One of the most interesting films from the 1980s was The Unbearable Lightness of Being, a story from behind the then still standing Iron Curtain. The protagonist is repeatedly pressured by the Authorities to inform on his family and friends. He repeatedly refuses, choosing to be true to his own self and his moral code. The Authorities punish him - he is a doctor, but they make him into a common laborer in retaliation for his refusal to "play ball". It's not a happy film, but it's an important one in the way it highlighted the soul crushing totalitarianism suffered by the populations of the Soviet Bloc. Such a film could never be made today.
The reason is that the film and entertainment industry has essentially become the Soviet Bloc. The entire industry is notoriously liberal, and has used its monopoly power to push a set of ideas and values on a (mostly) unwilling society. What l'affair Duck Dynasty underlines in red (of course, in red) is that the same sort of totalitarian world view is enforced as well. Just as the Authorities in the Warsaw Pact were happy to make a doctor into a laborer so that everyone saw the cost of disobedience, so the A&E network is happy to put the most popular show in the history of cable TV at risk - so that everyone else can see the cost of disobedience.
It's quite an astonishing display, because it's being done so nakedly. There's not even a pretense here, just insistence that all kneel before the altar of their ideology. Fascists shown clearly, unashamed of the glare of the klieg lights.
I'd think that just like Fox achieved enormous success by having a non-leftwards (more accurately, a less-leftwards slanted) news program, someone could make a lot of money with a network focused on more traditional American values.
The reason that we beat totalitarianism back then is that we had competition on our side, and they didn't. That lesson remains fresh today.
11 comments:
The funny part, to me, is that A&E probably thinks that cancelling Duck Dynasty will end (or at least damage) that very Dynasty. These guys were running a successful, multi-million dollar outdoor company before the show aired, and the additional merchandising and manufactured scandal has only strengthened them. The only things hurt here were a few feelings and a cable tv company's bottom line.
DD is a reputable business, as Wolfman said. They don't really care about the $$ per se, and in all honestly would probably prefer to have their privacy back. But I DO hear Sportsman's Channel calling... They are pretty much uncompromising American Values, albeit with a smaller cable viewership...
Glen Beck is trying to create a "Traditional Values" network with "The Blaze".
I believe that the network management think (or thought) that what their were producing was a show that provided an opportunity to mock rural people. Their intent was to create a cartoon image of the proverbial "redneck" and offer it up as something allowing their usual audience to feel superior to the show's subjects.
In other words "Hahaha ... look at the stupid rednecks!" ...
Instead what they got was unintentional consequences. They got an entirely new audience and contributed to a $billion enterprise with a bulletproof brand.
The success of A&E with the DD franchise has nothing to do with the network being "smart". They plainly have no clue what happened.
It is no surprise at all that they A&E management caved in to the first progressive activists that bitched about the Robertsons. Indeed the only surprise is the egg on A&E's face after the blowback from the new audience.
OMMAG - Agreed 100%. This was coastal elites making a show to make fun of ignorant flyover rednecks, who were shocked at the following that these people got, not to mock and lampoon them, but because so many people identified with them and thought "huh, those fellers are kind of like my family!"
A&E never wanted the show they got, but were making too much money to try and stop it. That is why their knee-jerk reaction was to kill the show when the first bad thing happened, instead of protecting it like they should have.
By the by, it occurs to me that if the homosexual rights folks that wanted Phil to be fired over what he said are actually working to make themselves look like petty crybabies that must have the unconditional approval of every single person on planet Earth, then they’re doing a bang-up job.
If that isn’t their goal, I would suggest a different tact.
And anyone that counters by saying that what Phil said was hateful, please provide the part in his quote where he said anything hateful. He merely stated his opinion that heterosexuality is better, and is his preferred condition. He said that heterosexuality is what is meant to be, and that deviations from heterosexuality are not proper or healthy.
OHMYGOD!!!!eleventy! The HATE!
Oh, wait, that isn’t really hateful. That was pretty much just opinion. Sort of like if I said “being fat is not really desirable or healthy.” I can’t for the life of me figure out how anyone but a goddamned crybaby that demands unconditional approval from everyone would be offended by his statement.
To follow up what Goober said, I've read Phil's remarks - at least what was quoted in something other than GQ - and he repeatedly says stuff like "but that's just me". To me, I don't see a whiff of him personally hating people.
The thing I don't understand is that if people don't believe in "the Kingdom of Heaven" or the Bible, why do they get upset when someone tells them a book they don't believe says they can't get something they think doesn't exist?
I personally don't know more than one or two words from the Harry Potter universe, but I sure wouldn't get upset if a Harry Potter believer told me if I did something I couldn't become a wizard. I guess that's a weak analogy, but atheists getting upset when a Christian tells them what the Bible says makes zero sense to me.
Graybeard:
I don't really get it, either. It is one of three things, as far as I can see:
1.) The worst case of narcissism I've ever seen - literally being totally unable to accept the fact that anyone could possibly ever disagree with you, and seeing it as a personal attack and an affront if they do;
2.) The worst case of low self-esteem I've ever seen - a self-loathing so full and complete that the person possessing it is literally incapable of dealing with any disagreement or criticism without melting down into a steaming pile;
3.) A supremacist movement - a group of people that think that they are better than everyone else, and should have the right to crush or destroy any dissent to their message, whatsoever.
My guess is that in a group so broad and varied as the homosexual community, it is some of all three, adding up to create the most childish and silly backlash against the opinions of a public figure ever. If I were gay, I'd be ashamed of this, and work to distance myself from it as much as possible.
Alec Baldwin, however, continues to get a pass, it seems, for actually, you know, spouting hateful rhetoric (because he is a coastal elite, and therefore part of the "in" crowd) while Phil Robertson gets assaulted for stating his opinion in a non-hateful manner, qualified to make sure no one mistook what he said as being hate, and also qualified to ensure that everyone knew it was just his opinion.
I would note that there is a large segment of the homosexual population that sees this in the same way I do, and are angry that they're being dragged along into this childish tantrum.
I want to go on about this, because it is one of my hot button topics:
the narcissism of thinking that you get a say in what other people think, and the coastal elites vs. flyover bumpkins thing.
I could. I wrote it up over at my place, and it's long. I'm going to take a crack at paring it down, but it's there.
Goober, my vote is on #3.
Too many participants to pigeon hole them all. That's why I chose option D "all of the above" (or was I using numbers? Don't remember.)
Post a Comment