|
in why the public didn't rage at Kells
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/06/arts/television/surviving-r-kelly-dave-chappelle.html?action=click&module=Well&pgtype=Homepage§ion=Music
CRITIC’S NOTEBOOK
How ‘Chappelle’s Show’ and ‘The Boondocks’ Kept Us Laughing at R. Kelly
By Aisha Harris
Jan. 6, 2019
The singer R. Kelly is the subject of a six-part documentary on Lifetime, “Surviving R. Kelly.”
The singer R. Kelly is the subject of a six-part documentary on Lifetime, “Surviving R. Kelly.
Jan. 6, 2019
“Surviving R. Kelly,” the six-part documentary about the R&B singer Robert Kelly, who has faced accusations of child and sexual abuse for decades, underscores the theme of accountability — not just of Kelly or his many personal enablers, but of us all.
Clinical psychologists, music journalists, activists and others who are interviewed in this Lifetime series echo one another in their explanations of how the musician has managed to escape severe repercussions, legally and professionally, for decades.
Chief among them: the shielding powers of money and fame; society’s indifference toward the suffering of black and brown girls and women; a perception by some that the attacks on any black male celebrity, no matter how credible, are part of a larger racist conspiracy.
Another key factor: Laughter. Two cultural touchstones that helped shape the public’s perception of the Kelly accusations are only mentioned in passing in “Surviving R. Kelly.” But “(I Wanna) Pee on You,” a 2003 sketch from “Chappelle’s Show,” and a 2005 episode of the animated series “The Boondocks” titled “The Trial of R. Kelly,” embody many of the points made in the documentary.
Revisiting them in light of “Surviving R. Kelly” demonstrates how, for years, those who laughed at Kelly were able to ignore the charges against him. It also emphasizes how much the cultural climate has shifted in the era of #MuteRKelly protests, and how much it has stayed the same. (Kelly, who was acquitted in 2008 on charges of child pornography, has denied all allegations related to abuse of and sex with minors.)
In his sketch, the comedian Dave Chappelle took a straightforwardly silly approach to the allegations concerning a sex tape that appeared to show Kelly urinating on a 14-year-old girl. Dressed not unlike Kelly, in a pair of dark sunglasses and a bandanna, Chappelle stars in a music video in which he sings about wanting to urinate on the object of his affections. (“Your body is a porta potty.”) The melody aligns closely with Kelly’s song “Feelin’ on Yo Booty,” which is itself a rather preposterous song. (Kelly finds several comical ways to ad-lib the word “booty” at the end.)
The set is bare bones in comparison to a typical Kelly video; most of it takes place in front of a long white curtain, as Chappelle sprays a garden hose — which is very explicitly labeled “R. Kelly’s urine” — on an ensemble of gyrating women.
That’s an important distinction to make: The actors here are very obviously adult women, not pubescent girls. “(I Wanna) Pee on You” compartmentalizes the Kelly allegations and completely divorces it from its insidious facts; it’s easier (and safer) to poke fun at a grown man’s fetish than to wrestle with claims that he performed his fetish on a minor. (The Detroit Free Press reported that Chappelle, among other celebrities, declined to be interviewed for the documentary series.)
“The Trial of R. Kelly” is the second episode of “The Boondocks,” which centered on the misadventures of the socially conscious 10-year-old Huey and his more brazen, politically incorrect little brother Riley, both voiced by Regina King. The creator Aaron McGruder pulled no punches. With the singer’s highly publicized trial happening close to home, the boys head to Chicago to witness the circus, Riley carrying a “Free R. Kelly” sign.
When they encounter their nerdy neighbor Tom DuBois, who is representing the prosecution against Kelly, Riley lets loose an impassioned — and ridiculous — defense of the singer. Tom, shocked, counters that the alleged victim, depicted in the episode with pigtails and knee socks, is a little girl. Riley is having none of it. “I’ve seen that girl! She ain’t little; I’m little. Gary Coleman’s little.”
