Christopher Cervantes
[email protected]

Whenever things seem to be going bad in the world, people flock to the movie theaters to forget about the troubles of their real lives. During this time, the market for comedies is unusually large, just because of the simple reason that everyone needs to laugh to keep from crying. But when must a line be drawn? At what expense do laughs come from?

“Saturday Night Live” alumnus and all-around funny guy Will Ferrell may have just crossed that line. Last week, it was announced that Ferrell was to portray former President Ronald Reagan in a comedy. In this comedy, Ferrell would take on the role of the famous conservative during his second term, as dementia began to have an effect on his mental faculties. The plot of the film has, as reported by CNN, has “a White House intern who must persuade a dementia-stricken Reagan that he’s an actor playing the president in a movie.”

Given that Reagan died in 2004 due to complications with Alzheimer’s, it is needless to say that this did not go over well. The backlash against this plot has been so great that Ferrell dropped out of the project.

Should he have, though?

Ferrell is no stranger to political satire. During his stint on “Saturday Night Live,” he portrayed both former Attorney General Janet Reno and former President George W. Bush with rave reviews. And let’s be honest, people liked them because they poked fun and highlighted the eccentricities of the two. Translation: He made fun of them, and he made fun of them well.

So, what separates the situation with Reagan with that of Reno and Bush? Why are some people OK to satirize, but other figures are strictly off limits?

I think part of this has to do with simply how serious people take disease, both of the mind and body. Let’s do some replacements. What if someone made a comedy, poking light at AIDS or leukemia, I’m sure a lot of advocacy groups wouldn’t laugh. In fact, I’m sure that it would lead a lot of people who have suffered through said diseases (or seen someone suffer through them) to feel exploited in some way.

So, I can understand why people are offended. However, I think that the project has every right to do what it is doing.

Do I find it in poor taste? Yes, especially since I have heard stories of a personal family friend dealing with dementia. It is in very poor taste. But as much as I may dislike it, I respect the sanctity of free speech too much to actively try to advocate against a movie that is most likely on par with Seth Rogen’s The Interview. If people really have a problem with this film, the answer is quite simple and (metaphorically) staring you in the face.

Don’t see it.

Think of it as your exercising your right to protest, another value that is most American.