Slashdot Mirror
15 Minutes
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.)
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!"
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.
--
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--
--
--
#nohup cat
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.
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.
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.
To save you the trouble, turns out the writer belongs to a group called the National Alliance...
National Alliance Goals
- White Living Space
- An Aryan Society
- A Responsible Government
- A New Educational System
- 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
Until then, leave the rest of us alone, OK? Oh, and yes, your penis *IS* smaller than everyone elses'... GET OVER IT...
I would have to say that explosives are the most abused technology in all of history.
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!
Reason is the Path to God - Anon