He argues for “personal responsibility,” suggests that the girl should have just moved out of the way of Kelly’s urine and adds that he doesn’t want to “miss out on the next R. Kelly album,” should Kelly be sent to jail.
“Boondocks” depicts Riley’s rhetoric as poisonous and the trial as a scathing farce. In the episode, Kelly’s white defense lawyer jumps through absurdist hoops to prove to the predominantly black jury that Kelly is a victim of racism. (He presents Kelly’s N.A.A.C.P. Image Award as evidence, and tells the jury, “They don’t want R. Kelly to be free because they don’t want you to be free!”)
By the end of the episode, Huey, the moral voice of reason, is standing up in the courtroom, admonishing the jurors and everyone else in attendance for giving Kelly a pass because he made good music. Every black person who is arrested “ain’t Nelson Mandela,” he scolds. Later, in voice over narration, he laments that “ignorance won” and he is “vexed at my people.”
As a scathing critique of Kelly’s deeds and black people’s complicity, unlike the Chappelle sketch, this episode still feels fresh, mostly. (Just look at comments on social media blaming the alleged victims in response to “Surviving R. Kelly.”) But McGruder’s stark delineation between Kelly’s supporters and dissenters plays into ugly stereotypes around class: Outside the courtroom, a loud, overweight black woman snacks on fried chicken while voicing her love for the singer; and three male protesters in suits are referred to by a news reporter as “scholars, activists, pillars of the African-American community.” (One of them looks just like Cornel West.)
In reality, black people of all demographics have supported Kelly. As noted in the documentary, the same day he pleaded not guilty to the child sex tape charge, he went to a church event in Chicago, where he performed alongside children, and was embraced by the congregation there.
McGruder overstepped the theme of “we are all responsible” by including the 14-year-old victim in his courtroom scene. (In the real trial, the girl identified as the alleged victim denied it was her in the video.)
In the episode, the girl’s testimony echoes Riley’s earlier argument to Tom: “If I didn’t want to get peed on, I’d just move out the way,” she says with an attitude. It’s hard to imagine this episode airing today and not inspiring backlash. It’s also entirely possible that McGruder wouldn’t make this same creative choice today.
But back when Kelly was still a consistent hit maker, the Chappelle sketch and this “Boondocks” episode were really funny. I can recall laughing about the skit with my friends in college, gleefully reciting lines like “Drip drip drip, pee on you.” I’m sure I chuckled the first time I heard the sassy black victim proclaim she’s not a victim on the stand. Even before the allegations, which I didn’t pay much attention to at the time, I was never much of a Kelly fan — I imagine “I Believe I Can Fly” is playing on loop somewhere in The Bad Place — but I did find him to be an excellent punch line for a long time.
Now, however, it’s impossible for me to watch those episodes and not think about the magnitude of everything Kelly has been accused of.
In the fourth episode of “Surviving R. Kelly,” the music journalist Ann Powers suggests that “Trapped in the Closet,” Kelly’s bonkers episodic soap operetta, was a strategic career move. “I think at some point he probably figured out that playing sex for laughs was a way that he could continue to avoid absolute condemnation for what he might have been doing behind the scenes,” she observes.
It’s hard to argue with this point — even now some have found humor in “Surviving R. Kelly,” roasting him for his rumored inability to read or write. Looking back on “Chappelle’s Show” and “Boondocks,” it’s clear that there was more than one way to let Kelly off the hook, and comedy was one of them. Even if I was never defending Kelly, I was still laughing at him, and effectively ignoring his alleged transgressions.
---------=
Comments from the NY Times readers
(because I know you expect more from NY Times readers than you would from commenters from another site)
Farmer D
Dogtown, USA1h ago
Is there anything funny about an adult male who is a rapist and child porn viewer?
We can take this sorry chapter in American history back to Clarence Thomas and O.J. Simpson (if not further). Thomas and his "high-tech lynching" was a cynical ploy to divert attention from the truth. Simpson did the same, showing a mostly-minority jury shiny toys and glib rhymes to divert their attention from the truth. So we now have an overtly racist man, who hates the color of his own skin, on what used to be a respected institute of justice. We have a multiple murderer walking free.
