There is apparently already debate raging as to whether “Saturday Night Live” crossed the line in its portrayal of NY Governor David Paterson, generating laughter courtesy of his blindness by having Fred Armisen as Paterson displaying a financial graph upside down and later wandering aimlessly and unwarily into the camera shot. (Apparently the guardians of what’s funny/what isn’t have given up complaining about the white Armisen portraying black politicians and instead are now complaining about him portraying blind black politicians.)
I shall now settle this debate with an open statement to all those who contend that SNL did, in fact, cross the line of good taste and fairness:
Yes. They crossed the line.
And your point is…?
SNL is, and always has been, about redrawing the line, then crossing it, and then redrawing it some more.
So last night they made Paterson’s blindness part of the sketch. It was funny. How do we know it was funny? People laughed. The contention, as one organization put forward, that they were making fun of “all blind people” is the same as attacking their opening sketch parodying the beleagured Illinois governor and saying it was making fun of everyone who uses profanity.
Rather than complain about ill-treatment, I’d be inclined to think that advocates for the blind should take pride. What else IS equality if it’s not being just as capable of being held up for lampooning as anything or anyone else? Would it really be better if SNL or comedians said, “No, no, blind people require special protection and consideration. They’re so oversensitive that they can’t possibly deal with having their disability be part of a comic prodding.”
A good comic doesn’t just acknowledge the elephant in the room; he makes fun of it.
PAD
• 
Recent Comments