Propaganda on the Teevee
Okay, I've been watching a couple of shows lately, and I've been wanting to comment on them. I think they're nothing more than hippy liberal propaganda.
The first is the TNT mini-series "Into the West", which chronicles the American expansion westward from the perspective of both the conquering imperialist whites against the poor, oppressed Indians. Gee, I wonder if that's an allegory for something, sort of like Helen was an allegory for another precious commodity.
Not only is the dialogue and plotline cheesy, poorly written, and not at all believable, but it deemphasizes the amazing feat of western expansion while idealizing the American Indians and portraying them entirely as victims. To be honest with you, and at the risk of sounding alarmist and curmudgeonly, I honestly feel that "Into the West" is supposed to serve as an allegory for alleged American political and economic imperialism in the Middle East. You can feel free to disbelieve me, but let's remember just how liberal Hollywood is, and just how many films and television programs are made purely as propaganda pieces. Can you say "M*A*S*H?
I'm a historian. I know the good, the bad, and the ugly. "Into the West" is, in my opinion, historically inaccurate; overall, it's an inappropriate and irresponsible portrayal of American history. Two thumbs down.
I also had occasion last night to watch that new FX series, "30 Days", with Morgan Spurlock. For those of you who don't know, Spurlock was the director/writer/producer/central player in the 2004 documentary Super Size Me, in which he spent thirty days eating nothing but McDonalds food. I didn't see the film, though I heard some bits and pieces about it.
I saw about an episode and a half last night. In the first installment, Spurlock and his girlfriend, Alex, spend thirty days living on minimum wage, without insurance, without credit cards, et cetera. While it was a good representation of just how difficult it can be to live at minimum wage, I was somewhat displeased with the imbalance of the show. It gave Senator Edward "Chappaquiddick" Kennedy abundant credit for having tried to increase the federal minimum wage for several years running, and then the explanation for why that's a completely asinine idea came from some unknown guy from a conservative think tank. The explanation was good, and the guy came off as credible, but you get the idea.
Also, there were a few parts that just weren't very believable. For example, Spurlock and Alex both take an entire day off from work to celebrate Alex's birthday. There's also no mention made of the capacity for getting a raise, or getting a stable job that's not dictated by a temp agency, et cetera. I realize that you can't give the entire story in an hour, but there were certain elements that could have been covered. For example, one of the guys Spurlock worked with on a job as a day laborer was a twenty-three year old with four or five kids. Spurlock makes a point of pointing out how tough it would be to feed five or six extra mouths on minimum wage without emphasizing that this guy is a twenty-three year old kid with four or five kids. If he didn't want to be raising five kids on minimum wage, he should have either A) kept it in his pants, B) gotten his girlfriend on birth control (which is, I think, free or cheap from most state governments in an effort to prevent welfare kids like this guy's offspring).
I also have to take some issue with the film that got Spurlock started. I'm absolutely not a fan of McDonalds; I've eaten there all of twice since my senior year of high school. I think their food is rubbish, I hate their advertising campaigns, and I detest how the company has a greater deal of influence on society than many other institutions, such as churches and such. Even so, McDonalds has a right to exist, and as long as Americans (and the rest of the burger lovin' world) buy their lousy, cheap food, they're going to continue to be a powerhouse. I don't know if Spurlock's film mentions the importance of personal responsibility in choosing what to eat; it likely does. However, wouldn't a balanced, objective film focus on fast food in general, as opposed to a single company?
With episodes chronicling living life as a Muslim for a month, or putting a gay guy and a staunch conservative together as roommates for a month in San Francisco (and making the conservative go to gay bars and gay functions), it's obvious that Spurlock has an agenda. I can give him credit for attempting to give both sides of the issues, but the balance just isn't there. I'll keep watching the show as I'm able, and perhaps I'll change my mind; but so far, it seems like more agenda-driven television, which is the last thing we need more of here in America.
