One A stands for America, one for Afghanistan. Laboured, hackneyed, and a bit shit as a title. Much like this rant.
Well, what with the World Cup providing further reasons to laugh at French people until they cry, India and Pakistan eyeballing each other across Kashmir, and Big Brother ruling the airwaves, I've found my attention has been very successfully drawn away from that most epically boring yet unpleasantly important of issue's; the War Against Terror. In truth, it's been rather relaxing not watching the news and having at least one "Oh no, what has he done NOW?" moment whenever the US President hoves into view. But as John Gotti might have said (well...actually he probably said "Arrrggh...." and then choked slowly to death on his throat cancer, and good bloody riddance to him) "Keep your friends close and your enemies closer". So whilst it's a bit melodramatic (not to mention egotistical) to imply that Dubya is my enemy, he's certainly someone who causes me a lot of concern and so I like to keep up to date with what he's up to. If only so that my imagination doesn't run away with me trying to guess what amount of fuckwittage he's inflicting on the rest of the world...
But enough of my own little neuroses; what's been happening recently? Particularly in America (where the first terrorist atrocities of the war were committed) and Afghanistan (where the first shots of the war were fired).
The USA is of course the main prosecutor of the war against terror. Since 11th September there have been numerous developments (the most pathetic of which concerns those British people who wrote to complain about how the date was being expressed as 9/11 in the American fashion rather than 11/9 in the British; isn't it nice to know that in the wake of the worst loss of civilian life for year, people can still be as petty and xenophobic as ever. Almost makes one proud to live in the UK...), although you would be forgiven for missing them because apparently the media aren't interested in stories that don't involve big explosions or pitched battles. As I'm going to spend a bit of time criticising the US government for it's current stance, I suppose I should make one thing clear to silence the inevitable bleating of those right wingers who believe that any questioning of government policy concerning the War is tantamount to shopping for Semtex and changing one's name to Usama. I continue to believe that the US was fully justified in starting this war. Their country had been shat upon from a very great height and to expect them to sit back and do nothing whilst various debates concerning the morality of war raged on was unrealistic. Any claims that the US is acting like a bully toward Afghanistan are equally as disingenuous. Yes, the US is far and away superior to the Taliban in military terms. But I'm inclined to think that it's not America's fault that the nation responsible for it's woes is as developed as medieval Europe. What should they have done? Only sent in low-tech equipment to make it a fair fight? Most critics would say black if a US spokesman said white, and I wish they'd be honest about their own motivation for trying to discredit any and every American statement and action.
That said I'm now going to be unpleasant about American statements and actions. My personal bias comes from the fact that I believe the upper echelons of the Republican Party to be venal, corrupt, stupid old men. And as venal, corrupt and stupid goes George W. Bush is pretty much the pinnacle of achievement. There are numerous things that one could pick out to exemplify this, so let's start with the semi-regular terrorist alerts that are becoming a feature of American life.
Basically, it would seem that the many and varied intelligence agencies of America are somewhat embarrassed at having missed the fact that a major terrorist attack was brewing in early September. Because of this, they are now ready to warn the US public of imminent terrorist attacks on the basis of such evidence as "Well, the Golden Gate Bridge is pretty big and if I were a terrorist, that's where I would attack". However, it is interesting to note that these warnings only seem to occur when the government finds itself facing criticism. So are we seeing the FBI, CIA, NSA, and however many other alphabet agencies there are being over cautious? Or are we seeing a government who cheated their way to victory doing their level best to cheat further still?
Take, for example, the May arrest of Abdullah al-Muhajir. This American gentleman, formerly known as Chicago gang member Jose Padilla (incidentally, I did hear of someone who honestly believed that the airlines could once again be made safe by running double checks on anyone who looks like a Moslem, or who has an Islamic name; what a fucking boy genius he is! The fact that Al-Quaida has a huge amount of support in, for example, the Philippines or Indonesia where such names as Edilberto Adan are commonplace doesn't seem to have troubled him...) has been detained by the US on the grounds that he was part of an Al-Quaida plot to detonate a nuclear bomb in America. The evidence for this is...well, we don't actually know what the evidence is as he hasn't been before a court as yet, nor is he likely to. Instead, he's been handed over to the military where he will be held indefinitely.
