SUBSCRIBER LOGIN

Search
First Things

Loading

RSS

Postmodern Conservative
Archive

Categories

Monthly


Blogroll



« Previous  |Home|  Next »         

Saturday, October 27, 2012, 7:51 PM

1. So I’ll tell you about Ralph’s great conference later.

2. Well, one thing now: Russell Hittinger, who gave a fine lecture on Catholic defenses of marriage and the family against the modern state’s various efforts (beginning with the French Revolution) to reduce people to citizens, turns out to have the most comprehensive mastery of the various first-rate series on TV of anyone I’ve met. He put me to shame. So many conservatives suffer from TV ILLITERACY, but not Russ.

3. Another: I learned that Paul Rahe remains absolutely convinced that Romney will win by a landslide. It’s hard to tell, though, whether his confidence is encouraging, salutary rhetoric or the truth and nothing but. For now, I think Pete below is right. The edge remains Obama’s in winning electors. Romney has plateaued, and few remain undecided.

4. Carl’s fictional vignette on the Lena Dunham endorsement commercial is very funny and conceivably not even ironic. The demographic who could be influenced by Lena’s personal opinion was already 100% for Obama. And the rest of America is reacting with deserved contempt. Remember that Tyler Cowen called Dunham’s GIRLS “Straussian” in its esoteric deconstruction of sophisticated conventions. Ross Douthat added that the “dysutopian” character of the show is too much of the text–too obvious–to be called subtext. The commercial, it seems to me, certainly mocks the attraction of young women to Obama. It also mocks his seeming unreserved endorsement of the contraceptive culture of single Americans that so readily facilitates clueless hooking up, pretend marriages, having one’s first time with a president, and all that. The sad subtext is the present president (unlike some past ones) would never really cheat on his wife with some inexperienced young girl or anyone else. Whether the mocking is deliberate is perhaps unlikely. What’s obvious is that Lena did Barack no real favor. Republicans should pretend to be terrorized by her intervention in the campaign and beg her not to make the president seem even more desirable. Maybe they should wink in the hope she winks back.

5. I also enjoyed Pete’s commentary on CADDYSHACK, which is one of the sloppiest big-budget movies ever made. Maybe he should have added that its biggest jerk is the Chevy Chase character, and it’s hard to know whether that (or much of anything else) is intentional or not.

6. CADDYSHACK, of course, calls to mind ANIMAL HOUSE. That sloppy but insightful film gives us maybe the most contemptible big-screen professor ever–played by Donald Sutherland. He is bored with his own teaching, tells students Milton is irrelevant and unfunny (while getting paid to teach him), whines when the students won’t listen to him that “this is my job,” smokes dope in a silly and self-indulgent way with undergrads (he explains that he’s only teaching until his novel is done, and his novel is “sh–”), and has a one-night stand with one of the Delta’s girlfriend. The message, if there is one: One cause of the Sixties is that even so-called liberal education had gotten ridiculously decadent.

7. Don’t forget the motto of Faber College–seen in ANIMAL HOUSE’s opening scene: “Knowledge is Good.”

3 Comments

    Robert Cheeks
    October 27th, 2012 | 8:43 pm

    Of course, Dr. Rahe. is quite correct in following my lead re: Mitt’s landslide. An insightful political analysis.

    J Rogers
    October 27th, 2012 | 9:42 pm

    word of caution on the “girls” ad.

    It’s true that the target demographic is 100% composed of people who will agree with the President. It’s not really a persuasion ad, but a turnout ad. The Obama campaign NEEDS that ground game they’re bragging about, because so much of their base are low-information voters who really need to be chivied to the polls. The GOP base, on average, will vote fairly reliably in most elections, but it’s a bit smaller than the Dem base. The Dems have a slightly larger base, but a tougher time getting everyone to the polls in every cycle.

    Pete Spiliakos
    October 27th, 2012 | 9:45 pm

    I saw an interview where Harold Ramis said that the Chevy Chase character was based on his own fainthearted Buddhism. I think the Chase character was supposed to be deeply flawed, but wasn’t supposed to net out to a bad guy. He is the least responsible and productive of the adults portrayed. From a Christian perspective, he is wrong for thinking that he is better than the people around him. But he is also the one closest to knowing that he needs saving.

    His character’s sloth and lack of competitive drive is really something of a blind alley in the development of the American upper-class (other than some exceptions.) that’s why he doesn’t fit as a role model for the caddy (and neither does anyone else.) The story sprawls partly because the makers clearly lost interest in the coming-of-age aspects of the story and focused more on the broad insult humor from the veteran comics. It was a good choice because the scenes with only the younger actors are so painful that they become a totally different kind of funny (one that would not be endurable at feature length.)


Leave a Comment