15 Minutes

In this country, nobody is responsible for anything he does, and everybody wants to be on a big or small screen, a reality helped along by scheming lawyers, unscrupulous TV producers and a media-numbed public. But is there anything they wouldn't put on television, no matter how gruesome or sensational? John Herzfeld's 15 Minutes takes on Big Media and America's corruption by celebrity and money, and answers that question with a No. Robert DeNiro is reliably wonderful; the movie is by turns highly entertaining, intense, fast-paced and very dumb. Spoilage warning: plot is discussed, but not the ending. (Read more).

It's a loss. The Net is a great source of information, but it's fragmented. TV news was once America's common ground, its universal Town Hall, primary source of information and context. In the 80s, more than 90 percent of all U.S. families regularly watched one of the three major evening newscasts. Today, the number has fallen below 20 per cent, and TV has become an electronic nightmare, degrading civic life more often than elevating it. As television has become ever more ratings-obsessed, the boundaries between what used to be called serious journalism and video entertainment packaged as news have blurred. "Burn and bleed" video is the new ethos of TV news: Ratings are king, not truth.

This corruption of Big Media propels 15 Minutes, which stars Robert DeNiro as New York City celebrity detective Eddie Fleming. DeNiro is almost automatically great at playing the New York City tough guy in any guise: psycho, villain, or lawman. Edward Burns plays his naive but moral sidekick Fire Marshal Jordy Warshaw, and Kelsey Grammar is TV news anchor Robert Hawkins, who will pay any price to get blood-and-guts video onto his news show.

The movie is entertaining, violent, intense, and wildly uneven, the plot weaving from brutal thriller to ironic comedy to savage social commentary. It never quite makes up its mind which it wants to be, so the effect is confusing and disorienting.The first third of the movie is riveting, the final third a stupider version of Dirty Harry.

The basic idea is that Emil and Oleg, two Eastern European sickos, come to the United States to track down a fellow thief who betrayed them. In short order, they find him and the bloodbath begins. They also get hold of a videocamera, which they use to record their grisly deeds. They are fascinated to learn from watching various TV talk and news shows that in the United States, no one is ever held responsible for anything he does, even committing the most heinous crimes. That discvoer from the world of daytime television that even callous murderers get off the hook by claiming victimhood themselves, their evasions helped along by slick lawyers and manipulable media. Emil and Oleg are particularly fascinated by one vicious killer who claims child abuse, gets off on an insanity plea, and ends up not only with a fat book and movie deal but on the cover of People.

Not only are media utterly corrupt in this bleak view of American life, so are law enforcement and the idea of justice itself. Emil and Oleg figure they're a cinch to sell a movie of their own gruesome videotaped crimes and get off through one of the many loopholes in the legal system. In a truth-is-stranger twist, mob lawyer Bruce Cutler, who represented John Gotti, plays himself in the film.

15 Minutes is over the top, its caricatures of almost everyone extreme and unreal. But it moves so rapidly, and is so arrestingly shot, that it isn't boring for a second, not even when it veers off into ludicrous plot turns.

The psychos go on a vicious rampage -- one of them introduces himself all over town as Frank Capra (the famous director) -- spurred on by a desire for fame and money, and by the belief (echoes of OJ) that they will beat a system that worships visibility and money as much as ours does. DeNiro and Burns also get swept up in the ravenous media machine, which they think they can use to their advantage.

Ultimately, media are an equal opportunity destroyer, the most vicious element in 15 Minutes, consuming everything. Grammar's anchorman, for instance, is a ratings-mad caricature of the sensational and immoral types who have infected TV news. Unfortunately, he's too much of a clunky stereotype to be interesting. Furthermore, like lots of other Hollywood movies, this one has no idea how to end, so it circles around improbably, and increasingly foolishly.

That's too bad, because it takes some of the sting out of an intense movie that takes on a deserving target everybody loves to hate, one that can't really be thumped often enough. For all the flaws in the script, this makes the movie worthwhile as well as fun to see, and likely to succeed. (The soundtrack is pretty great too.)

Comments

Jerry Springer

[Alien54]

But is there anything they wouldn't put on television, no matter how gruesome or sensational? John Herzfeld's 15 Minutes takes on Big Media and America's corruption by celebrity and money, and answers that question with a No.

Well I don't know that I agree with that conclusion, although I would want to. I've seen some totally screwed up repulsive stuff channel surfing late at night on "Jerry Springer". And if I see it a few months later, it's worse.

Haven't seen the movie, probably won't...

[JWhitlock]

Here is what I got from the movie:

Violence: Bad

Media: Bad

Justice System: Bad

Simple New York Cops Trying to do the Right Thing: Good

That may be paraphrasing the Salon review, but it seems true. Now that I know that, why should I see the movie?

Seriously, it seems very hypocritical, making a movie condemning violence in the media by... making a violent movie. It makes about as much sense as the apologists for Natural Born Killers. These movies don't teach you about violence's role in society, or foster ideas on how to fix the problems: they just rub you up against the violence for a while, getting you a little dirty.

I'm all for entertainment movies, and I can even stand the occasional "Big Message" movie. But when Hollywood (Hollywood!) tries to preach to me (Pay it Forward, Traffic, etc.), I get a nasty feeling in my stomach. Maybe, it's because they are using high-minded concepts as a box-office draw.

