Tuesday, February 03, 2004
TITTY TITTY TITTY, ASS ASS ASS: Ah, that wicked, evil halftime show...I didn't see it live, because I had sworn off the Super Bowl halftime show years ago and was watching cartoons. Apparently a breast shot (either on purpose or by accident) on national broadcast television was enough to signal the downfall of civilization, panic in the streets, cats lying down with dogs, and (Heaven help us) peace without honor.
Like any red-blooded jerk who has no idea what's really going on, I have a few dozen comments to make, but I'll limit myself to a few main points, just so we can get this crap out of our system and move on to more important things.
The most obvious one: There have been tits on this planet long before Janet Jackson was born, and there'll be more to come long after she's gone. These breasts, however, have a massive marketing machine behind them, which is the only way to explain why this "costume malfunction" is now the number one Tivoed moment of all time. Obviously, the concept of Internet porn eludes some people.
The double standard angle: If Justin Timberlake had accidentally flashed a peek at Little Justin, it would've been the end of his career. On the other hand, Janet just jumpstarted sales of her new album. The universal male lament rings loud...WHY DO YOU FEAR THE MIGHTY SWORD?
And now, the one you've been dreading, MY PATENTED PHILOSOPHIC ANGLE:
In the rush to punish, some people are missing the bigger picture. The key to the whole thing, in my eyes, is the quote from Police Chief Joe Breshears as to why criminal charges (groan) will not be pressed: "Actions that may seem in poor taste do not necessarily rise to the level of violations of Texas law." People don't always want entertainment in good taste, but they almost always want entertainment that tastes good. Sorry, Charlie.
Sadly, an obnoxious misinterpretation of "tasting good" appears to be the overpowering idea that currently drives the market. When MTV was ramping up for the event (and yes, it's much more of an event than the tepid Madonna-Britney smooch ever was) the main angle was how shocking it was going to be, how it was going to "raise the bar". The implication was that they were going to do whatever the hell it took to keep your attention. Nobody ever said it was going to be GOOD, though, which is my primary criteria for paying attention to any entertainment for more than a few minutes. I don't go for shrill for shrill's sake, noisy for noisy's sake, or shiny for shiny's sake. That was why I was watching Looney Tunes while Janet's nipple jewelry was being exposed to the rest of the country. It's good for shock value, but honestly, what else ya got?
I end up going back to Cervantes on this one: "The fault does not lie with the public for demanding absurdities, but with those who cannot stage anything else."
However, I think I'll let the public have the last word:
Wade: "If only Justin had gone for two..."
Max: "Cuz it worked so well for John Fox. "
Like any red-blooded jerk who has no idea what's really going on, I have a few dozen comments to make, but I'll limit myself to a few main points, just so we can get this crap out of our system and move on to more important things.
The most obvious one: There have been tits on this planet long before Janet Jackson was born, and there'll be more to come long after she's gone. These breasts, however, have a massive marketing machine behind them, which is the only way to explain why this "costume malfunction" is now the number one Tivoed moment of all time. Obviously, the concept of Internet porn eludes some people.
The double standard angle: If Justin Timberlake had accidentally flashed a peek at Little Justin, it would've been the end of his career. On the other hand, Janet just jumpstarted sales of her new album. The universal male lament rings loud...WHY DO YOU FEAR THE MIGHTY SWORD?
And now, the one you've been dreading, MY PATENTED PHILOSOPHIC ANGLE:
In the rush to punish, some people are missing the bigger picture. The key to the whole thing, in my eyes, is the quote from Police Chief Joe Breshears as to why criminal charges (groan) will not be pressed: "Actions that may seem in poor taste do not necessarily rise to the level of violations of Texas law." People don't always want entertainment in good taste, but they almost always want entertainment that tastes good. Sorry, Charlie.
Sadly, an obnoxious misinterpretation of "tasting good" appears to be the overpowering idea that currently drives the market. When MTV was ramping up for the event (and yes, it's much more of an event than the tepid Madonna-Britney smooch ever was) the main angle was how shocking it was going to be, how it was going to "raise the bar". The implication was that they were going to do whatever the hell it took to keep your attention. Nobody ever said it was going to be GOOD, though, which is my primary criteria for paying attention to any entertainment for more than a few minutes. I don't go for shrill for shrill's sake, noisy for noisy's sake, or shiny for shiny's sake. That was why I was watching Looney Tunes while Janet's nipple jewelry was being exposed to the rest of the country. It's good for shock value, but honestly, what else ya got?
I end up going back to Cervantes on this one: "The fault does not lie with the public for demanding absurdities, but with those who cannot stage anything else."
However, I think I'll let the public have the last word:
Wade: "If only Justin had gone for two..."
Max: "Cuz it worked so well for John Fox. "
|| Eric 4:28 PM#
