Sunday, October 21, 2012

Truest statement of the week

The point is that as a moderator, it is not Crowley’s job or any other moderator for that matter to fact-check a presidential candidate. She fact-checked Romney on Libya. That was wrong, but if you are going to play that game, you should at least be even handed.
Obama was also factually wrong on issues in the debate, according to The Associated Press, but Crowley didn’t interject and fact check the president.
Why?
You could make the argument that if a moderator isn’t in a position to fact-check all of the assertions, then they shouldn’t be in the position to correct just one like Crowley did.

--  Bowling Green Daily News editorial board, "Candy Crowley a moderator, not a fact-checker."

Truest statement of the week II

Apparently 3am phone calls to the White House are forwarded to Hillary’s cell. I don’t think hiding behind Hillary’s skirt is going to help the jackass out of this one.


-- Murphy, "Now look, It's all HER fault" (Puma P.A.C.).

A note to our readers

Hey --

Another Sunday.



First up, we thank all who participated this edition which includes Dallas and the following:

The Third Estate Sunday Review's Jim, Dona, Ty, Jess and Ava,
Rebecca of Sex and Politics and Screeds and Attitude,
Betty of Thomas Friedman Is a Great Man,
C.I. of The Common Ills and The Third Estate Sunday Review,
Kat of Kat's Korner (of The Common Ills),
Mike of Mikey Likes It!,
Elaine of Like Maria Said Paz),
Cedric of Cedric's Big Mix,
Ruth of Ruth's Report,
Wally of The Daily Jot,
Trina of Trina's Kitchen,
Marcia of SICKOFITRDLZ,
Stan of Oh Boy It Never Ends,
Isaiah of The World Today Just Nuts,
and Ann of Ann's Mega Dub.




And what did we come up with?



A new source for a truest.
And another new one.  We do pay attention to the e-mails.

Yes, she does.  And that is a suggestive title.
Ava and C.I. take on stereotypes as they survey the entertainment scene.
Short feature!  Yes, Debbie is a dope.
Let's all talk about what Barack doesn't want us to.
A piece on streaming.

We found another potato chip we can recommend.
Ty goes through the e-mails.
Ava and C.I. on last week's debate.
Ava and C.I. on NPR sidelining third parties.
A press release from Senator Patty Murray's office. 
A repost from Workers World.

Mike and the gang wrote this and we thank them for it.



See you next week.
Peace.


-- Jim, Dona, Ty, Jess, Ava and C.I.



Editorial: Crowley fingers herself

1bm


If you ever doubt that the media is the problem, grasp what took place in last week's debate between Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama and Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney.

No, we're not talking about Candy Crowley's ridiculous effort to fact check.

The debate last week was about domestic and foreign policy.

You may remember the high horses that a number of journalists have mounted in the last months.  'Mitt didn't mention Iraq in his speech!'  'Barack didn't talk about the wars!'

This was a debate on foreign policy and there were no questions about either the Iraq War or the Afghanistan War.

Now you can pretend, if you'd like, that the Iraq War is over.


To do that, you'd have to ignore what Tim Arango (New York Times) reported September 26th:

 
Iraq and the United States are negotiating an agreement that could result in the return of small units of American soldiers to Iraq on training missions. At the request of the Iraqi government, according to General Caslen, a unit of Army Special Operations soldiers was recently deployed to Iraq to advise on counterterrorism and help with intelligence.


xx

But you can pretend.  Even if you do that, do you realize how many billions the US State Department is spending in Iraq and plans to continue to spend for many years to come?

That foreign spending?  It does have an impact on what we can't afford in the US and on how much deeper in debt we go to pay for these illegal wars.

Candy Crowley looked, last week, like she'd just spent three hours chowing down at The Sizzler without ever once haviing hit the salad bar.  She looked very impressed with herself, like she'd really accomplished something.

If she thought what she selected from the ridiculous questions submitted indicated intelligence on her part or skill, she was sorely mistaken.

What it indicated was that she dabbles in current events and has no real grasp or understanding of what's taken place and is taking place in the world in which we live.

She also ensured that her peers looked as stupid as she did.

Mere weeks ago, they were hectoring Barack and Mitt about forgetting wars, refusing to mention them and when the press had the chance to get questions asked, the ignored the wars to instead focus on crap like AK-47s.

What a proud moment for Candy and company if the point was to telegraph just how embarrassing the news media has become.

