I have to say that I was intrigued by Michael Medved’s topic even before I knew much about who he was. His speech had everything: sex, video, big money, egos, race and, yes, lies. Three lies, in fact. Medved, who is quite familiar with the entertainment industry as a critic, and also from his too-numerous-to-count appearances on talk shows, and in some of the nation’s top newspapers. He also has time to write books, host a TV show and host a national radio program.
This was all very interesting, but I was much more interested in the three lies told to us by the entertainment industry. Here they are:
The products of the industry only reflect reality.
The industry is only looking to make a profit by giving Americans what they want.
If you don’t like what is on, then you can just turn it off.
Medved took no prisoners, pointing out the untruths of movie, TV, and video gamemakers through the course of his presentation. While I was prepared to be skeptical, I was surprisingly delighted by his argument and left feeling disappointed that more students couldn’t hear what he had to say. In light of that, I want to share his points.
Entertainment reflects reality: false.
His argument here was strong. If what we watched does reflect reality, than why has the NAACP been battling for the increase of minorities on TV and in movies? There is no way that the ratio of blacks and whites on TV equals that in population. Not to mention fact that media has nearly completely ignored Hispanic and Asian characters.
In terms of violence, what we see on TV is worse than any part of East St. Louis. On average we are introduced to 350 characters during prime time TV. Seven of them are murdered. If we lost seven out of every 350 people in real life-don’t worry about over-population-in 50 days everyone would be dead.
In terms of sexuality, estimates place the ratio of sexual relations between two people not married to each other at 14-1. This is not reality, no matter what you think is going on in the dorms. In every decade of life (people in their 20’s, 30’s, etc.), married people are having more sex than single people by overwhelming amounts. And 70% of adults are married.
Finally, in terms of religion, the media seems to completely ignore it, except for freaky spook movies about the end of the millennium. All the while at least one-third and probably closer to one-half of the population attends some sort of worship weekly. The point is that what people are actually doing is not at all similar to what they are watching on the screen. Medved’s argument is that media does not reflect reality, beyond the fact that Bruce Willis really can’t survive all those wounds, Harrison Ford really couldn’t jump off that dam and that girl never could have had that many bullets in that gun.
We, the entertainment industry, are only giving America what it wants: false.
This gets weird. Medved claims that people in the industry are not the capitalist geniuses that we may perceive them to be. In fact, they sometimes ignore ways to turn a good profit. In a study of which films do best, Medved expected R rated films to run away with the industry. But in studies as recent as 1999, G and PG movies, most of which cost less to produce, actually are better money makers. In fact PG films do 3.5 times more business than R movies. He goes on to explain that use of words that are considered offensive is the greatest reasoning behind most pictures receiving a Restricted rating.
He recalled a conversation he had with a director he admired who had a film which was doing poorly at the box office. The director admitted that it was the film’s R rating that was hurting attendance of the picture, which contained little violence, no sex, but used the “F” word fourteen times. Medved was shocked and asked, “Why don’t you just edit out the 14 “F” words?”
The director reply disgustedly, “What, and sacrifice my artistic ability?” Medved reported that he had found throughout his career with film, that directors, writers and producers, are much more interested winning the respect of their peers than they are in creating high box office totals. The way that respect is bestowed is through the Oscars, an award that Medved says demands less of what the people want to see and more of what is proven to not sell.
If you don’t like it, you can turn it off: false.
This is the biggest lie of them all, and it has become more and more apparent. It is now generally believed by officials and lay people alike that what we watch affects us, our children and our society. The idea that we can just turn it off, and therefore protect ourselves or our children is simply not feasible in a society that is media saturated.
Take an extreme example of the Columbine tragedy in Littleton, Colo. last year. Even if the families of the thirteen young victims were to decide that the computer game “Doom” was to be off limits to their children, it was not to shooters Dylan Klebold and Eric Harris. The game is speculated to have had an effect on the mindset of the boys who turned their high school into a war zone. Despite the attempts of the parents to protect their children from the game, it affected those families in the most horrible way.
Too presumptuous? Ok, try this argument. Apparently Mr. Medved and I have both met a number of people who have avoided the movie Titanic like it was the devil’s work. Yet, everyone I have met can tell me that Leonardo DiCaprio starred in it and exactly what it was about beyond just that the boat sinks. The fact is, that which we might not want to be exposed to, comes at us from hundreds of indirect sources: billboards, magazines, commercials, news shows and the radio. They have TV’s at airports, barbershops, restaurants and waiting rooms. Mr. Medved pointed out, that though he doesn’t allow Pokemon into his home, his 7-year-old son knows all about it from school. The fact is, we are not able to escape such material completely.
So why do I give you this outline of a speech that attracted only about 40 people? Because it did exactly what it was supposed to do, spark debate and discussion. Though the Great Issues Committee (the organization sponsoring the event) was criticized for Medved’s strong conservative slant, I now know that such concern was misplaced. While you may want to dispute examples or statistics that were used in the arguments, it does cause some interesting thought.
We must acknowledge the ways that we are affected by what we watch. In our search for entertainment, we seem to have created a play world for writers to explore their wildest creations without concern for whether it was entertaining. And heck, my friends and I go see movie or watch TV because we are looking to be entertained when there is nothing else to do. We go see what is out, yet the argument is out there that we could be seeing something better? According to these arguments, yeah.
But the question that concerns me most is this: Is it our likes and dislikes that are driving the industry to a greater creative plateau, or is it a self-centered industry telling us what we like?
