Robin Williams Emmy Tribute: Racist? Of Course Not!

Racist? Check again, I see humour.

The Robin Williams video that aired at the Emmy's after Billy Cristal delivered a tribute to the late-comedian has drawn some fire from knee-jerk dimwits on social media. The offending clip was a snippet from Williams appearance on James Lipton's Inside the Actors Studio in which he was free-associating using a pink scarf from a woman in the front row. 

The clip showed two of the jokes Williams made with the scarf (only a tiny part of the hysterically funny show, which you can find in full here), and only one of those jokes have raised the permanently skyward brows of a few twitter trolls. 

The first joke (the apparently innocuous one) involved him putting the scarf over his head and impersonating an Indian; "I came to Bombay last year..." Perhaps he was actually doing Mother Theresa, whatever, the audience laughed and the tweeters ignored it. 

Then he pulled part of the scarf over his mouth and nose, giving the clear impression of a burka, saying; "I would like to welcome you to Iran... Help me!"

Yes that was the 'offending' bit. The NZ Herald's article on it showed the following tweets:

The person putting together the Robin Williams segment for the Emmys decided to use his racist material.
— Hannah Story (@hannahmstory) August 26, 2014

they could've shown so many funny robin williams moments during that tribute did they have to use something so racist
— (@nialIhs) August 26, 2014

I'm still so shocked that the #Emmys would include such a racist bit in Robin Williams tribute. Out of all his great work, really?
— Ava (@haltiamava) August 26, 2014

And my personal favourite:

After that, people who'd never heard of Robin Williams would think he's Billy Crystal's racist friend who was on a lot of talk shows?
— Eric Harvey (@marathonpacks) August 26, 2014

How is it racist to make a joke (which is not being serious by definition) out of the dress and state of women in Iran? Particularly (though I don't think it is relevant to the main point) when that joke is pre 9-11. Ricky Gervais once said that there is nothing you can't joke about, no topic is ever taboo, it depends what the joke is. 

Looking at the machinery behind the humour, the ability to use irony correctly in order to make something funny requires an understanding of the thing itself. And the joy of laughing is all the better when you feel there is some reason you shouldn't laugh. For example I had no end of fun making my friend laugh in class, and vice versa, because we knew we weren't allowed to laugh. 

Thus the best humour is controversial. In the hurry to distance ourselves from Islamophobia, some of us are falling prey to over-sensitivity, and humourlessness. Dare to give in to laughing at things you feel unsure about and the result is a loosening up, the ability to take life less seriously, and the extra delight that comes with being a little bit naughty.

That is what Robin Williams did so well, and @marathonpacks that is what people who have never heard of him are more likely to find.  

Analysis too Expensive?

Today Andrea Vance wrote an opinion piece on Stuff.co.nz headlined: 

         The slick and the dead calm

She compared the campaigns led by John Key, and David Cunliffe. Where the former is 'polished and slick' (her words), the latter is rather more disorganised and (her words again) 'inexplicably flat'.

But the words themselves are open to wide interpretation, especially since one tends to (I certainly do) second guess the words used in relation to politicians, and resist the temptation to take them at face value.

Not very long ago David Cunliffe was being harshly criticised for being 'fake', or otherwise attempting to be someone he is not.Given that the preening world of Politics rewards the construction of façades and 'brands', this very criticism seemed more than a little disingenuous. If Cunliffe was being too fake then in a world full of fakes, then I submit the fault lies with us as onlookers not yet willing to suspend disbelief.

Verisimilitude (a word that often makes me giggle), meaning the appearance of being real relies very much on the beholder to be willing to play along. Likewise the campaign of John Key being 'slick' depends on the beholder. Someone else could easily find it 'artificial', too much of a practised routine of the PM moving swiftly past, having a quick selfie and a handshake, then moving on. John Key could be on autopilot:

"Key is merciless in keeping the exchanges swift - a grin for the camera phone, and an exchange of pleasantries and he's on to the next voter."

 That sentence reads however you want it to, perhaps that's a testament to journalistic impartiality. Or just political writing meant to give the impression of a salient point being made while delivering a judgement that's as movable as the tide.

Contrast this with Vance on Cunliffe:

"The day started with a selfie - and there were plenty - but to be blunt, [Tamati] Coffey was the bigger drawcard. 

A stop-off at a local primary school excited pupils, especially when told a Labour government would give them each a tablet. But with only a handful of eligible voters in the room, reporters wondered how effective the visit was. 

A scheduled town centre walkabout was delayed by 35 minutes as Cunliffe, Coffey and activists stopped for a curry. "An army marches on its stomach," Cunliffe said later. On the stroll he talked with eight people, two of whom were in town from overseas."