I can see the board room meeting now: "Yeah, the self-rightous demographic, that's big. The violence-loving demographic, that's big too. And our research shows, even though they don't want to admit it, the two groups overlap quite a bit. Let's do it!"

Re:Haven't seen the movie, probably won't...

[JWhitlock]

The way I see it, it could affect people two ways:

1. It could open their eyes to the sensationalism that is the media (as if the supposed "storm of the century" didn't already do so for most north-easterers >:)). Or
2. It's just get a reaction of "awesome!" and the next day the viewers will be telling their friends to go see it because of the gory scenes.

Unfortunatly, for most of the populace, it will be the latter.

I agree that the second is worse than the first, but I don't think the first is that great either. Most of the time, we subject ourselves to violent and disgusting images in the media for entertainment value, but it doesn't change our opinions or push us to action. It just makes us less sensitive to violence, and it takes more extreme images to get a reaction, which the media is happy to give us.

One of the best examples of conscience raising was Upton Lewis's The Jungle, a book about the meatpacking industry in the US, was very graphic, and led to government regulation of the industry. People were exposed to the nastiness of the real world, and were spurred to action.

By comparision, Hollywood movies may never do this. I've heard a lot of praise for "Traffic". I don't see any new bills for ending the drug war. It seems that the only ones who found it truly convincing were those opposed to the drug war, and those for it may have had their "eyes openned", but that won't translate to action.

Did the multi-billion dollar "How the Grinch Stole Christmas" convince you that the true meaning of Christmas was not money and material possessions? Jim Carrey and Ron Howard probably didn't get paid in millions of heart-warmings. IMHO. the book was much more effective.

Same thing with this one. What public action do the producers desire? Government regulation of violence in prime time? Probably not. Government regulation of violence in movies? Probably not. Mass Boycotts of trash TV? Probably not. All those things would hurt them financially. Any possible action by the people would hurt them financially, and would be completely unintended.

What they want is for people who criticize Jerry Springer and TV Violence to feel good about themselves, while they enjoy the same trash.

To think otherwise is to say that you should surf over to the Stile Project to gain an appreciation for all varients of sexual practices.

Re:Haven't seen the movie, probably won't...

[unitron]

Upton Sinclair, Sinclair Lewis, after 75 years or so, who can keep 'em straight?

American Television - Killed by commerce

[euroderf]

I have spent some time in America, and while many things impressed me during my stay there, one of the things that most definately did not was the television. It struck me as being dumbed down for the common denominator (and I mean dumbed down), full of endless and frequent advertising and 'infomercials' and also of horribly low quality.

I think there are a number of reasons for this. Firstly, there are just too many channels available. Some promote this on the grounds of choice, but the problem, as I see it, is that there is only a finite amount of talent available to produce television, and so if you have a huge number of channels that talent is diluted. Also, American television stationstypically all produce the same sort of programmes - they all aim for certain market segments, but I do not see the need for many hundreds of channels.

Another problem is that with the lonely and underfunded exception of PBS, all the stations are commercial. They are all owned by one or another conglomerate or multinational, and so they have but one aim - to make money.

Here in the UK much admirable television is produced, mainly because there are few channels, and only 2 of the terrestrial channels can be said to be fully commercial, and even then they are heavily regulated. The BBC is funded by the television license, and is free to produce innovative and original programming, regardless of market constraints. ITV and Channel 5 have to exist in this reality, and compete with this by producing original programmes of their own.

If I were a dictator charged with improving American television, I would cut down the number of channels to 15 or so, start up an organisation similar to the BBC informed by the Reithian ethos and funded by licenses paid by the end consumer, and give it perhaps 6 of these channels. The remaining commercial channels would of course have to compete with this new entity by creating innovative programming.

This would also concentrate talent and money into a much smaller number of channels, and free these talents from the grinding demands of money and ratings. The quality of television would inevitably improve.

I know this is a pipe dream now, but really I think it would work wonders for the quality of American television.
--

Re:American Television - Killed by commerce

[leviramsey]

And even PBS stations are somewhat ruled by the market. If someone who's contributed money at every fund-drive for PBS hears about this great show that the CBC, BBC, etc. are doing, and they ask the station to show it, the station is definitely going to consider it. If a lot of regular contributors decide they want to see that program, the station will in all probability show it.

I think that programming that challenges need not sell poorly. Yes, it most likely won't appeal to the masses. But, then again, Slashdot does not appeal to the average web-surfer. Yahoo! does. Look at which one recently had some trouble. Narrowly-focused programming can work if the target is sufficiently attractive to advertisers. The demographic that would enjoy programs that challenge would tend to be a demographic that has higher than average intelligence/education. In the US, in general, higher intelligence/education translates into higher income, which tends to imply higher disposable income. Thus, makers of more expensive products would advertise, and be willing to pay higher rates per person.

This is the reason that the PGA Tour survives. In raw viewership, it cannot compare to the NBA. But PGA Tour viewers are more likely to have a high disposable income and/or be corporate bigwigs. Thus, Lexus (after disposable income) advertises, as does Compaq (after corporate mindshare).

All of which brings the interesting idea: if Red Hat (or any other commercial distro) really wants to make Linux a reality in corporate America, they should sponsor a stop on the PGA Tour.

Re:American Television - Killed by commerce

[unitron]

Won't someone please send Tucker Carlson back to whichever Ivy League frat house it was that spawned him?

