Category Archives: tv

Family Guy and Jesus in Popular Culture by Turner Batdorf

      http://www.microsoft-watch.com/FamilyGuyFamilyPromo.png

Turner Batdorf was one of my top American Studies students for the 2010-2011 year; he is a student in my AP European History course. One of the themes discussed in this course was that of religion and popular culture. Turner reviewed a number of academic articles on the dynamics of the American family and religion, while analyzing countless episodes of Family Guy in constructing this essay

The way the American family works and the typical values that are associated with various members of the family define not only what pop cultural portrays and mocks, but also the values influenced by Puritanism. But how does one possibly summarize the American family into simple roles for each individual and a set of specific values for the family to follow as a whole? Scholars of the typical American family, a middle class white family, have tried to define it, yet have always discovered that no family is the perfect model because every family is dysfunctional. While Puritanism describes the work ethic the father should possess to provide for his family and put a moral code into place for the family, not everyone is going to be able to follow that code. The Cosby Show, which portrays the “ideal family” consisting of smart, studious kids, a hard working father, a caring mother, and little to no problems involving drugs, alcohol, or violence is unrealistic. No family in America is like the Cosby’s because every family is dysfunctional. In his creation of Family Guy, Seth McFarlane “uses ‘uncomfortable humor’… by taking advantage of generalizations with stereotypes, race, and sex” (Employing Comedy: Family Guy). McFarlane is not afraid to show the flaws of the typical family, although sometimes he does in exaggeration. Ultimately, McFarlane tries to show how the family is, not how it should be, thus making the show directed toward the mockery of not only the typical middle class man, but also what he believes in.

One of Family Guy’s biggest targets is American Protestantism and the values that the average American calls American values, despite its Puritan origin. Family Guy’s approach to Protestantism is simple: They want to make God and Jesus look as silly and ridiculous as possible. Some people might say that this would drive away a large American audience, but in no way is that the case. Family Guy allows them to look at their own views and laugh at them from another perspective. While one person may have his own beliefs that define the way he lives his life, the show invokes humor by making the guy laugh and say, “Wow, that is horrible.” Though it may be looked at as “a light-hearted, yet potentially hurtful strategy” (Employing comedy: Family Guy), the show allows the viewer to not be offended by a lot of the humor because the characters are animated. While Peter may represent the average, stupid American, he is not real, and thus, his comments or actions cannot be taken personally, despite one not agreeing with what the show is saying.

American values obviously had to have an origin, as it is very improbable that the laws of our country do not originate around some random Moral Law. Therefore, when one looks at the most important documents of the United States, such as The Declaration or The Constitution, one sees that these documents make reference to a God, mainly because the majority of the nation’s founding fathers were wealthy Puritans. Therefore, the United States naturally adopted a Protestant value system. In their article, “American Moral Exceptionalism,” Uhlmann, Poehlman, and Bargh argue that, “one does not have to be an American Protestant to exhibit implicit responses consistent with traditional Puritan- Protestant values. One may only have to be an American” (Uhlmann, Poehlman, and Bargh). Because American values relate back to Puritanism, God and Jesus become easy targets for Family Guy.

On a consistent basis, Family Guy portrays God as a womanizer, a drunk, and someone not able to control his powers. For example, in “Blind Ambition,” God approaches a girl and lights her cigarette with his finger, to which he says, “Yeah. I got the magic fingers.” Then, God points and winks, setting her on fire. In response, God screams, “Jesus Christ!” and Jesus appears; God then says, “Quick, get in the Escalade; we’re out of here!” In another episode, “Death has a Shadow,” God is shown the audience at church. When the priest reads the story of Job, God responds by sighing and saying, “Oh crap, I hate when they tell this story.” While comments on You Tube would show that even Christians admit to their humor, a few parent organizations disagree. For example, “The Parents Television Council, a watchdog group founded by L. Brent Bozell III of the Media Research Center, has been outspoken in his opposition to the portrayal of God and other religious figures on Family Guy. Several times, the PTC has deemed the show ‘The Worst Show of the Week’ specifically due to the portrayal of God in a gag or longer sequence” (God). While they were upset namely by the episode, “The Courtship of Stewie’s Father,” where God is shown in bed, about to have sex with a girl (God), the portrayal of God is very similar to the rest of the episodes.

