Select Page

Hi Laurel,

I want to say first that I did see The Interview.  It was aight.  Anyone who wanted to analyze its cinematic quality would have no trouble finding things to criticize, though I’d like to point out that Rogan and Goldberg set out to make a farce, not a masterpiece, and if your point is that nothing that “puts down another person or identity” is “particularly funny,” I don’t think the quality of the movie has much bearing on your argument.  I assume that you would have found any movie that makes fun of the assassination of a world leader offensive, regardless of the “artiness” of camera angles or wittiness of the dialogue or whatever makes movies “good.” (You’d probably make the same argument about Inglorious Bastards, or is it OK when it’s Hitler?)

And if that is really what you’re arguing, I disagree.  You bring up racist jokes in your opening dialogue but I think, and I’m pretty sure you’d agree with me on this, there are jokes about race that perpetuate harmful stereotypes and there are those that do not; many comedians use racial humor as a way of making fun of and dismantling racist ideas.  Similar content can have different meaning in different contexts.  (ex., rape jokes in the season premiere of Broad City; Seth Rogan was part of that too funnily enough).

You say that any movie about killing a real person is automatically too offensive to be funny, but I’m not of the same opinion. First of all, I agree with Jake’s point that the comparison between President Obama and Kim Jong-Un isn’t really fair (once again, are you this salty about movies that make fun of killing Hitler?)  I don’t know that being a “real world actually alive leader of another county,” buys you a free pass from aggressive criticism (even via ridicule) when you’re currently incarcerating between 100,000 and 200,000 political prisoners (http://www.brookings.edu/research/papers/2013/07/north-korea-prison-camps-cohen). Especially if you’re also just a super bizarre person.  That’s not to say that the death of a human being should be taken lightly—I think that Osama bin Laden riots here at Penn State are one of the most disappointing things we as students have ever done.  But there is a big difference between a literal suggestion and a humorous one.  Context matters.

To be honest, I’m sure someone could make a very funny movie about killing President Obama.   That might cause outrage from some segments of the American population, but then we’re only an “ignorant and apolitical people.” I’m kidding, but you’ll agree that just because an idea incites an emotional reaction doesn’t mean it isn’t valuable—look at the ALA’s list of banned books.   I find the obviously farcical proposition of a gossip talk show host assassinating North Korea’s Supreme Leader via handshake with a ricin strip he smuggled through security in his designer handbag much less offensive than, for example, the literal drone strikes on civilians that Obama has authorized in Pakistan and Yemen (http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2014/nov/24/-sp-us-drone-strikes-kill-1147).  The Interview is not a literal proposal to kill anyone; in fact, even if “the Tea Party claimed it as the most patriotic movie since Team America,” it actually mocks American militancy and nationalistic arrogance as much as it does any facet of North Korean culture.

I think Madison gets to the important question in her comment—is this an example of useful satire or not?  The second part of your argument is that The Interview is not funny because we are laughing at the “horrible living conditions” under Kim Jong-Un.   I really don’t think you give people enough credit when you suggest that they don’t appreciate the situation in North Korea.  People are selfishly scared and selflessly empathetic and very confused (not stupidly, understandably because the dynamics between North and South Korea and the United States are politically and culturally complex). And one of the aims of the movie is to help relieve some of that tension by talking about (to the extreme of making sex jokes) a place we’re afraid to talk about, and “showing” us a place we’re literally not allowed to see, and making light of something difficult so it doesn’t hold so much power over us.  Having seen the movie, I think that the main target of the satire is Kim Jong-Un (after Seth Rogan and James Franco themselves), and it certainly does little to encourage hatred towards North Koreans as a whole.

You don’t have to think it’s funny….people have different senses of humor.  I’m certainly not going to argue that The Interview is a particularly well done piece of satire.  And you’ll see in my post about Charlie Hebo that I think making fun of things is often the easy way out.  But to categorically condemn the movie, and all humor of this kind, based solely on its premise and not its intent is unfair in my opinion.

 

Hi Luiza,

Just a few brief comments on your post:  I think you bring up a very interesting proposition.  I tried to think back over my time in college and high school to verify if I felt the same way: did I really hear much more about the ramifications of plagiarism than sexual assault growing up?  I’m not sure that I did, not once I got to college at least.  I’d also like to point out that though the university repercussions for rape may be less than those for plagiarism (I’m not sure what either is exactly), people who are convicted of rape in a criminal court typically go to jail though, as you hinted later in your post, rapes are not always prosecuted fully.

I like your point that warnings against sexual assault could be more prevalent and visible, but the reason that plagiarism warnings are given in a classroom context is that they apply to academics.  Rape is more of a social problem, and one that I think unfortunately needs a more involved approach to combat.  I definitely think that being conscious about fostering an environment where rape is not tolerated is one of the university’s jobs, and should also be a focus in secondary education. This is why I finally agree with you, that it’s good to see the university focusing on this issue.