Thursday, April 17, 2014

19 Kids and Counting - Controlling the Message







I didn’t watch a lot of “Seinfeld.”  Maybe a season, or so, and that was about it.  I certainly didn’t watch it from the beginning and I did watch the terrible series finale but, all totaled, I saw a dozen episodes or so.  “The Contest” episode is one of the best written pieces of television entertainment ever.

Since I had not watched from the beginning, or watched every episode and/or repeats, I can only imagine the shock when Michael “Kramer” Richards went on a racist rant during a stand-up “comedy” show.  You spend enough time with an actor playing a role, and you think you know them.  And, yes, though “Kramer” was a whack-a-do, there was something lovable about him that viewers bonded with.  Though you know it’s a character and Michael Richards is the actor who plays him, you still may believe, deep down, that Michael and Kramer are one-in-the-same and you wish that HE was your wacky neighbor.  And then he goes and yells the “n” word multiple times during a comedy show and it goes viral and the next thing you know, you’re questioning your allegiance to this racist douche-bag...and the show itself.  Even as people, including Seinfeld himself, came to his defense and he went on Letterman to apologize – the words were there, the stain was there and in the speed of an “Entertainment Tonight” episode, “Kramer” had gone from lovable side-kick to a despised racist a**hole.


Michael Richards


Part of the overall problem with the Richards/Kramer career meltdown was that he didn’t control the message.  The racist rant happened on a Friday, he didn’t talk about it until it came out on the following Tuesday after it had aired.  He didn’t get ahead of the message.  Who knows if he even talked to his publicists/managers/agents...I mean, what do you say:  “Hey, Joan, Bill, Maggie – uh, I was in a comedy club last night and kind of went off at some hecklers and I used some, well, off-color language...”  “Such as...” “Well, I may have used the N-word about a dozen times and implied that the people who were heckling me should be lynched but, well, just wanted to give you the heads up in case someone was videotaping and, I’m sure, no one was....”  Did that happen?  I doubt it.  He probably assumed that he pissed off a couple hundred people in a club, that someone would talk to the media, he’d deny it or say they were drunk and it would be water under the bridge.  But, alas, no.  Footage released, apologies given, career ruined.


Michael Richards apologizing on Letterman

 
David Letterman did the perfect thing in terms of getting ahead of the message.  When he was being exploited for an extra marital affair and knew that it was going to go “live” he went on his show and talked frankly about it.  He then went on Oprah and took full, complete, total responsibility.  He manned up.  Ahead of the message, he was able to control the message and his career didn’t suffer (though, I assume, there were some sketchy times in the home with the wife).


Letterman apologizing on Oprah


Recently the “Daily Beast” did a story about the “19 Kids and Counting” community.  About how some leaders in their faith structure (patriarchy – quiverfull movement) were convicted of doing a number of heinous things.  Some of the leaders are friends of Bob and Michelle Duggar and the article, I felt, painted a broad stroke upon all of them.  Sort of “guilt by association.”

And all this did for me, was to bring up the message/getting ahead of it/controlling it that the TLC channel does with one of their popular shows.

If I said to you:  “Will you watch a show filled with people who have strong conservative beliefs, don’t think gays should marry, think that homosexuality is a choice and they can be “cured,” want to out-law abortion, think that women should be subservient to their husbands, want to dismantle Obamacare, are pro gun rights, etc.” would you watch it?  Seriously?


Campaigning for Ken "The Cooch" Cucinelli (about as political as they get)

 
And that’s what you get with “19KaC.”  But...not overtly.  Nothing as tricky or interesting as homosexuality is ever discussed on the show.  Their views on abortion?  Minimum wage?  Certainly nothing that could be deemed controversial is ever brought up.  The question then being:  Is that okay?  Are we all just skimming the surface?  I mean, if you devote hours and hours of your life laughing at Michael Richards aka Kramer and then you find out that he’s a racist pig don’t you feel a bit “had?”  And that’s a fictional character you’ve grown to know and love – it’s the man behind that character.  “19KaC” is a reality show that is, supposedly, showing us real life.  But, to me, the complete lack of honesty in terms of their political, spiritual, mental belief structure undercuts the reality of the show.