Jesus, on the other hand, is portrayed as a magician. In “I Dream of Jesus,” Peter buddies up with Jesus, who is on Earth because he “visits every once in a while.” Upon first having dinner with the Griffins, Jesus says, “I’m actually glad you are all here tonight. I want to tell you that one of you will betray me… ha! Just kidding!” Peter then replies, “Haha, he is doing that thing he did in the storybook,” obviously showing Peter’s lack of religion. Throughout the episode Jesus walks on water, snaps his fingers to make ice cream sundaes appear, and, upon the request of Peter, makes his wife Lois’, breasts much bigger. He then reveals himself to be truly the Messiah, and goes off without Peter, to party and be a celebrity. While it is true that Peter is definitely not shown to be religious by his “storybook” remark, Jesus is a target for Family Guy because, as Stephen Prothero would argue, he is present in every American’s life, no matter what his or her religion is.

A theistic creation is also mocked in “Airport 07.” In the episode, Peter Griffin attempts to explain the origin of the Earth to his family. The show depicts a logical transition from lizard to dinosaur, to show evolution, and then proceeds to show a genie, emerge from the same water that the lizard came out of, and nod her head to create the rest of life, to show creationism. This is only after God creates the universe by lighting a fart, thus the “Big Bang”.

So what does this show about pop culture and our society as a whole? Although he claims that Seth McFarlane is an atheist, James Snare, from Hillis Bible Church, states in his article, “What should a Christian’s Response be to Pop Culture” that, “The irony is that their [Family Guy’s] mockery and satire has probably done more to bring Jesus and Christianity into the minds of Generation Y than most preachers in the world (Jesus has appeared in Family Guy in 19 episodes and that doesn’t include appearances made by God or other biblical characters). Generation Y is a generation that is deeply interested in spirituality yet many of its members have almost no experience with the Church, let alone any conception of who the biblical Jesus Christ is… If we as Christians remove ourselves from the pop culture discussion by only condemning portrayals of Christ like those mentioned above then the only conception of Christ that many members of Generation Y have are those which the likes of Family Guy shows them… if we fail to recognize the awesome opportunity that pop-culture depictions of Christ and Christianity are giving us to engage with a culture that ordinarily shirks at the name of Jesus, then we ignore Paul’s lesson at the Areopagus to engage a culture in a language they understand in order to preach to them a message they desperately need to hear” (Snare). While Snare may offer a good point on the positives that the humor has for Christianity and does agree that McFarlane “is not out to destroy Christianity” (Snare), it does not explain why Christians find the jokes humorous. One could argue, that for starters, Christians laughing at these jokes show that the public is generally accepting of jokes that target the beliefs of a large audience. While there may be a few groups that are very upset by the mockery of God, Jesus, or Christianity on Family Guy, there has been no effort to remove the show, nor has there been any shortage of the amount of puns intended toward God.

That being said, does this make America more or less Protestant? On one hand, one could agree with Uhlmann, Poehlman, and Bargh that “popular media designed to shock and titillate may not always reflect the average American’s explicit moral values” (Uhlmann, Poehlman, and Bargh 29). But one could easily argue that Family Guy shows America to be more Protestant, as jokes towards other religions are definitively used less frequently, mainly because people are nervous or uncomfortable about laughing at a group that they are not a part of because they do not want to offend someone. This relates a lot to the use of the word “Nigger.” A lot of times, it is white people who are against using the “N-word” in the classroom and the Blacks more for it, just like a the average Protestant American is okay about laughing at himself, but uneasy about laughing at jokes that target someone else of a different group. Therefore, the constant mockery of God displays that Family Guy is continuing its strategy of allowing people to laugh at themselves, and, thus, shows America to be truly Protestant.

