Also, the endnotes are not included. Sorry. But check out the bibliography. If you're a college student submitting this paper as your own, you're stupid for plagiarising. After graduation, when you get a real job, you'll realize how unfortunate it is that you can't formulate or research your own ideas--let alone express or argue them on paper. Sucka!
David Worcester in The Art of Satire labels satire as "the Proteus of literature" and points out that "the spectrum-analysis of satire runs from the red of invective at one end to the violet of the most delicate irony at the other" (Lee, 4). Wherever it bounces along this vast enigmatic spectrum, satire, it can be said, boils down to comedy that has something to say about the society in which it exists. Rather than a comedic bang of inanity , or comedy for the sake of comedy, satire carries intent. It has a social mission. As a form of comedy, it aims to elicit laughter, but unlike other forms, satire incorporates a denunciatory message, deriding those or that which it targets. Laughter and humor are the vehicles by which the message is delivered, and if these vehicles do not provoke an element of anger or moral disgust, you are responding to comedy, not satire (Nelson, 24).
Michael Moore and his show, The Awful Truth, embody the satiric, and in this essay, I will argue Moore's important function, by his use of satire, in the forward progression of important social issues. First, I offer a description of the sketch I will be working with throughout the paper, to develop a working premise; next, I examine the form of comedy that is used in the featured sketch to foster satire; this established, I explore semiotics: how meanings are initially formed, and how satire works to open these meanings, while emphasizing the value of this process; finally, the essay finds itself calling for the inclusion of satirical comedy into Habermas' model of the public sphere, as a 'fifth estate.'
To show how satire can and indeed does play an important role in pushing forwarding important social issues, I have selected a sketch where Michael Moore addresses the ongoing allegation that cab drivers in New York City use racial discrimination when deciding whether to stop and pick someone up, which feeds into the broader social issue of racial profiling.
The TV style vignette opens with Michael Moore behind the wheel of a Yellow Cab; soft jazz and gray skies conjure up an aura reminiscent of Taxi Driver. As Moore rounds a Manhattan block, his first prospective customer is spotted. The music instantly turns ominous, and danger is sensed. The camera pans to the woman flagging the cab, the music crescendos, and the control panel to the doors' power locks are frantically located: she is...white! The stage is now set, and the use of satirical bigotry has been established, only, reversed. The idea being that, if cabbies are going to refuse to pick up black people, Moore, as a cab driver, is retaliating by refusing to pick up white people. Moore seems to have deconstructed the paradigmatic composition, only to put it back together, but—uh oh!—he reappropriated the wrong color to its respective semiotic meaning. Black is now a symbol of safety; white, a color to be feared. "Do you have enough money?" he asks of a wealthy man, wanting to go to Madison Avenue, before speeding away.
Interspersed throughout the remainder of the episode, Moore continues to casually and happily refuse service to white people, usually with a snide comment (Are you white? You look white.), or a gesture indicating fear (on his part, not the person trying to get the cab; theirs is bewilderment), all the while picking up black people and offering them discounts on their fare.
Inspiration for this piece came about when an incident was reported by Danny Glover, claiming that he was unable to flag down a cab because of his color . Glover, with his celebrity status, created such a stir that Mayor Giuliani spoke out publicly, calling for action by the NY Taxi and Limousine Commission (Bumiller, NYT, 1999).
The Awful Truth, rather than offer an answer to cab discrimination, attempts in its skit to level the playing a field a bit. Moore, as always, is trying to make a statement, and it is through comedic satire that he is able to get his point across. By refusing the patronage of white people, an incongruous situation occurs. The ridiculous (and unbelievable) notion that a cab driver is denying a well dressed, ready-to-pay customer moves toward Jerry Palmer's 'theory of the absurd,' the idea that when two lines of logic meet head-to-head, if properly 'prepared,' they will 'culminate,' and an absurdity will result (Neale and Krutnik, 68). Yellow cabs are a staple of New York City streets; this is completely normal, logical; obviously, cab work is supported by people needing transportation, so when a person (whatever their color of skin) is refused, it may seem to the viewer as quite absurd. Further, the refusal of service defies any usual or expected rationalization, when the one doing the denying, is a white man. This setup negates the idea of rejection based on class camaraderie and loyalty, and further complicates the semiotics of sense making. The effect becomes an illogical incongruity, and many viewers, not accustomed to seeing such behavior, are likely to laugh. But for Michael Moore, laughing comes secondary. The most important thing is that his social message gets out—to raise awareness of discrimination that persists in our society—but how it gets out is precisely by the use of this comedic technique. Comedy is the vehicle in which satire travels.