The best example of this is their eldest son who ran a car dealership, got married and moved to Washington D.C. when he was offered a job.  Not once, in over a season and a half or two seasons has anyone actually said what that job is.  I assume it’s a job in politics – I mean, why else would he move his growing family to high rent D. C.?  Is he a paid lobbyist for the Pro-Life movement?  Is he an assistant to a Tea-Party politician who thinks that women should stay in the home barefoot and pregnant?  We don’t know because it’s never been said.  Hell, he may work for the KKK for all we know.  It’s obvious that the network and family have made a conscious choice to NOT say what he does for fear of losing viewers...I mean, seriously, how controversial can the job be?


What "exactly" does Josh Duggar do?


The second example of controlling the message comes in form of a couple episodes where the “Duggars answer your questions!”  At least twice now the Duggar family has had episodes where they answer viewer questions.  Not once have I heard the question:  “Would you allow your daughter to date a black man?”  “What if one of your children came out as gay?”  “Do you believe that Obama is destroying this country?”  And I’m pretty sure they get questions like this all the time...but, again, the message is controlled.

When the Duck Dynasty guy came out against homosexuality and Bravo said that he’d be off the show for a while – a huge amount of people came to his defense – Bravo backed down (but now the show has had its worst ratings ever.... is it something in regards to the message?).


Controversy does not necessarily equal good ratings.


How much is real and how much is REAL?  You take a highly controlled environment like the Duggar family and compare that to the “fart and swear” white-trash world of “Honey Boo-Boo” and “19KaC” looks more and more like a scripted show.

I’ll say this:  Like “19KaC” or not, the creative people behind the show, and the Duggars themselves, do a great job of staying on point and not allowing who they really are and what they truly believe slip out.  It’s just a matter of time until something is said or done by someone on the show and the near perfect house of cards will collapse.  By then the show will probably be long in the distance and people will have moved on, but will you feel kind of icky for supporting a show that may be contradictory to your political/spiritual/mental belief structure for so long?  Or blessed?  Guess it depends on what you believe.

Tuesday, April 15, 2014

THE FALLACY OF THE GOOD GUY






When movies are made they often come with a “tag-line.” A line that, in essence, sells the film with a quote or statement.  It piques one’s interest in seeing the movie.  It is on the poster, used in advertising; it’s just another way of selling the movie product.  “In space no one can hear you scream...” is the tagline from the movie “Alien.”  

 "In Space No One Can Hear You Scream"
(technically I don't know if this is true - there's a lot
 of screaming in this film)



A few more:  For “40 Year Old Virgin” – “Better late than never.”  For the film “Oblivion” – “Earth is a memory worth fighting for.”  For the film “Inception” – “Your mind is the scene of the crime.”  Most films have them.  Marketing departments are created to come up with them.  And they’re in other forms of advertising, as well.  “7-UP” the “Uncola” – “Snickers Really Satisfies” –  “Meow Mix – Cats ask for it by name.”  Remember, this is all about selling a product.

 See - tag line.



Recently, at the Conservative Political Action Convention (CPAC) a number of GOP and Conservative speakers were brought forth to talk.  Mitch McConnell carrying a rifle.  Paul Ryan.  Rand Paul.  Sarah Palin and many others.  Brought to create a groundswell of support and rally their base.  Good for them.



 Mitch and weapon.



One of the speakers was Wayne LaPierre, the head of the NRA who came out to speak to the assembled gun loving masses and he used the NRA tagline that has been used quite frequently to justify gun ownership:  “The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun, is a good guy with a gun.”  And, like any tag line, it’s created to sell a product.  This tagline, though, also reinforces something that the NRA and gun supporters want to honestly believe:  That they’re the “good guy.”  That by owning a gun, they can stop the “bad guy” with a gun.  Not only does it sell more guns, but it feels GOOD to the gun owner.  Like, “F*ck yeah, I’m a GOOD guy.  I own a gun.  I can stop a BAD guy.  HA!”  As taglines go – it’s very effective.  I mean, I don’t own a gun so, I guess, I’m not a good guy...right?