Re:American Television - Killed by commerce

[Trepalium]

In Canada, we (unfortunately) have a similar channel -- CBC. However, unlike the UK, it's not paid for by a TV license, but rather just from funds from the Canadian government. On average, there's two CBC affiliate television stations in a province. About the only programmes worth watching on CBC would be the local news and weather forecast, Hockey Night in Canada and perhaps one of the two Canadian comedy shows they produce. Most of the other programming on the station consists of little more than American stereotypes of Canadians with bad acting. And programmes that don't fall into that category, usually end up being set in the States with actors who have strong Toronto accents, and Canadian license plates on all the vehicles.

The rest of the show is either purchased programs from either the BBC or old US Television shows. Personally, I prefer watching either CTV or Global. They're both privately owned stations, who are required by CRTC regulations to show a certain amount of 'Canadian Content'. The result is a mixture of US and Canadian programming, with these stations funding well produced Canadian television shows.

Re:American Television - Killed by commerce

[jafac]

I have to agree with this. Of 500 channels of Satellite TV, I have to say one of the stations that offers consistently best programming is BBC.

But the problem is not that there are too many channels, it's that audiences aren't discriminating enough. Too much emphasis choice-wise is placed on the subconsious fear that someone will be in a social situation where the last episode of "Ally McBeal" is discussed, and not having seen it, they'll be "not cool". So people watch it, no matter how bad it is, commercial revenue happens, and that gives the show a reason to survive. In other words, the Darwinistic "free market principles" are broken here somehow. In my opinion, it's merely an education problem. The American consumer has NOT been educated to be discriminating. I think that's partially a problem of government complicity (because the government educates us, right?) and partially because being a discriminating consumer is no longer a necessary survival trait in the current economic climate. Things are SO good here, that it's okay to get ripped off a few times. Especially in the consumption of entertainment.

The generation that came from the Great Depression had to learn to look out for scams and poor value. This generation has to look out for the latest fad. They're more afraid of being culturally "out" (not cool) than of making a bad purchasing decision and getting financially raped.

Re:American Television - Killed by commerce

[Syberghost]

I see xenophobia is alive and kicking in land of Uncle Sam...

Thinking British people pay stupid taxes for lousy service isn't xenophobic. It's taxophobic, perhaps, but not xenophobic.

To be xenophobic, I'd have to hate and/or fear British people. I don't have any opinions about British people as a whole.

What I do hate and fear is people who think we should institute things in this country just because they've been tried in the UK and not been proven to actually kill anybody.

British TV may be highly regarded in many countries with even worse TV, but in the US, it's regarded as just one more bit of proof that government doesn't do anything well, and should be relied upon to do only those things that can't be done by anything else but a government.

The thought pattern that says "if the government can do something, and pay for it by taking my money away at gunpoint, they should do it" is exactly why we threw them out. That's a fact, regardless of some idiot thinking it was a troll.

I've seen quite a lot of British TV. I even like some shows, such as Monty Python, Benny Hill, Dr. Who, Blake's Seven, AbFab, etc. But I would not consider it a positive change in my life if my 50-some-odd channels of cable disappeared and were replaced by 15 channels of the sort of drek the Queen's subjects are exposed to on a daily basis, and charged for whether they like it or not.

I'd far rather watch a few commercials in return for Star Trek, Stargate SG-1, Andromeda, Saturday Night Live, Letterman, Dexter's Lab, etc.

Hell, if we only had 15 channels like this presumptuous Brit wishes to hand us from on high, would we have a CNN? A CSPAN? A Sci-Fi Channel? Cartoon Network? The fricken' Food Channel?

No thanks, Lizzy; keep your government monopoly, we'll pull the half a dozen good shows out of the morass and run 'em on PBS from time to time.

-

Right-on

[EvlPenguin]

This movie hits the nail on the head. The foreigners' idea of the media being a scapegoat through the race card (ahem, OJ, Puffy, etc >:)) has become so common in our society that we automaticlly look to the media for our opinions. And so we have Micky Mouse (via ABC) telling us all what to do and what to believe, how to feel, what's good and what's bad, who's to blame, etc, etc, etc.

A bit of irony, is that when you confront your generic Oprah-watching middle-American, they may even try to claim that they are a supporter of "fairness" in the justice system. Oh, but then they hear about how the latest school shooter liked Linkin Park (this happened, sorry but lost the link), and so it's off to congress to fight the good fight!

You know who to blame this on? Liberals. Everything has to be dummed down to the lowest common denominator of society, that the principal of Darwanism may as well be eliminated completely. YOU CAN'T SAVE EVERYBODY! Then there's the propogandists, your Al Sharptons and Jessie Jacksons, who make everything an issue of race. "Well, [whoever] did not murder that man, he was protecting himself from the lynching by some cracker!" or something like that. That's all you really have to do, and you'll be able to get away with murder (literally).

And then the judges and the jury, ah those poor souls, forced to decide another persons' fate. Well, those jury members are just like any other human, so if we get the media to pump compassionate bullshit everywhere for months on end, some of it can spill over and penetrate the people who are supposed to be neutral.

It's funny how "neutral" has become a subjective word.

--End of Rant--

--

Re:Right-on

[el_chicano]

You know who to blame this on? Liberals.

Hmmm...

Then there's the propogandists, your Al Sharptons and Jessie Jacksons, who make everything an issue of race.

To a minority, *EVERYTHING* is about race. Why have we never had a non-White president elected in the U.S.?