The first sentence and the final sentences in the two paragraph's are unquestionably negative. Cunliffe is less popular than his colleagues, Labour talking to youngsters far from voting age is a waste of time, Cunliffe spending time with people of whom a few are tourists (thus not voters). The impression here is not movable, and it is that David Cunliffe is wasting his time and resources, and lacks the honed skill of John Key.

But since when is spending time with the young people you are trying to help constitute a waste of time just because they can't yet vote? Might not the fact that David Cunliffe is taking time with people regardless of whether they're voters or not be evidence of humility, rather than stupidity?

Parliament exists to serve the people, not just the voters. And I don't think I'm worth more as a voter than I am as a New Zealander.

Andrea Vance finished with the following:

"Cunliffe versus Key is a popularity contest not being fought on a level playing field. The Labour leader has been in the job barely a year, and has struggled against character assassinations from both inside and outside his party. But yesterday his campaign should have been buoyed by Coffey's star power. Instead, it was inexplicably flat."

I would have been really interested in reading an opinion piece on why it may be that the Cunliffe's outing in Rotorua felt so off-key (yes the minor pun was intentional), instead hitting the inexplicable dead end. Perhaps a bit of critical analysis is asking too much of our dear journalists.

This Years NZ International Film Festival

The NZIFF comes to Palmerston North on September 4, and runs until September 21 (for the dates of other places see here, Auckland, Wellington, Dunedin have been and gone).

Yes the Palmy period coincides with the election, but I have decided to see at least 20 of the films on offer, and to post reviews immediately after. This is rather ambitious (and I confess I am slightly apprehensive, not least for the fact that 20 films within three weeks will cost around $230 in total) but it is a challenge well worth taking on.

And you, dear readers, will benefit. I have decided against starting a fresh blog just for this because film reviews are already a part of My Word is my Boon, and my blogging so far has been somewhat sporadic. It will do the blog good to get some regularity going! I am sure too that my political scribbling only appeals to a few, variety is therefore to be desired! I'm not giving up the political blogging though, and as election day draws ever closer you can expect to see some more.

It is my hope that these reviews will also be of interest to my international readers; where politics is divided by borders and oceans, film is boundless.

Was Politics Always This Dirty?

I refer of course to the recent book by Nicky Hager that has wrong-footed John Key and further obscured the release of various policies from Labour to National over the past two weeks. The question I ask is inspired by the shrugging cynicism about not only the matters raised in the book, but the entire fabric of politics. Some people I have recently crossed swords with have assured me that this is nothing new, that politics has always been this way, and that I am naive to consider that there is anything to be gained by close inspection. I resent the implication, and I resent the patronising dismissal of my point of view. 

While I can accept (although grudgingly) a counterargument based on reason, it is quite beyond my tolerance to accept a blatant dismissal based simply on aged authority. The interlocutors I refer to are speaking from what they believe to be experience (which I lack and am grateful to receive if it is actually genuine), but they mistake their weight in years for intellectual currency -- they lazily expect to buy acceptance with it. While wisdom is the by-product of experience, weary presumption coupled with crows feet and wrinkles stands as pretender in its stead. It is bullshit, and it is a terrible thing to bullshit the young. 

So I won't swallow that kind of manure (that isn't the only reason why I won't) and will probably continue to alienate and engage people in equal measure with my argumentativeness. But the point of this exercise is to look at the degree of grubbiness in politics -- whether that has changed. Here the naysayers convict themselves of a chronic bitterness. To look at politics and conclude that there is no need to investigate the connection between bloggers and Government ministers because we've always known it was dirty is the ultimate expression of tired cynicism. It is a pervasive feeling, and valid to an extent. But it is not an argument. 

To be honest it is downright arrogance to presume such omniscience. A call to provide evidence makes sense here, but it's hampered by the fact that negativity tends to stick in the mind better than its counterpart. Muldoon was a bully who drove some officials to tears, he accused a Labour MP of homosexuality and the MP subsequently resigned (Colin Moyle, his departure after one of the most disgraceful events in Parliaments' history led to the irony of Muldoon's future successor David Lange winning the by-election in Mangare). Those events stick overwhelmingly in the mind to the point where Sir Robert Muldoon's achievements languish in obscurity. A false picture of Politics emerges.

But that is not to say that examination of the theory and practise of Muldoon/Key/Collins should be abandoned. Uncovering of the methods they use to throw mud helps ensure those methods will have to change. Will the mud stop flying? No, of course not. But the process enables us to partially reclaim politics from the mire -- if only for a time. The attempt to make things fairer and more positive is worth it for its own sake. This is particularly valid where it concerns such appalling public shits as Cameron Slater. (Please pardon my language, Slater has a knack for bringing out the worst in people).

