EDtv 93
In "Edtv," the much hyped film about media hype, Director Ron Howard chickens out, ducking the chance to say something powerful and biting about the horrific convergence of media, technology, voyeurism and privacy to make a fluffy comedy instead.
As much braver movies like "the Truman Show" suggest, technology and media increasingly are fusing to create a nightmare tabloid and journalistic culture - Princess Di, Monica and Bill, OJ, the Boston Nanny case -- that obliterates the privacy and dignity of the hapless people unlucky enough to get swept up, even when they're innocent by-standers.
Glued to their screens, the world watches in fascination, seeing the train-wrecks of other people's lives as just another TV show. There's no detail of anybody's life off limits when the cameras converge. Even as it gives us the creeps, we participate.
So here we have Monica Lewinsky. She spills the most intimate details of her and other people's lives to Barbara Walters, apologizes to Chelsea and Hilary for helping to shatter their lives even as she proceeds to make them even more miserable for two more hours in exchange for the cash from foreign TV rights. And tens of millions of Americans send ratings through the roof to watch it.
Techno-driven media like TV is truly becoming a shameless culture. >Anything goes that works, and anybody's life goes right into the maw if enough people want to watch it. That was the point of "The Truman Show," and was the theme of "Edtv."
The ED of "Edtv" (Matthew McConaughey) is a beer-swigging, pool-playing, 31-year-old video store clerk in San Francisco. He agrees to have his entire life broadcast 24/7 on a struggling TV show. The show becomes a smash, of course, especially as Ed slips into crisis, and as Elizabeth Hurley tries to seduce him live on TV. The greedy network moguls rush in to squeeze every last Nielsen rating out of Ed and his problems. In the process, the oblivious Ed very nearly ruins his own life and the lives of the people closest to him, including his brother, mother and stepfather.
There's a lot of potential in this idea, and you get the sense that Howard considered whether or not to go for a real movie about the subject, perhaps one in which there are real and painful consequences. But he blinked, going for a few laughs, a warm fuzzy feeling and a cheesy ending. The movie sets up a fascinating and disturbing premise, then peters out as it fails to deal with it. "The Truman Show" looks brave and powerful in comparison.
Unlike Truman, the affable Ed knows exactly what's happening to him, and agrees to put his live before the rest of the world. Despite all of the trouble this causes, and damage this does to the people around him, he>never shows much remorse or comprehension. When push comes to shove, he and the forces exploiting him slide cheaply off the hook.
"Edtv" is disturbing almost in spite of itself. It makes the point that the very idea of privacy is vanishing in the tabloid, techno-driven world - satellites, talk shows, breathless interviews, book and movie rights. It shows Americans as an increasingly voyeuristic, morally vapid people who will happily watch the disintegration of anybody's lives if it happens on TV live and is produced skillfully enough.
"Edtv" is at its best showing how the country gets increasingly obsessed with the details of Ed's >disintegrating life, and spoofing the TV and talk show culture so quick to >debate and analyze anybody's misery, usually under one hypocritical >pretense >( it isn't about sex but perjury) or another. >
Even though the phenomenon is horrifying, "Edtv" goes for the witty >dialogue over the powerful statement. Ellen DeGeneres, Woody Harrelson, >Jenna Elfman and Rob Reiner all provide strong and funny support for >McConaughey, who seems to be getting his footing back after disasters like >"Amistad" and "Contact." >
The problem is that the issue it takes on is anything but laughable, especially these days. This movie is really too timely, relevant -- and creepy -- to be funny.
You can e-mail me at jonkatz@Slashdot.org
Pendulum scene (Score:1)
Actaully, the movie doesn't really follow the plot of the book that closely. In the movie, she never knew her mother. In the ook, her mother was alive and well. In the movie, she was into ham radio as a kid. In the book, she didn't become interested in radio teloscopy until grad school. In the movie she fell in love with Palmer Joss. In the book, Joss makes very few appearences until much later on, and she falls in love with the president's science advisor (and Palmer Joss is an ex-circus side show performer with a map of the world tatooed on his torso). The movie version of Hammond was far more spacey and Howard Hughes like than he is in the book. In the movie, only one person went in he machine. In the book, five did.
