this post was submitted on 02 Jan 2024
134 points (74.5% liked)

Movies and TV Shows

2108 readers
17 users here now

A community for entertainment industry news and general discussion about movies and TV shows.

Rules:

  1. Be civil.
  2. Please do not link to pirated content.
  3. No spoilers in the title of submissions. And please use spoiler MarkDown in the body of discussions. This is a courtesy to other users.
  4. Comments solely criticizing headlines and/or journalism will be removed for being off-topic.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] homesweethomeMrL@lemmy.world 75 points 10 months ago (8 children)

At the risk of saying something negative - no.

I watched the last one twice just to be sure there was subtext and it was pretty astounding the disconnect between article writers, commenters, and the actual comedy.

Did he say “I’m team terf”? He did. Yeah he did say that and that was fucked up. Agreed. (In whatever way context could be added, he was discussing the idea that one specific set of internal organs was currently capable of gestating a human. He said the terfs were saying that and he agreed with them on that point but he also discussed NC’s bathroom bill and talked at length about how it's a bad law. He also defended trans rights at some length. But the “Dave hates trans” article writers don’t include those points)

But the other 99.99% of the special was objectively pro-trans. Including “All trans people deserve love and respect”. The main point is you can’t get what he's doing from text. Standup has a bunch of moving parts: voice, inflection, setup, arc, theme, silliness, parody, jokes-within-jokes, and many other aspects that aren’t available in a text-only format like a comment or an article.

It seemed to me that he was making several really good points about being in a marginalized, oppressed minority, and the way the larger society talks about it. He used language to do that that wasn’t straight-on, direct, and clear because he’s a comedian who tells jokes and so his way of doing it is building an elaborate framework around a topic or topics, and by talking about them he’s getting across a larger message. It’s densely layered discussion underneath simple stories. He’s really good at it, fwiw, but that’s often immediately ignored and intentionally misrepresented to light him up for whatever the author wants to project.

I’m just saying if you watch his specials with an open mind, he's not anti-trans at all. And whenever it gets down to it, the people accusing him of it haven’t understood his show; often they haven’t watched it at all.

Now Ricky Gervais? Fuck. That guy’s seriously anti-trans, ignorant and malicious, and putting Chappelle in with him is just wrong. Thank you for coming to my TEDx talk.

[–] 6daemonbag@lemmy.dbzer0.com 37 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

What's interesting is that I can't even take this comment at face value, without further context. Is this a well-thought observation from the POV of a trans person who is intimately aware of their struggle in a broader context? Does this commenter understand the nature of comedy, or more specifically, Dave Chappelle, more deeply than I do? Can I add my opinion to this heated subject being a CIS male who is also a minority? Does any of the aforementioned even matter?

What I can say is that I've liked certain parts of his comedy. When it hits it's incredible. When it doesn't I feel like I'm watching 80s Eddie Murphy again.

While I believe that anyone and anything is fair game in comedy, I don't believe that how he's done it towards trans people has been in pursuit of comedy. In his previous specials it came across as shallow othering without the nuance that comes from actually seeing the subject as human. There's no payoff.

It just reminds me of my upbringing where gay (and queer) bashing for the sake of itself was normal. At this point in my life I'd rather continue distancing myself from that stuff than try to read between the lines.

Edit: to the OP, I'm not attacking your observation or character.

[–] ersatz@infosec.pub 31 points 10 months ago (1 children)

And whenever it gets down to it, the people accusing him of it haven’t understood his show

How do you interpret this joke from his new show?

Let’s begin with the joke that got us going in “The Dreamer.” The late Norm MacDonald, we are told, had invited Chappelle to the filming of the movie "Man in the Moon," in which Jim Carrey played cryptic comedy icon Andy Kaufman. To Chappelle’s dismay, Carrey remained steadfastly in character while on set.

Chappelle sighs, “I was very disappointed because I wanted to meet Jim Carrey and I had to pretend he was Andy Kaufman all afternoon. It was clearly Jim Carrey. I could look at him and clearly see it was Jim Carrey.” Which brings us to the punchline: “That’s how trans people make me feel.”

Because the only way I can read it is that he's saying trans people are inauthentic and fake, that they are pretending to be something they aren't. But maybe we just aren't as clever as you are and don't understand it. Right? Or maybe you just don't want to admit your favorite comic is a piece of shit.

[–] can@sh.itjust.works 2 points 10 months ago

But maybe we just aren't as clever as you are and don't understand it. Right? Or maybe you just don't want to admit your favorite comic is a piece of shit

So, to be clear, you never actually wanted anyone to try and explain their interpretation of the bit?

[–] roflcoptah@lemmy.world 14 points 10 months ago

Dave fell off. I’ll always remember his older stuff fondly, but his “comeback” stuff is boring.

[–] BmeBenji@lemm.ee 2 points 10 months ago

I think I agree*

*with a caveat. I watched his previous special as well to understand what people were saying. What Chappelle said in that special would not be problematic if said to a smaller audience. But a stand-up special to large audience, recorded to be put on Netlfix is not the stage to say where he said what he said: where it can be taken out of context easily and used in support of anti-trans arguments.

Maybe I’ve been looking in the wrong places but I have not seen nearly enough discussion of the idea that it’s okay to say things that are iffy in confined spaces, especially for the sake of discussion. The relationship between gender and biology, and then the relationship between biology and society, and then the relationship between gender and society are extremely complex concepts around which open discussion should be not just allowed, but encouraged. However, that encouragement should be limited to conversations with a limited audience, not ones broadcast to an untold number of people. Broadcast messaging should not reinforce harmful stereotypes and echo negative statements about people, especially marginalized people.