Negative Ads have become Political Dialog

Just when people thought politics couldn't get much worse, the 2012 presidential election managed to pump $6 billion dollars worth of negative ads across television, radio, print and the Internet. Some estimates claim that more than 80% of all political ads this year were negative nature. Worse than this though, the downward spiral of political discourse is taking the rest of the media with it - tarnishing the image and credibility of everyone involved.

If you don't have anything nice to say...

Perhaps it is to be expected that with the dual influences of the campaign spending explosion triggered by the Supreme Court "Citizen's United" Campaign Finance decision and the still sluggish economy that the election advertisements would be overwhelmingly negative. Even with those rationalizations though, it was still hard to watch. One wonders if any election these days can elevate itself beyond the level of mutual character assassination. Even more to the point though is whether any meaningful political dialog can occur in these types of environments.

Does this seem silly, well, don't the other negative ads seem goofy as well?

First we need to make a distinction regarding negative ads and let's say attack ads. Perhaps such a distinction is not formally recognized but for the sake of argument let's contrast these two types of combative ads:

1. The Traditional Negative Ad - It is first and foremost a personal assault. The personality of the candidate is under fire; the types of charges leveled can include ideology but the main thrust of the strategy is to tarnish the character of the candidate. These ads are part of the main dialog between the candidates - in fact this year - nearly all of the dialog has been negative.
2. The Proxy Attack - The proxy attack is something that's been around for a long while but has now taken on new dimensions given the virtually unlimited influx of cash and special interests participation. The proxy attack allows a much wider variety of attacks and all sorts of related propaganda. Since these ads are not officially linked to the campaigns there is little or no restraint or responsibility shown. 

Both types of ads have been around since political advertising began. The problem of course is not the existence of these types of ads but rather our increasing reliance on them to convey the majority of our national political dialog (at least during election cycles). Neither of these types of ads is concerned with or does a good job of actually establishing a dialog. The Voters have a right to know what the differences are between those who would represent them.

Ads like this are quite simply embarrassing the nation...

What seems clear is that the Negative Ad is gaining momentum and is becoming the primary form of all political advertising and perhaps the primary form of all political dialog. Positive advertising is relatively rare as candidates seem hesitant t talk about what if anything they intend to do if elected. So, why do politicians seem to be moving en masse to the least civilized of the available options? Well - they think Negative Ads (personal assaults) work. Do they, really?

It's hard to quantify that answer given that other factors are usually involved. Someone who outspends their opponent 3 to 1 and uses negative advertising and wins could point to the money, the ads or both as the keys to victory. What does seem clear is that negative advertising turns people off - first towards the candidate being targeted, next towards the candidate making the attack and lastly towards the entire unpleasant process. Eventually these people become turned off altogether and stop voting or participating in politics at all. And that in itself may be a victory for someone.

This parody managed to capture most of this campaigns core themes - that kinda of scary...

Copyright 2012 - Raving Reviews - All Rights Reserved

Read More

Why do Bad Shows do Well?

While truly great cinema and television fail to make it? This is today's question. A question that comes in the wake of:

• The massive Twilight opening
• The biggest Bond film ever
• The impressive showing for Lincoln

Of the three movies listed above we attended two of the premieres. We won't attend the third (Twilight) on principle - the first Twilight movie was Ok, the follow-ons have gotten sillier and seem to represent an opportunity to see the main characters again in a sort of teen worship scenario. The other movies listed above seemed very promising from the initial reviews and trailers yet we walked out of both highly disappointed. 

If these three were ugly, how many teens would go to watch their movie?

Lincoln, which we just saw on Friday was a relatively lifeless and unimaginative take on Lincoln which chose to suck in every oddball piece of Lincoln mythology developed over the past 150 years. Skyfall was a movie that didn't seem to know where it was going for more than half of the picture with a James Bond who seemed as though he was doing his best to get out of his contract by turning in the most apathetic Bond performance in a generation  Yet both films have done exceptionally well. On the other, Cloud Atlas, which was remarkable on many levels, fell flat in the box office (at least here in the US, it did much better internationally).

Now, there are exceptions where great shows are actually recognized as being great these days, although most of that is coming from television cable networks. The best example of this is AMC who have developed and stuck by Mad Men, The Walking Dead and Breaking Bad in just the past 5 years. Other great television shows over the years haven't fared so well with comedies like Outsourced being cut, shows like Firefly being ditched and so on. Often times, truly great shows need time to build up audience or need at least not to be pitted against top-rated nonsense like American Idol. 

Hunger Games, Harry Potter, Twilight - Kid's books and Comic Books now dominate Hollywood

Before Twilight, the last big hit at the theaters was the Hunger Games. It was perhaps even sillier than the Twilight saga and worse yet had stolen its entire concept from a Japanese movie called "Battle Royale" (a film which turned out to be more entertaining by far than hunger games - it's on Netflix). 

