THE ADVOCATE V O L . 8 0 P A R T 1 J A N U A R Y 2 0 2 2 9
ENTRE NOUS
During his 2011 Alimony Tour (which he claimed was to pay
for his divorce), British comedian John Cleese described
responses he and his producers had once received to test
screenings of their 1988 comedy film A Fish Called Wanda.1
The film follows the misadventures of a hapless barrister (played by Cleese)
who is seduced by a femme fatale (Jamie Lee Curtis) into unknowingly leading
a gang of diamond thieves (including Kevin Kline and Sir Michael Palin)
to the hiding place of the loot stashed away by the gang leader. Test audiences
for the film were asked to fill out and submit an evaluation card. Audience
members were asked things like: “What did you think of the music?”
“Did you like the ending?” and so on. One of the questions was “What were
the three funniest scenes in the movie for you?” The results were tallied,
and the three funniest scenes were (in order): killing the dogs, actor
Michael Palin with chips stuffed up his nose and finally Cleese dancing
around naked speaking Russian. The same audience was asked to identify
the three scenes that they found the most offensive and they were (in
order): killing the dogs, actor Michael Palin with chips stuffed up his nose
and finally Cleese dancing around naked speaking Russian.
Cleese’s takeaway from this correlation was that when comedians tread
into taboo areas that create anxiety, those who have a little bit of anxiety are
liberated from it by being elevated into a spontaneous outburst of laughter—
a sort of relief from the anxiety. Meanwhile, those with more anxiety
find themselves not only dealing with the taboo subject itself, but also the
horror of being surrounded by a group of people around them laughing
uproariously about it and they get more anxious and therefore become
offended.2 Cleese’s insight provides a fascinating lens through which to consider
the recent decision of the Supreme Court of Canada in Ward v. Quebec
(Commission des droits de la personne et des droits de la jeunesse),3 where the
court balanced a complainant’s right to the safeguard of his dignity and the