I think that there are a lot of wrongs here. Firstly, the Academy. They should have purused all the gags before the show and decided if THEY thought they were acceptable. They need to do this with someone who is au fait with topical references. I say this cos a poster on this forum suggested that the joke may have been a risque reference to a fling Will had had with Demi Moore ( who played GI Jane). They makes a difference. I can kind of see that this would fit and be likely as it makes the gag near the edge, because otherwise it isn't really funny to point out similarity to GI Jane. Dog.. Lots of people must have said that to her/in media, already. (As
. It's lame as a gag, just about the shaved head, and Chris is sharp and witty
There was some hesitation/prevarication about what should be done and who was right. Clearly the stars who comforted Will thought he had some right on his side. Did he? The Academy should have been pre-prepared for some issues with some jokes.
Shouldn't it gave been noted before the show that a cruel jibe about hair loss would've told - and someone decide before hand if alopecia is acceptable territory for comedy?.
And then what kind of show is the Oscars? If, as some have said, children watch it and it sends them a wrong message about legitimate targets of ribaldry, then that joke should have been cut. If the Oscars are 18+ and they want to use the 'art can be valid even if it offends' defence, then that is different...but,maybe , at least warn Jada she is going to feature and it is a no holds barred event.
The Oscars will be remembered for this incident and the swearing, and some guests may, in future, emulate the assault, if they don't impose a sanction ..but they the organisers have themselves to blame for wanting to be cutting edgy and establishment, at the same time.
And it is a question of degrees. If someone made fun of my autistic adult son's behaviour, I might swear at them. Hypothetically, some jokes, against sick children perhaps, might lead to most of the audience wanting to hit Rock.
I think Piers Morgan made a fair point that it was a slap and not a punch. An open-hand slap is seen.as an admonishment , like a woman slapping a man's face if he touches her inappropriately. We wouldn't do it today, but they did it in the 1950s with impunity. We've moved now to the point where all violence is judged as wrong, which is very good I think, and for the best. But let's acknowledge that the strike wasn't aimed to maim.
The cancel culture if today is wrong. If Smith gets barred, effectively, from making films, that will have elements of a child being ostracized in the playground for one ill-judged action or mistake. It won't be nice and will seem revengeful .
There's a lot of confusion over 'Did Will Laugh at first? ' "Did Jada laugh when she saw Chris being hit?' Not nice to hit someone, if you don't really think what they said was wrong. It all brings some ambiguity into the scenario. Will really shouldn't jump to be the hard guy, every time his wife frowns - not if he himself is cool about the humour. . Will has defended his wife and warned off interviewing journalists before - a Spanish one. Should Jada say to him: " Please, you don't need to do this".
Chris Rock comes off well. De-escalating by saying "I won't" (do it again) is good..being professional is always the right move. Denzil Washington too, I agree with, in his comment about the Devil.
It could be one of those situations where everyone is wrong and everyone is right.