Eddie Murphy - 'Faggots aren't allowed to look at my ass while I'm on stage'

Up until this evening, Eddie Murphy to me was a hilarious actor who had a string of funny films I remembered watching growing up. He was absolutely hilarious in Dr. Dolittle and The Nutty professor but his role as Donkey will always be special to me. I didn’t even realise he had done stand up until about two hours ago or that in one of his routines, he came out with some unbelievably homophobic stuff.

The routine is getting banded around online because Netflix only recently released it online and goodness me, to say it hasn’t aged well is an understatement. It pretty much opens with Murphy going on a rant about gay men and how he moves about on stage so that faggots can’t stare at his butt. By the way, he throws that word around like its nothing. I think that was one of the things that struck me the most about this video. I've spent a good five minutes debating if I should use the word and it just falls off his tongue. 

You’d maybe think that dropping the f-bomb would be the height of it but not so, his homophobia only gets worse. He continues about how we shouldn’t be horrid to gay people and it’s totally cool to play tennis with them. It’s just that after the game, as a straight man, you’ll want to go get a beer and they’ll want to suck dick and that’s where you should part ways.

Some are arguing that Murphy is engaging in high level satire to prove a point about what we now call toxic masculinity. Whilst I’d really love to believe that, it seems incredibly revisionist. I’m all about giving him the benefit of the doubt but when the set culminates in his worry that his girlfriend will get too friendly with a gay guy, kiss him and then bring back the AIDs virus thus killing Eddie; I very much doubt that.

Now where I will extend the benefit of the doubt is in that this was filmed in 1983. I want to make perfectly clear that what he said was inexcusable and wrong. It demonstrates the level of fear and misunderstanding around the HIV/AIDS epidemic in the early eighties, neatly demonstrating how culturally it was derided as a gay disease. We were not the victims but the enemies who deserved the disease but would occasionally infect the innocent straights. Not to mention the fact that it’s plainly homophobic, however to say that Murphy is homophobic and end it there would be idiotic.

Giving the show a one-star rating and imploring Netflix to take it off seems like the wrong reaction. It should stay there to serve as a reminder of how far we have come and the progress that we have made as a society. What’s far more damning that his actual words is the audience reaction. It isn’t very shocked at any point, the level of clapping and laughter remain high throughout. We can remove it and pretend that homophobia never existed on a societal level but to me that seems more dangerous than watching people we respect spouting such disrespectful and plainly wrong ideas.

It’s not only his lack of knowledge of HIV but his incipit homophobia. In one part he talks about his fear about Mr. T being gay and interestingly, he describes in detail how his fear is that Mr. T would be the receiver. He talks about how gay people can be okay because they might still play sports. It shows that even when he talks about accepting gay people, he really means that gay people are fine as long as they don’t talk about it and we can just pretend they’re straight.

Murphy apologised for his comments in 1996.
‘I know how serious an issue AIDS is the world over. I know that AIDS isn’t funny. It’s 1996 and I’m a lot smarter about AIDS now. I am not homophobic and I am not anti-gay. My wife and I have donated both time and money to AIDS research.’ 
You can argue that it’s too little too late and that the apology only came at a point when Murphy was becoming mainstream and so he had to backtrack on his earlier comments.

I’m willing to be more forgiving. For me, the routine is a symptom of a less accepting and tolerant world. Remember that in 1983, homosexual acts between men had been legal in Scotland for less than four years. The age of contest was not equal. The world was in a different place in which the LGBT community was fighting to prove that we were equal and this language wasn't acceptable. The world has evolved now and in the same country that was filmed, same sex marriage is legal. I sincerely believe that Murphy's views have evolved too and that whilst he should have to deal with the consequences of this video, he should not be labelled as homophobic today for the homophobia of his past.

In Praise of O'Connor's new EastEnders

In a year were the very real world seems to be doing coke every week and then dealing with the consequences by doing some more; you’d be forgiven for not noticing a change in the world of television.

‘Eastenders’ is an icon of British television. It’s not the longest soap on television but it’s a staple none the less. We all know that anything that has been on for as long as it has, will inevitably have peaks and troves. Just as the noughties came to an end, it entered a prolonged slump. First came a baby swap storyline which caused such controversy that the actress at the centre of the plot, Samantha Womack, departed the series. The role of executive producer became like a revolving door as several writers tried and failed to revive the magic. Attempts became more desperate as legendary characters like Pat Butcher were killed off and suddenly the show seemed like a terrible ‘Hollyoaks’ wannabe.

