Wag the Dog

Who’s in charge? Media or Government? In the 1997 movie Wag the Dog, this question is explored with great humor and stunning insight. Even posing this question with a movie, which mixes social commentary and drama, is itself significant for American society today. Perhaps it would be better to ask, “Is there anyone in charge at all?” The links of authority (connected to government) are now loose, and what was once a more direct, linear relationship has been replaced by a complex network of interactions, an energetic media system. In this world, politics is entertainment; truth is perception; and even war is more like a new video game to be marketed and sold. There’s no single voice to describe reality. It’s not a tough journalist anymore who will uncover the dangerous relationship between the media system and government, but rather it’s a Hollywood visionary director, Barry Levinson, who has his finger on the pulse of the nation’s newest delusional mania. Journalistic credibility replaced by box office receipts. In a strange way, Wag the Dog is criticizing the whole Hollywood-inspired mindset that seems to dominate political discourse today. Once society is used to consuming manufactured truth, maybe it takes a fictional tale (about the loss of truth) to shake us up. We don’t expect to find truth ready-made in the world but crafted, spun, and packaged on the TV screen.

In the movie, a political spin doctor (Robert De Niro) hires a film producer (Dustin Hoffman) to fabricate a fake war in order to distract the media from a sex scandal involving the U.S. President. Wag the Dog gives a stinging critique of the dangerous interplay between government and the media. Hoffman’s character does a brilliant job of “producing” a war, and the press eats it up. In the end, though, he discovers that the President’s high approval ratings are just as much the result of cleaver campaign commercials as they are a response to the war. He is enraged by not getting credit for his work. The entire production and news coverage of the war are merely parts of a much larger media system, which consumes and transforms everything. This system creates images and stories that cannot be fully controlled (or credited); it lies and tells the truth with the same indifference. The line between the media and government becomes blurry just as does the line between truth and falsity or fantasy and reality.

Think of this relationship at first as a kind of jealous feud: the news media usurps power from the government; then politicians counter by adopting the image-making techniques of the movie biz; so the press turns news into entertainment; and finally the government gives up its claim to truth by becoming as artificial as movie stagecraft. Consider some examples: Who really won the 2000 election? Did Iraq have WMD? Who failed to prepare for Katrina? Is Cheney pulling Bush’s strings? In the struggle between the media and the government, it’s really not about factual (real?) answers to these questions. All the players are using the same tools. The winner of the game is the one who best masters the skill of crafting the most marketable narrative. Sometimes the feud even turns into a dance. Wag the Dog gives a hint of what this corruption might look like – and don’t miss the sequel (on CNN, FOX, or MSNBC), a story that’s certain to be a ratings smash.

NBC’s HEROES

Isn’t it boring to be normal? Imagine you wake up one morning and you can fly, heal instantly from any injury, stop time, turn invisible, or read minds – what would you do? Would you use your gift to help others or for personal gain? Or would you hide it (fearing that people would be jealous or even afraid of you)? This is the fantastic world of special abilities and dramatic twists found on NBC’s TV show HEROES. The characters appear to be normal at first, even tragically flawed, but they discover that they possess unique superpowers, and this realization propels them toward their destiny. They re-discover who they are as individuals, and they find each other on the journey. Some work together while others battle; and, in the end, their destiny is fulfilled, and they’re saved (so are we, by the way).

We’ve seen this sci-fi formula before: the X-Men comics and movies. What made the X-Men popular was the skillful use of superpowers as a very human metaphor for being different (especially the confused feelings of adolescence). What do teenagers want? They want to be special and to fit in at the same time; it’s not an easy equation to solve. We all remember those days, and so we identify with the conflicted odyssey of the typical superhero. Humans are curious creatures. We suffer from a love-hate relationship with our own normality.

