Funny People and the Cultural Re-Norming of Marriage

Recently, Ferdinand Bardamu posted his thoughts on the latest Judd Apatow film "Funny People" which was not, all things considered, very funny nor very successful, dropping 72% from it's opening weekend gross according to DeadlineHollywoodDaily.com, with an opening weekend of only $22.6 million.

Considering "Funny People" and other indicators, there seems to be a cultural re-norming for Marriage. One in which female infidelity at least, is not only "OK" but empowering and liberating. An infidelity, that does not threaten the integrity of the family because of "sharing" according to status of lovers and husbands. So far, audiences don't seem to be buying this message, but it certainly seems to be the message cultural elites are intent on forcing upon the larger audience until they surrender.


At least one male reviewer seemed not to understand why the "everyman" character, Ira (Seth Rogen) is irate when a girl he was interested in slept with one of his room-mates. Most reviewers found the ex-girlfriend, played by Leslie Mann, to "enchanting" including The Wall Street Journal's Joe Morgenstern and none really took issue with either the appropriateness of the main character (Sandler) romancing his ex, or the ex giddily falling into bed with him despite the fact that she's married and has two kids.

As Ferdinand Bardamu posts, the film "Funny People" centers around former male-oriented comedy star Adam Sandler, playing George Simmons, who hires an out-of-work joke writer Ira Wright (Seth Rogen) to write jokes for him after he learns he's dying of a rare form of leukemia, in between acting like a jerk and having casual sex with groupies. After Simmons is cured, he attempts to romance the girl he cheated on, Laura (Leslie Mann) even though she is indeed married (though she suspects her husband once cheated) and has two small children. Laura responds eagerly and prepares to divorce her husband Clarke (Eric Bana) when he discovers her infidelity, and prepares to do so without shame. This is presented as "romantic." Laura only finally realizes George will make a lousy husband and father when he laughs at her young daughter's singing and checks his cell phone. Unrealistically, she later tries to rekindle her marriage with her husband whom she earlier dismissed casually.

Audiences, by and large found this movie un-funny and as noted by the 72% drop from its opening weekend, however the message, that men can "share" women in marriage, according to social hierarchy, (and in relationships, see Ira with the girl he liked who promptly slept with one of his friends) is clearly on the agenda.

The same message was present in an earlier Sandler movie, "Spanglish," which centers on a family man, John, who runs a swanky restaurant, and has to stay with his cheating wife (Tea Leoni) for the sake of his kids. Similar themes have shown up in "Buffy the Vampire Slayer" (a cheating fiancee is "OK" with the dominant Alpha), "the Unit" (where one of the wives has a long-term "hot" affair with her husband's commander and has him ordered on missions so they can continue the affair), and "A Walk on the Moon." In all instances, female infidelity is presented as "no big deal" but rather "empowering" and also, justified, since the men are either hot studs or higher in the social hiearchy.

This is clearly, a message that will NOT not resonate with men. It's pushed by the culture of Hollywood, strongly influenced by so many gay writers and producers and executives, and feminists, who while not wielding direct influence can have enormous impact on Hollywood, ground zero for political correctness. This message is also as one might expect, popular with women. Recently, Mercy, the new NBC nurse-drama show depicted in the promotional trailers the lead character unabashedly cheating on her doofus, good guy loyal husband, because he's well, loyal and the wife's "friend" and the ex-lover is "hot" and Alpha and of much higher status. The "cheating wife" storyline was quite popular among female fans of "the Unit" (check Television Without Pity to see) and keeps showing up in "serious dramatic movies" that cover family life. Blogger Novaseeker has commented that in the modern, post 1980's era, women seek the balance between "cads and dads" and often fantasize about having both. This is certainly the case in the Sandra Tsing Loh article and the various writings of Barbara Ehrenreich urging legalized polyamory and indeed, advocating a "dad" housekeeper and various "cad" boyfriends on the side for women. Or, in the CNN article Happily Married, Dreaming of Divorce, nice everyday guys are "boring" and women have enough money and status to live on their own with various "exciting" guys around.

Clearly we have a perfect cultural storm: a very over-represented Gay faction in Hollywood, pushing Gay norms of relationships (affairs are no big thing — they are both men), with feminists pushing aggressively to redefine marriage and family as a hot woman, her boyfriend(s) of hot, exciting status, and housekeeper husband, and the need now that men have fled scripted entertainment to appeal to a mostly female audience. The more of course, this message is pushed, the more men flee.

Male followers of Sandler, to judge by the reaction to "Punch Drunk Love" and "Spanglish" and "Funny People" were not happy with his turn to the dramatic, instead of the flippant, anti-authority comedies he is known for. None of these films exactly set the box office records on fire, compared to say "Big Daddy" which made $163 million domestically against a production cost of $34 million. "Bedtime Stories" earned $110 domestically against a production cost of $80 million. Yet Sandler like other formerly male favored stars (Clint Eastwood, for example) craves acceptance as a dramatic actor. Like the many women with security, he craves excitement and applause from his peers, he already has success.

Which means we can expect more of this, Hollywood as an institution pushes even male-appealing stars to abandon their core audience for approval. Which requires, well themes like "Funny People" or "Spanglish." This is true for Judd Apatow as well, who made money off of fantasies of nerdy, nebbishy guys getting the girl ("40 Year Old Virgin," "Knocked Up," and "Super-bad.")

In some ways of course, as blogger Ferdinand Bardamu notes, Hollywood has done their male audience a favor. He notes the lessons contained within "Funny People" (which parallel those of "Spanglish" and other films, television shows such as "Mercy" and many other tv series) which are:

1. Women will cheat while married if the guy is more Alpha than her husband.


2. Guys who follow "the rules" of being "nice," backing off girls with boyfriends, husbands, are losers while those who pursue women 24/7 regardless of marital status, etc. are winners.


3. Wives and girlfriends, and potential for both, have complex and lengthy sexual pasts, with deep feelings for Alphas who are largely jerks.


4. Sex with an Alpha means more than family responsibilities, even to children.


5. Past boyfriends of women can show up at any time and take away wives or girlfriends if they have superior Alpha status.


6. Being a good father or supportive is un-important, being Alpha is all to women.


7. Women don't love "friends" or find it sexy, they relegate boyfriends and husbands to "honorary gay status" and seek men who are dominant socially (Alpha).


8. Women don't seek security, they have their own, they NEED for constant excitement and stimulation.


9. When women cheat in marriage they seek to replace not supplement their husbands/boyfriends


10. Non-Alpha men should expect to "share" women with Alphas, while Alphas need not share women at all.

These, then, are the "lessons" of "Funny People" and while based on Hollywood exaggeration, are at least partly descriptive of some of female and Alpha behavior, and describe the distorting effect of security no longer being a basic need upon society in the relationship and mating market. Note the emphasis in the "rules" on female need for stimulation and excitement, and lack of loyalty and dependence on male emotional support. These are red flags that women assume they are either not needed or easily substituted for (i.e. supportive husbands/boyfriends). Some of the lessons (sharing of women by Betas with Alphas vs. replacement of husband by Alpha) are contradictory, but what is most useful is the core lesson that female infidelity is never criticized. It is revealing that while male infidelity (rightly so) is criticized, it is only BETA male infidelity and promiscuous behavior that is criticized (the movie does not take George to task for having one night stands with groupies) and not Alpha male infidelity/promiscuity, and female infidelity is never criticized.

The one red line that cannot be crossed is criticizing this behavior.

Obviously, the caste system for men, Alpha, Beta, and Omega are near and dear to the hearts of Hollywood. Most of the stars, executives, producers, writers, and directors have a complex caste system that encourages Alpha-Beta struggles, and Alphas simply taking (then throwing back) women. This is "normal" for Hollywood, which is a severely dysfunctional place. The situation is similar to a rock band, with groupies being passed around from musician to musician according to status and power within the group. This message is modified by the need to appeal to women audiences, who don't want to feel "disposable" to either Alphas or Betas. When in fact, they are. The record of women in Hollywood, as actresses, writers, and directors, is not a happy one, despite most of Hollywood being oriented directly towards the female audience, certainly in TV, and arguably for most movies outside Summer (male oriented) Blockbusters. In addition, the publicity of angering feminist groups is the one type of publicity Hollywood avoids whenever possible.

