@hightor,
hightor wrote:
What I don't understand is the vehement reaction — "pretentious"??? — yeah, okay. Jacobson is an author, not a political columnist. He expressed his reaction to the situation as it was being reported and as he understood it. The piece was more about the nature of drama — and the nature of political people. To whit, the reaction of Mr. Trump's supporters is just what the satirists were hoping to provoke.
I suppose people will disagree on what is pretentious and what is not, but Jacobson's piece, IMO, is pretentious and obviously layman agrees. (2- 1, we win!) That he's an "author" and not a political pundit has no bearing on the quality of his writing.
I found no reason to believe Jacobson understood the reaction of the members of the audience who stood and called "Shame!" or for that matter if there is any reason to be certain that they are "Trump supporters" (or "Trumpists" as he described them). For all he and I know they were liberals or politically apathetic, but were protesting the excess of the production. If we want to delve into stereotypes, as Jacobson appears to, standing up and calling "Shame!" during the controversial scene is hardly the reaction one expects from a stereotypical Trumpist. As layman might comment, it sounds like something a
cheese-eater would do. Given that Jacobson likely doesn't understand the reaction, he can hardly advance the notion that it is precisely the sort of reaction a satirist wants to provoke, unless he is taking the position that satirists are happy provoking any reaction and that's simply not the case. A committed provocateur may have been just as satisfied if the two men had opened up on the stage with automatic weapons, but not a satirist.
Jacobson pretty clearly wrote the article from the standpoint that he knew the nature of the reaction, and that it was one of thin skinned individuals who have fallen into the trap of worshiping a Caesar (who is not even worthy of that dictator's mantle) AND who are so uneducated and provincial that they can't appreciate "Julius Caesar," Shakespeare" drama or satire, and while that doesn't necessary render him pretentious, it certainly makes him supercilious, which is, arguably, worse.
Quote:Quote:But their rage at the depiction of the president as the soon-to-be-assassinated Caesar is encouraging to the satirist.
I don't see anything "pretentious" here nor any reason to respond with such apparent outrage — "crock of ****"???
"Rage" is not a word I would use to describe the emotions of the two gentlemen who stood and shouted "Shame!" Now if they had fired bullets at the cast, I would, but I wouldn't think "rage" would be automatically appropriate even if they had followed suit with Shakespeare's audiences of hundreds of years ago and thrown cabbages at the cast (A reaction of which the
drama scholar Jacobson might have approved). Of course, Jacobson uses the term because it conforms to the image he wants to paint of the two men and the reaction of Trumpists in general to the production: Unthinking.
You've done the same thing by describing layman's comment as
vehement outrage. I don't know about you but I'm perfectly capable of calling something a "crock of ****" without an attendant spike in my blood pressure...and often do. One can take strong objection to this production, maintain control of one's emotions, and not be reduced to a sputtering bumpkin.
Quote: I don't understand you guys at all.
Obviously. Luckily, somehow I'm able to understand you very well.
Quote:In an age of conformity and populist hysteria, [derision] creates a climate of skepticism and distrust of authority.
Gee, that's just
so awful.
Who has argued that this is awful? You're eye-rolling derision is off the mark.
I don't know of anyone (and certainly not anyone in this forum) who has expressed an objection to this production who has done so on the basis that it ridicules Trump. I've criticized the director's hamfisted expression of derision, and his use of a play that was never intended to be satirical and doesn't work as a satire, to achieve his "artistic vision," but every president of the United States should be the target of ridicule and derision, and Trump makes himself a very ripe target. However, it is a very broad definition of "derision" that includes depictions of the target being violently assassinated, or reduced to a bloody head being held by a humorless comedian.
Trump doesn't attract thin skinned worshipers any more (and probably less) than Obama did. Not only did a great many of his followers bristle whenever he was ridiculed, a fair number of them went so far as to label it all racist. The
Obama Faithful certainly didn't respond to the derision of which he was a target with
healthy skepticism and distrust of authority. Most "satirists" who are having such a field day with Trump and generally had no qualms with taking on past Democrat presidents (Indeed candidate Hillary Clinton was the target of more SNL lampoons in the one year running up to the election than Obama was over the eight years of his presidency) were missing in action when artists were
called upon to discharge their sacred duty to pierce the balloons of the powerful (imagine that a sarcasm font was just used here).
The issue of contention with this production, Kathy Griffin's photo, Madonna's passionate admission of wanting to blow Trump up, Johnny Depp's drunken assassination comments, etc. etc. etc. is not ridicule and derision. Jacobson obviously can't see this, and I'm beginning to think you can't either.