The science, however, did follow the book (though some details were left out because of time constraints). All in all, I think the movie was ver faithful to the origional ideas of the book. Personally, I think Contact was one of the most wonderfully constructed films of the decade, right up there with The Truman Show and Showgirls (well, maybe not Showgirls). For that matter, I loved Amistad as well. Maybe Katz just doesn't like Matt's rugged good looks.
Oh, and Mr. Katz? I'm friends of a former employee of yours (you gave her a mac laptop a many seasons ago). Anyway, she says hello.
Logical Conclusion (Score:1)
I take solace in the view that nothing remains top dog, and this institutionalized morality will be covered with dirt just like the Roman morality before. Lets hope there will be a world left after the Pentagon and their stooges have bombed everyone who dissents.
Why cant they make their own story! (Score:1)
---
Do americans ever make non-remake films? (Score:1)
Anyways, the original was really funny, and EdTV was "americanised", so I guess it must be also a pretty good laugh. But did they take out the sex scene at the end of the movie?
credits + culture (Score:1)
[FlameSuit: On]
Also, I don't quite get it about you're frustrations on canadian culture. Louis 19 is not "canadian culture", it's from Québec, which is a french province, totally different from the rest of Canada, and I believe it does stand out as a unique culture. We don't have many multi-million dollar productions, but all proportions kept, I believe there is more discovered talent up here then down in the United-States.
I said "Discovered talent" because I also some really great movies from the States who had very low budgets, and not much publicity. But small independant movies are often swept aside by the major-productions.
Hey, after all, the United-States brought us:
- Universal studios, Tristar and etc..
- and Blockbuster (pro-censureship)
- a lot of lobbying companies
Yes, I see a brilliant future, were are new ideas are strangled under censorship. Now, that's what I call a fubared culture. Drowned in cash.
I'm happy I live in Québec, we benefit of the national security of the United-States, so we have smaller military budget, and a _much_ better social environnement (education, hospitals, etc..).
MAN! I didn't need to know this. (Score:1)
(I have no other option than to see it; my girlfriend is a big Mathew Maconowhatever fan...)
----
Reread my post, big guy. (Score:1)
That is, the only people I spoke with who didn't like it were a group who, in my opinion, don't have the collective IQ to tie their shoes. Their complaint: they didn't get it. Oddly, they all bought Titanic the first day it was out on video.
Personally, what I really loved about the film was the subtle use of effects in certain places, like when the camera seems to seamlessly pass through a pane of glass or the scene with the mirror. Flashy effects are great and everything, but the ones that most people didn't notice fascinated me.
Again, I'm not trying to speak for or even define "intelligent people".
----
I'll agree to that (Score:1)
It's too bad you don't see too many films that honestly question the whole judeo-christian thing without either ending up with a "Touched by an Angel" ending or with "God is dead. Nya nya." I guess the studio execs worry about being boycotted by more than just the Southern Baptists (who at last count are now boycotting Disneyland, all major film companies, TV, sex, and all sources of information other than Rush Limbaugh).
----
We have to remake 'em (Score:1)
----
What do you want? (Score:1)
Besides, they did a good job with some of the geeks at the lab -- I'm thinking specifically of the slightly pudgy guy who was always wearing the loud t-shirts at Arecibo(sp?). Any movie where they have buttons that say "UNIX Party" pasted onto their monitors onscreen must have had some geek guidance.
----
Contact was a disaster?!? (Score:2)
Among those enlightened people (aka, those who go to college or who could if they wanted to) I've talked to about the film, all seemed pretty unanimous in their support for the idea that Contact has to be one of the best movies we've ever seen. In an age where movies insist on dumbing down the plots to the point where any AOL user can understand them, I can't say enough how much I loved a film that had the gonads to be a bit confusing in order to be really, really cool.
