Time to take satire seriously

James Franco and Seth Rogen (Image: Variety.com)

I am a big fan of 'Have I got News for You'. I enjoy watching 'Mock the Week', reading 'Private Eye' and there are plenty of stand ups and comedians I like - Harry Enfield, Michael McIntyre and Shappi Khorsandi to name a few. What these television shows, publications and personalities mentioned have in common is that they use satire to address their points of view.

One dictionary definition of 'satire' is "the use of irony, sarcasm, ridicule or the like, in exposing, denouncing or deriding vice, folly, etc." One can argue it is a simple poke fun at people who can take it, and if they couldn't, then that is their prerogative. Satire is intended to be harmless fun. In Britain we do it often enough to celebrities and politicians and have done it for decades without offending too many people.

So it makes you wonder why the term in question has been brought to disrepute this past week. Hollywood have been up in arms as one of their big guns, Sony, had their emails hacked and leaked online. The glitz and glamour of LA were left red-faced when private discussions exposed spoilt actors, stroppy directors and future blockbuster scripts made available to the public. They were spread like wildfire and the media revelled in the juicy content.

All of a sudden, due to the scale of the hack, the US government and the FBI felt they had to get involved in any future investigations. How dare Barack Obama's buddy, Angelina Jolie cry a river when emails revealed that she isn't the darling we perceive her to be (film producer of her upcoming film Cleopatra, Scott Rudin, said she was "seriously out of her mind" among other revelations). The President wanted justice and investigators were quick to discover that the North Koreans were behind it all. Why, because a film that was due to be released for Christmas on the big screens around the world was to picture something that would cause uproar for the government of the Far Eastern country.

'The Interview', a film by acting duo James Franco and Seth Rogen, was to be about the assassination of Kim Jong-un. Of course, the 31-year-old isn't dead, but because he is the controversial sort who would execute his uncle over a disagreement that other families would call 'family bonding', Franco and Rogen thought it would be hilarious if they dramatised the dictator's death and make millions from it. The film has created so much backlash from North Korea's end, Sony decided to pull the film's launch provoking anger from fans and US government officials alike.

Kim Jong-un shouldn't take it personally - he isn't the first 'victim' of Franco and Rogen's definition of a laugh. Last year, they reinacted a music video by A-List couple Kim Kardashian and Kanye West. Kardashian saw the funnier side to it but let's face it - the video was light-hearted, not meant to offend anyone, it did nobody any harm, a pure example of satire.

But 'The Interview' is much different to 'Bound 3'. The hip-hop music spoof video was just poking fun at the raunchy scenes of the original because they look ridiculous, and Franco and Rogen probably thought Kardashian at least would have enjoyed it because she craves publicity - they judged correctly and the spoof was critically acclaimed elsewhere. However, Kardashian is in the 'celebrity business'. Although this can be serious business, that is only due to legal contract signing for fragrance endorsements or producing TV shows. Politics is very different. Every decision politicians make affects the masses in some shape or form. And with the increased awareness of which leaders to avoid, lots of people realise that Kim Jong-un is one of the top people on the list of notorious dictators. He makes people's lives a living misery while at the same time is perfectly capable of destructing the lives of millions more in countries that are vocally disgusted of his existence - United States being one of them.

'The Interview' certainly hasn't enhanced the relationship between North Korea and the US, in fact it has worsened it, especially now that Obama has gotten himself involved. After rebuilding burnt bridges with Cuba, you'd think Obama would do the same with the other countries on their 'danger list'. However, my concern is the film itself. Why on earth would anyone want to make a film about the brutal death of someone alive and dangerous? The US are still scarred by how John F. Kennedy died over 50 years ago, and I'm sure they wouldn't want their current President killed on film while he was alive, so why inflict the same on someone like Kim Jong-un? I don't like his policies but do I wish death upon him? The thought is undemocratic.

Hilary Mantel (Image: Daily Telegraph)

The backlash of 'The Interview' reminds me of the criticism Hilary Mantel received when she published the short story about the assassination of Margaret Thatcher in September 2014. I recall the abuse from the Thatcherites, asking for Mantel to be arrested. I mean, how dare the Man Booker Prize winner picture the death of the former Prime Minister who passed away nearly two years ago.

For me, both 'The Interview' and 'The Assassination of Margaret Thatcher' picture deaths of real people which could have easily been avoided, but you could tell the latter was better thought through. The timing is crucial and 'The Interview' could have caused less controversy if they released it much later while Mantel waited. She could have published that book in 1983 as initially intended - when Thatcher was at the height of her power, but she waited until well after her death before deciding to do anything. I'm sure 'The Interview' would have been just as effective a few years from now once North Korea had calmed down and perhaps found a way to oust their current leader.

However the most crucial difference between the two titles is that Mantel's intention wasn't satirical. She wasn't in any way wanting to ridicule anyone, didn't want people to laugh - it is a serious piece of literature. But with 'The Interview', Franco and Rogen wanted people to laugh the same way as former footballer Jimmy Bullard performed his version of 'banter' on X-Factor contestant Jake Quickenden on this year's 'I'm a Celebrity... Get me out of Here'. It is offensive and it will only encourage younger people to inflict pain on others in the name of satire, regardless of how bad that person is.

Unless this is me being "too British". I would never appreciate that sort of South Park-esque humour. And with the increasing threat of terrorism as exposed in the media, the last thing we want is further conflict, even if what we've created is meant to be fun and games.