TV: When comedy just isn't funny

How awful can comedy get?  That's a question we've been wondering since the season started.  Last night, as we watched the latest installment of In Living Color, we had to wonder it again?


tv




In Living Color?  Actually, it was Saturday Night Live, it just played like a spoof of  In Living Color as the sad and bad White writers played Beat Down On Whitey.  At least when that was the focal point of  the non-homophobic In Living Color skits, there was the fact that Jim Carrey was immensely talented.  So there was an edge to the skits that wouldn't be there if, for example, Whitey were played by Jonathan Silverman instead.

Or Jason Sudeikis.  To be clear, Jason has some talent.  He doesn't have any talent to display in political sketches.  His Mitt Romney was no different than his Joe Biden.  He comes off highly limited as a performer when he tries for political sketches.  That's not all his fault.  Last night's cold open would have been a hard stunt for even Carrey to have pulled off.

It shouldn't have been that hard to write a funny spoof of the debate last week between Barack Obama and Mitt Romney.  Unless of course you're a writer for Saturday Night Live.

When the first debate took place, Barack tanked.  So Saturday Night Live came to his rescue with a bad skit about him being distracted during the debate.  We got an entire interior monologue from 'cool cat' Barack instead of seeing him as the stammering fool he came off as.

 Last night was yet another serving of bad Shaft-lite revenge fantasies from the limp dicked writers  writers of Saturday Night Live, the limp dicked White writers of Saturday Night Live.


In the second debate, last week's debate, both were eventually seen as too aggressive (general consensus).  Somehow that translated into a skit about Mitt wanting to fight Barack.  Jay Pharoah now plays Barack.  He can do visual imitations, he's yet to inhabit a character.  Fred Armisen previously played Barack.  Regardless of who delivers the lines, the character is always written poorly.

On the show, Barack can never make a mistake, his family will never be a joke and he will always have the upper hand.  It's the sort of thing, understand, that killed All My Children.  Susan Lucci played Erica.  Erica was a little bitch from day one.  Around the time (1979) that Days of Our Lives made Lucci a serious offer (and she seriously considered it), Erica was headed for the grave yard.  It was then that ABC gave into every one of the actress' whims in an effort to keep her.  She made more money than someone of her (fading) popularity should and the actress ran off many a talented performer.  But worst of all, Erica Kane became a big bore.  Take Melrose Place.  Sydney Andrews (Laura Leighton) was always more interesting than Amanda (Heather Locklear) because you always knew Syd really could lose everything.  Amanda, like Erica, had ceased to be an interesting character.

And SNL's Barack has always been a lousy character.  To say he's one-dimensional is to give the writers credit for writing deeper than they have.  We were pointing this out in 2008.  They have had four years to find humor and they have repeatedly ignored it.

They are the limpest of limp dicks, the tiniest of small penises.  They are an embarrassment as comedy writers.  There has never been a skit where Barack did not triumph and overcome.  A SNL skit about Barack is as predictable as one of Joan Crawford's shop-girl movies.

It's a shame Herman Cain didn't get the GOP nomination for president.  That would've forced everyone to address the fact that Saturday Night Live is a highly racist show.  In the brief time when Cain was in the running, Kenan Thompson played him in the typical racist manner that SNL usually presents Black characters.

So it's not even that SNL woke up to their own racism following the emergence of Barack on the national stage.  They're still as racist as they always were.  But when it's time for Barack, they get to scream "Racist!" at others and pretend like the Whitest thing in the writers room is the walls and not themselves.  And that's been behind every Barack skit they've written from day one.

So last night we got Barack making "Magic Mormon underwear" references.  They never worry about that, their intolerance towards religion.  And the audience certainly didn't worry about it.  They acted as though manna had dropped from heaven.  Remember what Richard Rodgers and Oscar Hammerstein II made clear in South Pacific, you've got to be taught to hate.  Certainly, Saturday Night Live has ridiculed Mormons and made fun of them non-stop.

If there was any reason to spoof the debate, it was to spoof it's biggest moment when Candy Crowley (as moderator) interjected herself into the debate to 'correct' Mitt Romney.  As The Washington Post and CBS News (text report by Brian Montopoli, video report by Jan Crawford) have pointed out, Mitt Romney wasn't wrong.  Candy Crowley has taken to defending herself by pointing out that she allowed Mitt was also correct.  What Ruth caught in real time, Saturday Night Live couldn't find days later.

They redid the whole debate to make fun of Mormons, the Romneys and more. Instead of ridiculing the press, they made Candy a hero (kind of like a lot of idiotic bloggers last week) and had her call out a defeated Mitt allowing a triumphant Barack to drop his microphone to the stage and brush off his shoulders.

