Two Great Posts on Idol Chatter

Posted on October 8, 2009 at 8:00 am

I am honored to share coverage of popular culture with the thoughtful posters over at Idol Chatter. Two posts I have especially liked this week are Ellen Leventry’s commentary on the new homeless American Girl doll and the Mont Blanc $25,000 pen commemorating Mohandas Gandhi, a concept so stunning that at first I assumed it was a parody. She says:

Sure, American Girl has been working with HomeAid America, a leading national nonprofit provider of housing for the homeless, since 2006, and they have successfully addressed important social issues with other dolls, including Addy Walker, an escaped slave who is trying to reunite her family, and the Depression-era, penny-pinching Kit Ketteridge. But, American Girl is taking a problem that is less safely historical and merchandising it in the same way. In this recession, with more and more individuals and families becoming homeless, surely the Mattel-owned company could give a generous percentage of the sales of the even-in-economically-good-times-exorbitantly priced doll to charity?

That would certainly reinforce the learning experience of this doll. And I agree, too, that while Mont Blanc is giving some of the profits from this pen to charity, including one approved by Gandhi’s great-grandson, there is something fundamentally inconsistent in the idea of honoring a man whose possessions could be contained in a shoebox with a pen that costs as much as a car.
I also loved Esther Kustanowitz’s post on “The Family Goy,” about an episode of “The Family Guy” that explores Lois’ Jewish identity. There’s a link to the episode, too, so take a look.

Related Tags:

Understanding Media and Pop Culture

Three Movies Examine Our Struggle to Understand God

Posted on September 29, 2009 at 2:59 pm

Three new and very different movies have one thing in common — they all ask their characters and their audiences to think about the nature of God and faith. This week we have a perky romantic comedy with Ricky Gervais and Jennifer Garner called “The Invention of Lying.” As the title suggests, it is about a world in which everyone tells the literal, concrete truth all the time. And then one man figures out that he can lie, and that since no one else is aware that lies even exist, he can pretty much get away with everything. Since no one lies, everyone is completely gullible. So much is clear from the trailers. But Entertainment Weekly reports that there is a more controversial element to the film and that one of the “lies” the Gervais character comes up with is the idea of God.
Gervais, who also co-wrote and directed the film, has responded to concerns from bloggers.

1. No one has seen the film.

2. Even if the film suggests there is no God, it is a fictional world. One of my favourite films is ‘It’s a wonderful life’ and at no time am I offended by the suggestion in this wonderful work of fiction that there is a God.

3. If the film was not set in a fictional world and suggested there is no God then that’s fine too, as it is anyone’s right not to believe in God.

4. By suggesting there is no God you are not singling out Christianity.

5. Not believing in God cannot be blasphemous. Blasphemy is acknowledging a God to insult or offend etc.

6. Even if it was blasphemous, which it isn’t, then that’s OK too due to a little god I like called “freedom of speech.” That said, I am not trying to offend anyone. That would be a waste of such a privilege.

7. I am an atheist, but this is not atheist propaganda. When creating an imaginary world you have to make certain decisions. We decided also that there would be no surrealist art, no racism, no flattery, no fiction, no metaphor, and no supernatural. However, we decided that apart from that one “lying gene”, humans evolved with everything else as we have it today. Joy, hope, ambition, ruthlessness, greed, lust, anger, jealousy, sadness, and grief. It’s just a film. If any of the themes in it offend you or bore you, or just don’t make sense to you, you should put everything right when you make a film.

I really hope everyone enjoys the film and keeps an open mind. I believe in peace on Earth, and good will to all men. I do as I would be done by, and believe that forgiveness is one of the greatest virtues. I just don’t believe I will be rewarded for it in heaven. That’s all.