Along with the element of religion, Family Guy depicts the societal norms and values of the typical middle-class man in Peter Griffin. As Family Guy takes on a different approach in portraying the family, one must question why so many people find it humorous. Do people laugh at the show’s constant mockery of minorities and social misfits, such as homosexuals, minority races, especially Blacks and Hispanics, and the mentally disabled, or is there a broader approach to what Family Guy is trying to appeal to in popular culture? More specifically, could it be that by making fun of minorities and social misfits, Family Guy is mocking the common man’s stereotypes and viewpoints of these groups? It is exactly through the creation of Peter Griffin that his stupidity allows us to laugh at the common man. For example, in the episode “Family Gay”, Peter is short on money, and thus signs up for experimental drugs. He receives the “gay gene” and ends up changing his clothes, the way he talks and walks, and in the process, invokes every stereotype that society has of the homosexual, White male. But, what is to be noted is that Family Guy is not making fun of gay people, but of Christians, who oppose the idea that there is a gay gene and believe that being homosexual is immoral. This precisely demonstrates that “Family Guy’s spontaneous and sometimes foolish attitude is effective because it targets a general audience to either laugh at themselves or laugh at another specific audience” (Employing Comedy: Family Guy). But this all generates around McFarlane’s idea to not portray the ideal American family but show how the common, White American thinks, and, more importantly, his faults.

There is no doubt that Peter is ignorant, socially unacceptable, and often, acts in ways that would peg him as a bad father. In fact, he is either rude or acts inappropriately to all of his children. For example, in “And the Weiner is,” Peter becomes very self-conscious and basically disowns his oldest son, Chris, because Chris has a larger penis than Peter. On another occasion (“Blind Ambition”), Peter becomes temporarily blind and waltzes into Chris’ bedroom, thinking it his own, climbs into bed with Chris, and mutters, “That’s right Lois, I’m your daddy. Shush, shush. Don’t talk Lois. Don’t talk. Just let me do all the work. Feel my warm breath on the nape of your neck, my hands on your big, soft boobs, running down your man-like chest… Holy crap, it’s Chris!” Peter, embarrassed, leaves the room, and is heard in the next room, saying “Honey, are you awake?” and is responded to by his other son, Stewie, an infant, yelling, “What the Deuce?”

This is also not the only time Peter mistreats Stewie. While wishing he was a mother, fat Peter caresses Stewie in his arms and breast-feeds him until Stewie realizes that there is one of Peter’s chest hairs in his mouth (“I am Peter, Here me Roar”). But, Chris and Stewie do not even get the worst of Peter’s immature behavior towards his kids. Meg, his daughter is constantly the receiver of the harshest puns. Primarily, one of Peter’s catchphrases on the show is, “Shut Up, Meg!” Also, Peter ravages Meg with disgusting behavior, like in “The Tan Aquatic with Steve Zissou”, where Peter runs around the kitchen after Meg farting in her face and laughing, until she falls on the floor and vomits, to which Peter replies, “Oh, not in the kitchen, Meg!”

But, when looking at the character of Peter Griffin, it is important to note that he has good intentions, and, while stupid, attempts to do the right thing on a daily basis. In all the examples sited, Peter has no intention of harming his children. He lacks basic common sense and maturity, and thus, finds humor in things like farts, wants to be a loving mother, and only “molests” his children as a result of his blindness. He feels threatened by Chris’ larger penis because he wants to feel like the man of the house, the provider just like middle class family ideology would dictate that the man is supposed to be the provider. But, while viewers find Peter’s worst moments to be the most humorous, and thus, the writers exaggerate the flaws of Peter and make them seen by the view more regularly, Peter still displays qualities that society would find admirable.  A great example is seen in the first episode of the series, “Death Has a Shadow”. The episode begins with Peter wanting to go to a stag party that his wife, Lois, is opposed to because of his irresponsibility when there is drinking taking place. She reminds him of the time he got drunk of the communion wine and said, “Whoa, is this really the blood of Christ? He must have been wasted twenty-four hours a day, huh?”, the time he got drunk off of butter-rum ice cream and passed out, and the time he got drunk at the movie Philadelphia and said, “I got it, that’s is the guy from Big. Tom Hanks, I love this guy. Everything he says is a stitch. (Tom Hanks: I have Aids) Haha!”. But Peter persists, saying authoritatively, “As the father of this household, I demand you to give me permission to go to the stag party.” “The oxymoronic nature of this statement is the “demand for permission” between two mutually accepting married people (Employing Comedy: Family Guy), and shows that while being the man of the house, Peter still has respect for his wife (In fact, the only time Peter ever cheats on Lois is after everyone thinks she is dead). But, Peter ends up going to the stag party, promising not to drink, and then under the poor influence of his friends, drinks “twenty-six beers, a new family record, thus raising the bar for his son, Chris.” Peter loses his job as a result and begins to worry about how he will tell his wife. He does this because Peter, being a good father and husband, wants to provide for his family. He invokes his welfare and begins to receive an inordinate amount of money from the government, an obvious mistake. But, he remains mute on the subject, buying excessive material gifts for his family until his wife becomes extremely angry with him. After realizing his mistake, Peter attempts to receive forgiveness from the both government and his wife, and states, “I cheated the government, and worst of all, I lied to my wife, and she deserves better”, showing that Peter does possess genuinely good qualities and intentions, despite his incompetence.