It wasn't funny, it wasn't a spoof of the debates but if you want to think about the idiotic, the pre-juvenile mind -- yes, pre-juvenile mind that wrote it, that might be funny.  A bunch of White writers who don't want to bring in any non-Whites (they seem to think they've been inclusive and expansive when they hire non-Irish and non-Jewish) really get off writing these skits where everyone is racist to Barack Obama and Barack triumphs over evil Mitt Romney.

With In Living Color, the racism was mitigated by a number of factors including that the variety show employed large numbers of Black performers and writers.  So, acknowledging the fact that the history of entertainment is a history of racism (and sexism and homophobia), it was more than understandable that another point of view would emerge.  Not a better point of view, we never seem to get that on TV.  But the same racist view only aimed at non-Blacks, that's what In Living Color offered.

SNL can't even claim to offer that, not with the Whiteness of its writing staff.

Which is why the Barack skits are so limp dicked.

These writers worship and dream about Barack, dream of wrapping their lips around his cock and sucking him off.  Unable to do that (or even be honest about the desire), they write impotent little skits, their idea of what a Black revenge fantasy would be.   Nothing about the skits are funny or authentic.

And certainly not fair.  They've felt they could make fun of Romney's children.  They've never made fun of Michelle Obama or the two daughters.  Not once.  Until Michelle, there's never been a First Lady they haven't mocked.

It's limp dick writing and it's by a bunch of  dicks who chose to self-castrate.  (There are 23 credited writers this season, all but three are men.)

If there's anything worse, its bitches who sell out women.

By all mean, gals, sell yourself out.  If you've got no ethics and can live with that, more power to you.  But make sure you're just selling out yourself and not all of womankind.

There's a trend story this season but you won't hear about on NPR, now will you?

Do you ever?

The trend is: Women lose their jobs.

Now, let's get a few things straight.  When you watch a sitcom, you're not watching for much more than to laugh.  If it can do more, great.  But a sitcom shouldn't bring you down.

This fall, Jess  (Zooey Deschanel) has lost her job as a teacher on New Girl, Reagan (Christina Applegate) has lost her job as a TV producer on Up All Night and Frankie (Patricia Heaton) has lost her job as a car salesperson on The Middle.

All three shows were created by women so you might think we could expect some point to be made.  But only with Frankie does the post-firing make any sense.  It's a bad economy, cars really aren't selling.  Frankie's going to get some training for a better job.  That's the plan currently as she tries to decide what she wants to do, a career, not a job.  She's got to get something before unemployment runs out and they are having to economize.  This is realistic.  If you're going to do a story about someone losing their job, then be realistic.

While the storyline works for Frankie that's because it's a storyline.  No one knows what it is with New GirlOctober 2, 2011 we shared our thoughts on the 'hit' show for Fox.  Forget about outrage in e-mails, a Fox suit huffed to us that New Girl would never dip below 9 million viewers.  That was the Monday after our piece ran.  We responded it would be pulling in 5 million by the end of season.

A day after that conversation, a new episode of New Girl aired.  Guess what?  It fell below nine million.  And none of last seasons' last eight episodes made it above 5.6 million.  Season two's 'big' debut brought in 5.35 million viewers which was a big disappointment to Fox but after the last two episodes have both resulted in less than five million viewers, they're probably looking fondly at the 5.6 in retrospect.

Jess was a teacher.  How do you get fired from your teaching job at the start of a school year?  No one wanted to ponder that but there's never been a great deal of thought behind the show.  So you've had Jess as a shot girl and as a fast food employee and, this week, a model.

This crap never plays. It didn't really play with That Girl.  In fact, the changing jobs probably harmed the show in the long run.  No one wants to watch that crap.  "Oh, who will Jess be this week?"  They want to feel they know the character.  And, in a bad economy, they don't think it's funny that someone's lost their jobs or that, not only is Jess doing menial jobs. but she's doing them badly.

It's humiliating and goes to hatred of women.  It's probably the most offensive thing that's taken place since 1985 when 'creative geniuses' Ken Levine and David Isaacs were explaining that on Mary they were going to destroy all that had made Mary Tyler Moore beloved as Mary Richards (The Mary Tyler Moore Show).  Like most pigs, when they wanted to brag about how they were going to trash Mary, they ran to Rolling Stone.

