Spartacus: Blood and Sand - A Review

Well, I think I need to go to a confessional or something akin to it. You see, I believe I might have just wasted 54 minutes of my life tonight. I don't like wasting time. Rephrase: I despise wasting time.
I had an hour between tasks and I thought I would watch the new Starz series Spartacus: Blood and Sand. After the first 15 minutes I said something like, 'did you by any chance put the Gladiator DVD on by mistake?'
I know the answer to my question was 'no!' but I thought I'd ask it anyway. Maybe I was asking to get some sympathy for my visual suffering.
I ask, do some cinematographers really think that they can infantilize audiences as they please? Sex and violence will make a show? What an inane notion.
Spartacus is nothing but a cheap imitation of Ridley Scott's vision of the 2000 production of Gladiator. And that's all the praise I can give it. I will not be watching, I don't think.
I might just add here that what I uttered upon its conclusion was, 'is this a joke?!' It sure did feel like a bad prank.

 Subscribe to HetPer

 Subscribe to Gendering the Media Podcast

graph per Starz

Leno vs Conan O'?

If you've read the news daily, you're bound to have read about the NBC nighttime drama surrounding the Leno/O'Brian debacle. It's hardly news, I know, but it's there. We need distractions in order to be able to deal with the really somber news and 'Jay' controversy is certainly better than any and all collective Kardashian nonsense. A lot of people seem to have a lot of opinions on the NBC drama. Mine is mostly informed by my basic entertainment practices. If I had to choose between Jay and Conan, I'd pick Jay. Why? Because I like his unapologetic and genrally hypocrisy-free embracing of mediocrity. That, in and of itself, makes for good comedy. I've always thought that to be his shtick and his best winning quality. Conan, on the other hand, seems to want to exude a kind of elevated elegance that never quite translates to much. I find him generally boring, aesthetically unimpressive, and intellectually as gripping as a Paul Rudd or Oprah. I don't get his appeal. De gustibus non disputandum est seems to go the saying. This is more that that, though.

Jay managed to be successful for a basic reason: he appealed to many and he was darn good when it came to keeping people's interest over time. Whether I was into punk or prog or you name it, I always 'dug' his monologues. Much better than those by Letterman or O'Brian. Maybe Kimmel's joke delivery is a bit better but his show comes at a time I'm told I'm supposed to be in bed so that's a no-go.

O'Brian on the other hand refuses to appeal to more people in an effort to keep this supposed edge that he says he possesses. But where is this edge? In the string dance? Andy's little interjections? The only good thing the new Tonight Show has going is the Max Weinberg music arrangements and that's not saying much about Conan. It says much about Max and the likes of Springsteen but that's another blog.

So, I would say Leno is a better choice than Conan, really. Different people have spoken against Leno and interstingly enough, the reason why they speak against him is because he's simply been too successful and he's been working too long. He should retire now, say they. Am I to understand that the more one works and the more successful one becomes, the more he/she needs to get penalized? Ple- to the -ase!

Leno is not the best comedian out there. Granted, there are many other people who could do a far better job. What he has, though, is a John Carson-esque quality of transcendent mass appeal. And isn't that what the Tonight Show represents? A chance for many to watch something together and be entertained similarly at the end of a hard day?

I don't go out of my way to watch Leno as I don't really care a whole lot for commercial TV. If I am to watch it, I'm bound to watch HBO for the most part, really. But if I had to pick a team, I'd pick Leno. And who am I kidding? The fact that Jay is West-bound has something to do with my choice too. I dig the west and its vibe. Aren't we all entitled to having favorites, after all? And what about sportsmanship? Jay's been able to beat Letterman and Conan and that's worth something. I am not likely to say the following in any other settings, but mass appeal and mediocrity should be embraced in this case. Don't hate, supposed margin-dwellers, study and adapt instead. You might do better that way.

 Subscribe to HetPer

 Subscribe to Gendering the Media Podcast

Professors and Liberalism?

I received my Doctor of Philosophy title at 29. My field was in the realm of literary scholarship and the Humanities. Hence, when I read the following title of the recent NY Times article, my curiosity was peaked. It says, "Professor Is a Label That Leans to the Left." Now, as someone who works with gender and literary scholarship, I tend to be averse to congealed labels. But, be that as it may, at times labels come in handy.

According to the article, a couple of sociologists contend that the stereotype that most professors tend to be liberal might just be a valid one. "Conjure up the classic image of a humanities or social sciences professor, the fields where the imbalance is greatest: tweed jacket, pipe, nerdy, longwinded, secular — and liberal. Even though that may be an outdated stereotype, it influences younger people’s ideas about what they want to be when they grow up."

As a professor in the Humanities, I don't quite agree with the premise of this piece. I did not receive my PhD in the Humanities because of my tweed-wearing professors in college. If anything, I always found tweed to be quite unfortunate as a sartorial choice. I was one of those who picked the Humanities for one simple reason: it picked me. The subject matter spoke to me more than those transmitting it to me. Still, this is an interesting article to consider. Another paragraph of note says:

"Typecasting, of course, is not the only cause for the liberal tilt. The characteristics that define one’s political orientation are also at the fore of certain jobs, the sociologists reported. Nearly half of the political lopsidedness in academia can be traced to four characteristics that liberals in general, and professors in particular, share: advanced degrees; a nonconservative religious theology (which includes liberal Protestants and Jews, and the nonreligious); an expressed tolerance for controversial ideas; and a disparity between education and income."

More here.

 Subscribe to HetPer

 Subscribe to Gendering the Media Podcast