Peter is not a racist, as seen in his friendship with Cleveland, a Black man and does not discriminate against the handicapped, as seen in his friendship with Joe. He is against adultery and does not have any resentment towards upper class people despite his desire to be one. This is seen in his numerous attempts to befriend Lois’s rich father. Despite his lack of intelligence and bad decision-making, it is next to impossible for someone to find Peter Griffin, the exaggerated depiction of the flawed, middle class American, to be completely immoral.

That being said, how does Peter fit into the role of the father according to the scholars of the family? Eggebeen and Knoester claim in their article, “Does Fatherhood Matter to Men”, that men who are fathers are not only more dedicated to the work place, but also spend less hours working (Eggebeen and Knoester 384). If this is true of the typical middle class father, it is much easier to place Peter Griffin in the category of good fathers. There is no question that Peter wants to be a provider; after getting fired in “Death has a Shadow”, Peter tries numerous jobs, although failing in a lot of them. But, does that make him a bad father? No, it only displays his inabilities. In at least one episode, Peter attempts to bond with each of his children, including Meg, a child who a lot of viewers assume he hates. Additionally, upon becoming rich, he buys whatever his children want, all as a way of Peter trying to show his love. There may not be a great example of the Protestant work ethic in Peter, but he does attempt to provide for his family. He also revolves his goals around consumerism, just Family Guy is trying to depict of the typical American. But Peter fails is in his lack of control and minimal change upon becoming a father. Eggebeen and Knoester hypothesize that fatherhood should make a man reduce his risky behavior, such as a drinking, drug use, and smoking. As seen in the example from “Death has a Shadow”, Peter drinks a lot (twenty-six beers), and Peter could be setting a bad influence for his children, especially his sons. Stewie, is shown to have gotten drunk on occasion and there is an episode devoted to Chris doing a new drug the kids are using called “toad.” But, again, what rationalizes Peter is that he does try to think about his family, except that it comes after he has done something stupid. In “Death has a Shadow”, Peter sleeps on the kitchen table after the stag party, to avoid waking up his wife. And in the instance of Chris, Peter works hard to stop the use of “toad,” not only within his household, but also in the school itself. While his lack of social skills may get the best of him and determine how he treats his children, Peter’s fatherly work ethic, his will to provide for his family, and his respect for doing the right thing display that he is a good replication of the American value driven father.

For me, Family Guy, simply put, is humorous; I watch Family Guy because I find it funny. While I do agree that sentiment behind the humor is sometimes inappropriate, and I do often wonder why I am laughing at puns that are degrading to not only other people, but also me, I applaud what Seth McFarlane has attempted to put forward in the making of his show. Family Guy makes fun of me, the average American in many ways. As a Christian, I am targeted with the God and Jesus puns; my favorite music has been targeted, like when a character gave a Maroon 5 record to Meg and told her that “she would like it because he knew that she liked terrible music”; and above all else, I can find myself relating to the characters, especially Peter, even though he is simple-minded, to say the least. While Peter is immature, he makes up for his mistakes with a genuine care for his family, proving him to actually be a “Family Guy”. While the theme song is ironic, singing, “What ever happened to those good old fashioned values on which we used to rely?” and, yet, still displays excessive amounts of violence and sex, there is definitely a sense of values underlying in the Griffin family, namely those that actually do relate back to Protestantism. While the show is inappropriate, I must give credit to McFarlane, as he succeeded in creating the perfectly dysfunctional and highly immoral, Protestant value driven family.     