And so, like all good heroes, Dominic Treadwell-Collins entered the fray at just the right moment. Even if you haven’t watched a single episode, you probably know that Danny Dyer plays the landlord of the Queen Vic unbelievably well. The epic ‘Who Killed Lucy Beale’ saga was ingrained in the fabric of British culture for most of 2014 building up to a week of live episodes. Regulars noticed an uptake in the amount of older characters being portrayed and though not devoid of pretty people or love triangles, they were no longer the sum total of the show. After successfully rebuilding the brand, Treadwell-Collins left his position earlier this year – paralleled by the onscreen departure of Peggy Mitchell.

This brings us to the present with Sean O’Connor taking up the reins for the latter part of this year. He came over from leading an incredibly well received storyline about domestic violence on the radio serial ‘The Archers’. That serial is an institution in its own right, broadcasting for well over half a century but it’s far slower paced than the soaps we’re used to on our television screens. Stakes are often far lower and the usual expectations of murders or big revelations at Christmas are not quite the same.

You’d have to be totally obtuse not to have noticed a tonal switch since O’Connor took over. The show has taken a breath and the break neck speed at which Treadwell-Collins liked to deliver twists has stopped so that not every episode has to have a big reveal at the end. I’m not going to lie, it definitely took a bit of getting used to. For example, a recurring plot has been a bin collections crisis leading to black bin bags cluttering the square. I mean it’s hard to get excited about that. Then again, it does have its bonuses. As great as Treadwell-Collins was, the need for constant surprises did lead to some ridiculous plot developments. Hard as I try to forget, I think I’m permanently scarred from Vincent being delivered a pig’s head.

O’Connor has also made an impact through cast changes with a large amount of fan favourites departing. The entire Masood family has been written out with Roxy and Ronnie being written out in the New Year. Not to mention bringing back Michelle Fowler, a decision which has been panned already even though she’s been on TV for all of an episode. Though people are critical of her being recast, I can’t see the issue given that she was last on the show twenty years ago.

Personally, the decision to write out a pack of older characters was the most worrying decision. Whilst Pam and Les may not have been around as long as characters like Masood, they seemed to have far more mileage left in them. Not to mention that when the show slumped before, a large part of that was the older generation was being forgotten.

Then again, I don’t think that the show is going to suffer all that badly. O’Connor is being bold because he’s not only changing up the cast like most producers do, he’s also changing the tone and challenging the audience. He could attempt to compete with the big twists and turns of ‘Emmerdale’ or ‘Coronation Street’ as many other producers have tried to do but when you compete for the sake of competing, that’s often when you deliver the most half-baked, short sighted plots.  

People have been having a go at the most boring Christmas special of ‘Eastenders’ ever. But if he’d given in to that need for a big twist then he’d most likely have killed off Phil Mitchell. Yes, it would have made for an excellent episode and it would have got a lot of press but it would have been a terrible choice for the show. Steve McFadden is one of the strongest actors on the serial at the moment with his portrayal of Phil’s long standing addiction to alcohol winning him much deserved acclaim. His death would have created an unnecessary vacuum which they’d end up desperately trying to fill with characters that were inevitably less relatable.

The show on Christmas Eve was also a belter with Dot being put front and centre. O’Connor has been quietly and consistently building on what Treadwell-Collins got so very right about ‘Eastenders’. It flourishes when it deals with issues around community, friendship and family. Realistic portrayals of important social issues were some of the highlights of Treadwell-Collins tenure including exploring the issue of rape and the repercussions of it on victims; especially when justice isn’t provided by the legal system. As O’Connor has taken over he has continued to explore social issues with extensive tact and sensitivity.

Under the radar, he has crafted an elegant portrayal of the best and worst of gentrification in which Dot Branning has been front and centre. In one brilliant episode, he focused on homophobia and how it had changed over time. A gay character, Paul is the victim of a homophobic attack and as his wake is taking place, Dot has to confront her own prejudices over same sex marriage. The writing makes clear that Dot isn’t in any way on a level with the deeply homophobic attackers but does have a younger generation question her values. In doing so, the changing dynamic of London’s East end into a more accepting area is praised but a darker side of generation exists and as an older character, Dot is also subjected to that.