As suggested above, the manipulation of semiotics helps to create this environment of absurdity. Semiotics is a theoretical concept that seeks to connect symbols and signs, both artificial and natural, and assess how these signs and symbols are compiled and connected by the human mind to construct logic and meaning . The media, by choosing to cover Danny Glover's story of discrimination, helped to shed light on a problem affecting users of taxis in New York. The construction of the story, however, was constructed within the confines of a media code, an unwritten law of norms that make up the media's dominant ideology; a denotative framework for how 'serious' news should be reported. Media codes, for the most part, must be followed in order to 'gain entry' (Bourdieu, 65). Sound bites of Glover, Giliuani, and other individuals are used to shape one side of the story; additionally, taxi drivers are found that will give an opposing view, thus creating a sense of objectivity, or 'democratic equilibrium' (Bourdieu, 34). One side calls for a big crackdown on cab drivers suspected of profiling, introducing a group of undercover officers to pose as would-be passengers, etc. Rebutting, the taxi drivers pose a defensive of why they might feel picking up a white person is safer than picking up a black. In one Times piece, an Asian cab reports how twice blacks have robbed him, and that he has never had a problem with a white person (Bumiller, NYT). The problem then becomes a matter of framing; only so much information can fit into a short story about Danny Glover and his encounter with a suspicious cab driver. As Pierre Bourdieu explains, "[E]vents are reduced to the level of the absurd because we see only those elements that can be shown on television at a given moment, cut off from their antecedents and consequences" (6-7). The point here is not to determine whether this particular coverage was good, bad, right, or wrong. It was probably a bit of each. What I am trying to show are the inherent limitations of structural controlling systems that are imposed on ‘serious’ news media. So, although it is a major source of cultural production, the fact that it is limited necessitates a place for satire in furthering and adding to semiotic construction. As the 'serious' source of information, news media delivers the 'real,' which then defines or refines the status quo. Satire takes this accepted construction—the ideological, cultural, and aesthetic elements—to form its own irrational, thru rational verisimilitude. The better this is done, the greater the satirical impact, and the more significant the social message becomes to the viewer.
Mayor Giliuani, by calling for black 'under covers,' played a role in syntagmatics—he added to the connotative semiotics, which suggests blacks are dangerous, precisely by using them as his tool to fight what he had just denounced. The taxi skit highlights this contradiction by doing what 'serious' news media is unable to do: turn it into a joke. As a satire, we are able to see the issue in a new angle, not framed within 'serious' news. By reversing the semiotics of color, it opens up social commentary, showing how the fight against racism was never won; it has merely found new ways of working, and embarked upon a new image. No longer do we see signs of segregation blatantly instructing people of color where they can or cannot drink or sit. Nowadays, racism has become much more subtle, and this insight is borne by way of this satirical skit. Whereas Giliuani's message resonates as something sounding like a 'pseudo-solution,' satire forces us to consider the roots of racism in this country more critically. The fact-based objectivity of serious news is too politically correct, "too polite," as Douglas Sun might say, to get to the heart of the problem (In Sloane, 18). Satire fills this void.
Six years earlier in 1993, Moore had conducted a similar experiment with cab drivers on his preceding show, TV Nation. Here, a respected theatre actor was hired to stand on the street and hail down cabs. Decently dressed and flowers in his hand, he seemed a safe candidate for pickup—except he was black. Down 30 yards or so past the actor was a man who had just been released from prison, having served time for murder. The felon's appearance was not worse, but certainly not better, than the black actor. He may not have been holding a fresh bouquet of flowers, but he was white. As expected, the cab passed the black man and stopped at the white man. "Satire is affirmation through negation," says Gregg Camfield (In Sloane, 29). In this sense, by failing to stop for the black guy, the existence of racial discrimination is affirmed. This type of setup is classic Moore, where he takes and warps the semiotics. Rather than just have a regular black guy and a regular white guy, he drives home his message by attaching much more complicated meaning (known only to the viewer). Proving that a murderer can get a cab before a well-respected actor comes as an attack against the stereotypes and stigmas that are widespread in our society.
The Awful Truth is truly a declaration of 'semiotic warfare' on everything. The taxi sketch is but one example of the type of satire that has made Moore famous, infamous, loved, and hated.