I have a different take, which I will discuss in my upcoming review.
Perhaps an even more unexpected place for a discussion of God and faith than a comedy is in Michael Moore’s latest documentary, “Capitalism: A Love Story.” Moore is well-known for his attacks on the Bush administration (“Farenheit 911”), insurance companies (“Sicko”), and our treatment of guns and violence (“Bowling for Columbine”). In this new film, he takes on the financial crisis. His argument turns out to be based not as much in economics as in his own Catholic faith. He even interviews the priest who performed his wedding ceremony to help make his point that the current system is not just bad policy; it is not WWJD. The media often creates the impression that faith-based politics are right-wing and it is provocative and refreshing to see a different point of view.
And then there is a movie that is going to be difficult to put in any category, because it is the new film from the Coen brothers, who are masters of genre — both evoking and transcending them. According to the New York Times, their new film “A Serious Man” “is both a Job-like parable of Jewish angst in a 1960s Midwestern suburb and a bleakly antic meditation on divine intent, the certainty of uncertainty and the mysteries of Jefferson Airplane lyrics.
The film’s central character is a scientist who seeks the advice of three rabbis to help him find meaning and purpose. That makes this film unusual in two respects — the portrayal of Jewish theology and the portrayal of clergy as a place to go for guidance.
And I am glad to see movies providing some guidance as well, by engaging us in very different ways about issues so profound and pervasive that it is only through a variety of approaches we can begin to understand what we believe.

Talking to Kids About Courtesy

Posted on September 23, 2009 at 3:59 pm

We seem to be in the midst of an epidemic of rude behavior, with three high-profile recent examples in three different fields of endeavor — though, interestingly, all involving people with last names starting with “W.” At the State of the Union address, Congressman Joe Wilson expressed his differences with the President not by writing an op-ed or giving an interview but by yelling out “You lie!” in the middle of the speech. Tennis star Serena Williams got into an argument with the line judge at the U.S. Open that included an ugly, profanity-laced threat. And at the MTV video music awards, rapper Kanye West interrupted teen country and pop star Taylor Swift’s acceptance speech for best female video to tell her that hers was not as good as Beyonce’s.
Perhaps one key to this trend can be found in the fact that all three of these incidents and the round of awkward and grudging apologies received the kind of press coverage we used to reserve for a royal wedding, while an act of supreme graciousness and courtesy received almost none. West, who in the past has been notoriously rude at award shows when someone else won an award he thought should have been his, this time interrupted Swift to tell her that while her video was fine, “Single Ladies” by Beyonce was better. Beyonce, sitting in the audience, looked aghast. But then, in a moment that would have been considered too outlandish for a movie, Beyonce won the top award of the night, video of the year. She went up to the stage, impeccable in attire and bearing as always, and turned the stage over to Swift.
What do these incidents teach our children? In movies, on television, and in the media we see rude behavior rewarded with laughter, attention, and even plaudits for “honesty.” Manners and courtesy are words that seem old-fashioned these days and concepts that seem all-but forgotten.
I believe that one of a parent’s most important responsibilities is teaching children the importance of courtesy. Yes, that includes which fork to use and passing the salt and pepper together even when only the salt is requested. And yes, it includes a hand-written, prompt, and specific thank you note for any gift, hospitality, or special kindness. But mostly courtesy is about showing the kind of respect and dignity that will benefit not only the recipient but the person who provides it. The simple rules of courtesy are a road-map that will give children and teenagers confidence and poise. And a big advantage in interviews for school and jobs, too.
I’m going to be posting a list of good movies to help families initiate conversations about respect, manners, and courtesy. Stay tuned.

What is the Phrase Heard on Every Single Reality Show?

Posted on September 20, 2009 at 8:00 am

I’m not here to make friends!

Be sure to take a look at this hilarious compilation of “I’m not here to make friends” moments from reality shows compiled by Rich Juzwiak of VH1. Here’s a sample:

His terrific and very illuminating commentary is on the current “Frenemies” episode of “This American Life.” Highly recommended for fans of reality television — and friendship!

MPAA Trailer Rule Update

Posted on September 14, 2009 at 3:59 pm

Top entertainment reporter/commentator for the LA Times Patrick Goldstein wrote a terrific blog post about my story on the MPAA’s secret change to the rules governing the content of trailers, calling the consequences of this change “a whole new level of unintelligibility.” My story in the Chicago Sun-Times and commentary here got nice mentions in Christianity Today (thank you, Brandon Fibbs), Reel Fanatic (thank you, Keith Demko), and Movie Marketing Madness (thank you, Chris Thilk). And thanks to Kevin “BDK” McCarthy for inviting me to discuss this issue in his weekly podcast.
I heard from the MPAA, too. Elizabeth Kaltman, MPAA vice president for corporate communications, who was quoted in my article, wrote a comment here on my blog post. Here it is in full, followed by my response:

Ms. Minow got it wrong. The MPAA’s Advertising Administration has not eliminated restrictions on film advertising; rather, we have further enhanced the process to ensure appropriate content is put in front of the right audiences. To be clear, what this means is that the content of the trailer is appropriate for the audience viewing the trailer with the movie they have chosen to see.

