When Tragedy Plus Time Equals Tragedy
Okay, I know I promised that I was done with posting about OJ, but I can't resist just one more, this one on the decision by the News Corp (parent of Fox and HarperCollins) to cancel the tv special and book in which OJ would have told the world how he "would have" murdered his ex-wife and her friend. As Rupert Murdoch acknowledged in his announcement and apology, the project was "ill-considered." Although it certainly struck me and nearly everybody else to opine on the subject that way, we might still fruitfully ask why the initial decision to green-light this project was so preposterous.
According to an unnamed Fox executive quoted in a NY Times story on the canceled program and book, the company made a miscalculation that enough time had passed so that Simpson would no longer be a pariah. This reasoning jibes with a saying (variously attributed to many different people) that tragedy plus time equals comedy. So a comedy sketch involving Napoleon (responsible for countless deaths) or the eruption of Mount Vesuvius will not be deemed offensive, while a comedy sketch involving an ongoing tragedy (a genocide, say) will surely and rightly be deemed offensive. But this then raises the question of how much time needs to pass. The answer, I think, is that it depends. Certainly it helps if the victims and their surviving close relatives and friends have passed away, but this is hardly a necessary condition. The original version of The Producers, featuring the song "Springtime for Hitler in Germany," was released in 1968, when the Nazi Holocaust was still a relatively fresh memory. And while there were certainly many people who found the number offensive, many others understood that the point was that it was offensive; that's what made it funny.
But I'm willing to bet that if OJ tries again with his book in another 15 years, he'll be met with the same reaction he got this time around. The relevant comparison would be a version of The Producers starring not Mel Brooks but, say, an actual Nazi. It's hard to see that going over very well. By contrast, even during the Simpson criminal trial itself, late-night comedians thought the case was fair game. But it's hard to imagine that Simpson himself will ever be able to make jokes about how he got away with murder.
According to an unnamed Fox executive quoted in a NY Times story on the canceled program and book, the company made a miscalculation that enough time had passed so that Simpson would no longer be a pariah. This reasoning jibes with a saying (variously attributed to many different people) that tragedy plus time equals comedy. So a comedy sketch involving Napoleon (responsible for countless deaths) or the eruption of Mount Vesuvius will not be deemed offensive, while a comedy sketch involving an ongoing tragedy (a genocide, say) will surely and rightly be deemed offensive. But this then raises the question of how much time needs to pass. The answer, I think, is that it depends. Certainly it helps if the victims and their surviving close relatives and friends have passed away, but this is hardly a necessary condition. The original version of The Producers, featuring the song "Springtime for Hitler in Germany," was released in 1968, when the Nazi Holocaust was still a relatively fresh memory. And while there were certainly many people who found the number offensive, many others understood that the point was that it was offensive; that's what made it funny.
But I'm willing to bet that if OJ tries again with his book in another 15 years, he'll be met with the same reaction he got this time around. The relevant comparison would be a version of The Producers starring not Mel Brooks but, say, an actual Nazi. It's hard to see that going over very well. By contrast, even during the Simpson criminal trial itself, late-night comedians thought the case was fair game. But it's hard to imagine that Simpson himself will ever be able to make jokes about how he got away with murder.
5 Comments:
At 9:33 AM,
Caleb said…
Suppose OJ's book had been called "Why I didn't do it", and purported to be an exonerating account. I think, first of all, that no-one would be talking about it, but if we were, I suspect it wouldn't be with the same feeling. To me that suggests that we have a different standard for work that "exploits" a tragedy. While this seems fair enough at first blush, it seems strange to me that we decide that certain things are exploitative and others are not.
Think of the commercials Fox and other networks sold during their coverage of the OJ trial - or even the wave of books that (I imagine) will be coming forth from various discredited Republicans saying that they didn't do it. They'll be making money out of their personal tragedies the same way OJ was trying to.
I didn't intend this as a defense of OJ or Fox, but just an observation that we seem to have blind spots for other exploitative actions.
At 10:27 AM,
David C. said…
Responding to Caleb:
I think Prof Dorf's last para in his post helps explain our unique discomfort with OJ's exploitive efforts: He's attempting to profit off a tragedy of HIS creation. FOX and other networks may have gained from it, but they certainly didn't play a role in bringing about the tragic deaths of OJ's victims.
This recalls to mind the White House Correspondents' Dinner a few years ago. Back when it was beginning to emerge that there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, Bush tried to make light of this intelligence failure. In a self-effacing spoof, he played a video of himself looking under the oval office desk, behind the curtains, etc., searching for those elusive WMDs. His effort at humor was certainly not meant to be offensive, but many Americans---including soliders' families---were shocked that the Presdient could make light of an error that was causing so many Americans so much pain. To think that soldiers were dying in Iraq because of a mistake was difficult to swallow; to see the mistake-maker himself jest about it was simply too much. Of course, the WMD issue was fair game for Leno, Letterman, et al., and nobody criticized them for their insensitivity.
This makes sense---comedy can be cathartic, helping to alleviate pain by showing that you can laugh in the face of tragedy. (Mel Brooks', I've heard, had a similar rationale for Springtime for Hitler. Apparently, he said something to the effect that the best revenge he could have on the megalomaniac was to reduce him to a punchline for a light-hearted musical.) But this just doesn't work when the one who caused the tragedy is the one making the joke.
At 12:54 PM,
Caleb said…
David,
I think you're right, however, I'd suggest it goes farther than that. Suppose that the Producers was written today, by someone from Germany. I imagine that they would have to spend a long time explaining what their anscestors were doing during WW2. Or if one of Jefferson's (legitimate) descendants tried to write a comedy spoof of his/her anscestors relations with his slaves? I think again, that we would have a lot of trouble with that.
Yet, I can't imagine that anyone would argue that either person was "responsible" for the tragedy.
I'm not sure that it's a bad thing that our instincts would be to censor people trying to profit from tragedies that they are "related" (for lack of a better word) to. But it's interesting to me that our instincts extend guilt by bloodline or affiliation, but not necessarily through monetary or other connections. (I'm not a conspiracy theorist or anything, I'm just occasionally struck by how we seem to have blind spots)
At 6:03 PM,
Anonymous said…
Nicole Brown Simpson's sister, Denise Brown, was on the Today Show on NBC talking about the deal with OJ that went bust (thankfully!): http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3032633/
According to her, the supposed 3 million dollar payment to OJ may have involved some shady, i.e. illegal, maneuvers from News Corp. (a former employer of mine - before this twisted deal, thank God!) to circumvent the civil judgment against OJ. Apparently, the trust fund set-up for the children of OJ and Nicole hasn't received a penny from OJ since the judgment. So there's an ongoing investigation into the deal made with OJ.
If Denise is right, exactly what kind of legal trouble is News Corp. really in?
At 1:27 AM,
Anonymous said…
Character Michael Scott of "The Office" lamented these humor rules but was happy to report that the Lincoln assassination just recently became funny. "I need to see this play like I need a hole in the head," Michael quipped. If only John Wilkes Booth had tried that line...
Post a Comment
<< Home