Accountability in Entertainment • Page 225

Rachel Nichols Out for N.B.A. Finals Coverage on ABC

 

winner of top chef this season was revealed to have been fired prior to the season ending from his restaurant job due to harassment of a coworker (he essentially ran the kitchen). he’s set to open a new restaurant soon, wonder if this changes that. several others have come forward to say he’s done the same with them. all have been quick to say he didn’t abuse them, but it’s still harassment and he’s still cheating on his pregnant (at the time) wife. pretty shitty. would say i hope something comes from it but it isn’t the first time an alumnus of the show has been accused of the same and it seems to be all too frequent in the industry.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/housto...arassment-allegations-dawn-burrell-should-win

 

Sean Penn just sucks

 

What a gross way to treat women

 

wait how was I just completely unaware he and Mariah Carey split up five years ago

 

Can’t wait to not get tickets to the Louis CK/Bill Cosby tour.

 

Who the fuck actually watches the Wendy Williams show

Like what the hell is the appeal

 

Wendy is batty. The thing last week she said about Britney's family was fucking wild.

 

yeah idk what kind of accountability we're looking for there? there's plenty of shows that have jokes and scenes that have aged terribly - ricky tends to be insufferable but, he's not really saying anything wrong here.

 

It is kind of a weird conversation because the show is not endorsing David Brent's behavior and shows how hurtful and stupid he is, but increasingly it seems like a lot of people equate portrayal of a subject with an endorsement of it.

 

Steve said the same thing
Steve Carell says 'The Office' probably wouldn't work today: 'The climate's different'

but I get it Ricky is such an arse that we don't need an excuse to yell at him haha

 

Any show about a politically incorrect buffoon set at a particular moment in time is of course not going to work the same in a different era. It is similar to how Archie Bunker's bigotry was played for laughs in the 70's but would immediately be fired in any office environment today.

 

i've said the same thing in The Office thread before. the writers are in no way condoning or endorsing Michael Scott's offensive, inappropriate behavior, and you can tell as much by the way they write in other characters reactions to his behavior and his words. Sure, some jokes and scenes still have aged pretty poorly (use of the R-word, homophobia, sexism), but yeah its important to understand that the show is not overtly endorsing or supporting this type of crude offensive behavior.

 

I think as far as accountability, if he really said that it’s feeding into this dishonest narrative about “cancel culture” that makes it seem like the movements to hold people accountable for problematic behavior have gotten out of control and your favorite shows couldn’t exist if someone like Louis CK isn’t empowered to jerk off in front of women and is forced to face some legitimate consequences.

 

Yes, it is about context and who the narrative is siding with or against. You aren't supposed to side with Michael Scott the same way you aren't supposed to side with the serial killer in a movie.

However, increasingly we see situations where people confuse the depiction of a character or event with an endorsement of that event. The Office makes it very clear that David Brent/Michael Scott are in the wrong, but there are lots of examples online of people misunderstanding the intent of older shows/movies. A lot of people have gotten used to pointing out anachronistic behavior in movies and shows that they don't always notice the difference between something like the horrible Asian portrayal in Breakfast at Tiffany's versus something like the satire of blackface in Tropic Thunder.

 

I don't see a world that "cancels" The Office. Shows are still developing characters like Michael and Creed in the exact same context. The Good Place did it. Mythic Quest does it. Curb constantly does it. But I guess that's how you get a fatwa.

 

I think there’s also a distinction between “siding” with Michael Scott / David Brent and “liking” them.

It’s obvious that you’re not meant to side with their actions, but I would argue you are meant to like the characters or sympathize with them (well, Michael anyway - David less so).

I think part of the change you see today is viewers expect more explicit rejection and clear consequences for bad behavior. Michael keeps a good job and is given a happy ending without changing his behavior much, and it’s easy to see that as either a tacit endorsement or an unacceptable oversight by the creators.

 

Yeah, it was always abundantly clear that you were supposed to like Michael.

 

I feel like they tried to make Michael a better person than David in a lot of ways to get people to like him despite his bafoonery but yeah you can still get away with having shitty characters, It's Always Sunny is very popular despite every character being an awful person.

 

They also had to change Michael after the first season because of Carrell blowing up and to keep the show from being cancelled. There is a stark distinction between first season Michael and after. Even when he is being an ignorant person, it seems to be shown that is done out of pure ignorance and not out of pure evil/hatred.