Jon, if you mean that Contact was a flop at the box office, I might buy it (I don't have any idea what the numbers were -- I saw it about 5 times, but I could be the only one). I doubt it did very well; the average stupid person in the audience probably didn't get it; I was in a theatre opening night where a guy yelled "WEAK!" at the end, then asked his date "Carl who?".
If you meant that it was a bad film, I think it's time for you to write another "I am a geek! Really!" article. Most of the folks here on /. are bright enough that they got the significance of that really keen opening shot (the "universal pullback" with the radio sliding back in time). I imagine that a majority of geeks liked Contact.
----
Pendulum scene (Score:1)
It's in Chapter 14, "Harmonic Oscillator". Page 284, in my paperback copy of the book.
Having just reread the book, I've come to the conclusion (or reaffirmed my original conclusion, rather) that it was never a story about making contact with aliens. It was a story about faith. That scene with the pendulum, along with a few others, was the key to the entire theme of the book. The movie took that out, which made it into a story about religion, which is something subtlely different, and, IMAO, much less involving, especially when treated with typical Hollywood shallowness. And they didn't even enhance the making contact with aliens bit (which Sagan really only skimmed over) to compensate.
Contact was a disaster. (Score:2)
And they left out my favorite scene, where Arroway and the priest are in the museum, and she pulls the Focault pendulum up to her face, lets it go, and lets it swing back, trusting in physics to stop it before it hits her, then challenges him to do the same, trusting in his god to stop it. That would've been too controversial for mainstream America, I suppose...
Why Can't Americans... (whine whine) (Score:1)
Why Can't Americans... (whine whine) (Score:1)
America gave us Windows, Europe gave us Linux. I'm English.... nuff said
The book was dreadful. (Score:1)
Try reading some of his nonfiction works. You may like them better.
Pale Blue Dot is inspiring (at least to me).
It wasn't the movie! (Score:1)
Believe it or not some people still judge actors based on how well they act, rather than how much liked the movie.
Contact was a disaster?!? (Score:1)
This is the first time I've ever responded to a JonKatz article. I've always thought his work has just been really really week, although, until now, I've thought his stuff has been getting better. I guess I've been content to read his lame articles laugh at them with my friends.
But this just made me want to kick JonKatz in the JonNutz. Saying Contact was a disaster, except maybe in a financial sense (which he obviously didn't mean) is just pathetic. It's one of the best movies I've seen. For someone who likes the word 'geek' and 'geek cinema' so much, I really think Katz needs to get himself bonked until he understands what he's talking about if he thinks Contact sucked.
Yeah, yeah, I'm sure the book was better, but the movie was long enough as it was without making it more true to the book.
I haven't seen Amistad, but after reading Katz's review I think I'll have to rent it.
Contact was a disaster?!? (Score:1)
The book was dreadful. (Score:1)
I think he was a great man!
Contact's President (Score:1)
That was a little literary trick that really impressed me. There I was, well into the story, and Carl suddenly reveals the fact that the president is a woman! I had just been assuming "his" gender all along. I was quite taken aback by that revelation.
Then there was the whole 5 travellers vs. 1 traveller thing, but that's another beef altogether.
ripoff (Score:1)
But I for one think that this review is right on the money! This looks lame. This looks like HYPE in the movie and in real life.
Oh Boy EVERYBOY LOVES ED lets all jump on the bandwagon!
BTW Contact was great
It was ok.. (Score:1)
--
Scott Miga
Ron Howard is a Glorp (Score:1)
-- acb, who almost fell asleep when he saw Backdraft.
Contact was a disaster?!? ooooh but it was (Score:1)
Damned good point (Score:1)
I think I'll stick with the Indies, anyway. Ron Howard hasn't done anything worthwhile since he lisped his way through "The Music Man." Not that that was meaningful or anything, but it serves as a pretty high point in his career.