5 Comments

Filed under Courses, Great Students, Political Correctness, Religion, Students, Teaching, tv

Black Communist and the 1930s

I recently watched Denzel Washington in The Great Debaters, an excellent film that depicted ideology, race, class, and Jim Crow in the American South. There are a number of  great clips to show in an American History course.  Washington, a great actor that personified the typical black academic circa 1930, played Melvin B. Tolson, a poet and professor during the decade. In the movie, Tolson’s character was that of an energetic professor at Wiley College in Marshall, Texas who organized the school’s debate team, which went on to debate white colleges, to a mostly undefeated season where they won a 1935 debate against the reigning national champion, USC — not Harvard. Although there are historical problems with this feel good film, the same cannot be said about the historical accuracy of what the movie is really about: lynchings, KKK, poverty, racism, economic inequality, communism, and capitalism.

Tolson, being both an academic and a communist, saw the significance in ending class and racial conflict in America, as he attempted to unify poor black and white sharecroppers against the feudal construct that controlled their wages. Such a union was a threat to both white supremacy and capitalism. The government, along with the bosses, were completely against any form of union that would help sharecroppers receive better wages and better working conditions. Moreover, a great fear among white supremacists was racial harmony. Rooted back in the days of the Populist Party, racial unification among the working class might destroy the feudal order of share cropping.

The late Richard Hofstadter, one of my favorite scholars, thought very little of the Populist. He noted in his 1955 work, The Age of Reform, that they rested on a romanticized and obsolete vision of the role of farmers in American society, and was permeated with bigotry and ignorance. Thus, their inability to unify beyond the condition of race and ideology allowed capitalists to manipulate them, and the dominance of progressive period politics to end their platform for rural reform.

As I have noted on a previous post regarding this historical topic: The problem that unfolded, however, was the marriage of democracy, racism, and slavery. These three components can be viewed as a product of capitalism. Many black intellectuals were Marxist. Better yet, many were card-carrying members of the Communist Party. Richard Wright, Ralph Ellison, W.E.B. DuBois, and Zora Neale Hurston wrote about the failure of American democracy. According to some, they saw a better world in the red regime of Cold War Eastern Europe. Because of the failure of American democracy, the communists had some natural advantages. Marxist ideology was insistently nonracislist; the various non-European nationalities in the former Soviet Union were, on paper at least, equal under the law; and blacks from the west that visited Russia could be entertained in a manner that seemed to demonstrate a total absence of color prejudice.

As noted on my CV, I delivered a conference paper a few years back  entitled The Atlantic-Market Thesis. In this paper I stated that in my courses,  I teach that the term “racism” was transformed at the same point in which the term “slavery” was transformed via the 16th century Atlantic market (denoting the Atlantic Ocean and World). The Atlantic market gave rise to a newly created North American state that used racial exploitation as a labor base to develop its economic market. I do realize that this attitude was one of region and geography; regardless, it fostered an American identity that  linked Max Webber’s work ethic of inherent Calvinism to capitalism, slavery, and racism. Though,  the very nature of slavery was anti-climatic to the term free-market capitalism.

That  historical epoch which shaped my interest in Oceans as a historical marker (see post here) are directly linked to the rise of black communist in American society. The Atlantic market gave birth to the notion of king cotton, slavery, and the inevitable rise of sharecropping. Note this recent book review offers much perspective on what the film is really about.  In Robin D.G. Kelley’s book, Hammer and Hoe, the author constructs an anthropological, historical, and sociological book about the organizing work of Black Communists in the South in which the stereotype about communists are debunked.

The Alabama Communist Party was built from scratch by working people who had no Euro-American radical political tradition. It was composed largely of poor blacks, most of whom were semiliterate and devoutly religious, but it also attracted a handful of whites, including unemployed industrial workers, iconoclastic youth, and renegade liberals. Kelley shows that the cultural identities of these people from Alabama’s farms, factories, mines, kitchens, and city streets shaped the development of the Party. The result was a remarkably resilient movement forged in a racist world that had little tolerance for radicals. In the South race pervaded virtually every aspect of Communist activity. And because the Party’s call for voting rights, racial equality, equal wages for women, and land for landless farmers represented a fundamental challenge to the society and economy of the South, it is not surprising that Party organizers faced a constant wave of violence.