George W. Bush is known to be an intellectual lightweight, yet he is president. Minorities laugh at him because we know many minorities are much more qualified than the "First Idiot", yet they don't stand a chance at getting elected. Heck, we know *LOTS* of more qualified White people who would make a much better president than the "Human Eggplant" currently occupying the Oval Office.

I am trying to get promoted at work, yet I am having a hard time even though I have over 220 college hours and *LOTS* of computer experience. The only thing I can see is that is holding me back is that fact that I am Hispanic while the managment of the IT department where I work is 100% White. I see lots of less-qualified Whites get promoted over me, but nope, there is no racism or discrimination in the U.S. today.

The world would be a much better place if conservatives learned to think; however, that may be too much to ask for. At this point, I would settle for having them learn how to spell and use proper grammar and punctuation.

I think it is funny that I speak and write English much better than many White Americans, even though Spanish was my first language and English is the only language they have "learned" (and I use the term "learned" very loosely).

A suggestion to all you White Rush-Limbaugh wannabes: Why don't you pick up a dictionary on occasion? You would be able to learn how to spell "hard" words like "propagandists" and "Darwinism". Hell, maybe you will even find out what the the difference between "principal" and "principle" is!

It's funny how "neutral" has become a subjective word.

Judging from your use of the word "liberal" as an insult, it is obvious that you would not know "neutral" if it bit you on the ass...
--
You think being a MIB is all voodoo mind control? You should see the paperwork!

Re:Right-on

[ShayAllen]

I wonder, since when have public speaking and spelling been the de-facto standard for intelligence? Your arguments are so typical of liberals...assassinate the messenger, destroy the message. A person criticizes liberals, you start trashing whites, Christians, and Americans. Who's the rascist here? I am a white, bible-thumping American, and I can assure you I have no trouble spelling, and the rascism I see on a day-to-day basis comes straight from "minorities" to young white guys like me. I say "hi" in the hallway at work, and they look at me like they want to stick a knife in my gut. Racism would be all but dead in America if it weren't for the liberals and liberal organizations like the NAACP, etc.

Re:Right-on

[turbod]

I find it even more hilarious that some folks can decend so deep into their own athiestic egos, like you, and lump biblical faith as a characteristic of a demographic of people you'd rather ignore, as if they are unavoidably linked. If these people were the trully faithful, then you wouldn't hear about so many "trailer trash ordeals". Additionally, not every human being who lives in a manufactured home on this planet is "trailer-trash".

Not every hardworking, honest person on the planet can afford a real house. As a matter of fact, I am here-by establishing a new stereotype along the lines of your reasoning - "athiestic apartment trash". You know, mixin' it up 90210 style all the time, having drunkin' parties, and swingin'. If anything, more city dwellers fall in line with the image city dwellers would like to relegate to ALL trailer dwellers.

Why did I bother posting? You are obviously ignorant and needed enlightenment.

TurboD

Re:Right-on

[unitron]

As much as it pains me to admit it, not only do I think that he wasn't using "liberal" as an insult, but his arguement about the bypassing of natural selection has some merit as well.

I can see how you would feel the way you do about his use of "liberal", seeing as how some "conservatives" have done their best to turn it into a dirty word, much as they are now continuing to corrupt the language by using "Democrat" instead of "Democratic" when referring to the political party. Just last noght I heard the "Democratic National Committee", which no doubt is what it says on the letterhead and any legal documents involved in incorporation and tax status matters, i.e., that's the real name, called the "Democrat National Committee" by someone who undoubtedly knows better and mis-spoke on purpose.

As for your minority problems, get some African-American employees in there. When they have to promote a minority to keep the government happy, they'll grab you to avoid having to promote one of the blacks. After all, thanks to President on a technicality Bush, "Latinos" are now the new favorite minority of the minority-avoiding class.

Re:Right-on

[jafac]

What's funny is in every other English speaking nation in the world, "Liberal" means the opposite of what it does in the US. "Liberal" means "to relax regulations", particulary on business and industry. (I believe; to aleviate confusion, the term "neoliberal" is coming into vogue, at least with the British people I've talked to.)

Around the time of the Great Depression, the term "liberal" was a dirty word, because lots of people were blaming the liberals, that is, pro-industry people, on causing the depression, and the labor and environmental, and financial abuses of the "robber barons" and super-rich. (whether that was true or not, I don't want to get into that - there were likely many causes to the Depression that acted in concert, and all played a role in lengthening and deepening the Depression).

It kind of makes me barf, how the sound principles of strong regulation of certain aspects of business have been slapped with the label of "liberal". Where the fuck did that come from? Pro-industry republicans trying to avoid that label themselves. What does "conservative" mean anyway? That they are into "conservation"? Bah!

And as far as abandoning Darwinistic principals, Evolution is a property of NATURE. Man may be a result of that process, but is no longer a part of it, because we have changed out environment to suit ourselves, rather than adapting to our environment. Otherwise, all you people out there who have glasses, contact lenses or laser surgery, immediately sterilize yourselves, no sense in polluting the gene pool with defective traits!