Contact was excellent (Score:2)
Contact was a beautiful, thoughtful film, well-acted and risky. I didn't need the Hollywood love story running through it, but I didn't much mind it either. Everything else was wonderful.
It helps if you have some kind of understanding of just how damn good an actress Jodie Foster is. The role was difficult but she made it look effortless and totally believable. I don't think anyone else could have filled her shoes.
Like I say, it's a thoughtful movie, and it's for thoughtful people. If the subject interests you, if you find the question of humanity's place in the universe to be interesting, then rent it. Watch it on a big-screen TV with the sound up loud, the phone unplugged and with people who won't talk through all the best scenes. A friend of mine called it "the 2001 for our generation," the highest compliment I can imagine for a film.
Jamie McCarthy
Truman Show brave? (Score:2)
If there exists a film that can make that hackneyed, phony, predictable, uninspiring, scripted star vehicle look "brave," then Jon has made his point and I will stay as far away as possible.
But then, if there exists a reviewer that can call Truman Show "brave" in a serious comparison, I don't think that reviewer and I are likely to agree on anything so I should feel free to ignore whatever he says.
Sort of a Liar's Paradox...
Jamie McCarthy
Amistad a disaster?!? (Score:1)
--
The Law of Twos? (Score:1)
Antz and A Bug's Life.
I liked 'em both, though.
- Darchmare
- Axis Mutatis, http://www.axismutatis.net
Why Can't Americans... (whine whine) (Score:1)
>Ken Thompson, an AMERICAN! Can't people in Europe
>EVER write ORIGINAL software?
Yeah, but Americans are just whiny capitalists. Europeans are true artistes, cultured in all ways, intellectually superior.
Or something like that. That's the attitude I get from some people.
I like Europeans, personally. But there seems to be a lot of nationalism from BOTH sides. Blah.
- Darchmare
- Axis Mutatis, http://www.axismutatis.net
Carl Sagan must have been rolling in his grave. (Score:2)
She then decides to take her experience on faith, never thinking that maybe the 16 or how ever many hours of recorded static could mean something or that maybe, as a scientist, she could push for a repeat of the experiment with another person?
Maybe they could have produced a movie without falling back into the "you've got to have faith" mentality, but they sure didn't. Contact had so much promise, but finally undermined Carl's strong belief in rationalism and the betterment of humanity with a stupid religious message about faith.
Contact was crap. It makes me sick when I see "For Carl" on the screen of the moview.
Poor Ending? (Score:4)
However, after leaving EDtv, I was disturbed by just how much more tragic the whole thing was than "The Truman Show." In Truman, the movie ended in a more or less happy manner when Truman discovered the world beyond his dome. Instead, in EDtv, it pointed out that people will naturally attempt to utilize the fortune and misfortune of others as personal gain (epitomized by Ed's brother).
Also, even more tragic was the fact that Ed got caught between all of the problems in his life and the threat of being financially destroyed for the rest of his natural life because of a heinous contract.
Basically, "The Truman Show" took place in a sterile world, where the audience was merely a reflection of Truman and had virtually no role in the show, and it had the whole ship-in-a-bottle feel to it. "This could never happen." EDtv, on the other hand, left the impression that this *could* easily happen in today's media-driven entertainment industry.
I think that's the scariest lesson of all, and EDtv did a good job of conveying it, regardless of its few shortcomings.
Contact was a disaster?!? (Score:1)
As for "EDtv", I haven't seen it yet, but I had my doubts simply from the ads. "The Truman Show" caught my interest because it looked like it had something to think about in it. "EDtv" looks interesting because Elizabeth Hurley is in it. I'll still probably watch "EDtv" at some point though. At $8.50 a ticket, it will have to wait for a cheap Tuesday...
truman show (Score:1)
i wonder how the americans would do an elvis gratton remake. i think falardeau would shot himself.
cob2k25
Contact was a poorly made mainstream film (Score:2)
How could you not wince when Foster's character left the inquiry at the end of the movie to find a new group of zealots screaming at her? Wow, that's like, really deep, dude. Like, she was with that priest dude? And like she didn't believe in God and stuff? And now nobody belives in her alien story. Like wow, man... that's like sooooo ironic, dude.