Kelley’s analysis ranges broadly, examining such topics as the Party’s challenge to black middle-class leadership; the social, ideological, and cultural roots of black working-class radicalism; Communist efforts to build alliances with Southern liberals; and the emergence of a left-wing, interracial youth movement. He closes with a discussion of the Alabama Communist Party’s demise and its legacy for future civil rights activism.

7 Comments

Filed under Class, communism, Democratic Socialists, History, Ideology, Racism, Teaching, tv

The Cosby Show: A Nonreflective Reality of (Black) Life

Television’s portrayal of blacks has had its ups and downs, from stereotype-laden comedies like ”Amos ‘n’ Andy” to advances like the late-60′s series ”Julia,” starring Diahann Carroll. It seemed to have reached a new stage in 1984 with the premiere of ”The Cosby Show,” on NBC. The show, about a family of black professionals, the Huxtables, ran successfully for eight years, attracting a multiracial audience, often topping the ratings and spawning another successful show, ”A Different World,” about the Huxtables’ daughter, going to college and rooming with a white woman at a historically black college. The great thing about this show, of course, was that it “A Different World” painted a positive image of black colleges, one that brought about white curiosity towards schools like Hampton or Howard University.

”The Cosby Show” was criticized in some quarters for depicting a nonrepresentative upper-middle-class family, but others argued that it exhibited positive values widely held in the black community that were too often overlooked on television. It seems that the Cosby Show feared complex topics that denote a sense of realism, especially about matters important to the black community. This might have more to do with its high ratings and general popularity across both white and black audiences. Recent shows that touch on  issues reflective of black communities have not done as well. For the most part, just turn to the WB or CW, stations that portray black shows. I do recall making it a point to watch the Cosby Show every Thursday night as a young grade school student. At that time the element and complexities of race were absent from my understanding. The show seem perfectly normal to me in that it portrayed what I deemed comedy at the time; however, with age and education, one cannot help but reflect on the show, hence noting not so much of what they were doing, but rather the absence of topics that pin point the complexities of the 1980s. My most recent paper showcases an avenue of darkness that plagued black life in the 1980s as seen in the gangster lyrics of NWA and other rappers.

I started renting and borrowing old episodes of the show to see what topics were addressed and what topics were omitted. Thus far, here are a few general things noticed:

  1. There was a heightened sense of racial division during the 80s, however, that division did not seem to impact the black middle class.
  2. No conversations about the issue of sexuality and sexual identity with the rise of AIDS.
  3. The economic downturn that hurt many Americans, especially black Americans thus far did not exist.
  4. Though break dancing was a part of Theo’s culture, the complexity of artist that marked the period in a more realist genre was absent. There was talk of Michael Jackson, though.
  5. The show did define the significance of religion on a few episodes, but avoided its relevance in the black community altogether.
  6. Drugs thus far has not been an issue.
  7. Black on black crime was a non topic.
  8. Interracial dating was addressed in a positive fashion, though done so indirectly
  9. There was no Cold War. Also, the general topic of politics and civil rights so far has not been seen.
  10. There was no evidence of popular culture.

16 Comments

Filed under Black People, Cultural Wars, Research, tv

Why Not Place the Tax Burden On Hollywood? by Patrick Ryan

Patrick Ryan is a a junior at HCHS; he is a frequent reader of the now Professor. Feel free to leave a comment addressing his well articulated point of view.

Though it may be hard to believe, I was actually taking time out of my busy schedule the other day to sit back and watch an episode of Real Time with Bill Maher. I typically don’t waste time on such rubbish, but a guest appearance by Roseanne Barr really caught my attention. I have always been entertained by her stupid political commentary and frequent bull-headed remarks so I was thinking that this episode would be quite funny. The topic for discussion was the current economic crisis that was gripping the world and what factors led up to this occurrence. Like any good liberal, she brought up big business owners who were making large paychecks when the economy was going well but weren’t paying “large enough” of a share of the taxes. There is nothing odd about that, it is a common liberal statement. Despite how common her statement was, it really made me beg the question of why Movie Stars in Hollywood are such fervent liberals when they easily make much more than most big business owners in corporate America. I did some searching to find the answers and my findings were amazing.

