Slate's Bizbox




the breakfast table: An e-mail conversation about the news of the day.

Andy Dehnart, Wesley Morris, and Alex Pappademas

from: Alex Pappademas

David E. Kelley's Favor to Robert Downey Jr.

Posted Wednesday, April 25, 2001, at 5:28 PM ET

Andy,

When my friend and I were talking about this yesterday, I tried to argue that since the really-big-words-on-a-wall technique of conveying information is something gallery artists took from advertising, MTV copping Kruger just represents advertising's revenge. (Did you see Jon Stewart on 60 Minutes this weekend? Asked where he and his Daily Show crew get off mocking the Fourth Estate, he basically said, "Well, if the media's going to act like part of the entertainment industry"--through shows like Dateline NBC, etc.--"it's open season for entertainment to make fun of the media." I'm paraphrasing and probably twisting it a little, but that was the gist.)



Be that as it may, though, there's something unsettling about a cultural climate in which everything, including art and/or public service announcements originally designed to help educate people about an epidemic like AIDS, can be flipped around and used to sell something. I think we're defining "culture" differently, or maybe I'm talking about a moral standpoint that supersedes the right of pop culture to goof around with things.

I don't know if I get what you're saying about PSAs co-opting aesthetic/cultural values, so you're going to have to explain a little further. (Although there's a mindbogglingly ugly and probably completely ineffectual anti-tobacco campaign running in a lot of magazines right now that definitely offends my aesthetic sensibilities. Inspiring tag line: "Tobacco Is Whacko If You're a Teen." The other sure-fire way to get 16-year-olds to do something is to use slogans like that one. Aside from the fact that the ad is apparently trying to "speak to kids in their language," coming off stiffer than Bill O'Reilly at Hedonism 2 in the process, they spell "wacko" the way philistine copy editors make you spell it, and that's just empirically not right.)

Re the talented Mr. Downey, sure, he's swell on Ally and in Two Girls and a Guy--hell, he was even pretty good in US Marshals. But I think you and your lunch companion are both missing the point--the reason he doesn't need our help is that he doesn't particularly seem to want it. I think Ol' Dirty Bastard's a genius, too, but if he asked permission to crash on my couch for a couple of days I'd probably tell him to go elsewhere.

My media-land hero and former officemate David Carr wrote a caustic and insightful piece about Ol' Downey Bastard for Inside.com back in February. It's mostly about the voyeuristic/codependent psychology behind Downey press coverage, but he also points out that while addicts "generally change their behavior when they are sufficiently annealed by consequence," Downey can still get work. (It's all I can do to not quote huge chunks of this piece here; you should all go read it.)

I'm going to miss Larry Paul, OK, but maybe David E. Kelley's doing Downey a favor by writing him out.

AP

from: Alex Pappademas

David E. Kelley's Favor to Robert Downey Jr.

Posted Wednesday, April 25, 2001, at 5:28 PM ET
Print This ArticlePRINTDiscuss this in The FrayDISCUSSEmail to a FriendE-MAIL
Share on FacebookPost to MySpace!Share with MixxDigg ThisShare with RedditShare with del.icio.usShare with FurlShare with Ma.gnolia.comShare with SphereShare with Stumble Upon
Andy Dehnart publishes Reality Blurred, works as a Web producer and free-lance writer, and is pursuing a master of fine arts in nonfiction writing. Wesley Morris is a film critic at the San Francisco Chronicle. Alex Pappademas is an editor at Blender, a new music magazine.
Join the Fray: our reader discussion forum
What did you think of this article?
POST A MESSAGE | READ MESSAGES

Reader Comments From The Fray:


[Notes from the Fray Editor: President Bush on drilling, MTV and the youth market: same situation? Talk to WillV here. Thread your way through all the posts saying yes they do have the ads in Chicago (we know now, OK?) and find some posted lists: Zeitguy's Rools of Cool, Paul Caniff's answers to questions, and Gypsy's theory on disco. Jared White suggests Eggertian rather than Eggersesque. Check out the checkmarks for discussions on criticism and music. For more good stuff on film reviews read in full the fascinating posts from Steve Sailer and Aluminum Man (below). Done all that? Congratulations, you are now a complete popular culture Instant Expert. (Or a Breakfast Table Fray expert--same thing.)]


At the risk of sounding churlish--or rather, gleefully trying to sound churlish--the comment of your "Breakfast Table" writer about the Bush administration--"Essentially, they're politically motivated cowards" [Monday's entry]--demonstrates an acute lack of insight into, well, one of the great features of civilization. Politically motivated bravery is usually a suspect virtue--it led Napoleon into Russia, Hoover into a principled stand against "hand-outs," and Tom DeLay into being Tom DeLay. The real problem is that the Bushies face no bullying from the other side of the aisle: nobody who is willing to demagogue them, dog them, and dice them into the neutered conservatism which was Jr.'s daddy's trademark. In the weird mores of Washington, the dogger/dicer really doesn't have to have a national constituency--just a nasty taste for institutional infighting. If only Wellstone had Gingrich's taste for lowmindedness.

--Roger

(To reply, click here.)


Having recently become the film critic for United Press International, I've been thinking a lot about these issues. The biggest problem with movie reviews in general is that reviewers are so homogenous--almost always male, white, upper middle class, with a grad degree in humanities or liberal arts, urban, high IQ, intellectual but not hugely logical or well-informed about things beyond the cultural realm like business or science or sociology, and extremely opinionated--that the tastes of huge demographic groups get ignored. I fall in most of those categories, too, but coming at a rather late age to this trade, I just don't as often experience anymore the testosterone surge that makes me want to shove my opinion down the throats of people who aren't like me.

For example, women. Over the years I've noticed that women generally don't like the same movies I like. That used to offend me greatly. I figured I could cure women of their bad taste in movies by exposing them to the really good stuff (i.e., what I liked) and explaining to them--over and over again--why it's better than the crap they liked. Slowly, though, I grew to respect women and their tastes more. I also learned that lots of other people aren't as smart as me and that making them watch what I liked to watch wasn't going to make them enjoy it more. Now, I take steps to help put myself in other peoples' shoes...

--Steve Sailer

(To reply, or to read this post in full, click here.)


Most Tom Green fans (and I'm not one of them) will have already decided to see Freddy Got Fingered a long time ago, and nothing that reviews have said (or will say) makes any difference. The same is true of the upcoming Lord of the Rings trilogy or the last installments of the increasingly awful Star Wars series. In fact, contrary to what the Breakfast Tablers are suggesting, I think most people have their minds made up about whether or not to see any given movie long before reviews hits the stands.

What informed, thoughtful, articulate critics can do is make us see, hear and understand things in movies that we otherwise might miss. They can challenge us by forcing us to examine elements that we might otherwise pass over, and make us look at a movie from a perspective perhaps unlike our own.

--Aluminum Man

(To reply, click here.)

(4/25)





Washington Post
The Washington Post
OPINIONS
Over the Line
Harold Ford Jr. | I know what it's like to be smeared by your opponent.
: The Positive in Negative Ads
PLUS » Milbank: The President's Lullaby