Jump to content
The Education Forum
Cory Santos

Very poor taste by the French.

Recommended Posts

22 hours ago, Joseph McBride said:

At least it shows the Dallas police being involved in the assassination.

Sometimes satire brings out the otherwise "unspeakable."

The Dallas Police may have been the epitome of Keystone Cops but they were not involved in the assassination.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, Rich Pope said:

Cliff,

People who have any semblance of class or clarity don't make fun of tragedy.  Any comedian who espouses the theory of "nothing is off-limits" is lazy at his craft.That includes Monty Python, Mel Brooks and Jerry Seinfeld.   In addition, a commercial that incorporates the assassination of JFK lacks inventiveness and ingenuity.  If you believe there is anything funny about the assassination of our nation's President, you don't belong on this forum.

Spare us the self-righteous moralizing.

This is funny:

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, Rich Pope said:

The Dallas Police may have been the epitome of Keystone Cops but they were not involved in the assassination.  

Thank you for the belly laugh Rich!  

If the execution of Tippett  and Oswald are not part of it I don't know what is.  They were not accidental happenings stumbled upon by keystone cops. 

Have you never watched the video?  Watch Fritz get out of the way, he's not protecting anybody, nor does he have anyone assigned (his responsibility) to do so immediately behind him.

https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=ruby+shoots+oswald+video&view=detail&mid=BB7457E3BA67670428BFBB7457E3BA67670428BF&FORM=VIRE

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Cliff Varnell said:

You mean like Monty Python's "Life of Brian"?

You mean like Mel Brooks' "The Producers," or a number of "Seinfeld" episodes, like the time Newman busted Jerry making out at the theater during "Shindler's List"?

 

Exactly - you pulled up all the right references. It was a gimme.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Paul Brancato said:

Exactly - you pulled up all the right references. It was a gimme.

What kind of sick depraved bastard makes light of deep tragedy?  It's a shame -- I tell ya! -- a damn shame...

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Russ Meyer's "Up" -- totally inappropriate for a respectable Forum.

Snowflakes beware!

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

While we're at it..from "The Life of Brian"

 

Edited by Cliff Varnell

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think Mr. Varnell pretty much took care of this with the attachments, but fwiw as they say:

It's always good to be reminded that when Cromwell took over, the theaters were closed. One thing the Puritans wanted was conformity; another was the  "respect" for authority - which meant you didn't question or make fun of those in power.
 
 Performers and performances can be dangerous. When a group hired Shakespeare's company to perform Richard II during the time of the Essex Rebellion, the company's spokesmen were summoned to the Palace to explain themselves since the Queen - Elizabeth - thought that they were portraying her as Richard -- the weak monarch who gives up the crown. The company just needed work like all theater companies and they got let off with the questioning. But even back then, people knew that performances could be informative, upsetting, and suggestive.People with money had such exhibited.
 
I am attaching a link to last week's story in the Wall Street Journal about the effect of "political correctness" on college comedy tours. Now -depending on the topic - audience members who laugh will get "looks" and signs of disapproval from those around them:
 
I am also attaching a comment I left on a thread on May17:
 
Watching the first big debate of the Republican Primary during the 2016 election, - with about 12 candidates, senators & governors and all the usual suspects and Trump was center stage. First question to him is by a woman who asks about his comments about women being fat or stupid or ugly or something. In the midst of the question, I recall thinking - how will he answer this? Deny the use of such terms? attack fake news that reports it?Pontificate on the #MeToo rights of women? - and while these thoughts brew, Trump interrupts to say --- No No! No! that was just about Rosie O'Donnell!
 
 I burst out laughing as did much of the audience. Why that response from him or me or the audience?
 
Never a good idea to analyze a laugh; but that one begged for one. It was shockingly hurtful and insensitive; it went right at the claim of the reported quote, and it completely upset our mental preparation for the expected pontificating on "values". That he also managed to divert the question itself was a result of the laugh. Things that are unexpected can make us laugh; what we expect at any given time can be evaluated, in some ways, by the laughs they produce.On another thread, there was a discussion of Lenny Bruce opening his act after JFK's death.He handled the unspeakable of that day with a response that got a laugh. 
 
This topic is not so far removed from another pet peeve: the "crime" of "hate speech." When the Texas story broke years ago, I told friends that if one ties a guy with a chain to the back of his truck and drags him through the town, that's a crime in my book. It doesn't matter to me what age or race or religion or sexual identity the victim possessed; it was a hate filled crime as all such crimes are. Who exactly is doing the determining that "some speech" is "hate speech?" Not long ago I saw a headline that so and so had been cut up and killed and they were investigating whether or not it was a "hate crime." Now I ask you, where have we come from, that this is the case? I don't want anyone telling me what I can say, or what I can read or watch or what I can laugh at. Taste (the aesthetic elements) of any speech or action is a separate issue. Is it done well? Does it evoke what it aimed to evoke? Was it culturally appropriate? The Puritans didn't even want the people to encounter such notions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Varnell, you are just making spam at this point. Besides, none of them was a commercial and, finally, put Chaplin side by side with that disgusting commercial is just like take side by side gold and s***

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now

×