From Wayne LaPierre’s 2014 CPAC speech:  “History has proven again the truth that President Obama and anti-freedom activists everywhere deny and try to suppress — the truth that firearms in the hands of good people save lives.”  And later:  “The political elites can’t escape and the darlings of the liberal media can’t change the God-given right of good people to protect themselves.”  Lastly:  “We know, in the world that surrounds us, there are terrorists and home invaders and drug cartels and car-jackers and knock-out gamers and rapers, haters, campus killers, airport killers, shopping mall killers, road-rage killers, and killers who scheme to destroy our country with massive storms of violence against our power grids, or vicious waves of chemicals or disease that could collapse the society that sustains us all.”

  Wayne


But there’s something wrong with this tagline that is not evidently apparent in its simplicity.



As a screenwriter, my task is to create heroes.  (i.e.:  The Good Guy, The Protagonist, The One Everyone Roots For)  My task, if it is to create a hero, it is also, depending on the script, my task to create a villain.  (i.e.:  The Bad Guy, The Antagonist, The One Everyone Hates).  Where does the conflict come from if Luke Skywalker doesn’t fight Darth Vader?  Dorothy v. Wicked Witch of the West?  Harry Potter and Voldemort?


Look!  It's a hero!

But, as a writer, it’s not just easy to create heroes and villains.  It’s not as simple as silver stars v. black hats.  If you make your hero too heroic he’ll come off as bland and boring and the audience will be unable to relate to him.  I mean, I love Superman but he’s kinda boring.  But in the film “Superman 2” when Christopher Reeve’s Superman becomes human – it’s a kick ass story because he’s REAL.  But Superman as a hero with only Kryptonite to kill him?  He is a hero that is, ultimately, boring.

 Superman?  Super boring?

It’s also not easy to create villains.  You don’t necessarily want your villain to be a mustache twirling douche bag that you just can’t wait to see die.  In some ways you need to have the audience UNDERSTAND their villain.  Not root for them, per se, but to understand what motivates them.  What pushes them to do what they do, as heinous as it may be?  As someone so rightly put it:  “The villain is the hero in his own story.”  Or, to put it another way:  “To the Bad Guy, he’s the Good Guy in his own story.”

 Typical villain. 


One of the greatest most recent villains was the villain in the most recent James Bond film “Skyfall.”  Javier Bardem plays Silva that is described as such:  “Raoul Silva is a former MI6 agent who worked for M in Singapore. Silva is a cyberterrorist who is releasing the identities of field agents to seek revenge against MI6. Real name Tiago Rodriguez as disclosed by M.”

 Javier Bardem - Villain?


This guy is, without a doubt, a BAD GUY of the highest order.  And, of course, James Bond is the GOOD GUY.  But as the film unspools (do films even unspool anymore?) we learn that Raoul Silva was left for dead by MI6, that he was poisoned, that he lost his jaw and most of his teeth (in a very heart-wrenching scene).  In other words – he explained very clearly why he was doing what he was doing and, in a lot of ways – it made sense!  As illogical and heinous as his crimes were I could understand where he was coming from.  This villain was, truly, a hero in his mind.  He was the protagonist to James Bond’s antagonist.  In HIS mind Bond is the villain who needs to die a horrible painful death.


 That's gotta hurt.

Back to Wayne LaPierre and the NRA tag line.  “The only way to stop a bad guy with a gun – is a good guy with a gun.”  But then I have to ask:  “WHO is the good guy?”  Who wears the tin star?  Who wears the black hat?  And I’ll posit this theory:  I’ll bet you that for every heinous act of gun violence (or many acts of violence for that matter) that 90% of the people who perform those acts do so out of a sense of their own “good.”  In other words – as much as the crime fits the actions of an insane person – they see themselves as good.