Now again, I should make it clear that I would be a fool to disapprove of heightened security in America these days. And if this man was indeed planning something of this magnitude then the US is certainly doing the right thing in apprehending him. But even leaving aside the fact that the atrocity he is accused of planning is identical to that of the upcoming film 'The Sum of All Fears', holding a man in indefinite military custody when absolutely no evidence that he was involved in any such plot has been presented...well, isn't that just a little bit totalitarian? Why is the government so afraid of giving us a few little tidbits to satisfy the public that there was indeed such a threat? If nothing else, it would piss on the chips of people like me who enjoy nothing more than being given an excuse to criticise a blundering and stupid government led by a blundering and stupid man. There have been so many false alarms and exercises in misdirection by Dubya's government that there is more than a touch of the boy who cried wolf about this.
As we finish looking at America, it is also worth looking at Dubya's favourite soundbite, the Axis of Evil. He recently extended this group to include Cuba. For some reason, he chose to announce this in Florida, co-incidentally the state where his brother is running for re-election and where there are huge numbers of anti-Castro Cuban expatriates registered as voters. It's also the state that won the presidency for Dubya. When members of his own party are criticising Dubya for his cack-handed attempt to further demonise a country where, if you believe some Americans, is holiday home to all that is evil and satanic, it leads me to believe that perhaps Dubya isn't interested in pursuing the war against terror in order to safeguard the people who elected him. He's doing it to safeguard his re-election prospects. Not that that should be a surprise to anybody, but it's nice to have some tangible proof of this.
Meanwhile, in Afghanistan nothing very much happened. Well...that's not true of course, it's just that India and Pakistan held the potential for far greater fireworks, and so Afghanistan was ignored. But there has been much activity over there. Coalition soldiers have scoured the country and found approximately no Taliban or Al-Quaida troops (they're all in Pakistan, or perhaps even Kashmir by now...). So they've had to be content with blowing up the cave networks and ammunition dumps that were left behind. It might not be very exciting, but taking away the mountain hideaways is a fairly substantial step towards lasting stability in the region. After all, it's difficult to be a successful guerilla fighter if you can't run and hide after taking a few potshots at the army that vastly outnumbers you.In the meantime, the interim government has been busy trying to create a permanent and lasting democratic and transparent government. Naturally, for a country whose idea of human rights was, until recently, giving the condemned man a blindfold, there have been problems doing this. A tribal power struggle is going on behind the scenes as various clan leaders and warlords jockey for position in the new government. The former king has even had to go on record to say that he does not intend to reclaim the throne (and give a veneer of legitimacy to some very unsavoury people who would use him as a figurehead for their government).
Many commentators have used this power struggle as an excuse to look down their noses at the Afghanistani's, citing it as proof that they are nothing better than savages and should be left to their own devices. Hm, well yes I can see how it is unreasonable of them not to have developed the same level of transparency and efficiency in government in a few months when it took us in the west centuries to get from feudalism to democracy. How typically barbaric of them! And, as we have seen, the current American government isn't exactly something that should be aspired to. Who knows, maybe Afghanistan will create a government that really is democratic. And then America and the West can learn from them.
Wednesday 12 June 2002
Tuesday 11 June 2002
Commercial Break
Adverts are a fact of life now. Rather than railing against them all, I prefer to rail against unimaginative and shitty adverts. That still leaves no shortage of material.
Advertising. Doesn't it just bug the hell out of you? Don't you find your blood steadily begin to boil as those insipid, simpering fuckwits on the Halifax advert commit yet another crime against nature with that godawful advertising campaign? Does anyone else find that they can no longer watch a Werther's Original advert without thinking of a Grandfather being arrested for committing paedophillic acts on his grandson and then giving him sweets to keep quiet? Would you take out insurance with a firm whose jingle and phone/car-hybrid mascot are without doubt the most annoying thing on television and, were it not for the UK's strict gun laws, would be responsible for the thousands of TV repairmen being called out to repair gunshot damage to televisions? No? Then why the hell not?! Is advertising responsible for dumbing down and selling out (depending on whether you watch or star in an advertisement) or is it just doing what it says on the tin; bringing goods and services to our attention and not much more?