This movie had potential but it was FAR too heavyhanded. Too long, too self-indulgent... as an example, it included Zemeckis using a speech of Clinton's because he could, not because it served the movie. Zemeckis must have been so happy when Clinton gave his "life on Mars" speech. "Wow! I can use this!"
It was also funny how they got a Tyrell (from Blade Runner) lookalike to play the multi-billionaire with access to Mir. The only original character in this movie was Foster's and she wasn't very interesting.
Okay, time to end the disjointed rant. I hated Contact. Sure, the opening shot was great. But if the other 150 minutes of the movie suck, I think the movie as a whole sucks. Call me crazy.
Contact was a disaster?!? (Score:1)
What irks me is your audacity to speak for "enlightened people" and equating them to be "those who go to college." Now, I've been to college. I even got one of those Ph.D. thingies. But having a college education is completely orthogonal to being "enlightened". And generalizing things to the point were you start equating "likes Contact" to "is smart" is pretty naive.
EdTV came first (Score:1)
truman show (Score:1)
Why Can't Americans... (whine whine) (Score:1)
EOF
Contact was a disaster?!? (Score:1)
My apologies. (Score:1)
If anyone cares, it's:
The Baffler [wisc.edu].
----------
mphall@cstone.nospam.net
But we're still buying the product. (Score:4)
In "EDtv",the much-hyped movie about media hype, Director Ron Howard blinks. He gives us a mellow sit-com instead of a biting film about the dread and eerily relevant convergency of media, technology and voyeurism. "The Truman Show" never looked braver or better. "EDtv" is too creepy to be funny.
Just a metacomment here, because I haven't been to see EDtv and doubt I will.
I don't think there's much "brave" to be found in even The Truman Show. At first blush, entertainment of this sort might satisfy the person who wants to feel good about their entertainment choice for the evening, but there's something cynical to be read into productions that aim to "sock it to the entertainment industry" while playing at the local googleplex.
There is no risk being taken in making productions like this, or any production that takes advantage of our culture's ever-growing commodification of dissent, (to steal a phrase from A HREF="http://www.physics.wisc.edu/~shalizi/reviews /commodify -your-dissent/"> The Baffler .
"Dissent" sells. Hell. How many of us have complained about all the idiots who walk around striking poses with their Linux books at the local Barnes & Noble because, as Boot magazine put it a couple of years back, when they included Debian on a CD, Linux was "a rebel OS" that would "impress your friends."
"Dissent" is marketable. "Dissent" makes about as much of a splash in the collective conscience as a minivan commercial. "Dissent" is used to market contra minivans, to convince you to pony up for an SUV so you can show you're not a "minivan driver," for whatever the problem with that is.
I don't think movies of this sort are anymore subversive than a Rambo flick, because in the end, no matter how subtle/strident, vitriolic/sweet the subversion, we're all still sitting in the same corporate-owned theater, with the same Twizzlers hanging from our slack jaws, and we'll be back at the same time next week for another installment. And we're the ones who pride ourselves on "getting it."
If you can show me that films like The Truman Show made people walk out and say "damn, we do live in an over-mediated world of objects and passive consumption, I'll happily shut up. I don't think you can though, because at least one poster on this topic to this point has identified how derivative of The Truman Show this movie seems to be. Someone in charge of making decisions decided more entertainment about how bad the entertainment industry is would make the entertainment industry some more money. Hmm.
----------
mphall@cstone.nospam.net
Why Can't Americans... (whine whine) (Score:1)
In my country we have a saying, "SurVEY Says!"
X [loud buzzer]
No a guy named bill gave us windows.
-> Europe gave us Linux
X [loud buzzer]
No a guy named linus gave us linux.
Please, trying to say that a whole continent is responsible for an operating system is ridiculous.