Re:Right-on

[unitron]

The trouble with trying to sterilize yourself is that it fogs up your glasses and you can no longer see to do it :-)

personal responsibility

[Anonymous Admin]

Without regard to what the media and society may say, you/we are 100% responsible for every act we perform in our lives. It makes no difference that your parewnts were bad to you when you were a child. It makes no difference that "It wasnt fair". At some point, the responsibility became yours to decide how YOU would respond to the situation, and if you chose to respond via a criminal act, then you chose to be a criminal and should recieve the punishment accorded anyone else for the same act. There is NO acceptable method for handing off your responsibility for your own actions, and people who attempt to do so, (as children are so apt to do), should recieve the same punative punishment (on top of the punishment for their crimes) as we give our children for attempting it. It was a 2 year sentence, but you just made it a 5 year sentence, or in capital cases, 90 days in the electric chair...

Re:the MPAA

[ConceptJunkie]

>[posting anonymously because, yeah]

because... you don't want to lost precious karma?
you don't have a point?

Like it or not, the media are a very powerful force shaping society today. To ignore their effects, while trying very hard to combat them seems to be a little counter-productive. The /. community is very concerned (and rightly so) about the portrayal of computer nerds in the mass media, particularly with respect to issues like DeCSS, Napster, etc.

If we completely ignore the media, how can we combat the lies they tell?

Re: Movie Preaching

[Bobman1235]

It's time this comes out

I'm so incredibly sick of hearing every review of what I call "movies with a message" being taken as preaching. Do you people have a guilty conscience or something? ESPECIALY for someone who didn't even see the movie, who are you to say that the producers and writers are trying to preach to us? They feel a certain way about an issue, they produce a movie that shows that issue in a bad light to illustrate their point. In the case of "15 minutes", which I just recently saw, this issue was essentially media corruption and sensationalism mixed in with a little "no one takes responsibility for their actions".

So, unless you're a reporter peddling sensationalized news or a pansy who won't take responsibility for themselves, how is this preaching? God forbid someone express their fucking opinion without it being aimed directly at you. Maybe I should make a friggin movie about how everyone who sees a movie thinks that movie is aimed directly at them and changing their views on the world.

Know something, if you think people are trying to preach to you through the movie industry, stay the fuck out of the theatres. Otherwise just sit back and enjoy a good movie. That's what it's there for.

John Herzfeld

[intuition]

I got a chance to meet writer/director John Herzfeld in an advance screening in boston a month ago. Apparently, he has been trying to release this movie for 8 years now - finally new line cinema has picked it up. I think it has a theme that many of you have missed, but would ring true with the slashdot crowd. How far are we willing to allow the media to go? How much invasion of privacy is too much? When the media begins to affect the outcome of events they report on, where is the boundary?

John Herzfeld described the movie as "a satire which he hopes never becomes true."

Incidentally, when he prescreened the movie all he wanted to do was allow the audience to ask him a few questions after the movie. No forms, no lengthy questionaires. He came across as a great guy. Maybe I am just star-struck but I thought the film had just as much substance (both themewise and plotwise) if not more than the Matrix.

One last thing.... WARNING PLOT SPOILER

#

The writer/director was repeatedly told not to kill Robert DeNiro's charachter, because he could possibly have a DeNiro/Burns franchise on his hands if the movie was successful. But he never wanted to ruin the integrity of the film's message. Of course this comes all from his mouth, so take it as you will.

Two comments

[Enry]

In this country, nobody is responsible for anything he does,

Funny, coming from someone who blamed everyone but the shooters at Columbine.

In the 80s, more than 90 percent of all U.S. families regularly watched one of the three major evening newscasts. Today, the number has fallen below 20 per cent, and TV has become an electronic nightmare, degrading civic life more often than elevating it.

Here I go into my "why I don't watch broadcast TV anymore".

There's a large number of reasons why "the big three" aren't getting the same percentages as before. People are working longer hours and don't watch it on TV. Many turn to all-news channels (MSNBC/CNN/Fox (ecch) News) to get the news in one shot without all the BS that usually gets introducted.

I watch none of it. My news comes from Yahoo, a local newspaper, and NPR. Broadcast TV has, as I've grown older, become increasingly dumbed down. Maybe it's always been dumb and I just got smarter. Broadcast TV has always been for the lowest common denomonator, with programs aimed for people that don't know Alaska is a state and think that Bill Clinton is still president. Go watch your local Fox channel during prime time some night and tell me that is not the case. Fox is probably at the extreme end of this, but the other channels all have the same problems.

As evening news broadcasting drops because of these and other issues, (non-cable) broadcasters have to come up with new ways to get people to watch their channel. Then came OJ.

OJ's little publicity stunt with the white bronco and its associated ratings have made said broadcasters think that since ratings were high for OJ, all high-speed chases are important. Prime-time TV now has highlights of these chases going on.

Where will it end? I don't know. It's increasingly difficult to get true information. Everyone has their spin on events, and that spin is becoming larger and more erratic.

Re:Two comments

[Ex-NT-User]

I watch FOX news to get the conservative view point then switch to cnn for the liberal one. It's actually quite ammusing how much spin every news network puts on THE SAME news.

This is the real reason people don't watch the news. The damn reporters are BIASED. Every report they do has their own underlieing bias in it. It's actually quite amusing and sad to watch at the same time. What ever happaned to give me the news and I'll decide?

Re:Two comments

[leviramsey]

For that, you can watch Pat Robertson's newcast (I think it's CBN) on Fox Family...

Re:Two comments

[unitron]

The scariest thing I've seen on TV lately is some guy soliciting donations in aid of his campaign for an ammendment to the US Constitution that would officially declare Jesus to be the one, true Lord, or something like that.

I'm not sure which is worse, a government that tells you what to believe or one that forbids you to.