Looking at what advertising is and what it actually does is nothing new, and for a supposedly ephemeral industry, it generates pretty strong feelings. Bill Hicks said that anyone involved in advertising should kill himself or herself in order to save their own souls. He also said that the words of an artist who has appeared in an advert were like turds falling into his drink. This may be funny, it may even be true, but is it fair? Why should adverts attract such a stigma, to the extent that some actors only appear in commercials that are guaranteed not to be shown to their domestic audience? (any number of Hollywood A-list stars have starred in advertisements for Japanese products for example)
One of the reasons why adverts so offended Bill Hicks (and many others) was that they cheapen art. By art, I mean any artistic expression be it painting, acting, singing, etc. A program called The Day Today showed a spoof advert featuring Nirvana using a similar song to "Smells like Teen Spirit" to advertise panty liners. The sketch was funny to me because I simply couldn't imagine Kurt Cobain 'selling out' and allowing his music to be used on adverts (of course, since his death and the passing of copyright to Courtney Love, Nirvana songs have began to show up in commercial breaks; she truly is a Yoko Ono for the 21st century). By contrast, no-one was surprised in the least when the Spice Girls appeared in adverts for Pepsi (amongst many, many other things). Nirvana were (and still are) viewed as serious artists who wrote music because it was something imperative to them, whereas the Spice Girls were (and still are) regarded as money whores who would have advertised Zyklon-B if they'd been offered enough cash.
Let's stay with the Spice Girls example; the multitude of products they advertised increased their profile with the public. The product's profile was also raised by having well known people advertise it. Would a multinational company like Pepsi have asked them to star in an advertising campaign if they weren't high profile (and presumably, high earners) as well? And would the Spice Girls have appeared in the commercials for anything other than a huge amount of money? It doesn't take a genius to work out that the answer to both of those questions is no. But should that actually matter? Well, from one point of view, definitely. If artists stopped relying on inspiration that comes from within and started basing their work on the desires of a big spending corporation, then the world would be a less interesting place. Would Da Vinci have painted the Mona Lisa? ("The thing is Leonardo, the sponsors just don't like the smile. Teeth and tits my friend; now THAT sells!") Would Shakespeare have written so much and with such quality? ("Now then William; we need to do something about the witches in Macbeth. Ugly old women just don't fly in today's market. The young people find them repulsive and the old people get offended. Now if they were sexy young witches who seduced Macbeth...maybe one of them could fall in love with him, so we won't need Lady Macbeth...c'mon Will, work with me here...").
It's pretty obvious that I'm biased about this, but I do tend to think that the advertising industry should keep it's grubby little hands to itself when it comes to images and idea's that have been inspirational, or hilarious, or uplifting to other people. For example; Samuel L Jackson, the baaaadest motherfucka ever to appear on a cinema screen, Mace Windu and Shaft combined, recently did an advert for Barclays Bank. It was quite obvious that Barclays wished to associate their name with the extraordinary coolness that is synonymous with Sam. What we actually got was Sam making some sort of Jedi-inspired speech about finance that probably left a bad taste in his mouth. The net effect of that advert has been to lower him in many people's estimation. And Barclays? There is still nothing cool or Jedi-like about high street banking. So why did he do it? Simple; for the money. And should we think "Good for him"? Well, you can if you like, but wouldn't you have rather the money spent on an expensive advertising campaign be spent on improving their service? (and perhaps to plug up my overdraft? I wonder if Sam Jackson has ever in his life received a letter from his bank telling him he's exceeded his limit again...).