The book "Hunger Games" was a Ripoff Royale

So, this brings us back to our original question? Why do so many crap movies or shows do well while truly remarkable cinema and television get ignored? Here's our thoughts:

1. More and more decisions on what gets produced (and how it is produced) is being based on demographics rather than story. 
2. We have a precious few really talented writers these days in Hollywood. 
3. People respond to trailers - and most of these trailers represent false advertising. Lincoln is a good example - it includes fully half of the most dramatic scenes of its entire 2 hours and 29 minutes in the two minute preview. Instead of watching the 2 hours of riveting cinema we expected there was maybe 5 minutes of real drama in the whole movie.
4. People respond to brand and are afraid to try new things. Hunger Games is a brand, Twilight is a brand - they were both brands before they were movies. Lincoln is a brand as well - sort of. 
5. People going to movies don't like to think too hard - or so Hollywood assumes. Sequels, brand franchises, re-tellings of the same old stories represent perhaps 2/3 of all Hollywood revenue. During Looper, which in fact wasn't even that complicated, we personally witnessed people acting as though their heads were about to explode.
6. When people come to the movies expecting it will be good, often they're unwilling to admit that it wasn't. That's real loyalty - but it doesn't help guarantee that future movies will be made with any skill if you reward films that are flimsy and un-entertaining. 
7. There seems to be lowered expectations for film quality these days. In this regard, cinema and politics seem to be competing with one another to see how dumbed-down they can get. Contrary to popular belief, however, the United States doesn't operate at a sixth grade level. 

There is nothing worse than going to a movie expecting to enjoy oneself and end up being stuck for two hours wishing you were somewhere else. We're grateful for gems like the Cloud Atlas when they do occur, but we think it's about time that Hollywood started raising the bar again in general on their major releases. Stephen Spielberg is a genius, we credited him with the best movie of all time, yet in Lincoln he makes the high point of the movie a bathroom - sorry - wash closet joke. 

That's just sad.  

Copyright 2012 - Raving Reviews - All Rights Reserved

Read More

Lincoln doesn't Secede

We apologize for the titular pun, but the reality is that Stephen Spielberg's Lincoln has provided us with the second massive disappointment in a week or so. The other one was Skyfall. We weren't sure what we were expecting with Lincoln, but we certainly didn't get it. Spielberg managed to take the most fascinating character in American history during the most tumultuous period in our history and actually make a dull and inaccurate movie. How could this have happened?

The real... Abraham Lincoln

Here's our explanation as to what went wrong with this movie:

1. Spielberg choose to focus on a tiny sliver of Civil War history (and an even smaller part of Lincoln's life) - the passage of the 13th amended to the constitution (e.g. the permanent abolition of slavery).
2. The story of the passage of that amendment drifted from being a morality epic into a buffonish process study into the workings of the Congress of 1865. 
3. The portrayal of Lincoln (while done very well by Daniel Day Lewis) is a continuation of slew of Lincoln myths - when taken together they greatly diminish the true historical character of Lincoln. Worse than that though, the film was sprinkled with awkward and often inappropriate humor, dedicating serious amounts of time to James Spader and his pals as wacky lobbyists intent on buying votes through patronage jobs. 
4. There is almost no action in the film - this is the Civil War and no action, a 4 year period wherein we fought more than in every other war in history combined.
5. The big issues were "wonkified" - at times it seemed as though we were watching the 1865 version of "Meet the Press." (BTW - this is how you take great and important issues and make them seem boring).

Daniel Day Lewis will get an Oscar nod for this role, but the script was lame

We were referring to the fact that this film perpetuated a number of Lincoln myths; here are the ones we're referring to:

• That Lincoln was a relatively comic figure with all his homilies, jokes and such. Nothing was further from the truth - Lincoln was perhaps the most astute politician in this nation's history. While he did often use anecdotes to make his point, he wasn't all anecdotes - as depicted in this and many other films. If you want to know what Lincoln really sounded like, how he actually made his cases and crafted his rhetoric, there's ample examples to go by. Here's an example that is entirely consistent with Lincoln's true style of communication:

It is seventy-two years since the first inauguration of a President under our national Constitution. During that period fifteen different and greatly distinguished citizens, have, in succession, administered the executive branch of the government. They have conducted it through many perils; and, generally, with great success. Yet, with all this scope for [of] precedent, I now enter upon the same task for the brief constitutional term of four years, under great and peculiar difficulty. A disruption of the Federal Union, heretofore only menaced, is now formidably attempted.