When Sarah Palin puts gun targets over politicians that need to be “targeted” and someone shoots that politician (and many others in the process) isn’t he believing that he is doing some “good?”  Think about the thought process here:  1.  I agree with her.  2.  She puts targets on these people.  3.  I want to do some good.  4.  I’ll shoot this person and anyone who gets in my way.  5.  I’m the good guy.

After Gabby Giffords was shot and many killed
there were people that said that these were not 
"gun sight" targets...sure....



Now all of us with thought, reason and rationale can discern that maybe the person who shot up a theatre in Colorado is crazy.  Or gunned down students on a campus is a nutjob.  But the irrational mind is just that:  irrational.  When I talked to Michelle about people who want to kill themselves even though they truly have a wonderful life (George Bailey!) she says it’s because they’re in such a dark place that they can’t see beyond the darkness.  Just watch any show about hoarding.  To a person the hoarder KNOWS they have a problem, will admit they have a problem and know that they have to do something about the problem but...logic dictates they need to throw out the rat infested moldy breadbox but their illogic dictates that it’s “just fine and needs to be cleaned up a bit.”  And for us who aren’t in their situation it’s maddening – we can so clearly see the mental disorder – why can’t they?

Welcome to "crazy town."



And this isn’t even scratching the surface of religious “good” where if you kill the infidels you go to heaven and get to sleep with virgins.  Those 9/11 attackers?  They believed they were the “good guys.”  That Shoe Bomber?  The guys who bombed the Boston Marathon?  Again – my belief is that, somewhere in these peoples’ heads they were doing some good.  Exacting revenge on a society that beat them down (Columbine).  Standing on principle for a greater good.  Stepping up against “the man.”  Whether its voices in their heads, their religion, their own psychosis, whatever – for some reason they’ve justified their actions in a way that, I believe, makes them think they’re good.  When we all know that they’re not.



Some more recent gun activities:  Soldier shoots up Fort Hood (again).  Man kills some Jews at a Jewish Center in Kansas.  Armed militia has a stand-off with authorities over a man’s persistence on letting his cattle roam and eat on government land.  This last is a perfect example:  “Who are the Good Guys in this situation?  The police and government officials carrying out the orders of the court or the militia who are convinced that the government is lying, working for military contractors, pushing out the “little guy?”  Not so black-and-white, now, is it?


Who's the good guy again?


And that’s why I hate the NRA tagline.  Because underneath the simplicity, what it’s telling people – many of whom shouldn’t own guns in the first place – is that they’re the GOOD GUY and the GOOD GUY stops the BAD GUY.  The line between their protagonist/antagonist mind- set is a thin blurry one.   So who stops the bad guy who truly believes he’s the good guy who’s fighting against the bad guy who is really the good guy?



Let’s take this a step further, shall we?  I challenge that the NRA tagline is actually rationalizing violence.  Isn’t it clear to everyone who just breezes past an NRA website or listen to NRA idols like Ted Nugent who the “bad guys” are?  The NRA actually publishes a “negative” rating for politicians they don’t like.  Well, aren’t those bad guys, too?  Isn’t anyone who dares say anything against the NRA a bad guy?  Now, granted, those bad guys (politicians, reporters, bloggers, etc.) may not be a “bad guy with a gun” – but how has that ever stopped someone bent on doing “good.”  George Zimmerman is a perfect example of this NRA reality.  Here is a supposed good guy going up against a supposed bad guy – a 17 year old kid with Skittles in his pocket who hadn’t done anything wrong but wear a hoodie at night and be black.  In my world view the wannabe cop was the bad guy and the honor student dead kid was the good guy...



Trayvon Martin is dead.  George Zimmerman goes to trade shows and signs autographs to all the other good guys who pack weaponry and wait for the bad guys...or the guys they’re darn certain are bad.

 Good guy?  Bad guy?