Michael Eisner, the Hollywood industry behemoth, uttered some semi-ugly truths as part of a backhanded homage to Goldie Hawn at the Aspen Ideas Festival last week. Eisner meets the expectations one would have of such a Hollywood insider and industry leader – a Jewish man suffused with liberal affectations and awash is faux social redeeming sensitivities that are innate to the cult of offending few while aspiring to propound that elitism which fetishizes the embrace of all that is victimized and subverted by “The Man.”
Perhaps it was because Eisner’s ultimate goal was to make the case for some rehashed PC observations (he took the circuitous route, to be sure), but in the process, he made a point that bears mentioning.
“From my position, the hardest artist to find is a beautiful, funny woman. By far. They usually—boy am I going to get in trouble, I know this goes online—but usually, unbelievably beautiful women, you being an exception, are not funny.”
The Atlantic continues:
“You [Hawn] didn’t think you were beautiful. I know women who have been told they’re beautiful, they win Miss Arkansas, they don’t ever have to get attention other than with their looks. So they don’t tell a joke. In the history of the motion-picture business, the number of beautiful, really beautiful women—a Lucille Ball—that are funny, is impossible to find.”
Somewhat dubiously, The Atlantic attempts to defend the honor and hilarity of “beautiful women” everywhere.
It’s a statement that recalls Christopher Hitchens’s Vanity Fair essay, “Why Aren’t Women Funny?,” which drew big controversy upon its publication in 2007, given the success of women comedians from Lucille Ball to Tina Fey. For her part, Hawn said she agreed that she may owe her sense of humor to her being an “ugly duckling” growing up.
Um, while Tina Fey, Lucille Ball and Goldie Hawn are/were certainly attractive, “handsome” women, I would never consider them beautiful in the sense that Eisner meant and that which he leaped over a river of logic to apply against his dialogue partner, Hawn. These women represent that branch of womanhood who is “normal” and pretty in a “real world” way; a nuanced appeal that would never walk the rarefied air of a beauty pageant nor elicit the universal lust of men across all ranges. They are not feminine, girly, archetypal sexpots who subsist on looks. So Eisner, in a way, disqualified his comments by lumping Hawn in with that level of Miss Arkansas beauty queen because essentially, he is telling Hawn she is no Miss Arkansas.
There are women, usually beautiful from day one, who, as Eisner hinted, learn to rely on little else other than looks. Some parlay this into that annoying pageantry of swimsuits and smiles. These women are not funny. They don’t have to be.
I would go a step further and accuse Eisner of merely spouting a self-protective half-truth.
Perhaps he realizes this but refrained from blanket statements, of the sort that will truly bring the PC wrath upon him for. His statement was pointed at “beautiful” women, something most SJW types can’t pretend applies to themselves, thus excluding it as a cause from their self-absorbed agenda of hysteria. But if Eisner had been honest, he would have said that most women are not funny: ugly, average, and beautiful, alike.
“Funny” is born of pained, helpless introspection and consummate despair, something females generally avoid in our modern age for a variety of reasons. Women are not generally held accountable for their behavior and aspersions, hence experiencing little deterrent suffering in reaction to their vast array of crude, untested notions. Humor does not come easy when you have not learned the oppressive nature of arbitrary social ceilings.