Think I'm wrong? Tell me why. Think I'm right? Tell me why. Post it up, folks.
The first is the TNT mini-series "Into the West", which chronicles the American expansion westward from the perspective of both the conquering imperialist whites against the poor, oppressed Indians. Gee, I wonder if that's an allegory for something, sort of like Helen was an allegory for another precious commodity.
Not only is the dialogue and plotline cheesy, poorly written, and not at all believable, but it deemphasizes the amazing feat of western expansion while idealizing the American Indians and portraying them entirely as victims. To be honest with you, and at the risk of sounding alarmist and curmudgeonly, I honestly feel that "Into the West" is supposed to serve as an allegory for alleged American political and economic imperialism in the Middle East. You can feel free to disbelieve me, but let's remember just how liberal Hollywood is, and just how many films and television programs are made purely as propaganda pieces. Can you say "M*A*S*H?
I'm a historian. I know the good, the bad, and the ugly. "Into the West" is, in my opinion, historically inaccurate; overall, it's an inappropriate and irresponsible portrayal of American history. Two thumbs down.
I also had occasion last night to watch that new FX series, "30 Days", with Morgan Spurlock. For those of you who don't know, Spurlock was the director/writer/producer/central player in the 2004 documentary Super Size Me, in which he spent thirty days eating nothing but McDonalds food. I didn't see the film, though I heard some bits and pieces about it.
I saw about an episode and a half last night. In the first installment, Spurlock and his girlfriend, Alex, spend thirty days living on minimum wage, without insurance, without credit cards, et cetera. While it was a good representation of just how difficult it can be to live at minimum wage, I was somewhat displeased with the imbalance of the show. It gave Senator Edward "Chappaquiddick" Kennedy abundant credit for having tried to increase the federal minimum wage for several years running, and then the explanation for why that's a completely asinine idea came from some unknown guy from a conservative think tank. The explanation was good, and the guy came off as credible, but you get the idea.
Also, there were a few parts that just weren't very believable. For example, Spurlock and Alex both take an entire day off from work to celebrate Alex's birthday. There's also no mention made of the capacity for getting a raise, or getting a stable job that's not dictated by a temp agency, et cetera. I realize that you can't give the entire story in an hour, but there were certain elements that could have been covered. For example, one of the guys Spurlock worked with on a job as a day laborer was a twenty-three year old with four or five kids. Spurlock makes a point of pointing out how tough it would be to feed five or six extra mouths on minimum wage without emphasizing that this guy is a twenty-three year old kid with four or five kids. If he didn't want to be raising five kids on minimum wage, he should have either A) kept it in his pants, B) gotten his girlfriend on birth control (which is, I think, free or cheap from most state governments in an effort to prevent welfare kids like this guy's offspring).
I also have to take some issue with the film that got Spurlock started. I'm absolutely not a fan of McDonalds; I've eaten there all of twice since my senior year of high school. I think their food is rubbish, I hate their advertising campaigns, and I detest how the company has a greater deal of influence on society than many other institutions, such as churches and such. Even so, McDonalds has a right to exist, and as long as Americans (and the rest of the burger lovin' world) buy their lousy, cheap food, they're going to continue to be a powerhouse. I don't know if Spurlock's film mentions the importance of personal responsibility in choosing what to eat; it likely does. However, wouldn't a balanced, objective film focus on fast food in general, as opposed to a single company?
With episodes chronicling living life as a Muslim for a month, or putting a gay guy and a staunch conservative together as roommates for a month in San Francisco (and making the conservative go to gay bars and gay functions), it's obvious that Spurlock has an agenda. I can give him credit for attempting to give both sides of the issues, but the balance just isn't there. I'll keep watching the show as I'm able, and perhaps I'll change my mind; but so far, it seems like more agenda-driven television, which is the last thing we need more of here in America.
Think I'm wrong? Tell me why. Think I'm right? Tell me why. Post it up, folks.
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home