Let’s peal the onion down one more layer. There’s a subtext to this show, which can be understood by considering the whole hero concept in today’s world. No, I’m not talking about Joseph Campbell’s mythological musings on the subject. It’s about politics, specifically, political imagery and story telling. A different kind of mythology perhaps. The concept of the hero took on a more subtle, even collective meaning for Americans after 9/11. In a way, we witnessed the revival of the citizen as hero (rather than returning to the stereotypical trappings of the warrior). When confronted by catastrophe, each regular guy (or even a high school cheerleader!) is capable of heroism, even in the most simple of ways. For example, the heroism of the people on Flight 93 and the heroism of WTC survivors are often mentioned. Tim Kring, the creator of the show HEROES, is mixing the fictitious superhero motif with the new politically charged narratives of heroism in the American psyche. It’s an intoxicating mixture for viewers. The characters have many flaws, but their capacity for heroism (albeit of the supernatural brand) redeems them. In fact, the first season ended with the ultimate act of redemption when an older brother sacrifices his life to save his younger brother.

After all, it’s only human nature to stray occasionally from the well-beaten path of normality, and many of our best stories are about how this road less taken saves us. We need a shot of reassurance (maybe even as a nation) to remind us of the truth that ordinary people can do extraordinary things, even when it’s distilled down to the scale of a weekly TV sci-fi drama.

SHOPGIRL

It isn't a novelty any more when actors turn to a different area of the movie business. If you care to look closely, you might be able to spot more famous names in different branches of the movie industry than you would expect. Just look at Brad Pitt's production company Plan B. Or consider the companies run by Drew Barrymore or Tom Cruise. People who are successful in the art of movie acting tend to reach for new challenges in another part of the industry. Some prefer to explore production; some enjoy directing their fellow actors; and some write music. How successful are they? Well, some actors certainly do better than others.
So it shouldn't be a complete surprise to see an actor turn to writing, even writing a novel. For example, young Ethan Hawke had significant success with Ash Wednesday and The Hottest State. But I have to admit that I wasn't sure what to think when I saw Steve Martin's novel Shopgirl (published by Hyperion in 2000) for the first time. In my mind, Martin's name was connected to crazy comedies such as The Jerk. What would a guy like that know about writing a novel? It turns out that he knows a thing or two about writing, because reading that book was like eating a delicious dessert; it was enjoyable, quickly devoured, and left me longing for more.
Luckily for me, I didn't have to wait too long for another bite. In about a month, a movie based on that book appeared in theatres. I was, of course, looking forward to seeing it, but I was a little hesitant as well. I have had bad experiences with seeing movies after I have read the original books they were based on. But this book-to-movie transformation of Shopgirl was truly astonishing. I think the fact that Martin, the original author, wrote the screenplay and cast himself in a main role helped the movie a lot. It kept the idea of the book a little more well defined and genuine this way, and there were less people to change his original thought.
The story keeps building as the movie's plot continues, and then it also diminishes; all that happens in perfect harmony. Everything about the picture seems soft and thoughtful, although the destiny of the main characters is rather raw and a little sad. Mirabelle Buttersfield (Claire Danes) is a shop girl behind the counter of one of the well-known department stores in Los Angeles. She is an aspiring artist far away from home and living alone. She might pride herself on her clothing choices, but unfortunately she has terrible taste in men. At first she meets Jeremy (Jason Schwartzman), an immature, selfish, and cheap date, whom she sees through a Prozac haze. Later, she meets Ray Porter (Steve Martin), a gentleman in his early fifties, whom she sees as a possible life partner. As their relationship develops, she realizes that this rich and kind gentleman -- and even exciting lover -- doesn't take her seriously and would never consider his future with her by his side. There is heartbreak for Mirabelle followed by self-realization, and the lives of all three main characters change. Everything happens in a harmoniously timed manner for the story to have a happy ending.
It is a great example of the lifestyle in Los Angeles, although the characters here are given a less predatory or jaded nature. A young girl in search of an older and rich sponsor is a little too common in the City of Angels. Here Martin probably intended to normalize and even defend relationships with big age gaps. Maybe they're not all about pure caginess and climbing the social ladder in the end.
The movie Shopgirl was released 10/21/05 by Touchstone Pictures and was brilliantly directed by Anand Tucker.