The intent of the change from “All Audience” tags to “Appropriate Audience” tags is to indicate to the audience that we consider the placement of the advertising material is appropriate for that audience, but that it may not be appropriate for all audiences. This change allows distributors greater freedom to accurately target and promote their movies, while at the same time honoring our pledge to parents that stronger advertising material will not reach younger audiences.

As Ms. Minow accurately points out, the Advertising Administration goes to great lengths to limit access to content which is intended for mature audiences.

Over the course of many years we have received feedback from parents that content for some movies in a trailer with an “All Audiences” tag was misleading. This new change reflects the Advertising Administration’s increased vigilance to target advertising to appropriate audiences, in keeping with the purpose of ensuring that advertising content reflects the true spirit of the film.

First, I want to thank Ms. Kaltman, who was extremely helpful and responsive as I was writing my article. I appreciate the difficulty of her position. I know how hard it is to have to try to justify actions and positions like the ones taken by the MPAA here. I well understand the techniques of spin and distraction. I appreciate that she has tried her best, but her comment further reveals the failure of any credibility in the MPAA’s arguments. She is unable to dispute any of the facts or arguments I presented.
Ms. Kaltman begins by saying I am wrong, but she then explicitly or implicitly concedes every point I made. She says “To be clear, what this means is that the content of the trailer is appropriate for the audience viewing the trailer with the movie they have chosen to see.” Well, if some determination has been made about the content of the trailer, why not disclose it? Since a significant number of movie trailers are assigned to films by the theater manager, wouldn’t it be helpful to them as well as to parents to have enough information to be able to understand the basis for the “appropriate” determination? She does not respond to my point that a trailer with PG-13-level violence could be paired with a movie like this week’s “The Informant!” that is rated R for language only.
Significantly, Ms. Kaltman does not address the two most significant objections I made to the policy. The first is that the prevalence of trailers online, uncoupled from any “appropriate” feature films, makes it impossible to limit them to “appropriate” audiences. Aggregator sites like Yahoo! Movies, Apple Trailers, and YouTube show dozens of trailers that can be accessed by anyone, so there is not way to limit them to “appropriate” audiences. She says:

The intent of the change from “All Audience” tags to “Appropriate Audience” tags is to indicate to the audience that we consider the placement of the advertising material is appropriate for that audience, but that it may not be appropriate for all audiences. This change allows distributors greater freedom to accurately target and promote their movies, while at the same time honoring our pledge to parents that stronger advertising material will not reach younger audiences.

But she does not explain how to ensure that “stronger advertising material” that “may not be appropriate for all audiences” will “not reach younger audiences” when they can access the trailers online without any guidance for parents at the beginning of the trailer about the “stronger” material it contains.
My second objection is to the MPAA’s decision to make this change without any public announcement, explanation, or opportunity to comment. In what way is this “honoring our pledge to parents?”
Ms. Kaltman was unable to find a single factual error in what I wrote. She objects only to my characterization of the change in policy as “eliminating restrictions.” In her view they have “further enhanced the process.” I believe the dictionary supports my language. Material that previously was not permitted in a trailer is now permitted. That is what eliminating restrictions means. It is now harder to figure out whether a trailer contains material that may not be suitable for all audience members. That does not meet any definition of enhancing the process. Trying to sneak this change past parents is about as far from an enhancement as it is possible to be. I believe the MPAA knew they were doing something parents would not like and that is why they did not tell anyone.
I have written to the MPAA to ask them to reconsider this decision and to make a commitment to public disclosure of any further changes to the rules. I have also written to the Division of Advertising Practices at the Federal Trade Commission’s Bureau of Consumer Protection to ask them to investigate whether this change violates the rules about marketing inappropriate films to underage children. I have asked for meetings with both, and will keep you posted on any replies.