The Apex of Hollywood's caste system is powerful indeed. Most of the men there generally don't abuse their power in creating de-facto harems. Even mid-life crises like Harrison Ford confines himself to a single (much younger) actress. They know, either overtly or instinctively, the danger of doing so (creating powerful enemies intent on bringing them down through scandal). Taking a studio executive's, or producer's, or less powerful actor's wife or girlfriend is a recipe for life-time enmity and a bet that said victim will never be in a position to offer payback.

However, the lower levels are rife with such actions, and moreover the supply of women who generally, if they divorce a powerful man, won't be seeking alimony (they have their own money) is relatively slim. Thus, Kelly Preston, John Travolta's wife, was once the girlfriend of Charlie Sheen (and famously shot by him). For powerful but not Apex men such as these, swapping women around, is "normal." Not the least of which is there is generally, again, minimal investment in the women and lots of hookers and groupies on the side, as a general rule, for those who want such things. Lots of money makes many things possible.

This re-norming is of course a Hollywood construction. It might reflect the desires of some women, but it has not gotten wide acceptance in practice. But that was true for Gay Marriage, viewed as a fantasy twenty years ago. Can and will men accept this re-norming?

No. Women might adopt such a norm, particularly as women become larger parts of the workforce, due to the mancession and attempts to increase female employment at the expense of, particularly, White males (see Robert Reich), making even the provider role fairly difficult for most men to achieve. Notably, in the movie "Funny People," the Eric Bana character is a good provider and supportive father, with plenty of money, but he can't match the fame and fortune of Hollywood winner George (Sandler).

Particularly in the Obama-driven "pick the winners" government run economy, a few connected male insiders will make out with even more money than before. Becoming even more wealthy, powerful, and Alpha. Including of course, fame

This means that women, as principal breadwinners, will want to re-norm marriage to support "sharing" themselves with Alpha men. It certainly has many advantages for them, and as we will see later, falls in line with gay norms of marriage as Gay Marriage becomes a nationwide reality.

But for most men, the prospect of having to "share" their wife or girlfriend with another man, Alpha or not, is repugnant. It will simply cause men to forgo marriage, unless they are powerful and Alpha enough to be utterly secure in keeping their wife to themselves. Men in the West have historically fought to avoid sharing their women with other men, and there is no reason to think that will change. Hollywood might be successful in persuading a goodly number (it's likely that not even a majority of women would be required to re-norm and redefine marriage) of women that marriage means a house-husband, a "Kitchen Bitch" (in Loh's terms) who takes care of the kids and family, and various exciting Alphas for whom they will drop everything.

This is a deal not even Adam Sandler can sell.
...Read more

The Ugly Side of Disney's Pop Princess Machine

Recently, Disney pop princess Miley Cyrus performed at the Teen Choice Awards. Dlisted has a full range of pictures and video. Watching the video and looking at the pictures, makes one wonder about Disney's formerly sure touch in manufacturing (and discarding) tween appealing pop princesses. Has Disney hit the bottom of the well, and must resort to pandering to the worst instincts of it's tween audience figuring their parents won't be involved? Or is Disney simply unable to execute it's strategy, with any level of coherence, as key executives burn out and are replaced by lesser figures. Either way, we are likely to see both a flashpoint in general between angry, and economically stressed parents, and the ugly exploitation behind Disney's Pop Princess-Making machine.



First, Miley Cyrus at the Teen Choice Awards (yes it's a stripper pole on top of an ice cream cart):



[click Picture to enlarge]


And her nine year old sister, Noah, at the party thrown by the Teen Choice Awards:



Disney has been very good in the past at extracting lots of money from parents of "tween" (ages eight to twelve) girls by pushing a series of (highly disposable as they age) Pop Princesses. From Lindsay Lohan ("Herbie Fully Loaded," Hillary Duff ("Lizzie McGuire"), Melissa Joan Hart ("Clarissa Explains it All"), Britney Spears, Christina Aguilera, Vanessa Hudgens ("High School the Musical"), Demi Lovato ("Camp Rock"), and Selena Gomez, to of course Miley Cyrus, a common theme runs through the characters Disney creates. An "ordinary girl" who is of course far prettier than an ordinary teen age girl, between the ages of 13 and 16, discovers life outside her sheltered family, as a secret wizard or witch, princess, or pop star (no it doesn't make sense — it's for kids). Girls eight to twelve have reliably consumed this basic princess fantasy, since 1991 and "Clarissa Explains It All" on Nickelodeon. Variations include actual pop princesses (Spears and Aguilera on "the New Mickey Mouse Club") and ordinary-girl/pop princesses hybrids such as Miley Cyrus on "Hannah Montana."

As recent as 2007, Cyrus's concert ticket sales and album sales netted her $64 million, and #11 on Billboard's top earners, higher than Faith Hill and Bon Jovi. Tween girls love pop princesses, and Disney has excelled in giving them what they want. Disney's only concern is — tween girls don't make their own money or buying decisions, their parents do. Sadly, Disney has always had a seamy side to the pop princess machine.

First, there's the issue of disposability. Girls age out of appealing to tweens, when they get too "old" which generally happens around 16-17 or so, and no longer become fantasy figures of pre-adolescents (the way say, Superman or Captain Marvel is for young boys) but rather "near adults" that tweens find harder to identify with (presumably because of overt sexual issues and looming adulthood). Most of the Disney princesses know from past experience with other girls, their shelf-life approaches that of the average NFL career: four years. Indeed, Hillary Duff, Britney Spears, Christina Aguilera, Vanessa Hudgens, and others all started to make their transitions out of tween roles at around age seventeen or so. Some with more success (and happiness) than others. Every girl (and her management/agents) knows that her time as a Disney pop princess is limited, and as such her transition to adult roles must be fairly rapid. Hence the built-in incentives for the pop princesses in transition to act "adult" or take on adult roles as rapidly as possible.

Second, the business itself can be seamy. Teen star Lindsay Lohan famously spun out of control. Britney Spears was famously, briefly institutionalized. Sister Jamie Lynn Spears was pregnant at 16, while starring in "Zoey 101" for Nickelodeon. Rumors (never proven) had it that the responsible party was not the named, 19 year old boyfriend, but a Disney exec. Either way, the end result is not particularly wholesome family fare. Some Disney Pop Princesses and actresses come out alright. These tend to be the smarter, more driven, and more lucky (in that they have functional families looking out for them). But far too many end up with serious problems for Disney to be entirely comfortable.

It's hard to fathom the thinking of Disney execs who while not directly controlling the Teen Choice Awards, certainly have a say in how their principal star acts, allowed negative images to be created. In the age of cell phone cameras, any negative image (and audio, as Michael Richards found out) will be publicized. There simply is not any hiding any more. Cyrus may be their biggest star, and best earner, but the danger in hard economic times is that parents will simply pull the plug on cable TV (and thus, earnings for Nickelodeon which still gets the bulk of its revenue from subscriber fees). Moreover, parents can cut back or simply eliminate Disney purchases for tweens. Which are, at their core, discretionary spending.

It's possible, that Disney execs either did not wish to alienate Cyrus's management, or deliberately encouraged or at least said nothing to discourage, Cyrus from adopting an "overly sexy" performance in an attempt to prolong her earnings power by appealing to older girls, who would as 14-16 year olds find the more solidly adolescent Cyrus a more appealing figure. This would be likely if the launch of new "replacement stars" Lovato and Gomez came up duds.