Of course, at this point, I get a
X [loud buzzer]
because Europe is responsible for Linux, oh but so are Americans, probably some Russians, Japanese. Aha, we're all a part of Linux, wow! JHC!
I'm thru bitching now.
movie reviews != slashdot (Score:1)
In a world where the internet provides access to 50 million other reviews and commentaries on a movie, why is it coming up in a place that I come to for valuable information that I can't find anywhere else? Comments and opinions on subjects that are fully justified and can change my opinion on the subject if well founded. not movie reviews!
I can understand the idea of something like Episode 1 having some universal appeal, every geek or nerd or sentient being over the age of 15 is talking about it...but EDtv? ugh.
Maybe we should have another domain name...screendot.org or something...but please don't turn
movie reviews != slashdot (Score:1)
Somehow, I just don't see EDtv doing that...
Contact was a disaster. (Score:1)
I was sorely disappointed that they left out the pendulum scene. That, above all else, was a defining moment of the book.
-tak
movie reviews != slashdot (Score:1)
Actually--if I may be a bit of a smartass--pretty much all of the information at
-tak
No problem (Score:1)
But the scene has nothing to do with God. It's about faith.
The person with faith in the scientific assertion that the pendulum will never return to a point beyond its starting position can stand in the face of the onrushing pendulum. The person with faith in a God who performs miracles can stand in the face of the onrushing pendulum and take a step forward. In both cases, from the perspective of personal faith, the outcome is irrelevant. Either one's belief is strong enough to act on or it isn't.
-tak
Contact defenders: maybe you can't read? (Score:1)
--doing her part to waste diskspace
movie reviews != slashdot (Score:1)
Wing Commander was made from a computer game. It qualifies. Star Wars, Episode 1 is
Either way, they certainly don't deserve their own "headline" space for. Throw them somewhere else, and give us a little list of the current reviews in a slashbox.
Fork
movie reviews != slashdot (Score:1)
..unless there's a way available to filter out the non-nerd stuff..
Fork
truman show (Score:1)
Maybe edtv producers didn't want to stress the relationship to Truman?
The point of the movie was humor! (Score:1)
I, for one, saw the movie Friday night and found it quite funny. A documentary or serious analysis of the issues isn't something I'd pay $7.75 for - I'd much rather watch it free of charge on A&E or The Learning Channel.
truman show. . . you sure? (Score:1)
* As if any critic were really competent.
--
Contact was a disaster?!? (Score:1)
Carl Sagan must have been rolling in his grave. (Score:1)
You also missed the point that they NEVER TOLD HER that there were 18 hours of static on the recorder. They only showed her 2 seconds.
Carl Sagan was working with the cast and crew of Contact during it's production and died before he could see it in finished form. Regardless of how poor the movie was in bringing the story of the book to life (and what movie based on the book has?), it was dedicated to him because A) it was his book and B) he died while they were making it.
Should be called ADtv! (Score:1)
Unless you're Omish, you probably have quite a few commercial products lying around.
I don't think EDTv has an unusual amount of recognizable products. At one point in the movie, they even make fun of product placement -- where this guy asks Ed what kind of soda he wants, and in the next scene they're moving a Pepsi machine into his apartment. The dinner scene you mention isn't an unlikely or odd situation in the average American household -- How often do you eat fastfood? I personally enjoyed EDTv quite a bit. To say that the product placements kept you from enjoying the movie implies that mayhaps you were paying enough attention to the wrong parts of the movie.
And to fault the film on not taking a hard enough stance on American voyeurism is ridiculous. It's a comedy. It's there to make you laugh. Laugh, go home. Eat EZCheese.
Should be called ADtv! (Score:1)
If I was making movies, I think that I would try to avoid making any social statements by avoiding any visible mention of anything real.