We decide first as individuals, then as a greater community what we value in this world. Politics is trapped in an existential struggle to reach the unobtainable ideals we set to guide it, just as we are to some extent in our own lives. 'Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness' is a fine phrase, and a lesson that the journey is of more importance than the destination. Politics often falls so miserably short that a cynical state of mind is not an unreasonable side effect. But so long as the yearning to be better than ones nature survives intact the journey will continue, and occasionally there will be instances where politics really is all it promises to be. As John-Paul Sartre observed: 

'Life has no meaning a priori [from the earlier]. Life itself is nothing until it is lived, it is we who give it meaning, and value is nothing more than the meaning we give it.' 

In the same way Politics has no more meaning and value than what we give it. That's why Hager's book matters. To glance behind Oz's curtain and see the geezer tugging at leavers and seeing which ones he's using. Instead of drawing bitterness from that, how much better it would be if we draw strength, and a resolve to improve politics a bit. It's only an extension of ourselves -- as good, bad, and ugly as we are.

It is a smear, against promiscuous smearers.

Cunliffe's Mixed Messages on Mana, hurts Kelvin Davis (CARTOON)

Months ago I compared Labour list MP and candidate for the Te Tai Tokerau to a flea. I meant that he was annoyingly nipping at Labour's chances at the election by going all out to take Hone Harawira's seat. Mr Davis believes the Maori of the North are being taken advantage of -- being cynically used. This is frankly true. I argued that this was simply the way of politics; an argument which in isolation I stand by, but can no longer accept in this case. An opposition does not have to be the polar opposite of the government, but in an election they do need to provide a positive alternative. To a degree Labour is a genuine alternative government on policy, but I don't think they show it in their behaviour.

Officially Labour is in favour of amending the rules of MMP to remove the coat-tailing ability. This is a stand of principle. But it is muddied by the shiftiness with which the Party is dealing with Internet-Mana. Labour will need them if in the position to put together a government, but at the same time wants to keep them as distant as possible. In this fit of wanting-it-both-ways, David Cunliffe is trying to chart a middle course by strongly declaring that Internet-Mana would not be part of his government, while Party Secretary Tim Barnett smooths ruffled feathers their in Te Tai Tokerau. Kelvin Davis is part of the ABC (Anyone But Cunliffe) faction of Labour, and keeping him weak is in Cunliffe's interests. It is politics, not principle. The current government is shameless with electorate deals for it's support parties. Labour is trying to do the same thing -- while attempting to look like they aren't. Perhaps their slogan vote positive, actually means vote blind...

Mr Uninformed (Cartoon)

Blind Spot

Late by ten minutes driving an icy car, the outcome is and was as predictable as bad drama -- minus an ominous score.

A white van against an overcast morning not seen through a frosted window, and then it was right in front and the accelerated motion which should have carried me efficiently through the roundabout was jarringly halted. Truly I did not see it. Truly that fact is of no consequence.

The Police Officers travelling at a fortuitous distance behind on the same road, took charge within half a minute. I could retreat into my newly aching head and politely fume at myself. The Officers busied themselves with the mandatory task of collecting statements -- the flashing lights of their striped vehicle providing momentary interest to the bored passing motorists.

My car is in a bad way. "Undrivable", said the Senior Constable (I have no idea if he really is ranked Senior, but he was the senior of the two constables present). A buckled bonnet, headlight smashed all to hell, and a badly bent bumper -- that became evident once the ex-car was dragged onto the truck. A horrid scraping of asphalt, plastic, and metal was the death cry of such a dependable steed. The white van appeared to be suffering more of a flesh-wound, a dented sliding door which did not prevent it from behaving normally as a road vehicle, it shook off the sting and eventually went on its way.

"Failure to give way at an intersection." That's the ticket I can expect to receive in the mail next week. Failure. Such a dismal word, and so hard to inflect with a positive tone. In all truth I think my reactions were fortunately slow, for he was travelling faster than I, and in a flat-fronted van it would have been far worse if he had hit me. However the mark against me would still stand, I still failed to give way.

My car is gone, at least for now. My mobility therefore substantially reduced. But I crashed in a well kept and considerate neighbourhood, with policemen at the scene to help me from my car and kindly take responsibility for what I dare not (that is talk to the other chap). Insurance will hopefully step-up, my brother spirited me from the scene when the police inquiries were done, and I now sit by a warm fire and await a wholesome dinner. In all the chaos of the world, where desperate people do desperate things, and are never secure in so much as their next meal; when civilised planes are shot from an uncivilised sky -- how unfairly fortunate today am I.