If this was the case, and it might not be, then Disney execs would be incapable of seeing the danger. The sky-high earnings and popularity of Cyrus guarantee that any possible mis-step will be reported in the press. Probably the video and particularly that of nine year old Noah Cyrus playing around with her friends on the stripper pole in a party aimed at kids and early teens are incendiary for parents. Parents, as a general rule, do not like at all sexualization of children, and negative role models for girls particularly when the words "stripper pole" are involved. Disney was lucky to sweep Jamie Lynn Spears pregnancy (whoever the father) into the memory hole, in good times when parents did not quibble over spending $100 a ticket for Miley Cyrus concerts if it made their 10 year old daughter happy.

Those good times are gone, unlikely to come back, and even if they do, spending habits are likely to be permanently changed (in favor of thrift). Chris Rock had a reputedly hilarious routine about keeping his daughter off the stripper pole. Anger at inappropriate sexualization (aimed at, after all, girls eight to twelve) coupled with discretionary spending at the minimum, means parents have much less slack they will allow companies like Disney.

Any of the explanations are disturbing: Disney seeking to extend Cyrus's run as a money-maker by appealing to older girls with a "sexy" image ala "Gossip Girl," execs fearful of alienating the star and her family/management, or execs simply clueless and unaware of the changing morality caused by hard times. Whatever the reason, Disney seems as unable to chart a course in the recession as any other media company, disturbing since allegedly Disney was one of the better run companies, with savvier executives.
...Read more

Mad Men: The Most Feminine (and Revealing) Show on Cable TV

A recent (Friday, August 7, 2009, Weekend Journal, P1) article in the Wall Street Journal contained a few odd hints about the future of cable Televsion. First, it's very girly. The AMC series "Mad Men" may be the most profoundly feminine show on cable. Second, almost no one watches the broadcasts. Third, considerably more will watch on downloads or video on demand, with profound implications as I've noted here and here.


Lets take the last point, since it's buried in the article and is not very obvious at first glance. According to the WSJ, "Mad Men" averaged just 1.5 million viewers per new episode at 10 p.m. last season, up 63% from 920,000 or so the previous season. The subject of much hype, buzz and Emmys (being the first basic cable series to win an Emmy for Best Drama and nominated for a total of 16 Emmys this year), its performance in first-run episodes was pathetic. If you were an advertiser, you were not happy with the results. You would not have gotten much bang for your buck.

However, AMC claims that more than 30 million viewers saw the show last year on downloads, video on demand, and first run plus repeat broadcasts, excluding DVD sales. The latter is expected to exceed $18 million in the first six months. With a limited, 13 episode run for Season Two, that amounts to about 19.5 million for the first-run new episode broadcasts, and about 10.5 million for all other media, including repeats and downloads, and video on demand. That still makes "Mad Men" a niche show, giving it the equivalent of 2.3 million viewers per broadcast, but shows the growth in consumption of of TV shows outside normal first-run broadcasts. Nearly 800,000 people watched the show outside the normal first-run broadcast, or about 35% of the show's total viewers per episode.

Clearly, if you are an advertiser, you want product placement as your ad, so people see it regardless, and ideally you want the entire show to feature your products or services, positively, in the way that original radio shows did back in the 1930's. At a nominal $40 per box set (Best Buy has it for $40 as of today's date, Amazon has it for $32, the list price is $50, I'll use Best Buy as the likely average retail price, you can plug in your own assumptions) that would imply purchase by an additional 400,000 consumers.

The basic economics are fascinating — consumers are increasingly looking to view hour long dramas the way the listen to music. Which is on their own terms, often on their own schedule, at their computers, on portable devices like Ipods and Phones, or on DVDs which are very convenient.

Advertisers are quite likely to respond to these changes in basic consumer behavior, and want ads embedded in the shows themselves, so that viewers see them whenever they the view the show. This also implies that free beats pay, given that advertisers want as many people as possible to see the shows. At an average production cost of say, $3 million per episode, "Mad Men" costs $39 million to produce, about half of that covered by AMC's licence fees, or around 19.5 million. The extra 18 million or so from DVD sales in the first six months (the time for highest volume of sales) brings the show to nearly break even. Which means that moving production to say, New Zealand or Canada could allow the show to make a small profit immediately. Even with niche content that is obviously, not very appealing to a wide audience. More importantly, there is no reason that advertisers, looking to cut through the clutter, and reach consumers directly, could not create "free" web-based downloads and low-cost DVDs for consumers wanting to view the content on their own time, freed from the tyranny of a broadcast or cable network schedule.

Naturally, this is a large risk for Cable networks, which derive most of their revenue not from ads, but from fees to cable and satellite operators. If advertisers move significant amounts of spending to their own, "dedicated" dramatic series, or comedies (which are cheaper to film, being only a half the running time of dramas), Cable networks would be totally dependent on fees from satellite and cable networks. An unhealthy place for any business.

At any rate, even in a niche show like "Mad Men," the changing ways in which consumers watch dramas is evident in the numbers. Nearly 35% of the total viewers saw the show in a way other than watching the first-run broadcast.

That "Mad Men" of course is one of the girliest, most feminine shows on Cable TV there is no doubt:


[Click to Enlarge]

The Mad Men writers, from left to right, are: Marti Noxon, Lisa Albert, Kater Gordon, Dahvi Waller, Robin Veith, Cathryn Humphris, Maria Jacquemetton, at Musso & Frank Grill in Hollywood.

Seven of the nine writers are women. Women directed five of the 13 episodes in the Third Season. The female writers, insisted over the objections of the male writers, that female character Betty Draper have a one-night stand. The storylines include: a secretly gay art director concealing his crush on one of his colleagues, a deserter from the Army posing with a stolen identity who is the womanizing star of the show (Don Draper), his wife "trapped" by a third pregnancy, an up and coming executive who sleeps with a secretary, impregnating her, an office manager who's fiance encourages her to underachieve and rapes her on the office floor [more on this later], and an older executive planning to divorce his wife and marry a 20 year old secretary.

With all the soap opera shenangans, it's a wonder anything gets done at the fictional ad agency. As one commenter on Whiskey's Place noted, much of female-oriented fiction consists of people screwing up their lives (often through sex) and wallowing in misery. It wasn't always so, of course. Jane Austen, for one, often brought her characters to the brink, but not over the edge, of screwing up their lives but allowed feminine good sense to reign over stupidity and lust in romance and love. "Mad Men" sadly follows the "screwing up their lives" cheap trick of much of female fiction. [Women are shoddily served, for the most part, in fiction that is created for them. Much of it worse in construction and execution than the worst slasher or most cliched action movie.]

Readers will note, of course, the themes. Women are "trapped" by marriage, victimized survivors, and longing to escape the cruelty of all the men in their lives, cruelty which also attracts them.

Fans of TV series "Buffy the Vampire Slayer" will recognize former Executive Producer Marti Noxon. Who famously conceived the story line that Buffy's "bad boyfriend" Spike the vampire would rape her, and Buffy would love him even more. A story line that series star Sarah Michelle Gellar found obnoxious and tried to kill but failed.

Noxon was noted for her 0ff-Broadway plays about who were raped by their "bad boyfriends" and then committed suicide. Laugh riots. Her plays brought her to the attention of Buffy creator Joss Whedon, who made her a staff writer and then Executive Producer on the show.

This is a pattern repeated by series creator Matthew Weiner, who hired Kater Gordon, 27, after she had baby-sat his sons and worked for series Executive Producer Scott Hornbacher.

What makes "Mad Men" watchable for it's fans is not the writing, which would not pass muster on the cheesiest soap opera, but the amazing art direction and period detail. Even though the writers clearly intend for the audience to despise the lead character Don Draper, and sympathize with the oppressed women who are in some cases graphically sexually assaulted, the limited audience ("Mad Men" remains a very niche show with a very small audience) seems to like the lead character.

Interesting too is the hyper-liberalism of Hollywood, unable to connect to a larger audience. The themes of "Mad Men" which amount to "women good, men bad" are by definition, unable to attract a wide male audience. Even with the deliberate emphasis on a overwhelmingly female writing staff (itself an oddity, women made up between 35-23% of writing staffs in the 2006-2007, and 2007-2008 seasons) the show fights to gain what little audience it has, with all the other shows giving the same soap opera treatment.