With all of that said, one of the reasons that I personally dislike adverts is because the vast majority of them are utter toss. I object to sitting through a mercenary attempt to sell me the food/drink/bra that will change my life when the advert promoting it doesn't engage or entertain me. I'm happy to say that advertising has no effect on my spending habits, so I don't think I'm being too hypocritical by saying that all I want out of an advert is a 30 second burst of entertainment. For example, I love the new Mr. Kipling's cake adverts that portray him as a sadistic, malicious, selfish git. But I only enjoy them because I remember the adverts for the same product in the 80's, where Mr. Kipling was a genial and good natured old duffer who sounded disturbing like the Emperor in Return of the Jedi. Watching the new adverts is rather like discovering a kindly old uncle is on the FBI 10 most wanted list (and yes, the fact that I find THAT funny probably says far too much about my sense of humour...).
Adverts do have the potential to gain artistic merit in their own right, but all too often they are either obvious pieces of plagiarism (a McDonalds advertising campaign of a few years ago was a shoddy rip off of the spoof 'Top Tips' section of Viz magazine), anodyne, limp wristed shite (the Halifax adverts, in trying to be inoffensive adverts that the whole family can enjoy, have become the biggest cause of increased blood pressure in my house since the announcement that N'Sync may be appearing in Attack of the Clones), or just plain dreadful (an advert for water filters was on TV recently; I forget the name of the filter, but the advert will live with me for all time due to it's wooden acting and 80's soap opera plot). Yet the people who work for advertising agencies are, by and large, creative and imaginative people, so there is no reason why most adverts shouldn't be as fun to watch as the programs that they interrupt (or even more so if most TV these days is anything to go by). Ok, so their work is going to be used as a sales pitch. So what? No-one forces anyone to buy something on the strength of an advert. Commercials and advertisements are here and they can't be uninvented or made to go away, and there are more of them in a wider range of places than ever before. So can we at least make them worth watching? Surely that's not too much to ask of the industry that convinced us that Dr Pepper is a nice tasting drink.
Advertising. Doesn't it just bug the hell out of you? Don't you find your blood steadily begin to boil as those insipid, simpering fuckwits on the Halifax advert commit yet another crime against nature with that godawful advertising campaign? Does anyone else find that they can no longer watch a Werther's Original advert without thinking of a Grandfather being arrested for committing paedophillic acts on his grandson and then giving him sweets to keep quiet? Would you take out insurance with a firm whose jingle and phone/car-hybrid mascot are without doubt the most annoying thing on television and, were it not for the UK's strict gun laws, would be responsible for the thousands of TV repairmen being called out to repair gunshot damage to televisions? No? Then why the hell not?! Is advertising responsible for dumbing down and selling out (depending on whether you watch or star in an advertisement) or is it just doing what it says on the tin; bringing goods and services to our attention and not much more?
Looking at what advertising is and what it actually does is nothing new, and for a supposedly ephemeral industry, it generates pretty strong feelings. Bill Hicks said that anyone involved in advertising should kill himself or herself in order to save their own souls. He also said that the words of an artist who has appeared in an advert were like turds falling into his drink. This may be funny, it may even be true, but is it fair? Why should adverts attract such a stigma, to the extent that some actors only appear in commercials that are guaranteed not to be shown to their domestic audience? (any number of Hollywood A-list stars have starred in advertisements for Japanese products for example)
One of the reasons why adverts so offended Bill Hicks (and many others) was that they cheapen art. By art, I mean any artistic expression be it painting, acting, singing, etc. A program called The Day Today showed a spoof advert featuring Nirvana using a similar song to "Smells like Teen Spirit" to advertise panty liners. The sketch was funny to me because I simply couldn't imagine Kurt Cobain 'selling out' and allowing his music to be used on adverts (of course, since his death and the passing of copyright to Courtney Love, Nirvana songs have began to show up in commercial breaks; she truly is a Yoko Ono for the 21st century). By contrast, no-one was surprised in the least when the Spice Girls appeared in adverts for Pepsi (amongst many, many other things). Nirvana were (and still are) viewed as serious artists who wrote music because it was something imperative to them, whereas the Spice Girls were (and still are) regarded as money whores who would have advertised Zyklon-B if they'd been offered enough cash.