It would take an essay covering thousands of pages to fully explain how we got here as a people. But here we are, where criminals can trust that they will be acquitted by appealing to a jury's deeply-held individual beliefs that the crime's abhorrent nature should somehow be excused because "the country" was complicit in discriminating against people who look like these criminals. Not against these particular criminals; rather, against people who physically resemble them.
Has there been a "push-back?" Around 60 million people voted for a lying, misogynist, racist white robber baron and con-man to be president. Why?
-------------------=
TLibby
Colorado1h ago
Wasn't the prosecution of Bill Cosby kickstarted by a Hannibal Buress routine? Isn't it just as possible that both South Park and Chappelle were trying to do the same thing?
------------------=
Alan Chaprack
NYC1h ago
"It's also entirely possible that McGruder wouldn't make this same creative choice."
As a (white) fan of The Boondocks since its inception as a comic strip, I feel it safe to say that Aaron McGruder would make EXACTLY "the same creative choice," but the network that aired the cartoon would go all Saudi Arabia and demand changes.
-----------------------=
Terry
NYC2h ago
This article misses the point by a huge mark. In addition to the reporter in Chicago that relentlessly wrote well documented articles subsequently picked up by alternative weeklies like the Village Voice, the Boondocks and Chapelle critique of Kelly was unparalleled (no one else was doing it or commenting) and that Boondocks episode in particular was sharply pointed and on point. Didn’t R kelly try to step to Chapelle over that episode? He certainly got the point. Neither Chapelle nor Boondocks made light of the issue at all. Also no one else was saying anything except buying tickets and collaborating with him.
----------------=
Rob
Buffalo NY2h ago
If Elvis, Jerry Lee Lewis, Chuck Berry were new artists they might all be in jail.
There are many reasons that "dangerous" performers are greatly admired and pursued by their fans. The willingness to transgress is part of their appeal? What does it say about the fans who create these mythical entities?
We don't talk about our attraction to the dangerous, many of whom are daring enough (or narcissistic enough) to pursue public careers and the accompanying adulation, money, power & sex.
The conversation goes far deeper than we're generally willing to scratch.
-------------=
Alan Chaprack
NYC1h ago
@Rob Chuck Berry did go to jail.
-----------------=
Andrew
Brooklyn2h ago
Somehow the comedians bringing this to light and, by the way, doing their job of making fun of this are to blame?
------------------=
Jeff Freeman
Santa Monica, CA2h ago
@Andrew
One hardly needed Dave Chappelle to bring R. Kelly's trial to light. And laughing at is not laughing with. Personally have a problem with finding the abuse and exploitation of a young girl funny. Comedians like everyone else have freedom, not license. We also should not fear being held accountable, of a discussion that enlightens hopefully and moves us forward and that is not blame.
------------------=
John
LINY2h ago
How old is the author? Does she know that the truth is always told first as jest. For R Kelly his turn in the barrel is now.
My child once asked me why society didn’t take care of so many things earlier. Now she tells me she didn’t realize how many things needed fixing.
-----------------=
redweather
Atlanta2h ago
If I understand this column, some things are so odious that using them as a vehicle for humor trivializes them and perhaps, at least in the view of some people, normalizes them. Hard for me to argue with that. There is nothing funny about sexual abuse or the fact that some people get away with it for a very long time.
-----------------=
Tyrone Will
Harrisburg1h ago
@redweather
I don't think Chappelle or McGruder was going for humor, particular at the expense of those that were sexually abused. I think more like satire , especially, in the case of McGruder, of the black community's response to the situation.
-----------------=
Bryan
Chicago2h ago
Comedy is a way to get people talking about issues that are being ignored, not a way to ignore those issues. Were Hannibal Burress's jokes about Cosby letting him off the hook? No, they finally brought attention to what had long been an open secret.