So it's no surprise that Zooey Deshcanel ran to Rolling Stone to gab about the "big emotional impact" this change will have on Jess.  At least Zooey thinks it has a "big emotional impact" on her character.  Reagan losing her job on Up All Night sort of really didn't happen.

If you saw season one of the show, you know that Reagan was the producer of a daytime talk show hosted by Ava (Maya Rudolph).  Chris (Will Arnett) and Reagan were the new parents of Amy.  Chris gave up his law career to stay home with Amy.  Well over the summer Ava got the axe because everyone just 'knew' that the problem with the sitcom was that Chris didn't work outside the home.


Now some networks would say, "Okay, Amy goes to daycare and Chris goes back to work."  But this is NBC. You don't get in the toilet of last place without being a huge dumb ass.  See, even Fox is higher ranked than NBC.  Fox which really can't claim to produce a full schedule, even now all these years later.  But Fox beats NBC.

And it does so because of decisions like making Reagan a stay-at-home Mommy.  Not only does that sideline the funniest character (Ava) but we've all seen this show before.  It was called Yes, Dear and only shut-ins watched it.

Taking a funny show and turning it into something else?  We've seen that before as well.  CBS had a very funny show called Gary Unmarried.  It was hilarious.  Jay Mohr played the title character Gary who had two kids who lived with their mother, his ex-wife, played by Paula Marshall.  She's got a new fiancee (played by Ed Begley Jr.).  He's a house painter and getting used to the dating scene again.


Season one ended on a funny note.  And then the show came back in the fall of 2009 or something called Gary Unmarried did.  He wasn't a painter.  He was now on the radio, doing sports talk radio.  And he was in all these office hijinx with a female boss.  Please pay attention, suits, you can change a show by emphasizing a different character (Fonzie on Happy Days, Urkel on Family Matters, to give two examples) but you can't alter the basics of a show and retain an audience.

You also can't insult the audience.

If you're unemployed (as many are currently) or afraid you're going to lose your job due to the economy (ibid), you really don't find it funny that someone loses their job -- or that a lot of someones did when the talk show Ava got the axe.  Not only do you not find that funny, you don't find it funny that Chris and Reagan can continue to live in their dream house and never worry about bills.  They can pay various baby sitters and try to paint the town red, money's never a problem.

"Well," you say, "Chris is a successful attorney."

No, he's not.  Chris gave up his job in the first episode.  He's not in the home remodel business with Reagan's brother.  They're a two man crew with office space and not a lot of business going on.  Yet no one's concerned about money in that family.

It doesn't play well.

And neither does Up All Night or New Girl.  It's not that funny doesn't happen anymore.   New shows like ABC's The Neighbors (Jami Gertz, Lenny Venito, Toks Olagundoye and Simon Templeman) and CBS' Partners (David Krumholtz, Michael Urie, Sophia Bush and Brandon Routh) are hilarious.  NBC shouldn't be scared of new shows.  Comedy's all about the new -- new takes, new lines, new relationships.  When you stop surprising people, you stop doing comedy.   What are you doing instead?  Season 38 of Saturday Night Live.













































Idiot of the week

dirty debbie

Debbie Wasserman Schultz sounds like an idiot every time she opens her mouth.  She can just be saying hi but with that thick tongue that makes her sound like the stereotype of a body builder, the Democratic Party operative comes off like a real idiot.


Never more so than last week when she was asked about President Barack Obama's kill list and she said she'd never heard of such a thing.

She apparently never read the story.  How a sitting member of Congress could be so ignorant, we don't know.

But, let's be honest, it wasn't because she spent any time washing that greasy, unbrushed hair.


Debbie Wasserman Schultz was never ready for prime time.  Just a visual was enough to make that clear.  But last week, she decided to open her mouth and let her uninformed 'wisdom' slip out.


It was not pretty.

---------------------





Illustration is Isaiah's The World Today Just Nuts "Dirty Debbie."




The Drone War

drone photo by bruce hoffman, dod

Greg Miller (Washington Post) words it nicer but what you have is a so-called intelligence agency wanting to become "a paramilitary force, U.S. officials said" pinning the blame on David Petraeus who is the CIA Director but used to be the top US Commander in Iraq, General Petraeus.