Ok, sarcasm aside, get real! The dinner scene and the long shots of the advertising was a statement of our society. As you said yourself (A gimmick is that, as his show becomes more popular, the advertisers increase in stature from local pizza parlors and the like, to multinational corporations like Pepsi, Maytag, and Nokia. ), the interesting thing here is the social collective conscience. I believe the statement here is that the major advertisers, who *want* to be the bearers of the lowest common denominator, have been dumbed down enough by their own hype that they don't even have the foresight to see what will be popular with the masses.
Anyway, I'm not criticizing your analysis here. There is a lot of advertisement on EDTV. Let's go with the paranoid conspiracy theory, though. Let's say that the products in the movie were paid placement by the real companies. If I could get a company to pay for me to make fun of them in front of millions of viewers, I'd be laughing my butt off. Sure, they would get real advertising, if the common person can't separate the irony. But it would just go to show that the corporations don't even care if they are made fun of, as long as they get their message out.
I know I wasn't looking desperately for easy cheese or KFC after the movie. (ooops. . . I just mentioned the two products. I guess that means they are paying me for this comment. I wish!)
movies aren't always twins (Score:1)
EdTV was conceived and implemented as a _comedy_. Ron Howard wanted to take a film that would reflect current trends in media (think MTV Real World) from a different perspective. He didn't set out to make a daring, hard issued movie. He wasn't trying to make The Truman Show. I don't find many similarities between the two. Sure, the very surface seems the same -- guy get's his life filmed and broadcast. But beyond that they are worlds apart. If we judged at all movies, with such a topical glance, Free Willy and Jaws would be the same film: large sea animal interacts with people. Similarly, The Thin Red Line would just be a rip off of Saving Private Ryan -- they were both WWII films, right?
Come on, approach a film with a little more reason. Not everything wants to be a remake, and true enough, not everything is original or interesting or well done. But before judging something, perhaps you should look into the intentions of the director and where they were coming from. I'm not endorsing EdTV, but I'm tired of hearing it called a Truman Show rip.
my $.02,
cec
Should be called ADtv! (Score:1)
I guess I would disagree with you here in that I don't think it was Richie's intention to make any statement at all, or more accurately, that any "statement" he was making was only an afterthought brought on by the act of product placement itself.
That's part of what I resent about the the intrusion of commerciality into the actual scenery of movies -- it erodes control of the movie's thematic space. Advertising constantly struggles to supplant content. That is its very nature -- to mimic content in order to trick you into receiving its message. To be more blunt, advertising sucks. It sucks meaning out of symbols.
Lemme ask you... after Darth Vader did the Energizer Bunny ads, how did you feel? Was he a cooler character because of it, or less? Did you feel cheated? Maybe not. I did. Not at first, though. It was later, when I watched ESB Special Edition that I realized Darth had sold out some part of himself... that his final scenes with Luke no longer had the same dramatic power because I was looking around for the Energizer Bunny. Such is the power of the Dark Side.
Let's go with the paranoid conspiracy theory, though. Let's say that the products in the movie were paid placement by the real companies. If I could get a company to pay for me to make fun of them in front of millions of viewers, I'd be laughing my butt off. Sure, they would get real advertising, if the common person can't separate the irony. But it would just go to show that the corporations don't even care if they are made fun of, as long as they get their message out.
There's no paranoia here. Advertising will supplant content anywhere it can because advertising pays and content doesn't. The question of who's scamming who when you sell advertising to "make fun" of the advertisers seems like a pretty easy one to me. You're absolutely right in that corporations don't care if they're made fun of as long as they get their message out. Why should they? Advertising simply works. Funny or not.
I know I wasn't looking desperately for easy cheese or KFC after the movie. (ooops. . . I just mentioned the two products. I guess that means they are paying me for this comment. I wish!)
Actually, that's the really funny thing about advertising. They aren't paying you to make that comment. But word of mouth is one of the primary aims of advertising. When advertising increases awareness of a product, it has done its job. Even as we sit here writing about KFC and Easy Cheese, advertising is quietly, neatly using us to take over the world. .
Don't get me wrong. Advertising isn't evil. I even like Easy Cheese and get the occasional Crispy Strip meal from KFC myself. It's the scale and pervasiveness of advertising that gets to me.