----------------=
JenD
NJ3h ago
I saw Chappelle's skewering of Kelly as a statement about what a creep Kelly was/is and how he was getting away with his abusive behavior. (I watched the Chappelle episode when it first aired.) In that sense, Chappelle was being brave to take down someone that a lot of his audience saw as a person to be admired. Chappelle performed his comedic function admirably: he pointed out the insanity of the act itself, of people defending Kelly, looking the other way, etc. He made people laugh while doing it. That's what comedians do.
----------------=
Emilie
Paris4h ago
Whether we like it or not humour here was a form of denunciation. There are many ways to talk about abuse, Chappelle's may be seen as limited but he did contribute to the public debate on the matter. Your article reminds me of Camille Paglia commenting 20 years ago about Ellen De Generes's coming out on "Ellen": "I wish Ellen had dealt with her coming out more seriously", but what comedians do is comedy. Sure, Hannah Gadsby is right in "Nanette" : comedy does not deal with abuse in an appropriate way. But neither do the news, or school, or church...
---------------------=
Jason Snyder
Staten Island4h ago
Yet it was Hannibal Burress, during his stand-up performance, who took down Bill Cosby. Prior to that it was all rumors and pay-offs. Also #me-too was on the rise at that time. The early 2000s Cosby (and Weinstein, etc) were still doing their thing and their peers and the press that covered them were afraid to take it on. Boondocks had it right, R. Kelly had too many apologists and enablers who'd defend him at all cost. It's Boondocks' job to illuminate, as they did, and it was up to the mainstream press to pick it up from there. Only the latter failed at their job.
------------------------=
Zo
DC4h ago
This is a naïve and simplistic take - at best. The point of comedy, particularly with the comedians the writer Aisha Harris highlights, is to bring serious issues to the fore and examine them in a new, refreshing way. With this twisted take, I guess Ms. Harris cannot tolerate Trevor Noah, Samantha Bee, Chris Rock, Jon Stewart, Bill Mahr, and countless other comedians! If Aisha Harris watched these episodes over a decade ago, and simply laughed, shame on her. But it's highly likely that most of us saw those shows, laughed, vehemently shook our heads, and then had serious discussions with our friends and family about the harm of R. Kelly, his music, and his supporters. These shows woke a lot of people up to the monster of R. Kelly. But Ms. Harris - I'm glad you’re no longer just laughing!
-----------------=
James
Savannah5h ago
Article implies we all have some kind of say over what celebrities do, or what anyone does for that matter. The only say we have over criminal, unethical entertainers and other corporate entities is to not buy their product, just as the only say we have over criminal, unethical politicians is to not vote for them.
Meanwhile, we laugh at the satire until it's not funny anymore (SNL, et al).
----------------=
John Valentine
Memphis5h ago
As an African-American male I'll admit it was heart wrenching to watch the series, but I see the whole thing in a wider perspective. Again, we focus on a single problem, episode, incident, or person, while refusing to address the much larger issue. The larger issue is the exploitation of young girls throughout the entertainment industry, mainly in music, be it in hip hop, rock, R & B, pop, country, etc. This type of behavior is endemic in all areas of the music and entertainment industry. Is there anything more sordid than the treatment of young, rock groupies by some of the biggest names in the business over many decades? Their is enough blame for everyone. From an industry that tolerates the depravity that goes on to the record and entertainment executives who promote these artists to the media that glorify these sick abusers to the fans who support them and their careers to the parents who allow their young girls to be around the abusers to the young girls themselves who foolishly believe being around these type of men make them "special" Though Kelly is a despicable human being, taking down one abuser, or two or three, won't come close to solving this problem. We need a broader discussion about the power of fame, celebrity, and money, and how the three warp our perspective of right and wrong, and reveal just how much we're willing to accept to be part of the "in" crowd.
---------------=
Andrew Lee
San Francisco Bay Area5h ago
You do realize onr point of comedy and satire is to raise awareness. The Daily Show, while bringing humor to the news, is hardly "funny," when you realize the truth it's parodying. If anything, Chapelle brought focus to R Kelley, he didn't make his actions "okay," as you offer.
-----------------------=
|
Printer-friendly copy 
Email this topic to a friend
General Discussion
#/media/File:Firefly.png)
