Comedians, writers, satirists and a cartoonist gathered Thursday night at Hollywood's Upright Citizens Brigade to discuss censorship and satire in the wake of the killings at the offices of the Charlie Hebdo magazine in Paris. But while part of the debate mirrored some of what has been said already on the case and included a broad condemnation of the violence there was also an expression of discomfortwith the racialized nature of the cartoons that have appeared in Charlie Hebdo. <\/p>\n
As stand-up comedian Azhar Usman the Chicago-born son of Indian Muslims put it at one point: \"[Screw] terrorism and [screw] these racist cartoons.\" <\/p>\n
Organized by the progressive site Blue Nation Review, the boisterous hour-long conversation (warning: coarse language is used) included comedians Phil LaMarr, Paul Provenza and Usman; political cartoonist Matt Bors; \"Daily Show\" co-creator Lizz Winstead, and \"Family Guy\" show runner Rich Appel. They discussed the difficulty of producing satire, the ways in which different ethnicities are depicted in cartoons and whether artists find themselves self-censoring out of fear of reprisal. <\/p>\n
But first the panel dealt with what seemed like a simple question: \"Are you Charlie?\" It quickly became clear that the question has become more complex in the two weeks since the Charlie Hebdo attack. <\/p>\n
\"It's an unfair question,\" Usman said. It forces \"what should be a nuanced conversation,\" he explained, into an artificial demand: \"'You're either with us or against us; you're either Charlie or you're not Charlie.'\" He ended up defining himself as \"an agnostic.\" <\/p>\n
Bors was similarly conflicted. \"As a political cartoonist who has an interest in not dying, I want to say yes,\" he said. \"But I hate the hashtags... So, no.\" <\/p>\n
LaMarr and Appel had few qualms about the question: \"I was Trayvon, I was Michael Brown, I was Yes All Men,\" said LaMarr. \"Why wouldn't I be Charlie?\" <\/p>\n
Appel, however, did discuss the trickier challenge of working on \"Family Guy\" within an art form whose very intent is to skirt what is acceptable. <\/p>\n
\"It's such a complicated question that I can't even pretend to be able to solve,\" Appel explained. \"Comedy often offends.Every day at our show every other day at every show I've worked on for 20 years you skirt those questions. There's not a clear objective flow-chart you put everything through and you come up with your answer. It's kind of subjective in a way.\" <\/p>\n
Winsteadsaid audiences can't expect to come away from satire without feeling some burn. \"You don't have the right to not be offended,\" she stated. <\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
The rest is here: Comedians, writers, satirists and a cartoonist gathered Thursday night at Hollywood's Upright Citizens Brigade to discuss censorship and satire in the wake of the killings at the offices of the Charlie Hebdo magazine in Paris. But while part of the debate mirrored some of what has been said already on the case and included a broad condemnation of the violence there was also an expression of discomfortwith the racialized nature of the cartoons that have appeared in Charlie Hebdo. Continue reading
\nComedians and cartoonist gather to discuss satire and censorship<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"