I wasn't kidding when I said that books will have advertisements in them soon. Why not? There's lots of space in the inside cover. What if it brought you a cheaper book? From there, it's only short hop to the future, where Holden Caulfield will be drinking Surge and Huck Finn will bemoan the use of his last Stridex pad as he floats down the river with Jim.
And whatever could be wrong with that?
Should be called ADtv! (Score:4)
Most of it is supposed to be diegetic to the film. EDtv is ostensibly supported by a bar of advertising that takes up the bottom fifth of the screen. A gimmick is that, as his show becomes more popular, the advertisers increase in stature from local pizza parlors and the like, to multinational corporations like Pepsi, Maytag, and Nokia.
But here's the thing: These are all real advertisements. (Duh.) There is more advertising in this 2 hour film than in, jesus, perhaps 48 hours of regular TV! Every time they cut to EDtv, there is another advertiser, and they cut to it long and often. I can't determine what the director expects me to feel when he does this -- am I supposed to not notice that I'm being advertised to? Supposed to enjoy it as part of the story? I think it all comes down to the fact that he knows he's got a captive audience, and doesn't give a shit what I think.
Ron Howard has also taken product placement to new heights. In one particularly loathsome and egregious sequence, the ED family is shown eating dinner. In one shot we see the proudly displayed logos of at least half a dozen buckets of Kentucky Fried Chicken (hungry rascals), several liters of Mountain Dew, a box of Ritz crackers, a cannister of Easy Cheese, and beyond that I simply lost count as the items proceeded straight past my mental defenses into my subconscious.
It's a strange, sad thing to realize that I'm part of the last generation who grew up with the movie theater as an advertising-free zone.
It ain't getting any better. It's fine if directors want to use products and diegetic advertising in films to increase their budgets . . . but I shouldn't have to pay the same amount to see a film loaded with ads as I would to see one without. Hell, they should have paid me, and the rest of the audience, for the privilege of advertising to us.
So here's your warning: EDtv is bland and weak. It does make the Truman Show seem bold and brave, and if you've seen the Truman Show, that's saying a lot. Let Opie rot in hell.
Read a book, instead.
It's probably your last chance to do so before they have advertisements.
MAN! I didn't need to know this. (Score:1)
Contact was a disaster?!? Damn Straight. (Score:1)
movie reviews != slashdot (Score:1)
There is another way to look at this. (Score:1)
Mikeel
Carl Sagan must have been rolling in his grave. (Score:1)
So... Learn something. If you wanna think and learn something, pick up another book. If you wanna waist a couple hours, go to a movie. Personally, I'm sick of people expecting a perfect translation from a 400 page book to a two hour movie. Adjust your expectations, please!
If you really loved a book, see the movie to enjoy someone elses take on it. You've already read the book, right?
Otherwise, do what I do. I have refused to see movies because I didn't want to see the book butchered.
Here's an idea: Lets dig up a few dead authors, tape them to long stakes attached to generators, and make bad movies of their books.
Then just let them rotate away! Free power!
FireMage
"free of charge" (Score:1)
You get free cable?
--
The Truman Show... (Score:1)
I think the underlying reason that the "bubble" life was bad was that it was knowingly faked. The only sincere person was Truman. The rest were all just doing it to make a buck, at the expense of Truman's privacy.
Most people value sincerity and privacy. That's what makes Truman's bubble such a bad thing. Even though the real world isn't completely sincere and you don't have complete privacy, it has to be better than the 100% insincerity and 100% lack of privacy that existed in the bubble.
--
Contact was NOT a disaster (Score:1)
I liked the movie because I saw it as unique. Never before had I seen a movie that presented such deep questions in a powerfull and simple way. I came out of the theatre in awe, almost like a "religios experience".
If other things about the movie turned people off, I guess it's their loss. If you can't appreciate at least SOMETHING about this movie, then it either went over your head or you just don't care.