A Hollywood that works by PC quota systems, is unlikely, however good the Art Direction craft is, to be able to reach a broad audience. If advertisers do indeed wonder, "why am I paying for this when I could reach more people by doing it myself?" and start to offer free downloads and streaming video of what amounts to 45 minute serials, it is quite likely that writers will not be coming from Hollywood.

Which would be a good thing. Hollywood is itself so incestuous, particularly in writing, that their writers live in a PC, Multicultural bubble. In Hollywood's Golden Age, famous novelists like Dashiell Hammett and F Scott Fitzgerald would pick up easy money for lending their names and talents to scripts, but complain about the hackery of studio writers interested in appealing to the lowest common demoninator. Now, the problem is the reverse. Most of the writers would rather be acclaimed for hipness and "edgy" material, than write something most audiences would enjoy. As advertisers move in a long recession, with money tight all around, towards a broad audience rather than a wealthy niche one, the inability of Hollywood to write anything other than "my bad boyfriend raped me" will bite them squarely in the ass.

After all, even celebrity Chef Gordon Ramsay is finding that his own restaurant empire faces recessionary pressures.
...Read more

The Pittsburgh Shootings and the Question of Violence

The Pittsburgh area shootings at an LA Fitness center by gunman George Soldini has left 5 dead and 15 wounded. While getting a lot of attention, for a variety of reasons, including the killer's diary, his resentment towards women, loner behavior, and failed attempt to become a Pick-Up Artist (PUA), the killings and shootings by George Soldini are troubling for a number of reasons beyond the personal tragedy.

First, there were no warning signs that the individual was a danger to others. Unlike the Columbine killers, Klebold and Harris, who gave ample warning of impending danger, or the Virginia Tech shooter, Seung-Hui Cho, who was demonstrably a danger to himself and others, or the neo-Nazi James Van Brunn (the Holocaust museum shooter), George Soldini was a quiet, middle aged, middle class professional who never by all accounts, came to the attention of law enforcement or mental health authorities. Short of an unconstitutional psych screening dragnet for every male 15-65, there was no way to know of the danger posed by Soldini.

Second, while violence by various lone men or small groups of men is not uncommon in America, the recent trend towards targeting large groups of innocent people is very new, and disturbing.

Third, the actions of men during many of these shootings in the United States and in Canada, are troubling, and a big reversal of what was previously the case. Which in and of itself points to a troubling new reality.

Fourth, and finally, the danger posed by lone men or small groups of loner-type men like Soldini is far overshadowed by the larger danger: men simply abandoning any investment in society and failing to preserve and protect society.


Soldini left a detailed online diary which can be seen at Half Sigma in its entirety. His principal aim in the shootings seems to have been to kill an ex-girlfriend of many years (a goal oddly not mentioned in his diary) and humiliate and destroy his mother and brother, whom he hated. His brother, by all accounts, was a successful businessman and is married.

At no time was Soldini ever identified as a man who was likely to enter an LA Fitness aerobics class and shoot up the place, targeting mostly women in their thirties and forties. He was by all accounts a fit and trim man in his late forties. He survived rounds of layoffs at the law firm where he worked as an IT professional. His net worth was over $250,000. Neighbors did not know any odd behavior, and his lack of intimate friends allowed his growing mental illness (of which he was well aware of) to proceed to its deadly conclusion. By all accounts he was able to get dates (though they went nowhere) and was invited to at least one Christmas party. He was able to function socially and conceal his intentions enough that no one had any idea he was intending to kill people.

This is different than most of the other killers of his nature in modern America. When McVeigh was arrested for the Oklahoma City bombings, none who knew him were surprised, and Klebold, Harris, and Cho all left a trail of warnings and signs that clearly indicated they were dangerous. If there are other men like Soldini, planning the same type of thing, they will be impossible to stop, since no one will know their intentions until too late. It seems that Soldini's web diary, simply sat online, unread, until the shootings. His postings on YouTube of his video tour of his apartment was unremarkable.

Mental illness is not something new. Nor is the combination of mental illness and firearms. The Walker Colt dates back to the 1840's. The Henry Rifle from the late 1850's had a 16 round magazine. The Smith and Wesson Schofield revolver introduced in the 1870's had a top break action with metallic cartridge feed. Firearms had been put to use for killing, or trying to kill, political leaders in America, particularly the President, since 1835 when a deranged ex house painter named Richard Lawrence tried to shoot Andrew Jackson with two pistols (both single-shot pistols, which misfired). Legend has it that Jackson tried to kill his assailant with his cane, and aides had to restrain him, while Davy Crockett and others restrained Lawrence (who was later institutionalized). John Wilkes Booth, Charles Guiteau, Leon Czolgosz, Giuseppe Zangara, would all appear to be at least partly motivated in their killings by mental illness. Nor indeed is mass violence using bombs new either, considering the Gunpowder Plot of 1605.

Yet all of these are understandable in a way. The Gunpowder plot was a far-fetched but not totally implausible desire to install King James daughter, Princess Elizabeth as a Spanish pawn to restore Catholic England. Booth hoped killing Lincoln would inspire continued Southern guerrilla warfare. The others were mentally ill men who hoped by killing a prominent man, their mental troubles would cease, not unlike Mark David Chapman or John Hinckley Jr. Even before reliable, repeating firearms, men like Henry IV fell to assassin's blades. Henry's assassin, Ravaillac, being quite similar to Czolgosz or Zangara or Lawrence. Mental illness and violence have been part of the human condition since the beginning, though the combination is usually rare, in a big enough population it will make itself known.

What is disturbing, and new, is mentally ill people targeting large groups of innocent victims whose death can in no way achieve much of anything for the killer, not even the satisfaction of killing an important man. Disturbing though it is, the actions of a Chapman or a Hinckley or a Ravaillac or a Lawrence make a kind of sense — the lunatics wanted to be famous. What is new is the desire not for fame, but for killing people the killer does not even know. Tim McVeigh targeting the Murrah building including the ground floor day-care center, or the Columbine shootings, or the Virginia Tech shootings, or the Pittsburgh LA Fitness shootings, makes no sense in terms of killing an important man and thus achieving fame (at least part of the famous man's fame would now belong to the killer). Even crazy people can have a sense of belonging.

The conspiracists of the Gunpowder plot, did not plan to blow up average Londoners. Booth and company did not plan to massacre the theater goers at Ford's Theater. None of the lone gunmen above targeted innocent people they did not know. What's changed is the lack of belonging. Of investment so wide and deep in a society, even the Ravaillacs, the Zangaras, or the Czolgoszs, unknowingly, take part in it.

The inflection point, at which society stopped having such a deep, and wide investment that even lunatics intent on killing someone would confine their attentions to individual famous people, seems to have been the 1966 University of Texas Bell Tower shootings by Charles Whitman. Whitman, who may have been insane as a result of a brain tumor, shot and killed 14 people, most of them random targets, in addition to killing his wife and mother, at the University of Texas at Austin Bell Tower (and around it). What was reassuring in that case was that professors and students spontaneously grabbed their hunting rifles and shot back at Whitman in the Bell Tower.

These were not, as Mark Steyn put it, "men who ran away." Steyn, in his article in MacLean's Magazine, excoriates the new film "Polytechnique" (about the 1989 Montreal Polytechnique Massacre by Algerian immigrant Gamil Gharbi, aka Mark Lepine who shot and killed 14 women at the Ecole Polytechnique in Montreal) with these words:

“The defining image of contemporary Canadian maleness is not M Lépine/Gharbi but the professors and the men in that classroom, who, ordered to leave by the lone gunman, meekly did so, and abandoned their female classmates to their fate—an act of abdication that would have been unthinkable in almost any other culture throughout human history. The ‘men’ stood outside in the corridor and, even as they heard the first shots, they did nothing. And, when it was over and Gharbi walked out of the room and past them, they still did nothing. Whatever its other defects, Canadian manhood does not suffer from an excess of testosterone.”

