--
EDIT/ADDENDUM: (August 21, 2018) I had a discussion with a few fellow leftist queer friends of mine and I have realized some things that I have not appropriately or properly represented here. Firstly, it is perfectly fine that I personally love and connect with some pieces of Nanette, and I can champion the parts that I find to be an important message. But if I am to do so, then I need to remain critical and also recognize that it is problematic and contains erasing and hurtful content. That some of the content is, in fact, triggering and not acceptable for many people. It is not my right or my place to overlook that, even if I share identity aspects with some of those who were harmed. I can enjoy that which was healing for me, and share that, but I must also be informative and critical of that which is not.
So please be advised that this opinion piece is purely reactionary, was misguided, and I have done some learning since. I own my part in this and I wish to give room to those who disagree, especially those harmed.
Please be advised that Nanette contains the following triggering content: homophobia, mental illness, self harm, suicide, rape, bullying, harassment, abuse, violence, deprecation, humiliation, non-binary erasure, cisnormativity, bioessentialism, misogyny, transmisogyny, sexism, slut shaming, ableism.
I have complicated feelings about this review.
In my opinion (noting this as I don't think I am any more correct or wrong to another person's opinion and experience of Nanette), I don't feel like it is every marginalized person's responsibility to unite people when they are providing emotional labor - however that may be. Hannah Gadsby did it through tragedy, she wanted to tell her story, she transformed how her comedy was demonstrated and flipped it from where it was at its start.
As a fellow radical and queer, oftentimes I am expending emotional labor to let my anger and hurt be known, to fight for validation and humanity, to work past the point of exhaustion to educate someone - but I am tired. And I have been tired for some time now; my mental health is the lowest it has ever been. And yet...I cannot stop what I do, I cannot put this away - because it *is* me. I saw that same kind of tired in Nanette, I mean, she even proclaimed it.
So, when I watched Nanette, it connected with me. She did say that her/our anger is valid and it is real. She just said that she did not want to inform and take action through anger - and not everyone has to. Who are we to tell her she is wrong for that? Some of us will be angry, some of us will act with that anger, we will unite with that anger. And some of us will do otherwise. All methods of such are equally as valid and valuable - as long as they are not persecuting, undermining, or invalidating the others..
Some of us will be angry, some of us will act with that anger, we will unite with that anger. And some of us will do otherwise.
Other reviewers making claims that her reluctance to act was the most radical thing, and similarly, are the ones who missed the point. She does not need to be a leader to still be powerful, to still be right in the way she wishes to demonstrate her anger and hurt. Gadsby's honesty in her pain and her anger, in the details of stories and experiences, while on stage is something radical and powerful to me.
In her experience, her career of self-deprecation has become humiliation. She never claimed to say this was fact or to be an authority of such. I read it simply as this was the case in her experience. This show was very well constructed and formed, but it also had energy and chaos. And maybe she could have made disclaimers to note she wasn't speaking for all. It could be likely she is unaware of the historical context of comedy regarding Jewish peoples - I know I wasn't aware. As a person who is not Jewish, I can't speak for such, it is not my lane.
Maybe this will become known to Gadsby, and it would be my hope she acknowledges and owns that impact - where she dismissed and undermined other peoples and the historical contexts.
In my experience, I have used self-deprecation (in humor/comedy) in a way to express, teach, inform, and explicate. Sometimes it does what it is intended - make people uncomfortable, bring a message, make people laugh. And sometimes it does this while also releasing others from their responsibility to my humanity because it is ultimately temporary for them, while that humiliation becomes permanent for me.
Those are the people who were never willing to listen and learn to begin with.
The experience of Nanette is not a temporary one. And should someone forget it and move on, ignore its weight - then they are the ones failing to be aware of how they are implicitly a part of the oppression of queer peoples. Those are the people who were never willing to listen and learn to begin with.
And maybe she is less radical than a bunch of us, maybe she is more liberal. Again, I had read her statements regarding anger as something explicit to her experience, something that did her more harm than constructiveness when coming from her. So maybe she wishes to do otherwise, to find something that does work for her.
I had read her statements about public debate - in that they are "toxic, juvenile, destructive" - as not being about marginalized and oppressed voices, but about groups and peoples who are privileged. About the structures and systems (government, media, schools, etc) implicit and complicit in harming us being the ones who toxic and destructive. I had read her statements about public debate being about the faces of society and standards set out within society (how one ought to act, etc).
And maybe I am being defensive, I confess I have my bias. Nanette is something that is very important and special to me, as a lot of it represents all that I am and all that I stand for. My experience of it, the emotions and the story (so much of which I share), was that she did not go out there with the intention to change comedy - but that she has learned something, that she has a story to share and she wants to do it differently, that she is struggling and hurting, but that she is fighting on. And that she will find her own way, differently than she had been.
In my opinion, it is radical to go out onto a stage, to use your platform as a celebrity or a person of importance, and to tell your story - especially one as raw and sensitive as her's. And I don't think it is right to dismiss her for that. Every time something like this comes out or happens, the privileged groups will have those who claim to have enjoyed it and appreciated its story - but they do so purely with the sense that it was just entertainment and it made them feel something briefly. They will exploit it/us, and use it/us. Again, I say they are the ones who missed the point. But I believe her story has importance to some of us, and may have reached some allies.
It is radical to go out onto a stage, to use your platform as a celebrity or a person of importance, and to tell your story...
There is a historical and cultural context to comedy and the languages of it, such as self-deprecation. One I was not aware of, so I won't ever say or claim that Hannah Gadsby did not do something harmful. At this point, it is important to recognize that impact is greater than intent and ignorance is not an excuse. This means it is my responsibility to look into the history and cultures of it, and to be aware, and to do better. Again, I hope that should this come to light what has been highlighted in this review, that Gadsby will own her part and do better.
This review mentioned other shows/specials that had their own failings, but that they still found the merits and found such to be successful. While I personally would not find something transphobic to be successful (generally speaking, I am not aware of the details in this context), I think it would be fair for me to say that what Nanette highlights and its experience are successful.
I don't think everyone in that audience was comfortable, or felt comfortably woke. I know personally of people in my life whom I would want to see Nanette - but would quit partway through or refuse to because of the content. I don't think it needed to be perfect to be successful. And I do think it did convey a relationship to trauma successfully. Not everyone has to like it, and that is fine. Not everyone has to find it successful, and that is fine. At this point, what the reviewer has said and what I have said are opinions - and we are both valid.
And I think Nanette is valid. This is a story I have been hearing, this is a story I have been experiencing. But the way in which it is articulated and expressed is in a way I had known but never been able to demonstrate as clearly. It is a story I want to help, and it is a story I need help with.
