I usually ignore the Emmys unless something especially egregious happens on this perpetually unexciting and predictable awards show. Even the current topic, the rude and unfunny jibes of two C-list show-biz types at the expense of Meryl Streep during the latest installment, isn’t a big deal, just a provocative one prompting several ethics musings on the state of American culture and society.
Presenting the award for outstanding supporting actress in a comedy series ( Streep was a nominee) Rob McElhenney and wife Kaitlin Olson engaged in this scripted banter:
McElhenney: “Ladies and gentlemen, we are here to honor the comedic performances that hold everything in place. They show crucial support when it’s really needed.”
Olsen: “Much like a jockstrap… what you were describing sounds very much like a jockstrap.”
McElhenney, feigning outrage: “No it doesn’t! These roles make sure everything stays secure, without this support the whole package falls apart… alright, this does sound like a jockstrap.”
Olson: “Yeah, are you calling Meryl Streep a jockstrap?”
McElhenney: “No! I’m so sorry Meryl!”
Streep, caught by the camera, looked both unamused and embarrassed.
The actress is 75, and with the arguable exception of her participation in the inexcusable film version of “Mama Mia!,” has never failed to enhance the acting profession by her participation in it. By what possible logic could one conclude that a crude attempted joke comparing her to a male genitals athletic supporter is either amusing or appropriate, except by the lower-than-low “if it’s smutty, then it must be funny” standard?
True, this is the standard in vogue on TV commercials and on TV game shows like Fox’s “The Quiz With Balls” (Get it??? HAR!) The Algonquin Round Table this isn’t, and that’s OK for the increasing proportion of the public that has trouble finding two IQ points to rub together. But the Emmys is a black tie and formal gown event, and a legendary talent like Streep confers status on the thing by deigning to attend it. Jokes and gentle ribbing are to be expected; gross middle-school level insults are not.
I know: the presenters don’t write this junk, but nothing prevents them from saying to the writers, “No. Do better. I’m not going to associate myself with that crap.” All that is needed to reach the right decision is a passing familiarity with The Golden Rule.”
Related musings:
- What was the cultural force that made such public boorishness acceptable? Even ten years ago, a joke that that would have been unthinkable.
- In a “Nation of Assholes,” published here almost ten years ago, I predicted that Donald Trump would have this effect on the culture if we elected him President. Can he be fairly blamed for this?
- Was Streep obligated to pretend to be amused at being compared to a jock strap on national TV?
- What is it that Jane Lynch, over Streep’s right shoulder, thinks is so hilarious?
- Is this otherwise trivial episode evidence that we are watching an endless spiral down a bottomless pit?
Ethics Alarms 
It is the same humor in most of Lynch’s recent roles, so I guess she finds it funny.
Remember when it was controversial for Clark Gable to say, “Frankly my dear, I don’t give a damn?” TV has degenerated into a vulgar sewer. I watched Yellowstone for Kevin Costner, but the constant filthy language, words I never thought I would hear on TV, put me off. I mean, the occasional curse does not bother me, but when every word is filthy, it just becomes monotonous and meaningless. Ditto for British TV, watch “The Serpent Queen” or “George and Mary”, to hear the King of England say F***, etc…..and the use of “the c-word”, one of Billy Connolly’s favorite words, and funny when he explains it….incredible and nauseating! And George and Mary also offers us close up homosexual bedding, was King James really that awful? And back to Yellowstone, it amazes me that folks like Beth, that vulgar, loud mouthed, violent, sick in the head, nut job…..she is an insane caricature of the powerful woman, and its horrible to see what she says and does, destroying everybody in her path. I just watch my old shows like Gunsmoke, where people had morals and there were rules…if you killed someone, Matt would bring you in for a hanging, and that was a good thing. …and no vulgar language!
You know. Morons.
Share this:
And having directed that script five times, it isn’t missed. I assume the Broadway version also eschewed vulgarity—like the Showtime revival, it was overseen by the original author, the great Reginald Rose, one of the three gutsy geniuses of Fifties TV: Rose, Rod Serling, Abby Mann, and Paddy Cheyevsky.
Chadvesky’s “Marty”- Now I must search for it.
I do think Trump has something to do with it, calling it blame is a matter of perspective. When Trump was running in 2016, they kept using the words ‘existential threat’. I believe they really meant it and it may be true. Trump was a threat to their current existence. If Trump had done what he said (and may actually want to do), their world would fall apart. Without a leftist media/legal system/bureaucracy to cover for them, could Harvey Weinstein/Sean Combs/Jeffery Epstein/The Clinton Foundation have gotten away with the things they did and for so long? Think of the thousands of others implicated in the actions of the precious people who have not faced any punishment/exposure.
Because Trump was a threat to their existence, all pretense was thrown to the wind. Everything needed to be done to stop this. Vulgar character assassination, lies, continual disparagement of the worst type, false charges, corrupt trials, flagrant violation of laws and Constitutional guarantees, and even assassination are all on the table.
However, I think a bigger part of the picture is that the left felt that they had so won the culture war, that they could stop pretending anymore. With almost absolute control of the media/Hollywood/education/the justice system/the 4rth branch of government, they could stop worrying about backlash from traditional moral views. With the LGBTQ++ mafia and the incessant racism-industrial complex, they could cancel anyone who objected to oversexualization/profanity/etc. It isn’t like some Christian group could object and be supported by any group in society. Such a proclamation would be met with outrage and mockery. The group in question would probably have their tax-exempt status revoked or audited by the IRS. And how would any but well educated Christians know what Christianity says about such matters anyway when there is always a minister of a major denomination ready to go on TV and state that {insert any unbiblical perversion} is actually OK and anyone who says otherwise is distorting the scriptures? This is just what a secular liberal society is like, it values power and self-gratification.