Frank Rich has a column posted in the New York Times discussing how boring and dull the Super Bowl and its ads were this year, and blaming it all on the religious right, who are stifling popular culture with their demands of sholesome entertainment free of sex, violence and nudity.
Those bastards!
This repressive cultural environment was officially ratified on Nov. 2, when Ms. Jackson's breast pulled off its greatest coup of all: the re-election of President Bush. Or so it was decreed by the media horde that retroactively declared "moral values" the campaign's decisive issue and the Super Bowl the blue states' Waterloo. The political bosses of "family" organizations, well aware that TV's collective wisdom becomes reality whether true or not, have been emboldened ever since. They are spending their political capital like drunken sailors, redoubling their demands that the Bush administration marginalize gay people, stamp out sex education and turn pop culture into a continuous loop of "Rebecca of Sunnybrook Farm."Isn't it strange that one of the single most creative cultures in the history of the world cannot seem to creatte anything entertaining without relying on dick jokes, sex, and violence? Isn't that pretty much an admission of failure? Heck, even stand p comics know that, in order to be successful, you have to be able to get a laugh without going for the crotch.
But, according to Frank Rich, Hollywood can't. Going for the crotch is their sole stock in trade:
Should Sunday's Super Bowl falter in the ratings, its creators will lure that missing audience back next year with wardrobe malfunctions that haven't even been invented yet.
Actually, I have more faith in the entertainment community than that; I think they can produce entertainment without going below the belt. I think we can have effective advertising that doesn't feature beautiful women in scanty outfits. And I'll give you a few examples.
Remember the Coca Cola commercial where the little boy offers Mean Joe Greene his Coke? How about Alex the dog bringing his owner a beer? Or the Budweiser frogs? Or last night, when the best commercial of all came on? The scenes of our troops coming home to a standing ovation was, without question, the single best commercial of the evening. It was the first time I've ever waited eagerly to find out who the ad was for. I don't even drink, but I'm gonna go out and buy a case of Bud just because they had the vision and the heart to put that kind of commercial out there.
Oddly, looking through all the stories about the commercials today, it was hard to find it mentioned for more than a sentence or two. Most times it was dismissed, if not openly sneered at:
"Budweiser did best with the patriotic sentimentality," said DiMassimo. "In theory, I don't like the idea but it was well done and somehow rang true."
Mr. DiMassimo, could you please be a little bit more condescending? Some folks out there may not get it.
It rang true because it was true. There's a reason it's running second right now on USA Today's Ad Meter; people bought it because it accurately reflected their feelings. What clinched it for me was they didn't attach any brand names to the end, just the company name.
And these are just a few of the examples. I haven't even mentioned TV shows like Seventh Heaven, Joan of Arcadia, The Cosby Show, and the list goes on. Good TV shows that don't rely on sex, low humor, or violence to entertain.
Folks, Frank Rich is either an utter moron or he's pushing an agenda, and since it's virtually impossible to be a nationally syndicated columnist and be an utter moron (a few exceptions spring to mind, but they prove the rule rather than invalidate it) he's pushing an agenda. What that agenda may be is left as an exercise for the reader.
Posted by Rich at February 7, 2005 7:14 PM | TrackBack