Steyn notes that nearly all the male passengers on the Titanic died, nearly all the female passengers were saved. To put it in more graphic terms, while only 31% of the people on board the Titanic survived, a full 72% of women survived, and only 19% of men survived. Women did go first. The men did not run away.

What disturbed me the most, about the accounts of the Virginia Tech shootings, was the total passivity of the young men, in protecting their female classmates. The only men who did anything at all, active, were Professor Liviu Librescu, an elderly Holocaust survivor, and and Professor Kevin Granata, a mid forties Army Reservist. None of the young men attempted to fight Cho, the shooter, particularly as he was reloading, wrestle the gun away from him, or do anything active in confronting and stopping the shooter. It was a passive response of men profoundly disinterested and uninvested in their society. One deeply at odds with the response at the sinking of the Titanic or the UT Bell Tower shootings.

Which leads to the most disturbing thing about our society today. Even with the rash of shootings, America is so big (303 million people and counting) that the shootings have only a minor affect on society, outside the tragedy for the victims and survivors. But the shootings point to a larger issue: the loss of investment of men in society. An investment that keeps even crazy people from targeting society itself, particularly innocent people, and makes men respond to a threat by risking or giving up their lives to save it's foundation: women and children.

The real risk is not mentally ill men like Soldini (it's usually, but not always, men who do the shooting). It is the massive under-investment in society, particularly civil society, that is the real risk. I am on the board of a local, Southern California charity. I am the youngest man there, all others being considerably older, in their late sixties or older. The only female member is also of that age. The North Santa Ana Kiwanis, in Orange County, dating back to the 1950's, has disbanded due to lack of members (most existing members were in their late sixties or seventies). In the Black community, it's even worse — Little Leagues and general volunteer coaching, still alive in suburban White America, (with Latino America somewhere in-between) are almost non-existent in Black America. The plague of single motherhood, and lack of investment and involvement of older, family men who form generally the backbone of volunteer coaching for Little League, Pop Warner Football, and other organized team sports activities that teach boys how to cooperate with each other and be aggressive within the rules, has destroyed Black baseball. Look at any Major League Baseball and notice what you don't see: the large presence of US Black players, who were a force in Major League Baseball since Jackie Robinson. In their place, Caribbean players from places where volunteer coaching still exists.

A general rule of thumb is that the health of a society is indicated by the existence of middle-class volunteer organizations that offer both fellowship and a sense of belonging to society, in the process of maintaining society. This can be volunteer run sports-leagues, that teach boys the importance of teamwork and aggression within strict rules (or in other words, sportsmanship) or charitable organizations like Kiwanis or Shriners or Lions Club that provide civic involvement in cooperation with local governments, and also an important alternative and check to overweening power by abusive local officials.

The generally poor state of traditional volunteer organizations, with many long-time Kiwanis, Lions, and Shriners chapters closing as their members age and no replacements are found, indicate that many younger men, particularly the generation that should be succeeding these older men, which is men in their fifties, forties, and thirties, have no interest or investment in society and traditional volunteering. Most other volunteer organizations, such as the Sierra Club, or Humane Society, or Habitat for Humanity, have long since changed into big, professional fundraising and political activist groups. Leaving little for the would-be volunteer to both socialize and contribute to society.

While gang-related murders are down, in Los Angeles, compared to times past, not very many involve an arrest, much less conviction (about 42% in 2007, according to the LA Times). From the LA Times blog:

Community attitudes and behaviors and prosecutors’ thresholds for filing homicide charges may have more to do with whether murderers end up behind bars than any particular law-enforcement model.

It's vital to have a wide and deep investment in society by men. Men being invested in society are husbands and fathers, who maintain ownership in society, provide critical community attitudes, particularly guidance and control of young boys, and create social attitudes that control and channel violence.

The Black community is America's canary in the coalmine. Being more fragile, with far greater propensity for single motherhood, Black America's fall into (at least as far as the urban core is concerned) chaotic gang violence characterized by a total absence of any adult male investment in society, is both rapid and chilling. As Barack Obama relates in "Dreams from My Father: A Story of Race and Inheritance," older residents in a Chicago housing project fondly recalled the days of Segregation, for the relative security that was found: children could play in the streets and doors were generally unlocked. This was not a society without it's problems, illegitimacy may have run as high as 24%. But it worked, to produce even under Segregation, a generation of mostly law-abiding, useful and productive citizens who maintained a sense of ownership in their society. Even a discriminated against Black man could and did marry, have his own family, and thus be invested in at least his own community. Segregated New Orleans, the center then of Black America, was famous for its many, many benevolent societies that offered everything from life insurance to health plans for dental and medical care. Theodore Dalrymple, in his "Life at the Bottom" noted much the same, how deprived, ration-impoverished East London in the 1950's was a place where children played unsupervised and doors were often left unlocked. Neither thinkable now.

Tellingly, both Britain and Black America suffered the decline of the nuclear family and traditional marriage worst and first, with single motherhood and consequent non-investment by men producing a Dante-esque hell.

The problem of violence is not men like George Soldini, who though they may occur more and more frequently, targeting innocents in a sexual rage, unable to find intimacy and a sense of belonging to society (and thus the need to protect it), are still not fundamental threats to society's well being. America being a very big nation.

No, the problem of violence is more akin to that of gang-ridden inner cities, and their stormy petrels of what is to come to other communities, including the White community. Gang violence is never "senseless." It makes perfect sense — gang members wish to be known as killers because it gives them prestige and power, and thus, women, who in the changed environment of single motherhood norms, prefer such men and boys. Average Bro has his own take on things, and like many other Black bloggers believes that women like actress Lauren London, who opined that she liked thugs, is not unrepresentative of at least some Black women. Any time a gang member engages in a "senseless" killing, it is wise to remember that the killing, from the gang member's perspective, makes perfect sense, it's designed to gain him sex.

This then, is the real danger of male uninvestment in society. Not only do men do the bare minimum to get by, but lacking families and a reproductive interest in society, they don't volunteer and engage in community "ownership" which prevents a thug-gangsta mentality from taking over. The experience of "chav" Britain suggests that this model can be rapidly reproduced. Few in Britain in 1948 would have predicted a 50% illegitimacy rate, and rampant crime. Yet in sixty years, that was precisely what happened to Britain. Instead, men compete to be the biggest gangsta and chav they can be, with varying degrees of violence. Or remain, passive and uninvolved in the face of danger to the community.

Either is a disaster, and that is the true horror of George Soldini.
...Read more

NBC Continues the Idiocy: Steve Carrell's Production Company to Remake Rockford Files

File this under stupidity. NBC will remake the Rockford Files. Set to run the show is "House" co-creator David Shore ("Law and Order," "Family Law"). NBC has no clue. A remake, destined to fail, of one of the all-time great TV shows, when NBC cancelled an existing show that had great promise ("Life") as well as one of the most engaging and tough characters on TV (Damien Lewis's "Charlie Crews")


Failed attempts to revive "Knight Rider," and "the Bionic Woman" have not taught NBC a thing. Both shows were light-hearted male-oriented science-fiction oriented (though not strictly science fiction) action romps that depended on being light and bright and untaxing to gain an audience. A talking, intelligent car helps a cop with a new face, backed by a billionaire, bust crime. A woman gets bionic implants and gains superpowers to ... fight crime. Lesbian one night stands and random threesomes do not a boy's show make, nor do complex and indecipherable "government conspiracies." Which is exactly what both "Knight Rider" and "Bionic Woman" were. If anything, the overly edgy/dark/violent remake of "Bionic Woman" was even worse. Both failed. Miserably.

This is because today's Hollywood creative teams cannot replicate what those thirty years ago could, which is make light, fun shows that attract young men and boys. From Glen A. Larson (the original Knight Rider and Battlestar Galactica) to Kenneth Johnson (Six Million Dollar Man and Bionic Woman, the Bill Bixby "Incredible Hulk") the creation of light-hearted male oriented shows was something done as a matter of course, and executed well.

