly. In Chappelle’s case, even though he hasn’t personally been involved with a case of the #MeToo movement, cracking crude joke about the hot topic wont make his career last much longer.
Jason Zinoman, “Dave Chappelle Stumbles Into the #MeToo Moment,” New York Times (January 2, 2018): https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/02/arts/television/dave-chappelle-netflix-special.html
Jamie Loftus, “Dave Chappelle Can’t Shock Jock His Way Out of the #MeToo Movement,” Paste (January 8, 2018): https://www.pastemagazine.com/articles/2018/01/dave-chappelle-cant-shock-jock- his-way-out-of-the.html
Hannah Jane Parkinson, “Kevin Spacey Deserves To Be Scorned. But Can I Still Watch House of Cards?” The Guardian (November 2, 2017): https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/nov/02/kevin-spacey-deserves-scorned-watch- house-of-cards