Re:Two comments

[jafac]

ha, don't include CNN in the category of "news in one shot without all the BS that usually gets indroducted" (introduced).

CNN ceased being that a long time ago. Between sports (WTF? I want to watch news, if you want sports, go fukin watch ESPN for fuck's sake!) - and Jeannie Moos (love that bitch, but really, is it NEWS? stop wasting my time!), and nearly nonstop commercials, you can't just tune into CNN and watch 10 minutes and get any useful information anymore. For that matter, they could omit the weather too, people can go watch the Weather Channel for that. Why doesn't anyone do JUST NEWS anymore?

That is why I get my news from Yahoo, and /..

I didn't know Nazi's read Slashdot, too...

[uptownguy]

OK, so I'm an idiot. I couldn't help but click on the link that the guy posted at the end of his article. (You know its got to be SOMETHING good when then don't even bother with anything other than the IP address!)
To save you the trouble, turns out the writer belongs to a group called the National Alliance...

National Alliance Goals :

1. White Living Space
2. An Aryan Society
   
3. A Responsible Government
4. A New Educational System
5. An Economic Policy Based on Racial Principles

(taken from web site)
----------

Who knew that Nazis read Slashdot? Reading a little more on his web page, turns out the Holocaust never happened and that the Jews own all the media...

Sorry but we kicked your lying, insecure asses 50 years ago. Now let's get back to discussing some real issues here, OK? Not spreading the same old boring lies. Cuz, let's be frank -- if you want to really get people to listen, you've gotta update your image... Maybe talk about how Jews are really failed clones or how non-whites are really aliens from Saturn ... and the Saturn auto division of GM is just their first step towards global domination...

Until then, leave the rest of us alone, OK? Oh, and yes, your penis *IS* smaller than everyone elses'... GET OVER IT...

Re:I didn't know Nazi's read Slashdot, too...

[unitron]

"...and guess what? I read..."

All I could think of was Margaret Dumont's double take in "Dinner at Eight" when Jean Harlow's character mentions having read a book.

Re:I didn't know Nazi's read Slashdot, too...

[jafac]

Ted Turner's a Jew?

The stuff they won't show is FUNNY!

[crovira]

Poke around http://www.deadtroll.com/troll/index2.html and look for the fifth and final show (they got their butts canned,) from Three Dead Trolls in a Baggie.

Its in the same vein as the really funny scene in the movie Room with a View.

But they raised a really valid pont. On TV, you can show somebody getting blown away, but not getting blown. I know which one I'd rather somebody do to me.

What they won't show, perhaps ever...

[cr0sh]

But is there anything they wouldn't put on television, no matter how gruesome or sensational? John Herzfeld's 15 Minutes takes on Big Media and America's corruption by celebrity and money, and answers that question with a No.

Actually, there is, at least for now, though I tend to think it will happen soon enough, given America's appetite for "reality" TV:

Live Death Penalty

IIRC, in the late 80's this was debated to be done on some person who was up for the death penalty, to be executed in short time. I don't remember the manner of the execution, but I think it was to be lethal injection. At any rate, talks actually went real far into doing a pay-per-view thing, where the subscribers could watch the execution. They got the "condemmed" to sign paperwork and everything. However, all this caused such an uproar that it was cancelled, and the individual was executed in a more "normal" fashion.

I remember that a TV movie came out later, that was fiction, about a death row individual getting the electric chair live on TV (pay-per-view) in a stadium (with live seat tickets being expensive, but greatly in demand), and how a reporter uncovered evidence that he was innocent, but didn't manage to save the individual in time (because of viewers lust for "blood" - thus the execution, in fiction, of an innocent man).

I don't remember this too well. I appologize, hopefully someone can back me up.

I for one would not want to see such a thing, and wouldn't pay money to see it. I honestly wonder though at the sanity of a society that, so bent on satiating the apetite for violence with reality TV and such (movies, etc), are loath to see the final consequence of such actions - the mortal death of another human being.

Perhaps it is the lack of a reminder that we all can die, will die, and may die at the hands of another individual, that drives the lack of respect and responsibilty in American society?

Worldcom - Generation Duh!

Re:What they won't show, perhaps ever...

[Arkaengel]

I spent several years living in Saudi Arabia when i was a young'un, and I can tell you that executions were in fact transmitted live on Saudi TV at that time (late seventies through early eighties). They were generally held on Saturday mornings, too. Right between the cartoon programming that's almost all that was being shown on TV there at the time. They won't introduce that in America though, for the same reason nobody's seriously proposing live broadcasts from slaughterhouses. The reality of the execution itself might harm the illusion the media tries to create that everyone on death row is a depraved beast who must be killed for Law-Abiding Citizens Everywhere to feel safe.

Re:What they won't show, perhaps ever...

[SuiteSisterMary]

Ah, but in America, people can't decide if a murderer should be put up in a nice hotel for the rest of his life, or killed. In Saudi Ariba, which is a religious country, the Koran clearly states the death penalty is required for certain crimes. Given some of the religious tripe I see on saturday and sunday mornings, I don't see anything wierd.

Re:What they won't show, perhaps ever...

[jafac]

Arnold Shwartzenreagan's film "The Running Man" took that to extreme. A game show, where convicted felons fight for survival against pro-wrestler-like gladiators.

A laff-a-minute.

And Arnold's considering running for Gov. of California.

Re:If you don't like it, don't watch it.