The American Movie Industry is an approximately $12,000,000,000 dollar-per-year domestic earner (meaning that this amount is a figure that does not include earnings that are made from exporting American films). Though this number may appear to be extremely large, you must take into account that the average spending budget per movie in 2008 was in excess of $35,000,000 dollars. Thus, each movie made in America today would have to earn in excess of that $35 million dollar budget in order to turn even the slightest profit. From this profit, the directors are typically given a large portion and the amount that was negotiated for the actors is typically increased depending on how profitable the movie turns out to be. With this in mind, the top earners in Hollywood in 2008 were Cameron Diaz, $51.5 million dollars; Mike Meyers and Eddie Murphy, $55 Million; $72 million dollars for Johnny Depp; and a whopping $80 Million Dollars for Hancock star Will Smith. Is it just me, or has Hollywood spending gotten out of control?

I am not going to play like I don’t enjoy their work, but come on; some of the 2008 movie profits are higher than the GDP of the countries of Comoros and the Solomon Islands. Actors always try to play the moral high ground on issues like charity, but all the while, they are living lives of opulence and greed. Why should they make so much money because they are attractive and can memorize lines. Anyone paid that amount of money could probably do the same. Why take extra tax money from people who are actually creating jobs for others while Hollywood actors are spoiling themselves by filling the time of bored Americans. I may sound a little socialistic in this regard, but if it were up to me, I think that the maximum movie budget should be set at that $35,000,000 benchmark with a $20,000,000 dollar profit threshold. The maximum amount of money that an actor can earn should also be regulated to $300,000 dollars per movie. I am sure that some actors would not look too favorably on that, but it is still fun to think about. If it were to happen the way I envision it, the government can take all profit over $55,000,000 dollars and lower the tax burden on the people who actually create jobs; the large and small business owners of America.

10 Comments

Filed under Conservatives, Hollywood, Ideology, Income, Movies, tv

Cultural Literacy and Gilmore Girls

Because Janette and I work fairly late on most evenings, we often miss our favorite television shows. For the past four years, Janette would watch half an episode of Gilmore Girls or catch an occasional re-run. I decided to buy her all six seasons for Christmas; in doing this, she told me that I would have to watch each episode with her. I was regretting the gift upon hearing the news; however, my wife was correct in telling me that I would enjoy it;  Janette mentioned that there was something smart and witty about the show; she was right, there is a particular nuance about the show that I like. 

I have really enjoyed watching the fictional character Rory, the daughter of a single mom who has been granted a tremendous amount of autonomy. Rory is a very ambitious person who has long dreamed of attending Harvard University. On a recent episode (I think season two), she earned a PSAT score of 1480, which places her in the mix to be a national merit scholar. Her wealthy grandparents are paying for her to attend a “highly” selective and very prestigious private school.

What impresses me the most about the fictional character Rory is her astute knowledge of political, social, and cultural events. She claims to have read over 300 books by the age of 16. Often she uses terms and phrases that the average teenager watching the show would not know. On a recent episode, she called a friend Dodger, a literary character in Dickens’ Oliver Twist. Beyond such “common” comments by this well read teenager, Rory often slips in phrases referenced by major political actors, feminists, and popular culturalist. Rory is an ideal student; she always reads, participates, criticizes, and thinks about her long term goals. She is what E.D. Hirsch, Jr. calls a culturally literate person. Hirsch believes that society is witnessing the demise of the culturally literate person. Hirsch contends that with the advent of TV and the Internet, people are exposed to more content than ever before; however, we as a society read very little, thus prefer to get our information from the History Channel rather than a history book. Educational scholars believe much of this is a result of people not seeing the purpose of reading and studying books that have little to do with their long term ambitions. Hirsch also writes that people no longer care to memorize factual material, which has added to our cultural illiteracy. I recently addressed this topic in an earlier blog piece regarding the state of American history.