The Rockford Files remake is doomed to failure. There's no actor who can even come close to matching what James Garner did, arguably at the peak of his career. None with his charisma, masculine presence, wry humor, and patiently honed acting ability. Not even ("Life," "Band of Brothers") Damien Lewis can pull that off. Certainly not the "updated" (read, man-boy pretty face) actor certain to be casted. Nor can the supporting actors of Joe Santos, Noah Beery, and Stuart Margolin be equaled. Certainly not when Hulu has the real deal available for free, online.

What's interesting of course, is that the "Rockford Files" itself was a remake — but of a failed TV show. The 1968 "Outsiders" created by Roy Huggins ("Maverick") starred Darren McGavin as an orphaned ex-con Private Eye who lived in a trailer, and had to hustle to solve the case and collect from his clients. Sound familiar? It lasted one season. Huggins teamed with Stephen J. Cannell ("the A-Team," and "Greatest American Hero") to retool the concept, make it lighter, give the character a family and friends and connections, and make the character and show more optimistic, with the character mostly winning rather than losing. Even the end of the opening credit photos transitions from Rockford being arrested to fishing with his father at the end of a pier. A triumph all it's own.

What made the Rockford Files great (and you can see for yourself at the link above at Hulu.com) was the cheerful cynicism of the lead character. Forever convinced that a con was in the works (it always was) and the venality, rashness, and stupidity of the bad guys leading to their undoing (which was generally the case). Both Huggins and Cannell studied the failure of "the Outsider" (and McGavin was no mean actor himself, as his continued cult popularity in both "the Night Stalker" and "Christmas Story" prove) carefully to avoid the same fate with Rockford Files. Even the different (and humorous) messages left on Rockford's answering machine in each opening credits was there to grab viewer's attention.

And while the show itself had no lack of female fans who appreciated the matinee idol quality of Garner's leading man looks and sheer presence, the show itself was absolutely male. The character was not the female fantasy of the powerful, brooding bad boy ("Angel," "Forever Knight," "Dexter," "Moonlight") nor that of the uber-Alpha guy ("Mr. Big" in "Sex and the City," "the Mentalist," and "Gossip Girl"). The character lived in a trailer, never had much money, while the person he loved the most and trusted the most was his father, who was constantly wanting him to quit being a Private Eye and become a trucker. While women were in and out of his life (Rockford was a good looking guy) they were mostly out, and the character was resigned to a lack of any real romance or love in his life. The character still mostly won over the bad guys, even if he himself didn't profit and took a beating doing it.

The Rockford Files was very, very male. Something NBC and the current crop of creative people simply cannot understand, much less replicate.

Far better for NBC to copy failed but interesting shows, with obvious but fixable flaws. "Tenspeed and Brown Shoe" (from 1980) with an upright, straight-laced accountant teaming with a con man (Jeff Goldblum, Ben Vereen respectively) to become Private Investigators. Or "JJ Starbuck" (from 1988), with an older billionaire (Dale Robertson) traveling the country seeking to help the helpless after his wife and son die. Both were light-hearted, both had obvious but fixable flaws, neither are remembered, and both are different enough from what's on today to stand out in the clutter. Both have the ability to appeal to older as well as younger viewers, an important feature in today's declining youth cohort that is switching to online, streaming media anyway.

For "Tenspeed and Brown Shoe" (it doesn't matter what the remake would be called), the relationship between the two friends needs to progress, with the account better at improvising cons, and the con-man better at being a straight-laced diligent fact-checker. For JJ Starbuck, less folksy sermonizing, and more scenes like the one where Starbuck, after a low-level worker is fired for helping him right a wrong, gets on his phone and buys the entire company, forcing the manager to re-hire the worker. At a higher pay.

But the creative teams in Hollywood, from executives to writer-producers, are incapable of seeing the obvious and learning from past successes. Instead, we'll probably get John Cusack (in full mope mode) as a sexually ambiguous Private Eye with a sado-masochistic streak uncovering a season long conspiracy by oil company executives to "warm the planet" or some-such nonsense. That's about all Hollywood can do these days.

If NBC really wanted to revive it's fortunes, it would bring back "Life" to the schedule. A show with an existing following and the potential for strong male appeal, if properly and patiently promoted.
...Read more

NBC bets on Cable: Hollywood's Detroit Rock City

The Wall Street Journal reports that NBC has elevated Jeff Glaspin to chair it's entertainment television business. Glaspin's background is in cable TV, being most noted for running NBC's cable channels including USA and Bravo. Glaspin is associated with "Queer Eye for the Straight Guy" and in the 1990's, "Behind the Music" at VH1. Glaspin's promotion shows how NBC is still focused on reducing costs, as a measure of profitability, and the undue fascination with cable revenue as a "savior" for NBC.

This is a move doomed to failure, and the parallels with Detroit's fixing on the SUV as a "savior" for it's inability to produce reliable profits and the collapse of the Music Industry are downright eerie. NBC's average number of prime-time viewers has fallen 11% in the past two years. It trails ABC, CBS, and Fox in average viewership/ratings. The only bright spot has been NBC cable networks, which have seen operating profits increase. Second Quarter operating profits at NBC Universal cable networks was up 7% from the prior year. But cable networks and operating NBC like a cable network won't save NBC Universal. Anymore than the Chevy Suburban saved GM.


The problem is, that even with Cable revenues, NBC's cash flow has been terrible since 2004:


[Click Image to Enlarge]

NBC's cash from it's networks have declined by nearly a factor of five over the past five years, with 2009 showing a horrific drop-off of nearly 200 million dollars. All the cheap reality and cost-cutting in the world will not save NBC, any more than fat margins on the SUVs were able to save Detroit.

NBC's problem, is that it has accepted and embraced decline. Jeff Zucker, NBC Universal's CEO and Glaspin's boss, is quoted by the WSJ as saying viewer declines at NBC will continue in the next five years. This is acceptance of failure.

Cable revenue growth is capped. There aren't hordes of consumers who lack cable signing up for the service, thus providing new fees (channels like Bravo receive payments from cable and satellite operators for every subscriber who receives the channel as part of a package). Indeed, cable channels face a number of vulnerabilities to operating profits. Chief among them, push-back from cable and satellite operators to reduce payments, or even eliminate them, as cable and satellite operators themselves need to cut costs in a tough consumer environment. Given the make-up of Congress and the White House, it's entirely possible the cable and satellite operators could make a "deal" that is "consumer-friendly" (i.e. lower rates for consumers for cable/satellite) at the expense of cable channels like Bravo and Oxygen (which have few viewers and make most of their money from fees not advertising). Advertising dollars at Bravo or Oxygen can not make up for lost revenue from cable/satellite operators, let alone losses at NBC.

This risk is as entirely foreseeable as new, increased mileage standards targeting SUVs and Trucks in a Democratic Congress and White House, or consumers abandoning low-gas mileage vehicles for more fuel-friendly ones (from Japanese and Korean competitors) during high gas prices. Cable revenues are at best a mature and non-growing source, they certainly are not growing any more than CD sales did in 2004.

NBC reaps increased revenues from cable operations, but not enough obviously to stem the losses at NBC itself. But even these revenues are at risk if Congress and the White House mandate lower or no fees to cable channels, or consumers simply drop cable altogether.

Ford's return to long-term profitability rests on it's ability to sell a broad range of cars and trucks that consumers want at decent profit margins supporting Ford's relatively high fixed costs. Producing vehicles that have high quality (good fit and finish), high reliability (they don't break down), good gas mileage (they are cheap to operate) and competitive pricing (they are competitive in pricing with Japanese and Korean models). This is not particularly complicated, indeed it's simple. But the simplest things are often the hardest to execute well, consistently, year in and out.