Let's stay with the Spice Girls example; the multitude of products they advertised increased their profile with the public. The product's profile was also raised by having well known people advertise it. Would a multinational company like Pepsi have asked them to star in an advertising campaign if they weren't high profile (and presumably, high earners) as well? And would the Spice Girls have appeared in the commercials for anything other than a huge amount of money? It doesn't take a genius to work out that the answer to both of those questions is no. But should that actually matter? Well, from one point of view, definitely. If artists stopped relying on inspiration that comes from within and started basing their work on the desires of a big spending corporation, then the world would be a less interesting place. Would Da Vinci have painted the Mona Lisa? ("The thing is Leonardo, the sponsors just don't like the smile. Teeth and tits my friend; now THAT sells!") Would Shakespeare have written so much and with such quality? ("Now then William; we need to do something about the witches in Macbeth. Ugly old women just don't fly in today's market. The young people find them repulsive and the old people get offended. Now if they were sexy young witches who seduced Macbeth...maybe one of them could fall in love with him, so we won't need Lady Macbeth...c'mon Will, work with me here...").
It's pretty obvious that I'm biased about this, but I do tend to think that the advertising industry should keep it's grubby little hands to itself when it comes to images and idea's that have been inspirational, or hilarious, or uplifting to other people. For example; Samuel L Jackson, the baaaadest motherfucka ever to appear on a cinema screen, Mace Windu and Shaft combined, recently did an advert for Barclays Bank. It was quite obvious that Barclays wished to associate their name with the extraordinary coolness that is synonymous with Sam. What we actually got was Sam making some sort of Jedi-inspired speech about finance that probably left a bad taste in his mouth. The net effect of that advert has been to lower him in many people's estimation. And Barclays? There is still nothing cool or Jedi-like about high street banking. So why did he do it? Simple; for the money. And should we think "Good for him"? Well, you can if you like, but wouldn't you have rather the money spent on an expensive advertising campaign be spent on improving their service? (and perhaps to plug up my overdraft? I wonder if Sam Jackson has ever in his life received a letter from his bank telling him he's exceeded his limit again...).
With all of that said, one of the reasons that I personally dislike adverts is because the vast majority of them are utter toss. I object to sitting through a mercenary attempt to sell me the food/drink/bra that will change my life when the advert promoting it doesn't engage or entertain me. I'm happy to say that advertising has no effect on my spending habits, so I don't think I'm being too hypocritical by saying that all I want out of an advert is a 30 second burst of entertainment. For example, I love the new Mr. Kipling's cake adverts that portray him as a sadistic, malicious, selfish git. But I only enjoy them because I remember the adverts for the same product in the 80's, where Mr. Kipling was a genial and good natured old duffer who sounded disturbing like the Emperor in Return of the Jedi. Watching the new adverts is rather like discovering a kindly old uncle is on the FBI 10 most wanted list (and yes, the fact that I find THAT funny probably says far too much about my sense of humour...).
Adverts do have the potential to gain artistic merit in their own right, but all too often they are either obvious pieces of plagiarism (a McDonalds advertising campaign of a few years ago was a shoddy rip off of the spoof 'Top Tips' section of Viz magazine), anodyne, limp wristed shite (the Halifax adverts, in trying to be inoffensive adverts that the whole family can enjoy, have become the biggest cause of increased blood pressure in my house since the announcement that N'Sync may be appearing in Attack of the Clones), or just plain dreadful (an advert for water filters was on TV recently; I forget the name of the filter, but the advert will live with me for all time due to it's wooden acting and 80's soap opera plot). Yet the people who work for advertising agencies are, by and large, creative and imaginative people, so there is no reason why most adverts shouldn't be as fun to watch as the programs that they interrupt (or even more so if most TV these days is anything to go by). Ok, so their work is going to be used as a sales pitch. So what? No-one forces anyone to buy something on the strength of an advert. Commercials and advertisements are here and they can't be uninvented or made to go away, and there are more of them in a wider range of places than ever before. So can we at least make them worth watching? Surely that's not too much to ask of the industry that convinced us that Dr Pepper is a nice tasting drink.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)