Reflections on Charlie Hebdo & The Interview

The news in Paris of cartoonists and workers in a magazine office being shot dead by two men clenched my heart. Before I knew the politics and before I became familiar with the magazine’s work, I was Charlie. More than being a creative mind myself — a pen often my weapon of choice — I felt the tragedy of creating something that was having an impact and being killed for it. That feeling was incredibly personal, sending shockwaves through my body.

I shortly turned to Twitter to get a sense of how others were reacting to the deaths of the twelve people at the headquarters of Charlie Hebdo, a French journal irresponsable or irresponsible magazine. A strong message was that of perseverance, solidarity with the satirical magazine and a re-sharpening of the pencils. There were also expressions of sadness, anger and honor.

‘Je suis Ahmed’ for the police officer who defended his city and was Muslim like the two gunmen whose motives appeared to be religious. ‘Je suis Charlie’ for an idea that people have the right to draw, write and create without a reality of being gunned down in their offices. Shared drawings from cartoonists around the world for the full sadness of the situation; here, a group of nonviolent artists whose work offends a group of very violent extremists.

A vivid realization when searching and looking further into the Charlie Hebdo body of work, particularly its cover art, is that it offends and targets the beliefs of everyday people; it ridicules people’s religion. The magazine is crude, unforgiving and maybe a bit selfish in its right to mock.

Religious and political satire is a delicate task. It requires a great balance between the jabs, the humor and the bodily fluid portrayals. Good religious and political satire is expert at stripping away the fluff and uncovering an ugly and often uncomfortable truth about a stereotype, a policy, a motivation or a government without being righteous about it. Cartooning is extremely effective in satire because there is such a contrast between art form and content. Cartoons evoke innocence and are immediately relatable, opening people up to the content, which can be critical, accusatory, revolutionary and cruelly blatant. It makes for very powerful art.

For that reason, there is great responsibility when a magazine chooses to draw satirical cartoons because it is choosing a naturally influential platform. Charlie Hebdo brands itself as an irresponsible magazine, which I would agree that it is. It handles its main form of communication with a lack of purpose other than to offend and humiliate. I look and look at the various covers and at some of the cartoons within the different issues I have found online, and I cannot decide the magazine’s end game.

What is Charlie Hebdo trying to say? What is Charlie Hebdo trying to uncover? Why is Charlie Hebdo drawing these religious leaders in disgraceful ways?

This is where Charlie Hebdo is selfish, because while Charlie has this right to draw, write and create whatever content it wants, Charlie is doing so without regard to the people its work is directly affecting, without personal knowledge about the religion it mocks and without substantial purpose other than to defy and prod and feel righteous about it. That is selfish in the name of freedom of speech, cartooning and good religious and political satire.

I look at American television shows like The Daily Show with Jon Stewart, The Colbert Report, South Park, Family Guy and Saturday Night Live and revel in their swift calculations, dirty jokes, obscene and devastating depictions and foul language about corruption and racism. These shows are not always one hundred percent on par with their best satires, but they do good, important work, if not only to laugh in light of giving up on the notion that good people and good journalism exist somewhere.

These American shows also satirize American politics, American leaders, American perceptions and American culture. One of the issues I have with pieces like the work in Charlie Hebdo and “The Interview” (2014) is that they lack an important perspective: that of the religion and the people they are portraying.

I recently watched “The Interview” on Netflix because I wanted to watch firsthand the kind of movie it is, and because it happened to be streaming. Another issue, but I probably would not have sought it out otherwise (ten points for Netflix). As I had read in various reviews, it is not a political satire; it is a buddy, stoner and butt-joke film built for popular entertainment. The fact that it is set in North Korea is arguably insignificant to the plot of the film. However, the fact that it is set in North Korea makes a significant point especially since the plot of the film involves the assassination of the present day leader of North Korea or Democratic People’s Republic of Korea.

That fictional decision to “assassinate” the current leader of North Korea is extraordinary bad taste and a gross lack of respect. I cannot believe that decision. I understand that this movie poses no real-world threat but boy, I see how it can feel like one. The film plays on enough facts about North Korea and its regime and beyond being such a Western interpretation of a country and its people and its leader, “The Interview” does not do any creative work whatsoever.

Creating a fictional country could have sufficed. Creating a fictional leader of the real country would have been better. Blowing up the film into an alternate history as in “Inglourious Basterds” (2009), though untimely, could have made the film much stronger, a piece of the writer/director’s imagination.

This film’s intentions are so far from starting a conversation about what is happening in the Korean peninsula that it belittles the plight and separation of the Koreas. That is irresponsible and selfish.

Je suis Charlie. I am Charlie. I do not agree with the definition of freedom of speech that the people closest to Charlie Hebdo and “The Interview” claim to defend their work which is offensive, confrontational and threatening to mostly the religions and people these artists have portrayed. I believe that there has to be a respect and a love for the people and ideas being criticized, because conversations are built on an ability to trust one another. Freedom of speech to me is not wholly the right to draw, write, say and make whatever I want however offensive or assuming. Freedom of speech is the right and freedom to create content that can disagree, challenge, suggest change and support a different method. Je suis Charlie because this is a conversation I cannot have with twelve people who were shot dead in a magazine office and on the street.