I find myself thinking way too much about the "Roseanne" reboot. This morning, I posted a tongue in cheek comment to the effect that "Will & Grace" vs. "Roseanne" is the equivalent of Mets vs. Yankees: You can be a fan of one or the other, but not both. This generated quite a bit of negative feedback, and not only, as one would expect, from Red Sox fans.
The position of those who took exception to my comment seems to be that both shows are, generally, high quality and can be appreciated by a diverse audience. Fair enough. I'm willing to accept that both shows have things to recommend them. Indeed, I have every reason to think that "Roseanne" is, as far as these things go, a high-quality sitcom: I enjoyed the original run of the show (although I didn't watch the last 2-3 seasons). And essentially the entire creative staff of the first run has returned for the reboot. But I'll have to take people's word for its overall quality, as I flat out refuse to watch "Roseanne."
As you might have guessed, if you've paid attention to anything I've ever said or written, my boycott is inspired by Roseanne Barr's unapologetic embrace of the racist moron currently occupying the Oval Office. And while I know I'm not alone in my feelings about this, I've been doing some soul-searching about whether I'm being exactly the kind of judgmental, intolerant elitist so frequently caricatured by the right. Should I not be willing to overlook any political "shortcomings" of the show's creator and appreciate the show (or not) on its merits?
Indeed, to return to the comparison I started out with, my guess is that "Roseanne" (as opposed to Roseanne) is probably more sympathetic to the opposing (liberal) viewpoint than "Will & Grace" is to conservatives. Jackie, Laurie Metcalf's character, represents liberalism on "Roseanne," and she has always been a fully-developed character. The right-wing viewpoint on "Will & Grace," however, is represented by Megan Mullaly's Karen Walker--Karen is frequently hilarious, but she is a total cartoon character, none of whose opinions are presented for anything other than laughter.
I freely acknowledge, then, that "Roseanne" may be an "objectively" good show--to the extent that any judgment on this kind of thing can be objective. I may be depriving myself of a rewarding aesthetic experience by my small act of cultural protest. But in this era when good liberals are apparently no longer allowed to watch "House of Cards" or the films of Woody Allen or the comedy of Louis CK, why should I give a pass to Roseanne Barr? I know, I know: What those icons of the left did was loathsome and creepy--if not illegal--whereas "all" Roseanne Barr has done is express some unpopular political opinions. They are not equivalent. But that doesn't make Roseanne Barr OK.
So, will I never support the artistic endeavors of ANYONE who support(ed) Trump? I don't know; I think I might. The problem is not, simply, that Roseanne Barr voted for Trump. If she simply supported Trump because she believed he spoke for the "forgotten" working class--a false belief, in my opinion, but that's another story--but she was also willing to call him out for his racist/misogynistic/homophobic words and actions, then I could accept that. But when a woman who, for example, has historically been an ally of the LGBTQ community refuses in a recent New York Times article to condemn or even criticize Trump's blatantly homophobic words and actions, then she deserves scorn.
Even a liberal icon like Jon Stewart criticized Obama over things like drone warfare and Guantanamo Bay, but Roseanne Barr is apparently unwilling to say anything bad about Trump. And this blind devotion to an unbalanced, immature, divisive demagogue is tearing this country apart. I cannot support a project of someone who wants to normalize or rehabilitate--or perhaps celebrate--someone as destructive to the social fabric as Donald Trump.
No comments:
Post a Comment