Can we put into human context the insult taken from jokes? Is what happens in the arts important in a time of war? What is a joke? What is the job of a comedian? What can you do as an audience member?
At the 2022 Academy Awards ceremony in Hollywood, host and comedian Chris Rock made a comedic statement involving actress Jada Pinkett Smith, which I think was more a subtle comment about the movie industry than about her shaved head per se–which is a result of her alopecia–an auto-immune disease which causes hair loss. The joke was fairly innocuous—especially if it meant what I thought it did—Namely that these days one has to be from a particular population to be adequately eligible for a role in a Hollywood movie – something I don’t agree with…. I won’t retell the joke here, as seeing it live will enable you to judge it in real time–after your natural reaction. I will say that Rock had the presence of mind to preface his joke with a token statement of affection for Mrs. Pinkett Smith–perhaps to soften the blow of the punch line; this is something that comedians often must do these days, in a variation of disclaimer, much as in common American conversation is necessary in an overly sensitive society, where nuance is lost and meaning becoming more and more in danger of dying.
Rapper and actor Will Smith, Jada Pinkett-Smith’s husband–in reaction to the joke (and either likely missing its nuanced meaning)–or rather, in self-correcting-response to his own initial reaction to the joke (because he laughed at it himself)–strode to the stage and forcefully slapped Chris Rock in the face–very hard–so hard that the comedian’s head followed in the trajectory of the force of Smith’s blow–in a large arc.
After returning to his seat, a heated Smith–in answer to Rock’s expressions of surprise from the stage–shouted an expletive-inflected warning to Rock–across the audience–twice. A shaken Chris Rock said he would comply. So Smith not only sucker-punched Rock, like an effeminate male—he then bullied the comedian from his seat.
I like to engage people on Facebook about important issues–from a philosophical perspective–meaning, in order to think clearly about them. In a post on Facebook, a commenter said that she “understood” Will Smith’s actions against Chris Rock–a turn of phrase that often goes a long way in our culture in justifying behaviors and attitudes. This is an important issue, because that is unacceptable and dangerous in this case.
In another post comment, someone basically said that the affairs of actors are not important in a time when other very crucial events are transpiring–such as the war in Ukraine. Specific mention was made of the income and lifestyle levels of the actors in question. This is what I said in response to both comments:
Can We Justify Reactions of Violence Over Words–Especially Words in Comedy?
I don’t think understanding Will Smith’s violent and threatening behavior at the Academy Awards should bleed into condoning it. In fact, getting angry is not natural: it is a decision based on poor self control, entitlement, ignorance and poor education–and also can be a result of sociological conditioning as well as biochemical health–which can (in the latter case) stem from not only brain-related issues, but also blood chemistry, such as in the case of hypoglycemia and the over-production of adrenaline and cortisol. Insofar as health issues may not be based on decision–they can be exacerbated by decision; for example, I am a reactive hypoglycemic, which is a blood-glucose-related biochemical metabolic issue that can affect my moods and reactions (or lack thereof) to stress; so the decision comes in my being mindful, eating right, practicing Zen and adopting benevolent orientations therefrom to mitigate the responses my condition can engender. Will Smith might not have been able to execute the presence of mind necessary to mitigate his biological–and thus–behavioral responses at the Academy Awards ceremony yesterday–as I have had trouble with these things in the past–but he can and should take steps to be more prepared to do so in the future.
What A Joke Is And What It Represents
Feeling bad, alarmed, frightened or resentful may be natural offshoots of a stress-reaction, but there is nothing good about having such a simple-minded state of consciousness that it eliminates the understanding necessary to realize that a joke is the expression of something we don’t author–a thought that passes through the mind; yes, we craft that thought in the composition of the poetry that is a joke, and yes, we can choose not to utter that thought or joke at certain times and in certain company, but there is something fascinating about the natural state of the brain which allows it to speak to the other self within our consciousness–which is commonly called “thought”; and that it has no author and thus causes no injury. Putting it into a joke or other expression is a sort of witness to be shared by others–which makes us laugh and causes the examination of the human mind and experience. ‘Oh! But if it hurts someone’s feelings, we should suffer with it!’, some think. Keep it for private conversation?’ Maybe. Maybe not. I don’t think so. For several reasons—not the least in importance of which is that jokes are the domain of exploring ideas we can’t or don’t express seriously—and are by design not meant to be serious or taken seriously, thus not intended to offend; indeed, offense at a joke makes the offended party a joke—precisely because s/he is apparently too thoughtless or maladjusted to realize the point of a joke is levity, not seriousness. And — because jokes not heard relegate some ideas to the silence of the mind—darkening the understanding of the human experience.