Overall, and in general, I believe the work of satirists like Michael Moore contribute greatly to the discourse of social issues. Pierre Bourdieu, in his book On Television, builds a theoretical framework in which news, journalism, politics, and television can be critically deconstructed and better understood. A marked flaw, in my opinion, is that he is too quick to discount the political discourse that is diffused in entertainment, and human interest-oriented programming. A whole book that is dedicated to political framing and the information dissemination landscape of television warrants discussion of viewers who, actively or not, find various forms socio-political education via alternative sources, satirical humor being one example. Bourdieu labels news anchors, talk show hosts, and sports announcers as "two-bit spiritual guides of morality" (46). But, again, this fails to address the viewers who are not interested in this type of programming, and would rather use satirists like Michael Moore as their own "two-bit guides." In fact, satirists have more power and freedom; they have an opinion, whereas news anchors can be highly ambivalent in their reporting, and thus fail to promote discussion. Mainstream news might even unwittingly contribute to passivity, by only using political elements that will "engage everybody" and "offer something for everyone," thus actually creating a sense of disenchantment by being too broad (18).
Finally, considering the direction of this essay, it seems reasonable to posit that satire seems to be emerging, within what Jurgen Habermas' model might term as a 'fifth estate' of comedy of the public sphere. Satire in the postmodern seems to be gaining a stronghold, as an appropriate place of political discourse, trailing close behind the established 'serious' 'fourth estate' of the press. As Stephen Wagg puts it, "Comedians on the whole, are natural populists: it is their job to judge what people already think and to address them accordingly" (270). Perhaps people are able to easier respond to and identify with comedy, in contrast to the increasing amount of rhetoric inherent in serious discourse. In a study of The Simpsons and how a group of university students watch and use the show, Jonathon Gray concludes that indeed,
[D]iscourse that surrounds The Simpsons is clearly capable of being exported into discussions with many different and assorted individuals and groups, and in some way fosters a public sphere in which politics, [and] the mass media...can be held up to examination (Gray, 13) .
Michael Moore is by no means as influential or socially pervasive as The Simpsons; this is not what I am suggesting. What I am suggesting, albeit on a smaller scale, is that Moore, by using satire and sometimes parody, in many similar ways that The Simpsons do, is helping to contribute to a sort of public sphere through comedy, and by doing so, pushing forward and contributing to important social issues. His work is controversial, as satire should be, leaving no shortage for debate and healthy argument. For each book that targets the right, there seems to be a book released targeting the left. Most of these books, one will find, are heavily laden in satire. As Moore prepares to release his new move, Fahrenheit 911, another group prepares for the release of Michael Moore Hates America. Both movies are based on comedy, and both aim to disseminate a political message, through satire!
"One of the things we really enjoy doing on this show is not just doing a TV show, but actually trying to, you know, encourage people to take action, or effect change in some way; get people to, you know, get off the couch and do something. Television is such a passive activity, and we're not passive people ourselves, and through our sense of humor we're trying to talk about some of these issues that effect the country and the world, in the hopes that people watching might feel inclined to do something about them."
- Michael Moore, commenting on the second season of The Awful Truth, in which the taxi skit appears.
References
Bourdieu, P. (1998). On Television . New York: New Press.
Bumiller, E. (1999). "Cabbies Who Bypass Blacks Will Lose Cars, Giuliani Says," The
New York Times, November 11.
Camfield, G. (1998) "How MTV 'Re-Butts' the Satiric Argument of Beavis and Butt-
head." In D.E.E. Sloane (Ed.), New Directions in American Humor (pp. 11-25). University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa.
Casey, B., Casey, N., Calvert, B., French, L., Lewis, J. (2002). Television Studies The
Key Concepts. New York: Routledge.
Chen, David W. (1999). "Many Riders See Nuances in Bias by Cabbies," The New York
Times, November 12.
Lee, J.N. (1971). Swift and Scatological Satire. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico
Press.
Neale, S. and Krutnik, F. (1990). Popular Film and Television Comedy. New York:
Routledge.
Nelson, T.G.A. (1990). Comedy: An Introduction to Comedy in Literature, Drama, and
Cinema. New York: Oxford University Press.
Sun, D. (1998). "'Change It! This Sucks!': Beavis and Butt-head, Idiot Savants of Cultural
Criticism." In D.E.E. Sloane (Ed.), New Directions in American Humor (pp. 11-25). University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa.
Wagg, S. (1998) "'They Already Got a Comedian for Governor.' In Wagg, S. (ed.),
Because I tell a Joke or Two! Comedy, Politics, and Social Difference. New York: Routledge.
No comments:
Post a Comment