USA TODAY

USA Today daily newspaper was launched by the Gannett Company in 1982. Think back to that year: no email, no internet, bigger cell phones, even bigger computers, and only one 24/7 cable news network. (CNN appeared in 1980.) And yet, looking at an issue of USA Today now makes us realize how well it fits in the digital information culture we enjoy in 2007. Gannett gambled on something new and visionary, and they won. The newspaper has top circulation, around 1.7 million. Someone not aware of the history could reasonably ask “which came first – USA Today or the photos- and graphics-filled websites of the last decade?” When it comes to delivering information, a user-friendly medium must be friendly to the eyes also. An older friend told me that when USA Today first appeared, people joked about it by saying it looked like America’s high school newspaper; media critics didn’t take it seriously either, saying it lacked substance. But the genius of its creation is that the paper was in a way our first website.

What does this mean? It means understanding that news (a type of information) is about transmission, mobility, utility, and, above all, “sex appeal”. Well, you know what I mean. (Remember that the National Enquirer, a weekly tabloid, predates USA Today. See the genealogy a little better now?) Gannett intended the paper to be more eye-catching, sexier, than the competition by using color photos and graphics. Even the articles are shorter, much shorter, than other papers. It’s kind of a “one-night-stand” encounter with the news for the busy, mobile consumer with a built-in attention deficit. It’s no surprise then that the inspiration behind launching USA Today was appealing to an emerging traveler-consumer-reader culture. Less local, more global.

On the front page of USA Today, you’ll find a montage, a news buffet. There’s usually a hard news headline, but it’s next to other stories which can range from entertainment and human interest to money and travel. The paper is organized for a quick, strategic read with different sections: Life, News, Money, Travel, etc. The information is always condensed; there are a lot of color graphics; it’s easy to navigate through the paper, survey whatever is spread out on the papers before you, and get what you want. The French call it “bricolage”. Americans call it pragmatism. Traditional papers had local roots. Locality was both a strength and a weakness. USA Today hit at exactly the right moment to exploit an increasingly mobile (even globalizing) market of readers. What’s important to see is that the news media system itself, not merely the people consuming it, tends to grow in this direction with advances in technology. Perhaps, one day in the future, we’ll have only website newspapers. Miss the old school already? But for now, the romance of an inky, crinkly folded copy of the New York Times and a good cup of coffee is something of value the internet can’t provide.

http://www.usatoday.com/

SELF MAGAZINE

The amount of service magazines in today’s market is quite impressive. Magazines that focus on women cover anything from fashion to cooking or parenting and child care. Some target only the “upper crust” (Vogue and W), while some focus on the working middle class, and some on stay-at-home moms. But all of them are fighting to acquire the most affluent advertisers. With the era of taking a healthy look at life and physical appearance being the number one priority, some customer magazines devote all their content to a healthy lifestyle and everything that comes with it.
Self is one of these consumer-service magazines targeting women in a wide range of classes. Its main focus is well-being, dieting, and anything that revolves around having a healthy strong body and mind.
Self debuted 27 years ago as the first magazine on total well-being. Its credo is to “inspire, inform, motivate and reward the individual who wants to challenge herself, grow, and achieve personal goals”. The editorial content proves it on a monthly basis. Fresh ideas and advice from expert trainers, doctors, dieticians, make-up artists, stylists, and therapists are a must for this magazine. This mix is not appealing only to its readers but to big advertisers as well. As with any other well-known and established magazine, Self makes money through advertising on its pages, which consist mostly of national ads, but there is a place for local advertising, classified ads, and occasionally freestanding inserts.
Now, this might sound like favoritism, but although the advertising-editorial ratio might be as much as 50-50 or less in favor of editorial content, it isn’t quite that disturbing as it would be in other magazines such as Vogue or Elle. Advertisements in Self aren’t those that feature chiseled models wearing a $50,000 clothing item or bag. I actually read and sometimes even consider buying what the advertisers promote, because they tend to be affordable, sense-making, and life-improving products. And for that reason, it doesn’t bother me.
The editorial part is always very interesting no matter what the reader’s preferences might be. My favorites are especially the crafted workouts and “health flash”, which writes in short about new medical research results. In the recent May issue, that features Ali Larter on the cover, there is a special article devoted to the best cosmetic products of 2007. It exalts everything that a woman would need or want to take care of her body from head to toe. All of these products were recommended and voted for by actual readers. But again, this might be a form of billboard, where the magazine doesn’t necessarily receive money for mentioning the products but is given products for free and then gives them away as a sweepstakes. And there are a lot of those in every issue.
On the covers of Self are TV personalities, movie stars, singers, and other famous women. They tend to be healthy looking and self-confident. That’s a point of view that is common for this magazine that battles against all those other magazines who promote unhealthy and skinny models and stars. On its pages, it often debates the issues of eating disorders and other problems that women have with the perceptions of their self-image. They try to feature athletic models in their editorials and fashion stories, although sometimes a skinnier one fits in.
Self’s website is organized and inviting and it’s worth checking on. In addition, for those who are interested in the subject of media and advertising, they include a reference to a Media Kit, which is well arranged and includes an ABC statement for potential advertisers.