[Anonymous Coward]

Lesson #4: Bowie J. Poag is a dumbass.

Re:Better question...

[Alien54]

If somebody was murdered on video, Alien, do you think it would eventually make its way onto tv. I saw a show on Fox last week that showed cops run down bycars while making traffic stops.. collected from videocams in police cars..

Well last night the one minute I saw on Jerry Springer had to do with weird love relationships. One guy blew chunks on his lady as part of their love relationship. You could see the stuff covering the front of the dress. The audience flipped, of course.

And there have been shows that have played murder videos on the air, although, I will confess, the camera work was shoddy and you did not see the brains splatter all over. The people holding the camera had been freaked out by the scene, for which I do not blame them.

Overwrought violence - Series 7

[Fervent]

This movie shows how far we can go with violence and "reality television", but Series 7 goes much farther. It's a movie wherein the "reality show" involves not just voting someone off the island, but killing them. The movie opens with a pregnant mother unhearteningly shooting someone in a convenience store and continuing full throttle throughout the rest of the flick. It's gory, a bit underhanded (it's from USA pictures, so you know the content is just asking for trouble) but frighteningly profound.

I saw it Friday w/ my girl friend

[PooF]

We both liked it, more so myself than her.

It was at times slightly distubing, very graphic and sensatonalistic (on purpose).

I liked it because it told a good story covered a lot of ground and does talk about something ignored in media: media themselves. I disagree that the movie was very dumb. Sure it had its problems, the last 1/3 was very unbalanced and keep bouncing all over the place, however the use of comedy throught the film made it accessable to my girl friend who otherwise would have found it too intense.

All in all I'd say it was a decent movie, definitely worth a rental, but if your board or love movies go for the theater.

Also, make sure you stay for an extra minute or so as the credits start to get a little extra closure.

--
From: Aaron "PooF" Matthews

Lot of truth in this post, sadly..

[JonKatz]

I'm not sure what Americans make of TV..they see it as entertainment, I suspect..I don't know that liberals get all the blame here..they sure get a lot..I'd say the corporatization of media gets few points..When big, profit driven companies get into this, they only hae one motive or goal..profits, and they own most American media now..

No Limits..

[JonKatz]

if you look at the reality shows on Fox and cable, I'd say there are no limits where this trend can go, constitutionally or otherwise.. But the question the movie asks also, is will we every reach a point where people will stop watching..Murders are often shown on TV, along with shootings and violent crime, accidents etc. As long as people will watch, they'll make it. I don't think we're close to the limit. Unfortunately, the movie's owners..Time Warner..don't have a great claim to high moral ground here.

Re:Better question...

[unitron]

If someone was murdered on video, do you think it would eventually make its way onto TV? Of course. No one is restrained by shame, fear of being shunned by decent society, or just plain good taste anymore. They just want attention and/or ratings. Any minute now Dale Earnhart's autopsy photos will be all over the 'net and this movie is going to influence somebody to do a "life imitates art", probably before it gets out of first run.

If you take Arthur C. Clarke's story "I Remember Babylon" and substitute for the political aims of the Communist Chinese of the '50s the drive for ratings and the mistaking of notariety (probably mis-spelled) for a hero's fame by so many, many people these days, you can see where all this is going and how the old saying "Nobody ever went broke underestimating the good taste of the American people" is as valid as ever, if not more so.

What they should have done was replace Edward Burns with Ed "Kookie" Burns and have done the movie as a dark comedy, ala Ron Goulart. :-)

A review of the review

[evil_one]

In this forum, nobody is responsible for anything he posts, and everybody wants to be on a big or small thread, a reality helped along by scheming trolls, unscrupulous /. moderators and a linux-numbed readership.
But is there anything they wouldn't put on Slashdot, no matter how gruesome or sensational?
John Katz' review of 15 Minutes takes on karma whores and Slashdot's corruption with illiteracy and stupidity, and answers that question with a No.
---

Worst movie I've seen in a long time.

[CleverMonkey]

My wife and I were wondering as we laughed at moments that the director hoped would be poignant and grimaced at moments intended to be funny "Can anyone like this mindless drivel?" Apparently people can, and there are a number of them here.

The flaw in this movie are far too numerous to completely count, but let's start with a few of the big ones:

1. Why the heck is a fire marshall, who never even saw the big-shot teevee cop (because he doesn't own a teevee, and without a teevee probably doesn't read People magazine) suddenly the guys best friend after they've been together a total of about four hours over the course of two days?

2. Double Jeapordy doesn't mean that court has to stand idly by while obvious mistrials are left standing. Come on Hollywood! This was much worse in the case of the movie of that name, but to put forth (without refutation, in both instances) that this fatal flaw exists in our legal system is irresponsible.

3. I appreciate that the media is an easy and sometimes valid target, which has created a culture of media-obsession, panic-driving media (I like how Kelsey Grammar said 'If it bleeds, it leads' as thought that was a novel idea)... HOWEVER. This topic has been done to death, starting with Network, and then the violence-creation/violence-reporting link was done much better in Natural Born Killers. What does this movie add to the story and the (far too blatant) morality tale? An arson investigator and an escort service.

4. Were the rose petals on the ground around the dying DiNero necessary? No. They were absurd - like all of the symbols in this movie they were far too blatant. It was as though the movie was being as LCD (not the display) as the media that it was harping on - but without the self-awareness to validate it.