The fact that we laugh at an idea and its premise and the statements supporting its conclusion–the “punch line”– is proof of the truth and/or validity in the “argument” inherent in the idea–that the cortex created and we share as common experience as human beings–and we take wonder at this. The laugh is the truth meter–which validates automatically the humanity in the joke and the reasoning in our unconscious mind with which the visceral response of the body is produced. And yet… sometimes–according to societal conventions depending on culture–we have to be sensitive to the fact that some do not–indeed never — appreciate this.
Getting angry at a comedian ignores all this (if we have even realized it or stopped to think about the matter in the first place) and approaches the surreal in its ridiculous, but then, everyone cannot be so in love with humanity, cognizant of what a laugh signifies, philosophical and thoughtful enough to think about it or at ease such that he or she will not let egocentric interpretations of a joke trigger entitlement and anger and cause violence.
The Joke Not Spoken But Rewarded
Indeed, we choose not to utter some ideas, because we know others–like we, ourselves, are frail–but anger about this is just an ignorant celebration of a lack of understanding of humanity, biology and the need to laugh at difficult aspects of life–regardless of who is displaying the lack of understanding, entitlement, ignorance and/or self control. All of these (and more) are what compassion is about.
Chris Rock and all comedians exhibit compassion–but limit our growth as people–when he and they censor themselves–and we give them credit for this–but it is a form of babysitting of our egos when we do this–if you get right down to it.
Possessing and exhibiting true love and maturity—indeed intelligence and generosity—would mean not getting angry at others for their thoughts–expressed in words–and it would enable us to appreciate the conversation, even when uncomfortable truths make us laugh—however self-consciously—from time to time.
The Comedian
Let us recall that we are talking about the work of a comedian–an artist with a certain license–which we give him–to look flexibly at life from philosophical, serious, silly, absurd, and inane perspectives; that is to say, to find the irony and folly in human ego, society and culture in general–to name a few aspects of the the human experience.
Chris Rock was hired to do this at a gathering of theater and movie artists–in a venue at which roasting people is a time-honored-tradition. This was not a ride on a bus or the subway. It wasn’t a thanksgiving dinner. It wasn’t strangers sitting in the dentist office. Most importantly–and perhaps the most important thing I can say in this essay–which must be remembered by all functioning members of society is:
This is comedy–different forms of humor aimed at poking fun at life, including at us all–and it is, by design, not serious. We can say serious things in the performance of comedy, but even when we do, it is to provide one function—as well as potentially many others: to make people laugh unselfconsiously. As participants—in the audience, on the stage or at the writer’s desk—our presence is testament to our agreeing with and understanding this. If we cannot agree to that or won’t—we don’t belong in the forum, because in the end, listening to a comedian is a voluntary act—it is not a mandated exercise commanding our attendance by government decree—nor is it payed for by our taxes. It is the sharing of a mind of ideas—which is a gift; if you don’t want it, walk out and refuse the gift. You can do that; what you can’t do is object to the content in such an arrogant and uneducated way as to say, waiter, I don’t like this; take it back—because you—as an audience member are not a client, not a customer, certainly not a director or designer of the act; you’re a spectator, a witness, a guest in someone’s house—in this case, the house of the mind of the comedian.
As such, were Robin Williams still with us–and were he present, we could imagine his saying ‘touche.’ We could also see Sarah Sanders reacting in a similar way. One problem here–perhaps–is that Will Smith is not a comedian. He has performed as a comedic actor–but these are not the same things.
Is This Important Now?
Feeling distaste for the news about Will Smith slapping Chris Rock and being concerned about other issues in its stead is natural and normal, if we are categorizing the importance of world events, I guess, but sort of depends on an apples and oranges kind of thinking that demeans the problems people have–if they do not reach epic proportions–but that all depends on whether you think “small” events possess the potential to create large impact.
I might suggest we realize that the worldly issues some find relevant and pressing make this about us, if we focus on them; this situation, involving actors and comedians, is about pillars of our entertainment community–important because that means The Arts–important to any society which wants to retain its soul and a lot more than that. As such, the people in the arts, rich and famous or not, have feelings–and public (meaning social) impact. Indeed, celebrities often possess the leisure and moral latitude to do more for us spiritually than politicians do for us practically. Look at Mr. Sean Penn, right now. Look at the impact Glen Close, Tim Robbins, Susan Serandon, Meryl Streep, Tom Hanks, Jimmy Stewart, Robert Redford, Barbara Streisand, Matt Damon–and others from the stage and screen can have. All of these actors and directors and cinematic producers are civic and social activists participating in philanthropy that benefits the world. Alan Alda comes to mind–with his work interviewing all kinds of influential scientists and others in his own field; it matters what happens to these people.
Celebrities are loved and cherished by many, which is no small feature of their accomplishments. Astronauts and scientists were inspired by such productions and their actors as 2001: A Space Odyssey, Star Trek, and The Right Stuff…. How actors, writers, producers and directors see the world and how they behave and are treated can be a stage in itself–upon which to see what happens to the most fortunate and talented among us–a litmus test and social experiment in society.
Thank you for reading.
CA
Tokyo