http://www.self.com/

http://www.condenastmediakit.com/sel/circulation.cfm

The TV Set

This very entertaining movie was released on April 6, 2007 by Think Film and is available in movie theatres that focus on non-blockbuster movies (or indie movies). In Philadelphia, it's showing at the group of theaters under the name RITZ (Ritz 5). The TV Set was directed and written by Jake Kasdan and offers an inside look at the way network studios develop and produce their shows. This light comedy stars David Duchovny as Mike Klein, a script writer, who in the beginning successfully sells a major network on his idea for a hit TV show. Klein really cares about seeing his vision of the show brought to life. His story is fresh, catchy and he has a lot of hopes for its success. He even takes great care to find the right actors for the roles of the main male and female characters in his story. Unfortunately, as it usually is the case, bringing his vision to the TV screen isn't as easy (and creatively rewarding) as he first imagined it would be. The demanding president of the network (skillfully played by Sigourney Weaver) doesn't agree with Klein's choice of actors, and, on a second look, she doesn't find the story all that "sellable". She forces Klein to make many changes in all the areas where she sees possible improvements, and Klein must watch his story slowly die a little piece at a time in the hands of this ruthless network predator, or should we say alien?! He reaches a weak point where he is reconsidering his options and almost decides not to cooperate, thinking that no show is better than the pasquinade a network would turn his story into. But his decision making is suddenly affected by concern for his wife, who is pregnant with their second child, and she doesn't think that her husband can afford to withdrawal from such a lucrative offer. She's a reminder of the financial reality and doesn't want to miss this opportunity even if it means emotional damage to her husband's ego. So Klein, now willing to fulfill her wishes and protect his family's security, starts making changes, a lot of changes dictated by the network, from changing even the name of the show to rewriting the plot completely.
The TV Set is a quirky and intelligently funny movie that can become nerve-wracking at times. It offers great insight into the behind-the-scenes battles of the TV business and the formation of our favorite shows. If anyone ever wondered how these shows are created and how did they get to see the light of day, especially given the large number that are rejected, this is a cool movie to see. Its depiction of the inside battles among writers, actors, producers, directors and anyone else involved in production process is fascinating. It also pinpoints the danger of economic influences on the quality of what we will watch on TV as the networks seek ratings and often the creative vision is lost in the process. A great example, in the movie, is when the network's executives are celebrating the success of a cheesy reality show called "Slut Wars". In addition, the fact that the president (Weaver) is testing TV pilots on her 14-year-old daughter and is actually influenced by her opinions is just a bit too much, and it left me wondering how far from the truth this really is. Although the movie doesn't really favor either of the characters, and it rather shows that a lot of stuff is affected by unexpected turns, such as bad mood, family or health problems and bad acting performances, it is only natural that a viewer will feel a certain sympathetic inclination for the writer, Mike Klein (Duchovny). His ambition to navigate this tricky part of the corporate field of the network and attempt to figure out what aspects of his show he is willing to compromise are always disrupted by unexpected forces, and the viewer can't help but to feel sorry for him. On the other hand, the president of the network is the epitome of a capitalist devil in the TV world. Weaver gave a supreme performance in this role, and it is one of the reasons why this is a must-see movie for this month.