There are a lot of other movies. I give it 2/10, because it is still possible for the movie to be worse, but they'd have to work at it.

Didn't anyone else hate this movie?
CM

What timing! [SPOLER WARNING]

[alexburke]

I saw 15 Minutes just last night.

There were a few things I felt needed a little polishing -- for example, when Eddie instantly linked the slashes on the wall in the hotel bathroom with the broken-tipped knife. Things like that would probably take time to figure out, and there were several occurances of that sort of thing.

I disagreed with Eddie's fate, but it was a refreshing change from the good-guys-never-die (coughBondcough) theme so prevalent in Hollywood these days.

Also, the fact that the fire marshal (his name escapes me at the moment) didn't wuss out at the end was very satisfying indeed. The guy probably would have rotted in jail anyway as a result of Oleg's tape, but it was nice to see a little an-eye-for-an-eye.

If you haven't seen it, I recommend it heartily. Overall, I enjoyed it -- warts and all.

--

Re: Movie Preaching

[Bluesee]

It's just that they used a sensationalistic approach that invalidates whatever message they were going to send. They are as guilty as the people they portray. I agree with you that it shouldn't be put down as preaching.

It should be put down as hypocrisy.

Go ahead, enjoy the movie, but don't pretend you are going to leave the movie and more enlightened or less depressed about the sorry state of attention-grabbing weasels on TV who successfully pander to the basest instincts of a gullible public. Just know that you are no different than people who watch Jerry Springer.

'Traffic' is a good example of a failed attempt at a message movie. The message is skewed and dishonest, trading fact for emotional impact. Hollywood has a blurred sense of perception, so they really should not be our eyes, ears, or conscience.

I would much prefer a documentary that tries to be unbiased and journalistically honest than a completely sensationalized rip-off of an already anxiety-provoking situation.

No, I won't plunk down any money on this one. Don't need to see it as I already saw the trailer a few times. My point: as long as ratings are the producer's bottom line and his primary reason for making a movie(this will be forever), you will never get an enlightened viewpoint. Not from "15 Minutes", not from "Traffic", but maybe "13 Days", maybe "Gattaca", maybe "2001". These movies, IMO, have at least a germ of independent artistic vision. The other two are ratings-grabbers in the guise of 'important message movies'.

Americans turning to british television

[OmegaDan]

At my house (in the US) we have quite a collection of BBC videos :) Mr Bean, Black Adder, Thin Blue Line, Danger UXB, All Creatures, Upstairs downstairs, wallace and gromit, monty python ... and who could live without junkyard wars on monday nights? :) (I'm tempted to list the original "Connections" series here, but I'm not sure if that was a british production ...(

My all time british favorite "the secret life of machines" has been off the air for years here (and isn't avaliable on videotape to my knowledge). It even won a cable ace award.

This isn't to say I'm immune from the lure of futurama, simpsons, UCB, voyager and earth final conflict (althugh some have been sucking latley:).

Re:Americans turning to british television

[Alan]

Every once and a while I see something "good" on TV, more often than not a comedy (ie: malcom in the middle, a good simpsons, futurama, lone gunmen, etc), I find that generally there is crap on. I live in canada, so 99% of the content I watch is american...

However, I have to agree with the original poster, as well as OmegaDan, that British TV, no matter how "evil" and "unamerican" it appears, pumps out far better quality programs than the likes of Fox. This is not to say that there aren't good shows on n.american TV, but in... quantity over quality ya know?

Re:Americans turning to british television

[jafac]

That's what we need the 500 channels for, rebroadcasting this old good material. Is that what they're used for? More often NOT than SO, unfortunately.

I'm almost *done* with the Simpsons. They made the joke a few episodes ago that TV shows that have "run their course" and who have writers that are tired of cranking out the same material over and over should just end, and be put out of their misery (I think it was at the retirement of Crusty the Clown). Now, Futurama is still relatively fresh. Voyager got stale after 3 episodes. X-Files is a walking zombie this season, and I was pleasantly suprised when I watched the Lone Gunmen last night - it sucked. Hooray, I can finally get my Sunday nights back! Maybe I'll read. Or take up posting to /. on Sunday nights.

Re:Americans turning to british television

[OmegaDan]

Remeber the 185th episode special? "Who knows what adventures the simpsons will from now until they become unprofitable." :)

CBC's take

[alexburke]

Here is CBC's take on the movie.

--

Re:Right-on New Media

[Technician]

Yep, TV is dead. Unfortunately the net is now suffering the same fate. TV has lots of channels with "nothing on" and the web is now full of url's with no content but paid advertising. Thank goodness there are a few sites that still have content. It's just getting harder to find thru all that static. Even though the web is bad, the TV is worse, so I don't use the TV much anymore.

Re:the MPAA

[ConceptJunkie]

I'm sorry you got modded down... obviously the infinite monkeys sometimes _don't_ write Shakespeare...

Moderators... get a clue.

The "we" in your sentence, Anonymous Coward, would have to be _everybody_. If the "we" means the slashdot community, etc, but not the vast majority of voters, as well as the politicians themselves, then all we do is marginalize ourselves. We can't demonstrate what the media get wrong to population at large if we don't pay at least some attention to what they are saying. I personally see very few movies and don't watch a whole lot of television, but I find it educational and informative to see what's out there. It's interesting and useful to know about the Survivor or Millionaire phenomena, but actually watching them is unnecessary (as well as tedious beyond belief, IMO).