Douglas Howe: October 2006 Archives

There are "scary" movies, and then there are "Halloween" movies, and then there are "scary Halloween movies."

With all respect to well-done "scary" movies such as "Silence of the Lambs," "Psycho," "Alien," "The Shining," "Jacob's Ladder," the original "Nightmare on Elm Street," and the clever "Texas Chainsaw Massacre," I think there's something different about movies that clearly carry the Halloween theme of ghosts, goblins, and, more specifically, demons and Satan himself. A spiritual person cannot ignore the importance of such things.

And for me, the movie that brought that most home to me—even beyond "The Exorcist" or "The Omen" or "The Devil's Advocate"—was John Carpenter's original "Halloween." It's probably too late to rent it today, but it's worth ordering. I originally went and saw it because we had all heard it was filmed in our hometown of Burbank. Never, though, did I experience the true edge-of-my-seat authentic feelings of being scared of what evil could do like I did in that movie.

It was low-budget, smart, surprising, obvious at times, and unrelentingly honest about how those who would seek to name the evil among us (in this case the pyschiatrist played by Donald Pleasance) are often seen as out of touch and over-dramatic while the innocent among us (in this case Jamie Lee Curtis's "Laurie") seem so naïve and blind to the ever present evil.

Before "Halloween's" dénouement and the final chase scenes, the battle of good v. evil in "Halloween" brings out the most important question for the spiritual seeker: "Is this spirit stuff really real?" If it is, we ought to equip ourselves for it. If not, then we can all go back to the fun and games and tongue-in-cheek way we treat Halloween.

But for me, before I even started reading the Bible and finding out what it's all about, I had a deep sense of the existence of how bad people can be and how scary it is that we don't notice, and it came from the experience of seeing "Halloween."

There's a new version of an old mini-series that's sure to be a ratings grabber for the next week or so. The stakes are high, the subplots are numerous, and the cast features old stars and emerging new characters. As a nation, we'll tune in with interest until it runs its course and ends. And this one is not only on one channel.

There's something about the drama of the election that creates national interest that goes beyond politics. It's a story that interests Americans, with its many possible twists, turns, and mysteries:

• Will the Democrats take over the House?
• Will the Republicans lose the Senate?
• Will Hillary Clinton run for President?
• Will Barack Obama run for President?
• How will this election effect the war?
• What will happen in my local congressional district or county commission election?
• How will other races effect the one(s) I'm interested in?

What makes this interesting for me is the degree to which the national news media is perceived as an information-distributor, when in fact they are as much a "player" in the plot as anyone. Ratings and advertising dollars are being fought for, audience share is the prize, and all stops will be pulled out by the news networks to "win" their battles during this high viewership season.

Consider some quotes I heard last week:

On Fox: "You are correct that this is an issue of national importance, and that's why viewers will need to keep it on Fox, because, indeed, if the Republicans win that seat there is little chance the Democrats can gain control of the Senate."

CNN: "Thank you for that report, and I remind viewers that CNN was the only national news network to have a reporter live on that scene."

News anchor to expert commentator in the field: "Usually the off-year midterm elections are sort of boring, but this year seems to be anything but..."

These are classic examples of the self-promotional aspect of the news cycle:

1. The networks assert that this election season is exciting and not boring and that more and more people are interested in it;

2. A certain percentage of the audience believes that there's something special going on and they don't want to miss out;

3. Audience share goes up as (whaddya know?!) more and more people get interested in it.

In a poll released yesterday, Barack Obama is in a statistical dead heat with John McCain (41%-38%) for the 2008 election. Am I the only one who notices that the only reason for such polls now is the creation of subplots and stories to juice up an election? Neither McCain or Obama is in a close race in this election, and most Americans don't really know much about Obama's leadership record or his stand on every issue. But we know his image, and a bit of his story, and that is how the media drives our election processes and influences the results while posing as a bystander.

It all comes down to this: A spiritually-driven person who wants to cast a responsible vote needs to separate the wheat from the chaff when it comes to watching TV news, to identify what is of relevance and close to factual, and what is really just the media's efforts to win in its own piece of the drama that is Nationally Televised Election Season.

Like the Olympics, this ratings-grabber will be gone in two weeks, but the repercussions of our votes will last much, much longer.

Blogging about negative campaigning could seem as old and trite as blogging about taxes: There’s a sense that it’s never gonna change. We even have news networks whose bias is so pervasive that their negativity (or positivity) about certain causes and people is predictable even before the non-media spin types get started.

But now there’s a new kind of issue: Negative campaigning about negative campaigning. Or positive campaigning, depending on your perspective. A current example is Michael J. Fox’s commercials and appearances on behalf of stem-cell research.