I hold, that in contemplation of universal law, and of the Constitution, the Union of these States is perpetual. Perpetuity is implied, if not expressed, in the fundamental law of all national governments. It is safe to assert that no government proper, ever had a provision in its organic law for its own termination. Continue to execute all the express provisions of our national Constitution, and the Union will endure forever -- it being impossible to destroy it, except by some action not provided for in the instrument itself. (first inaugural address - 1861)

• That Lincoln sounded like Mark Twain (e.g. whiny, squeaky). Lincoln was perhaps the most successful debater and best public speaker in our history -he did not speak with a crackly voice. 
• That Lincoln expressed himself in simple terms more often than not. This is absolutely not true. No president in this nation's history was more eloquent. 
• That Lincoln was a broken man before he was assassinated, burdened by remorse over the war and the burden of being married to Mary Todd. The story-line of this movie even seems to contradict itself on this point as we see Lincoln the politician fighting to win a crucial victory while looking beaten at the same time. The fact that Lincoln was out celebrating at a theater when he was shot ought to indicate that maybe he wasn't as bad off as everyone seems to have wanted him to be. He was in fact squarely focused on the remainder of his second term and reconstruction of the nation.

We don't need to humanize Lincoln in cinema through continued reliance on these misunderstandings. Lincoln's actions and words did more than enough to humanize him for us and the ages. The real story that begs to be told about Lincoln is how this man rose to greatness; how he stood by his principles both in terms of saving the union and ending slavery and almost single-handedly held the United States through its most severe test together through sheer force of will. This movie only gives us fleeting glimpses of that and despite several remarkable performances (by Lewis and Sally Field in particular) falls flat in helping to know the real Lincoln or better understand an America that was perfectly willing to destroy itself in a bloodbath of unimaginable proportions.   

The Civil War was no joking matter

Copyright 2012 - Raving Reviews - All Rights Reserved

Read More

The Abe Team

Four score and seven days ago a wave of movies was unleashed that shook this great nation to its core...
He's big, well pretty tall anyway. He's bad, killed more people than you can count, at least indirectly sort of. He's like 200 years old and he's back, with a vengeance, although actually he seemed like a mild mannered guy. He's Abe Lincoln and he's taking over Hollywood in 2012.

Last of the Mohicans meets the Civil War. An Irish Lincoln? No Comment

This year, Abraham Lincoln has been resurrected on the 150th anniversary of the Battle of Antietam, when he declared the Emancipation Proclamation and boy does he means business. He's out there killing Vampires, hunting down Zombies, whipping them dirty rebs and even moderating presidential debates. He's a one man killin' machine; facing down our national demons one by one - many of them literally. We haven't had a chance to see all the movies yet - we missed the Vampire Killer one while on vacation and the new Stephen Spielberg film hasn't been released yet. 

I'm going to send your sparkly behinds back  to Hell!

We've heard rumors that Lincoln will also appear in these upcoming features:

• The Expendables 3 - As the"hatchet man," he'd take any crappy role for money
• The Terminator 5 - as the "Abenator" - he's back
• Friday the 13th (lost count) - as the Boy Scout Troop Leader - chopping wood and serial killers
• Taken 3 - Liam Neeson's replacement - killing everything in sight, no plot needed
• The A-Team - Bad Attitude "BA" Abe
• The Silence of the Lambs remake - Abenal the Cannibal - he'll eat your liver with a side of cornbread...
• The Avengers - Captain "Divided America" Abe 
• The Seven Samurai - Abeosan
• Star Wars - Abe Vader
• Twilight Mooning - Six-pack Abes
• Barney Miller - as Abe Vigoda, with a beard
• The Godfather - as Abe Vigoda, with a beard
• Scarface - "Say hello to my little ax"
• Two & Half Men - Charlie Sheen's even crazier uncle
• Abetar - need we say more...
• Braveheart 2 - Back from the Dead - as McAbe

Yes indeed, Abe's agent has been working overtime lately. One movie we did get a chance to see (because it was on Netflix already) was Abraham Lincoln vs. Zombies.This was an Asylum feature - in other words it was made for cheap as a knock off of another movie - in this case the Abe Lincoln Vampire Hunter movie we haven't seen yet. But even given its less than promising origins, this film was somewhat entertaining in its own deranged fashion.We got to meet Lincoln's harlot mistress and love child, young Teddy Roosevelt as a zombie fighting adolescent and plenty of distorted historical episodes. The zombie killing action was about average; although watching Lincoln and Stonewall Jackson fighting on the same side was kind of interesting, even though it looked throughout the film as though Stonewall's beard would either fall off or he'd drop dead suddenly from anorexia.

What's 6'4', wears a stovepipe hat and kicks Zombie ass?

There are parts to this 2012 Lincoln phenomenon we simply can't explain; such as:

1. Why are they picking all these foreign actors to play Lincoln?
2. Why do all actors who play Lincoln sound just like Hal Holbrook's impression of Mark Twain? (kind of like why do movie Nazis always speak British English).
3. Why didn't George Washington ever kill any Zombies or Vampires?

Perhaps we'll never explain it, but at least we can enjoy Lincoln's return to the limelight - although come to think of it, last time he was connected with the Theater, it didn't turn out so well.

Ok, this has nothing to do with Abe but it's a cool tune

Read More