Countdown on MSNBC

MSNBC, the self-proclaimed cable news network for politics, has a series of hour-long shows devoted to analyzing (and often poking fun at) politicians, issues, and the daily news. They're a mix of serious analysis/commentary and outright entertainment or "politicomedy". Like the neologism? Now keep in mind, a viewer of MSNBC (or any of the other network/cable news shows) must always be aware of exactly where to place the show in question along that frequently fluctuating spectrum running from real journalism, through entertaining and provocative commentary, and finally to news-inspired farce. Let's put NBC's Meet the Press at one end and Jon Stewart's Daily Show at the other. Well, this leaves a lot of room in the middle, and to varying degrees, that's where you'll find many of MSNBC's news programs.
(One important feature of today's news biz that should not go unmentioned: There are certain stories which seem to have the power to disrupt totally the standard continuum. This isn't because of their epoch-making, profound significance; in fact, in a changing world, it seems to concern more their triviality. I'm speaking, of course, of the phenomenon of celebrity. So when it comes to Anna Nicole Smith, Donald Trump, Britney Spears, Don Imus, or Mel Gibson, all bets are off. The force of celebrity is like a black hole to the news biz: nothing can escape its gravitational pull. Even Barbara Walters has been turned into Rosie's lapdog.)
Consider MSNBC's show Countdown with Keith Olbermann. Olbermann knows the magic of wearing many masks. For the most part, he takes a rather lighthearted approach to summarizing current events and can engage in politicomedy with the best of them. His model seems to be David Letterman's well-tested shtick. For example, typical routine is naming "the worst person in the world", a title he often uses to label Bill O'Riley on FOX. And Olbermann is not above orbiting the celebrity black hole -- and seeming to enjoy it!
But, just when you don't expect it, he employs a different mask. Under the heading of making a "special comment", Olbermann becomes possessed by the ghost of Edward R. Murrow. (This tactic is especially fascinating and ironic given the recent movie Good Night and Good Luck which re-affirmed Murrow as a genuine icon.) Sometimes you need to invoke an icon in order to be iconoclastic, and that is precisely Olbermann's game. His special comments have been strikingly serious critiques of President Bush. In particular, Olbermann criticizes Bush for taking political advantage of 9-11 and mismanaging foreign policy, especially the war on terrorism.
Olbermann's performance raises an interesting question: Is there an advantage to cutting and pasting styles in order to communicate more effectively? If cable news has evolved into a continuum (or a mosaic of styles), does it make sense to use everything in the toolbox? I'm not sure about the answer. Olbermann hits the target, but after the next commercial, he'll make a joke about Paris Hilton, and somehow the moment passes...all is right with the world.
I guess what's really at stake here concerns the perception of the viewer, or more precisely, how that perception is (intentionally) crafted by the content and style of the presentation of the news. Olbermann's approach reminds us, even at times confronts us, that we're caught between two worlds: one world is deadly serious (9-11, war, genocide, poverty) and the other world is a farce that feeds off the deadly serious world. There's reality and then there's the dream, the escape from truth. The one can't exist without the other. And so it seems neither can we.
So looking at this little box that lights up with the news each day, we should not be surprised to see the same clashes, tensions, and dualities that we encounter as citizens in the larger box of the global theater. Olbermann is a fellow traveler here. Take a moment to think about your angst, but don't forget to dream and to laugh.