Here are a few of Rory’s “isms” below (see how many you know or recognize):

  • Lady Godiva

  • “I Like Ike”

  • Midnight Express

  • John Birch Society

  • “The Full-on Diana”

  • Tammy Faye Bakker

 Here are key things Hirsch noted that all culturally literate people should know:

  • 1066, 1492, 1776, 1861-1865, 1914-1918, 1939-1945

  • 1984 (title)

  • EEOC

  • Faust

  • Gustave Flaubert

To be fair, Hirsch does not explicitly advocate that memorization is a good method for learning. He wishes that children be led to learn the facts of Cultural Literacy in an interesting way, telling us “Indeed, if traditional facts were to be presented unimaginatively or taught ignorantly or regarded as ends in themselves, we would have much to deplore ….” However, it is clear that if it comes down to a choice between forcing children to memorize facts or allowing them to pursue their own interests with the risk that some facts will be missed, Hirsch will choose forced memorization. When it comes down to it, Hirsch just does not find forcing children to memorize lists to be distasteful:“Our current distaste for memorization is more pious than realistic. At an early age when their memories are most retentive, children have an almost instinctive urge to learn specific tribal traditions. At that age they … are eager to master the materials that authenticate their membership in adult society. Observe for example how they memorize the rather complex materials of football, baseball, and basketball, even without benefit of formal avenues by which that information is inculcated.”

I first read Cultural Literacy while attending graduate school. At worst, I think people should buy a copy and review the appendix section. It has a list of facts and terms educated people should know. It is fun!!!

21 Comments

Filed under Books, Culture, Gilmore Girls, Students, tv

Carson’s Exams – Too Easy for Cavemen

Access Hollywood | Geico Commerical Cavemen Score Own ABC Sitcom | Latest TV Show News Geico

My AP European History, AP U.S. History, and World History students are taking exams this week. I really do feel for many of them. I think many of my colleagues and myself learned from our days of high school and college how to give all of our exams right before spring break. I give a total of four exams per semester; however, this does not include the six essays students in my advanced courses write per semester. I am sure they are ready for my long ambiguous multiple choice questions. I am always telling them that my exams are so easy, a caveman can do it. Speaking of cavemen, check this out:

Geico Commerical Cavemen Score Own ABC Sitcom

It’s a role so easy, even a caveman can do it.ABC is developing a sitcom based on the Geico cavemen ads, according to Variety. “Cavemen” would reportedly follow three pre-historic men who battle prejudice as they try to live like normal thirty-somethings in modern day Atlanta.

17 Comments

Filed under Academic Life, Courses, Students, tv

No “House” Tonight

This might be the most anti-intellectual thing I have stated thus far, but I am really disappointed that Bush is delivering his State of the Union Address tonight. I was really looking forward to working in my study while watching an episode of House. I pretty much thought he stated what he needed to say a couple of weeks ago when his approval ratings took a nose dive afterwards. I will compare his speech tonight to what Matt Swaim had to say on this blog a few days ago. House will just have to wait.

20 Comments

Filed under Bush, tv

No More OC

 The O.C.

Okay, I guess I am now forced to admit that I watched this show during its very first year. However, I guess I am not the only person who is not watching the OC. Fox stated that the show’s viewers fell from a little over 10 million viewers during its first year, to a little under 4 million this season. I was captivated by the storyline of how a juvenile ended up living with an affluent family; however, too much sex, adultery, drugs, and crying ended this drama for me. Since I have so much to do, I must limit my TV viewing to three shows beyond CNN and ESPN: Heroes, House, and CSI. The cancellation of this show should not interrupt my classes since most of my students have moved on, too.

Some believe the show started to crash when the dramatic death of the starving girl (I think her name is Marisa) failed to improve ratings. Further, networks have learned what many parents have known for years, teens are ADD thus they lose interest quickly. Moving the show to Thursday spelled the end, too; it was forced to compete with a show I enjoy: CSI; and, it was also competing with the new show, Greys Anatomy. Here are a few more observations I noticed while watching this show:

  • I never really saw any blacks and Hispanics for such a diverse area
  • Students never studied
  • They all applied to exclusive colleges such as Berkeley, UC Davis, Stanford, Brown, etc
  • Their parents expected them to have plenty of sex
  • 28/29 year olds are playing the parts of 17 year olds
  • You can only stay in high school for 4 years
  • There was always a big emotional issue to cry about
  • I am not sure if people know what “OC” means

 

10 Comments

Filed under Culture, tv