Dot has been the manageress of the laundrette for almost as long as she has been in the square but gentrification leads to its closure. When she hosts a closing party, no one attends showing a lack of community. However during the Christmas special, a power cut forces the residents of Albert Square to abandon their individual plans and gather in the Vic. We may yawn and complain that the show was boring this year but that probably says more about us than O’Connor. It was a welcome surprise to have a special focus on community, especially at this time of the year.

Hillary, History and The Wizard of Oz

You’ve probably heard the old saying that history repeats itself. As overused and clichéd as that may sound, it does have a high degree of truth to it. This most recent election cycle has been described correctly as remarkable and historic but also unparalleled and unprecedented. These latter two are incorrect, showing up our predisposition to favour a past which we feel is tangible. The further we travel away, the more we forget. However, the election of 1896 is incredible in its parallel to our most recent one.

The Gilded Age was coming to a climax and was a period that had been characterised by economic upheaval, political corruption and industrialisation which was creating a divide between urban and rural communities. Tensions were high throughout the country which led to the proliferation of smaller parties, though they never broke the dominance of the Republicans and the Democrats as the two main parties. One main difference between then and now was that the Democrats were seen as the party which favoured conservative, right wing policies more so than the Republicans.

This would change when the Democrats nominated a progressive as their candidate for the 1896 election. Nomination processes were very different compared to now and the voting process at the convention had more importance than today. Before the convention, it seemed that the establishment candidate would win but during it, an impassioned speech by a young man changed the course of history dramatically.

William J. Bryan made ‘The Cross of Gold’ speech which was received so well that he won the nomination. At that time, the issue of currency was an important one, especially in Southern states. After the civil war, both parties backed the gold standard as a currency and wished to eliminate silver being used as well. Farmers wanted this because they believed it would increase inflation which would in turn make getting credit easier and thus allow them to invest in their farms. Bryan departed from this in his speech thus drawing the support of the agrarian North and thus stopping the momentum of smaller parties which were formed on the issue of silver. Therefore, the first parallel between that election and this one is that the Democrats choose to pick an outsider to lead their party rather than an establishment character in the form of Hilary.

Though the second parallel is that whilst The Republican’s choose an establishment figure, William McKinley, to face Bryan they would ultimately win the election thus ending the currency issue. Thirdly and most interestingly is the comparison that can be made between Bryan and Trump. Both candidates were populists, appealing to the issues which were seen to be most important to the common man. Perhaps, the reason that Trump succeeded when Bryan failed was because trust in political elites was higher than now. The temptation to go against the grain was less strong when people believed their politicians were working in their interest, at least in the main. Not to mention the confidence to believe in ideals that weren't endorsed by elites was probably harder without the ability to connect, through social media, with people who shared your ideas.

It has often been said that ‘The Wonderful Wizard of Oz’ by L. Frank Baum is a political allegory for the situation that America found itself as it entered the twentieth century. The city of Oz which housed the Wizard represents the political elites unaware of the suffering going on outside the city. Baum appears sympathetic to Bryan but casts him as the cowardly lion, a man with valuable ideas who did not have the bravery to push his ideas through.

Baum is however curtailed by an attempt to create in his narrative a simple divide between good and evil. The scarecrow, without a brain, represents farmers who are unable to fight the industrial revolution because they are not able to out manoeuvre larger corporations. The tin man represents industrial workers who are being used as assets rather than people by their employers who do not care for their safety. These two characters unite along with the lion to help Dorothy end the reign of the wicked witch. This fiction is happier than the reality in which the farmers of the South do not realise that they have a lot in common with the working class in the industrial North and therefore do not unite behind Bryan. The truth is that the working man in Texas did not see that they shared the same concerns as the working man in New York. Again, the similarity of those in this election dependant on health insurance voting for a candidate seeking to repeal it is startling when compared to those workers dependent on credit voting against Bryan.

‘The Wonderful Wizard of Oz’ allegory can expand to 2016 though in this reality, we face an even grimmer end. Glinda is gone and – true to the revisionist tendencies of our generation – our narrative follows more closely to ‘Wicked’. Hillary is Elphaba, the wicked witch, who has been painted as evil by Donald, the wizard purposefully working against the good of his citizens. The city of Oz is representative of a media so obsessed with colourful nonsense that they add to the vilification of Elphaba, a woman by no means perfect but who genuinely wanted the best for her fellow citizens. We can only hope that the election result was not the end of our story but the beginning and that our heroine, Dorothy is on the way.