ElMondoHummus
0.25 short of being half-witted
The whole problem with DutchPhil's "analysis" (really, nothing more an identification of elements that fit a specific definition rather than real analysis... but I'm trying to be generous here) is the same problem that so many analysts have committed in the past and continue to commit today: They assume the reading/viewing public is a blank slate to be written on. The mere insertion of propangadistic elements into a story does not automatically mean the reader/viewer will be receptive to it, let alone programmed to be accomodating to it. Whether the elements are capatalistic imagery, such as the ones identified by Ariel Dorfman in "How to Read Donald Duck", or the supposed "governmental control" conditioning that DuthPhil here tries to push, the point is that the primary audience is no more "conditioned" to acceptance of that point of view than they are to the ideas that superheros exist, that computers can be automatically hacked by genius children at a keyboard, or that certain "romantic" acts are truly romantic, attractive ones (Ok, I loooooved "Untamed Heart" because I'm a huge Marisa Tomei fan, and I dig Christian Slater... but ladies, seriously, isn't the fact that "Adam" repeatedly snuck into "Caroline's" room without her knowing rather creepy? Ok, in the context of the film and Adam's lack of human interaction experience, it might be acceptable, but in real life?? Brrrrrrrr (*shudders*)).
In short, the mere insertion of such elements is hardly programming. Especially given the fact that most movies are viewed only a small number of times by any given individual, therefore having little actual "conditioning" value, as mere handfuls of viewings are far from being repetative enough to be "conditioning". And due to the long history of movies, television programs, and other forms of entertainment, most viewers are quite understanding of the line between fiction and fact. So DutchPhil's "analysis" fails, since he like so many others do not account for the fact that most viewers have analytic abilities, as well as a moderately experienced sense of what in TV & movies is fake and what truly reflects a concept, image, or element of the real world.
Nice try, but DutchPhil's doing nothing more than repeating the mistakes of others in the past.
In short, the mere insertion of such elements is hardly programming. Especially given the fact that most movies are viewed only a small number of times by any given individual, therefore having little actual "conditioning" value, as mere handfuls of viewings are far from being repetative enough to be "conditioning". And due to the long history of movies, television programs, and other forms of entertainment, most viewers are quite understanding of the line between fiction and fact. So DutchPhil's "analysis" fails, since he like so many others do not account for the fact that most viewers have analytic abilities, as well as a moderately experienced sense of what in TV & movies is fake and what truly reflects a concept, image, or element of the real world.
Nice try, but DutchPhil's doing nothing more than repeating the mistakes of others in the past.