"They say all politics is local, but it's not always the case," say Fox says in one commercial. "What you do in Missouri matters to millions of Americans--Americans like me." It’s not a commercial for research--it’s a commercial for a Democratic candidate. And conservative commentators are attacking Fox for it: Rush Limbaugh said Fox was "either off his medication or acting."

The Associated Press story week presents both sides of the issue. “Dr. John Boockvar, a neurosurgeon and assistant professor at Weill Cornell Medical Center at New York's Presbyterian Hospital, called Limbaugh's claim ‘ludicrous’," said the story. “Boockvar said those with Parkinson's have ‘on’ and ‘off’ spells.”

“’If there is one single disease that has the highest potential for benefit from stem cell research,’ Boockvar said Tuesday, ‘it's Parkinson's," said the same story. The AP’s conclusion: “Celebrities have a long history of supporting political candidates. But there's no question that Fox, who campaigned for John Kerry in the 2004 presidential race, is uniquely suited as a spokesman for stem cell research.”

I agree.

With all of the negative campaigning of the season, those who are supporters or opponents of stem cell research should debate the merits of the issue rather than the rights of certain Americans to leverage their role in life to make their case. That kind of negativity is worse than debating the issue: it’s un-American.

After three weeks, here's my spin on "Studio 60 on the Sunset Strip:" It's about redemption. And it's awesome.

Aaron Sorkin has long been successful in creating compelling and entertaining investigations into the humanity of characters who inhabit noble roles. "A Few Good Men," "The American President," and "The West Wing" all took us to the core of those whose titles we recognize but whose honest quests are new to us. He's long been a student--and revealer--of the human qualities essential to an authentic spiritual awareness. "Studio 60" offers more of the same.

The heroes are human, and humble. Matthew Perry's Matt Albie is a former writer at "Studio 60," a fictional "SNL"-like comedy show, who got fired. Bradley Whitford's Danny Tripp is a recovering cocaine addict who can't get bonded to produce the movie he's been offered, so he and Matt take the reigns of "Studio 60," from which they were fired four years earlier. Amanda Peet's Jordan McDeere is the rookie network president whose very hiring caused the company stock to drop and whose naïve but idealistic ideas may lead to a short tenure. Steven Weber's Jack Randolph is the network chairman charged with the success of not just the show, but the whole network.

Sarah Paulson's Harriet Hayes, one of the actors on the show-within-the-show, speaks for evangelical Christians but is clearly not the cheesy-cleany bore that tends to be the stereotype. She's also going through a breakup with Matt Albie and will now be working for him. Harriet is the first contemporarily saavy Christian character on a network show in a long time, made believable and human through the lame questions people ask about her faith and the fact she's going through a break-up with all the pain that brings to anyone.

By the time we get to Episode 3, which aired last night, redemption has established itself as a main theme of the show. Jordan's job is in jeopardy because a prior drunk-driving arrest and divorce make headlines. Matt bets $10,000 to give an actress confidence after she flat-lined in a focus group. Danny goes to blows with Matt as a means of convincing him that their firing from the show four years earlier won't happen again. Hard-head Jack is the first to congratulate Jordan for her success. The characters often say "don't worry about it," but they step over each other to worry for each other.

And, in her first "sermon," Harriet effectively pleads with Matt (her ex) to cut a funny skit that she questions for moral reasons. "It's a funny joke, but not a good joke," she says of the bit, which mocks a small-town high school. "The average income there is $18,000 a year, roughly what I'll be paid to perform this show tonight. Why are we making fun of them? 'Crazy Christians,' 'Science Schmience,' 'Bush and the Republicans' [skits the show aired that mock conservative and Christian values] are all fair game; it's hypocrisy and power. These guys are just trying to raise their kids."

In last week's episode, we saw Harriet and some of the other actors engage in a pre-show prayer, in which they invoked Jesus and asked for success. This week, we see Matt, Danny, and some others offering hugs and a huddle, which looks a lot like a pre-game prayer but leaves room for it to be, well, just a group hug. For artists, there's nothing quite as redeeming as applause, or a good focus group, or compliments, or just one compliment from someone we trust or love. Sometimes, approbation from just anyone with breath and a pulse will do. This time, though, the show ends with all of the above: applause and laughter, hugs and high fives, and a 109% retention rate.

As in "The West Wing," Sorkin often sends his clearest message through an episode's closing song. In this case it's "Will You Still Love Me Tomorrow?" which gets right to the core of conditional love that is our media culture. For Matt, Danny, Jordan, and their team, they're all loved and safe... until next week's show.