So I was grabbing some dinner in the West Wing tonight after Quidditch practice, when I saw comedian Ricky Gervais giving an interview on CNN about his recent performance at the Golden Globes. Apparently people felt his jibes at famous, rich, and good looking actors were a bit harsh. I didn't watch the Golden Globes, but my interest was peaked by the interview. I headed to YouTube to watch some of the highlights and I could not stop laughing. This got me wondering how some people could be offended by Gervais's comments, whereas I was laughing like a hyena.
I decided to take a look at the YouTube comments and found that most of people were not offended by Gervais's remarks. So if most people on YouTube weren't offended, then who was? Further investigation revealed that the Hollywood Foreign Press Association (HFPA), which organizes the Golden Globes, was offended by Gervais's comment about their acceptance of Cher tickets as a bribe for a nomination. Honestly, that doesn't surprise me. Of course the HFPA has to be offended by claims of bribery. They'd be in mountains of legal trouble if they weren't offended. As to the rest of the celebrities who were the brunt of Ricky's jibes, learn to take a joke.
If you take comedy as a form of rhetoric, there has to be good comedy and bad comedy, just like there is good rhetoric and bad rhetoric. Bad comedy often works around someone's opinion, like bad rhetoric, whereas good comedy aims at conveying truth, like good rhetoric. Most of Gervais's jokes did not tiptoe around people's feeling and opinions but went straight for the elephant in the room, the truth that everyone knows is there but no one is willing to acknowledge. No one should be offended by the truth. If you are it's most likely because the truth doesn't fit with your opinion.
Another important part of rhetoric is the delivery. Gervias's tone, while blunt, wasn't overly harsh or sarcastic, indicating what he said was meant in good fun and shouldn't be taken too seriously. If his delivery was particularly cutting or scathing, then I could understand why people would be offended; that tone is isolating and does not allow the audience to share in the joke, but that just wasn't the case. I don't think Gervais should be condemned for using good rhetoric, to make the audience laugh, do you?
