Last night ABC aired the first episode of social satirist John Safran’s latest series, Race Relations.  Typical of Safran’s indelicate approach to documentary filmmaking, Race Relations explores the various issues of inter-faith and inter-religious romance by utilising covert, hidden camera stunts and subjective, self-referential approaches to research.  The show  garnered  some level of public debate even before the first episode aired.  Some concerned parent’s groups expressing their opposition to the show’s at times adult content.  The segment which drew the most derision was that which depicted Safran—depicted, mind you—masturbating into a cup to provide a donation to a sperm bank.  It should be said that Safran (a Jew) made the donation to a Palestianian clinic in order to create a 'Jewistilian' in a humorous effort to break down Israel/Palestinian tensions.  It should further be noted that Safran’s back was turned during the stunt and neither genitals nor the moment of “release” was visible onscreen.  ABC Online this morning pre-empted any further criticisms the show might receive regarding another segment which shows Safran smelling women’s underwear to scientifically determine if he, as he suspects, has a biological disposed attraction to Eurasians.  Later episodes apparently show Safran taking part in a graphic devotional crucifixion in the Philippines. 

ABC seems to be on tender hooks of late in the wake of the sacking of ABC head of comedy Amanda Duthie following the public backlash over that frankly stupid and completely unfunny Make a Wish “parody” from The Chaser’s War on Everything.  The whole Hey! Hey! It's Saturday 'blackface' incident doubtless contributed to the ABC's anxiety.  Anticipating a similar response from viewers, ABC head of television Kim Dalton warned readers of ABC Online that if they felt they would be (or wanted to be) offended by Safran’s antics, then they should steer clear of the show.  Yet this morning the website is reporting that despite this knicker sniffing and whacking off over a Barak Obama bookcover, not a single complaint was lodged with the station. 

On reading the above article, I breathed a sigh of relief.  Finally it appears the Australian public are getting the hang of noting what programming is ‘offensive’ in a gross sort of way and what is ‘offensive’ in a Red Faces performance sort of way.  Then it suddenly occurred to me that the lack of opprobrium is less about discerning viewing and more about general public apathy.  No one (besides Harry Connick Jnr.) publically complained about the Hey! Hey! skit, and no-one complained about John Safran. 

I watched Race Relations last night and, although probably not Safran’s best work, it was still intelligently conceived and amusing.  I personally didn’t have a problem with either segment, yet like ABC’s head Kim Dalton, I too anticipated some level of complaint from lame arses who don’t get it.  As stated earlier there appears to be some confusion over what can be regarded as genuinely offensive and what is simply poor taste.  The difference between something John Safran does and for instance, something those dickheads over at Channel 9 do is that there appears to be some degree of forethought that goes into creating a show like Race Relations.  John Safran wasn’t simply masturbating and smelling underwear for the sheer sake of it; both segments had a legitimate, if not heavy handed, sociological basis.  Yet even if these segments were entirely  de-contextualised from the premise Safran was creating they are still not offensive.  If played solely for laughs, it is puerile and a little grotty, but not offensive. 

However smearing boot polish on your face to perform a baffling 'Jackson 5' tribute because you are absolutely bereft of any other avenue of satire or completely unaware of the cultural and historical implications of your actions IS offensive.  It’s pretty straightforward.  Sure, there’s a few of you reading this thinking: ‘that’s all well and good, but isn’t it a matter of opinion as to what is regarded as offensive? Some people might feel personally violated by the image of a man masturbating while others could regard the notion of (apparently) stealing women’s underwear in order to conduct some quasi-scientific experiment rather sexist’.  If any one of you was thinking that then I applaud you;  you’ve justified your reaction as opposed to simply citing these examples as a sort of equivalent retaliation to other provocative material.  But I still put it to you that being provocative and being racist is two very different things.  Claiming the impact of a John Safran stunt is comparable to the level of offense generated by that minstrel show of earlier this month is apple and oranges stuff.

So here’s a visual aid to help you navigate any future comedy conundrums:

                     Thoughtful                                           Thoughtless

                 Thoughtful                                            Thoughtless

                   Thoughtful                                      Thoughtless

That is all.