NBC plans to run Jay Leno's talk show from Monday through Friday at 10 pm as a cost-cutting measure. Because his show is radically cheaper to produce than even an hour of reality programming. But no amount of cheapness will substitute for hit shows. NBC like Detroit has a high fixed cost, including corporate overhead, an analogue to the dealer network (affiliates) and various regulatory burdens. This is not a problem if either Detroit or NBC operates in high-volume with satisfied customers. For Detroit, that means selling a lot of vehicles, at decent profit margins, that consumers actually want. In Southern California, for example, it's quite common to see Ford Mustangs driven, even though California has relatively fewer US car makes and models sold compared to other parts of the country. Even among a population averse to American cars, Ford has not had problems selling it's most distinct car in Southern California.

NBC (and most of Hollywood, in television and in movie studios) are ignoring the competitive threats. DVD price erosion, at home and abroad, from piracy to the alternative of simply re-watching already purchased DVDs, present large threats to revenues for Hollywood as a whole. Since most movies lose money at the box office, and only recoup it in DVD, pay-per-view, video on demand, TV, and foreign movie rights, piracy or consumers simply not spending money presents a mortal threat to the movie studios, and to TV networks and studios who hope to recoup revenue on even canceled series from DVD box sets. Why spend money for a box set when you can watch it for free on Hulu, or purchase for a fraction of the price from a street vendor making pirated copies?

But the threat is larger than mere piracy. Increasingly, Hollywood seems sliding to the irrelevancy of the music industry.

A recent New York Times article on the deathwatch of the Music Industry shows just how quickly an industry can collapse. According to the RIAA, music sales since their peak in 1999, have collapsed by half in inflation adjusted dollars. According to the study by the NPD Group, teens purchased fewer CDs, fewer online downloads, fewer Peer-to-Peer downloads (pirating), and borrowed fewer copies of music, in 2008 compared to 2007. Teens cited (this was before the global recession) overall cutbacks in entertainment spending, but lack of excitement over current music was also a factor (given the declines of 6% in Peer to Peer downloads and "borrowing" music by 28%). A full 23% of teens purchasing less music cited an already established collection of music that satisfied them, and 32% of teens purchasing less music expressed dissatisfaction over current offerings. This among the most disposable income, entertainment oriented group, before the recession.

Among key factors in the change of behavior was the growth in online and satellite radio, and free music from MySpace Music, Pandora, imeem, and other sites, making music nearly always accessible, and with social networking built in (recommendations, etc. based on music listeners like). Even pirates cannot beat "free."

A similar study of British teens found streaming music replacing file-sharing. The reason? Both are "free" but streaming music, by offering recommendations and novelty (the social networking component) is more attractive than searching around for pirated content on the internet.

Or, as the New York Times article put it:

This is part of a much broader shift in media consumption by young people. They’re moving from an acquisition model to an access model.

This applies to video as well as music.

A study last year conducted by members of PRS for Music, a nonprofit royalty collection agency, found that of the 13 million songs for sale online last year, 10 million never got a single buyer and 80 percent of all revenue came from about 52,000 songs. That’s less than one percent of the songs.

Again, this applies to video as well as music.

Even more revealing is the New York Times graphic (link here) reproduced below:


[Click Image to Enlarge]

CD sales revenue have not been replaced by digital downloads, either albums or singles or "mobile" (i.e. ringtones). Fat profit margins, with consumers forced to pay full CD prices to get the few songs they wanted, are gone. The same is happening to Video, for both Hollywood movie studios, and for TV networks. Old models are eroding, consumers are adopting online "free" content (such as Hulu.com or SouthparkStudios.com) that is advertiser supported. Note the comment at TV By The Numbers that Hulu has problems selling most of it's inventory, i.e. old obscure shows such as "New Dragnet" (an obscure 1989 version of the classic "Dragnet" with Jack Webb, different from "LA Dragnet" with Ed O'Neill and Ethan Embry). "The Long Tail" is fairly useless if you can't make money on it, and the trend seen in music sales, with 80% of revenue coming from less than 1% of songs, is the same at Hulu. Hulu lists their most all-time popular TV shows as variously, "Burn Notice," "Bones," "House," and "Family Guy" among others. All shows with sizeable audiences, unlike say those recalling "the New Dragnet."

It's clear that in music, and online, the ability as in years past to milk the "Brandon Tartikoff model" and charge advertisers premium prices for ever-declining amounts of "desirable" demographics is not sustainable. Not only are young (White) people a declining group, due to the birth dearth, but their behavior is changing as well, moving to streaming content that is "free" and has social-networking "extras." Young people are shifting towards it even over piracy or "borrowing." [Hispanic youth watch and listen to, of course, Spanish-language media.]

It's also clear that five years of declining revenues at NBC, before the recession, show this shift taking place to the point where there is nearly $300 million less operating revenue than in 2004, mirrored eerily by declines at GM, Ford, and Chrysler, and the music industry. Specialization won't help, since it leaves producers at the mercy of regulatory or consumer shifts.

Instead, what NBC needs, is not cable-specialization, or more "Queer Eye for the Straight Guy" shows, but rather broadly accessible and popular shows. Shows that appeal to men and women alike, along with young and old. Shows that can draw viewers back to NBC, and be streamed on sites like Hulu with full sales of "inventory" (i.e. ad spots on the streaming video).

This won't be easy. Men have largely abandoned TV, and need persuading to come back. Broadcast TV is of course the "ultimate" in streaming video, and free, over the air broadcasts beat the cost of even cable or satellite. Storylines, characters, actors, and the like need at a minimum to be "friendly" to men, and dump the various elitist and politically correct moralizing that characterizes much of TV. Which includes male-bashing. Attracting men of course must be done in ways that do not alienate female viewers, with characters that appeal to women but don't offend men being part of the creative solution. In other words, independent and intelligent leading ladies, but no "Twilight" derived male fantasy figures or junior "Sex and the City" "Mr. Big" knock-offs as leading men. Older audiences too, must be part of the mix, which means care not to needlessly offend those who hold traditional values at a minimum and stopping the tired trope of relying on shock in place of well thought out plots.

All of these creative efforts will require years not months to accomplish, and public communication to viewers, creative people, advertisers, and the public as to what the network wants to accomplish, how it intends to do it, and progress along the way. This requires patience and the ability to sustain losses as the network battles its (rightfully so) perception that NBC is hostile to male viewers.

But the alternative is simply to collapse into a GM or Music publishing slump, from which there is little escape (even with government bailouts). Clearly the views of pundits galore that "de-massification" of culture would proceed indefinitely has been proven wrong. Technology, with the ability to stream "free" content (likely to migrate to video phones soon) has helped make this change.
...Read more

Twilight at Comic-Con: The Feminization of Fantasy

I half expect a South Park Episode to come out any day now, based on the tween girl explosions over vampires and fantasy: "Reading is Gay." Fantasy, a realm formerly associated with nerdy males and authors like Robert E. Howard ("Conan the Cimmerian") or H Rider Haggard (King Solomon's Mines, Allan Quatermain), or Edgar Rice Burroughs (Tarzan, John Carter of Mars), is now thoroughly the province of tween girls. Not only did the Twilight fans (including Twilight Moms) take over Comic-Con, but even lesser works such as "the Vampire Diaries" far overshadow conventional fantasy in sales and attention.

This marks another, mostly male sphere, that is now switched to a mostly female sphere. However, the problem for publishers, writers, and the entertainment industry at large is that males will simply withdraw from something so absolutely, and irrevocably female. Making fantasy a tough sell once the tween fad runs out (as mega-stars Leif Erickson and Scott Baio). Which means in an extended recession/depression, the regular income streams that male readers used to give fantasy publishers simply won't be there any more. As males consider fantasy just another female-gay ghetto, and tween girls inevitably grow up, and move on to the next fad. The cultural damage, both to girls views about men and male behavior, and the erosion of the male-heroic fantasy, are far worse than the commercial impact, of course.


Part of the problem is structural. Female editors, agents, and publishing executives only want female writers, catering to female readers, writing female subjects because that is all they know (female editors, agents, and publishing execs are of course clueless about what men and boys want to read). Because the market for tween girl fantasy, for now, is lucrative. Catering to fantasies about powerful, "sexy" girls and women who have several super-powered, supernatural male beings competing for their favors. A look at the audiences for say, the Harry Potter premiere, can tell a careful observer why these themes are so remunerative: see here, or here, or here.

