Bad Timing
Robert Redford is a guy who believes in using history to teach us valuable lessons. He saw presidents Reagan and Bush 41 and decided the lesson we needed to learn was that it's wrong to lie to the public, even if you think you're not hurting them. So he made the well-received if poorly attended Quiz Show, about the TV game show scandals of the 50s. Unfortunately, by the time the film came out, Bill Clinton was in office and it was now evil to question someone who lies and covers up as long as it isn't about anything important.
Now comes his latest, The Conspirator. It's about the conspiracy trial after the Lincoln assassination. I guess he saw Bush 43 and decided when the nation was threatened, we have to be very careful about trying alleged attackers in military tribunals.
Unfortunately, the film is coming out while Barack Obama is in office, and we've still got Gitmo and military tribunals, so isn't it okay now?
PS Quiz Show made me ask myself just what was so wrong about rigging game shows? Maybe it's shady, but should it be illegal? I think the movie would have been better if they'd given that side a stronger argument.
posted by LAGuy @ 12:10 AM
8 Comments:
He also attacked Nixon in All The President's Men, so it's pretty clear only Republican presidents can inspire art in him.
I had that thought about Quiz Show when I learned from a friend that House Hunters International is fixed. I.e. the buyer is already in contract for a place, and pretends to consider others. Makes sense when you think about it -- what if they can't get a mortgage or decide on "none of the above"? Wasted footage.
Are we moving toward scripted reality TV? Probably just as cheap as reality TV and you get the desired endings. Mark Van Doren was a genius (or at least he played one on TV).
I think you are being too hard on Redford - he went ahead with his movies no matter what the political mood when released. You are guilty of the sin with which you attack him. You only care about inconsistency if the other guy's doing it.
Particularly in entertainment, I don't see it as any business of the gov't if providers are lying to audiences. I've always noted that the film Fargo had a much more powerful impact on me because I beleived the opening statement that it was based on a true story. But I wasn't angry when I learned it wasn't (and it was easy enough to find out).
If you found out that American Idol was staged or at least manipulated, would it destroy the show for you? In fact, isn't it obvious that it is manipulated, given that the judges control who moves forward to a point?
I have problems with consumer protection laws in other areas too. For example, as long as the FDA clearly stated that laetrile was not a cure for cancer, why was it necessary to ban its use for cancer in the US, if laetrile wasn't dangerous? Why force citizens to go to Mexico to get it? Would citizens tune into American Idol on Mexican channels if the FTC banned the broadcast?
I have nothing to say about Redford's consistency or inconsistency. I'm simply noting here that it takes years to develop, create and release a movie, and by the times his stuff comes out, a lot of people on his side may have no longer been so receptive to his ideas. (Note the post is called "bad timing," not "inconsistent.")
As a side note, I'm reminded that a few years ago he complained because he was a celebrity, it was hard to get people to take his political views seriously. I noted how true that was. If he were just Robert Redford, top carpenter, he could speak his mind on any issues of the day, and the five or six guys in the bar could judge for themselves.
That doesn't necessarily mean House Hunters is rigged. As long as you don't know which house they're going for, and it's one they'd pick anyway since they already want it, then it's still an open choice as far as the viewer is concerned.
The irony is the manipulation of game shows works as long as no one knows they're rigged. Once it comes out, maybe from a Congressional investigation, then people lose interest.
That doesn't necessarily mean House Hunters is rigged. As long as you don't know which house they're going for, and it's one they'd pick anyway since they already want it, then it's still an open choice as far as the viewer is concerned.
I thought of that argument, anon., but don't agree because the two "losing" places they're seeing now aren't necessarily the ones they saw before buying. Makes me wonder how much buyer's remorse the show engenders.
Post a Comment
<< Home