Even Disney does not get it. "the Kid Whisperer" as focus group guru Kelly Pena styles herself, is not the person I'd bet on to discover what sort of entertainment boys like. The quote from the article says it all:

While Disney XD is aimed at boys and their fathers, it is also intended to include girls. “The days of the Honeycomb Hideout, where girls can’t come in, have long passed,” said Rich Ross, president of Disney Channels Worldwide.

Of course boys need their separate spheres of entertainment. Anything intended to include girls will have boys abandoning it in haste. As you get inevitably, entertainment and attitudes that are far too "girly" for boys to enjoy. Boys have different needs when it comes to stories and entertainment, simply making "Lizzy McGuire" a guy won't cut it, note Disney's increases have come mainly from girls attracted by the marketing push to Disney XD.

There's no denying that girls and women have disposable income. That it's wise to target them. But relying almost exclusively on women and girls for entertainment customers means that men and boys are driven out of the marketplace by "girly" emphasis on emotions, masculine behavior men and boys find distasteful, particularly competition over women and girls, and men and their expected behavior and status no male could ever approach, or want to approach.

TV, over the decades, starting in the 1970's, most likely, has become a female (and gay) wasteland. So too, most movies excluding big action-adventure comic book and similar type movies. Men don't watch TV, for the most part, and have abandoned everything but the Michael Bay extravaganza at the multiplex. This means increased reliance on "hits" instead of steady, money-making films that can be produced by formula, as Hollywood did in it's Golden Age: Gangster pictures, Westerns, Romances, Family films, broad comedies, and the like.

Then of course, there is the impact the Twilight fans had at traditionally male, nerdy, Comic-con. Negative reaction here (there were also complaints about how the Twilight fans disrupted the other events staged at the same time). Video below:



The website Dlisted had an account of the Twilight Moms showing up at Comic-Con here. Below are the Twilight Fans at Comic-Con:


[Click Image to Enlarge]


[Click Image to Enlarge]


[Click Image to Enlarge]


[Click Image to Enlarge]


[Click Image to Enlarge]

General reaction by long-time male fans attending Comic-Con was not positive. Though some did not feel it was all that bad. Check the link for the sign saying Twilight ruined Comic-Con. That was not uncommon reportedly at the site.

You can see this in the marketplace. For example, "Vampire Diaries: the Awakening and the Struggle" by L. J. Smith had a ranking of #277 in books (overall), and #1 in Books > Teens > Series, #11 in Books > Teens > Literature & Fiction > Love & Romance, and #15 in Books > Children's Books > Literature > Science Fiction, Fantasy, Mystery & Horror > Spine-Chilling Horror.

The Editorial Review is:

Elena: the golden girl, the leader, the one who can have any boy she wants.

Stefan: brooding and mysterious, he seems to be the only one who can resist Elena, even as he struggles to protect her from the horrors that haunt his past.

Damon: sexy, dangerous, and driven by an urge for revenge against Stefan, the brother who betrayed him. Determined to have Elena, he'd kill to possess her.

Collected here in one volume for the first time, volumes one and two of The Vampire Diaries, the tale of two vampire brothers and the beautiful girl torn between them.

L. J. Smith has written more than two dozen books for children and young adults. She lives in the Bay Area of California, but is happiest in a little cabin near Point Reyes National Park, which has lots of trees, lots of animals, lots of beaches to walk on, and lots of places to hike.

Meanwhile, fantasy writer Glen Cook, who is at least a prolific a writer as Smith, has one of his latest novels, at #56,323 in Books.

The editorial review for "Cruel Zinc Melodies" is:

"Garrett's newest visitors are a pack of lovelies led by his main squeeze Tinnie Tate and her friend, Alyx Weider, the spoiled daughter of the largest brewer in town. Her father needs Garrett's help-his workers are being attacked by everything from giant insects to ghosts. Garrett takes the case. After all, working for the Weiders means free beer. But it also means serious danger."

Clearly, if you are a publisher, you'd rather have the Vampire Diaries than Cruel Zinc Melodies. But there is a catch. Smith's older books do not sell very well, Witchlight is ranked #2,913,969 in Books, while Sweet Silver Blues by Cook, an older title, is ranked #232,307 in Books, an order of magnitude better than Smith.

Vampires are a fad. The very fact that all those tween girls are screaming their lungs out at Comic-Con, means that six years from now the whole concept will be as dead as Lonely Werewolf Girl (sales rank #315,308 in Books) and Hanson.

In the meantime, however, publishers and entertainment houses will have convinced men and boys that "reading is gay" and moreover, fantasy is a place where tween girls and their moms scream over tween girl idols. Not anything for them. The cost of all that tween girl money today is no male money in years to come in the fantasy genre.

The result will be even more young girls with rather skewed and unhealthy ideas about men, male behavior, and greater contempt for "beta males" who don't measure up to the standards of fantasy. Many but not all the type that would not generate much male attention on their own (clearly some attractive girls like the stories):


[Click Image to Enlarge]

We will see more ordinary men and boys, as a result further alienated and disconnected from ordinary women and girls. Religion in decline, particularly church attendance, and harried single mothers, amplify the effect that popular culture has in teaching girls and boys how "correct" relationships are formed, and what the image of the opposite sex should look like in behavior and dynamics. Twilight is perhaps the most single hideous conception yet perpetrated on the American public.

For boys, Twilight paints a deeply offensive model of masculinity, one that almost none of them can reach, and one that runs counter to every tale of masculine heroics from the Odyssey to Beowulf, to say Indiana Jones. The traditional values of protection, self-sacrifice, honor, duty, loyalty, and so on which are rewarded, are inverted into a bleak and bitter parody that boys (and men) know that they can never reach. Captain America and Superman may be beyond copying as far as actual abilities, but men acting like those characters in terms of basic behavior in daily life is a net plus, and in fact Western Society has depended on it (which is why it's told those stories, over and over again, from 1200 BC or so with the Odyssey). This male behavior, which is deeply Western, pre-dates Christianity (see Beowulf) though it is compatible with it, unsurprising considering how Greek-humanist Christianity really is, and is unique to the West. No other culture tells these stories of male self-sacrifice that in the end wins the girl, over and over and over again. Men don't act like Edward Cullen in the West, at least that is not many Middle Class White Men. Most don't want to. Still.

Edward Cullen wins the girl in Twilight by being the most dominant and controlling male in Bella's life. Superman wins Lois Lane by being ... mostly Clark Kent, the mild mannered reporter. Lois herself is independent, and while lacking powers has opinions and a mind to match her beauty. This is the male heroic model that worked, that built Western Civilization, and males resent it's overthrow by the female-tween fantasies of Twilight and other vampire-fantasy fads. Lois is desirable because she's winnable, and winnable by more than just superpowers and wealth and power, otherwise Lex Luthor would have married her. Her very independence and intelligence make her winnable, by Clark Kent not Superman, and it means she stays won. Clark does not have to constantly mate-guard her like Cullen does Bella.

For girls, Twilight teaches them to be passive, eschew education and a career, forget a traditional family with a traditional husband who while not "sexy and dangerous" is faithful and loving, and sacrifice warm, loving, and emotionally intimate relations based on the mind as well as raw sexual desire, for pure adrenaline based excitement. Twilight explicitly teaches girls to abandon their minds and intellect for their emotions and lusts. In short, a how-to for girls to enter into inevitably abusive and emotionally destructive bad-boy relationships, in the desire to "change" and control a powerful, dangerous man.

But even more destructive is the myth that a girl can be seventeen forever. That age will not take it's toll on beauty and male attention, that a woman can be free of adult responsibility and duty, including that of family and career and earnings and compromises that human beings must always make, in favor of an adolescence that never ends.

That is the true horror story of the feminization of fantasy. A more horrible story than H.P. Lovecrafts Cthulhu could possibly imagine.
...Read more