 Living Under Drones notes:


First, while civilian casualties are rarely acknowledged by the US government, there is significant evidence that US drone strikes have injured and killed civilians. In public statements, the US states that there have been “no” or “single digit” civilian casualties.”[2] It is difficult to obtain data on strike casualties because of US efforts to shield the drone program from democratic accountability, compounded by the obstacles to independent investigation of strikes in North Waziristan. The best currently available public aggregate data on drone strikes are provided by The Bureau of Investigative Journalism (TBIJ), an independent journalist organization. TBIJ reports that from June 2004 through mid-September 2012, available data indicate that drone strikes killed 2,562-3,325 people in Pakistan, of whom 474-881 were civilians, including 176 children.[3] TBIJ reports that these strikes also injured an additional 1,228-1,362 individuals. Where media accounts do report civilian casualties, rarely is any information provided about the victims or the communities they leave behind. This report includes the harrowing narratives of many survivors, witnesses, and family members who provided evidence of civilian injuries and deaths in drone strikes to our research team. It also presents detailed accounts of three separate strikes, for which there is evidence of civilian deaths and injuries, including a March 2011 strike on a meeting of tribal elders that killed some 40 individuals.
Second, US drone strike policies cause considerable and under-accounted-for harm to the daily lives of ordinary civilians, beyond death and physical injury. Drones hover twenty-four hours a day over communities in northwest Pakistan, striking homes, vehicles, and public spaces without warning. Their presence terrorizes men, women, and children, giving rise to anxiety and psychological trauma among civilian communities. Those living under drones have to face the constant worry that a deadly strike may be fired at any moment, and the knowledge that they are powerless to protect themselves. These fears have affected behavior. The US practice of striking one area multiple times, and evidence that it has killed rescuers, makes both community members and humanitarian workers afraid or unwilling to assist injured victims. Some community members shy away from gathering in groups, including important tribal dispute-resolution bodies, out of fear that they may attract the attention of drone operators. Some parents choose to keep their children home, and children injured or traumatized by strikes have dropped out of school. Waziris told our researchers that the strikes have undermined cultural and religious practices related to burial, and made family members afraid to attend funerals. In addition, families who lost loved ones or their homes in drone strikes now struggle to support themselves.
Third, publicly available evidence that the strikes have made the US safer overall is ambiguous at best. The strikes have certainly killed alleged combatants and disrupted armed actor networks. However, serious concerns about the efficacy and counter-productive nature of drone strikes have been raised. The number of “high-level” targets killed as a percentage of total casualties is extremely low—estimated at just 2%.[4] Furthermore, evidence suggests that US strikes have facilitated recruitment to violent non-state armed groups, and motivated further violent attacks. As the New York Times has reported, “drones have replaced Guantánamo as the recruiting tool of choice for militants.”[5] Drone strikes have also soured many Pakistanis on cooperation with the US and undermined US-Pakistani rel­ations. One major study shows that 74% of Pakistanis now consider the US an enemy.[6]
Fourth, current US targeted killings and drone strike practices undermine respect for the rule of law and international legal protections and may set dangerous precedents. This report casts doubt on the legality of strikes on individuals or groups not linked to the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2011, and who do not pose imminent threats to the US. The US government’s failure to ensure basic transparency and accountability in its targeted killing policies, to provide necessary details about its targeted killing program, or adequately to set out the legal factors involved in decisions to strike hinders necessary democratic debate about a key aspect of US foreign and national security policy. US practices may also facilitate recourse to lethal force around the globe by establishing dangerous precedents for other governments. As drone manufacturers and officials successfully reduce export control barriers, and as more countries develop lethal drone technologies, these risks increase.



There are multiple reasons to oppose the the move.  First and foremost, Barack Obama's Drone War is already killing enough people around the world without providing the CIA with even more drones.  Second, the killings are bad enough but when you add in the large number of innocents that are killed in these attacks, it becomes outrageous and appalling.  Alice K. Ross (The Bureau of Investigative Journalism) observes, "The Human Rights Clinic found that according to the available reporting, between 72 and 155 civilians were credibly reported killed by drone strikes in 2011."  Third, there's the CIA itself.  An intelligence gathering force that has forever been the worst example of "mission creep" as one 'we would never' after another falls by the wayside over and over.  Fourth, enough money is already spent on killing people.

Miller notes, "In the past, officials from the Pentagon and other departments have raised concerns about the CIA's expanding arsenal and involvement in lethal operations, but a senior Defense official said that the Pentagon had not opposed the agency's current plan."  That's the ignorance of human kind.

Time and again, you see people who have opposed something for good reason suddenly drop their opposition when someone they 'trust' is put in charge.  Look at the so-called 'anti-war leaders' who dropped opposition to wars when their baby Barack got elected.

Barack could no wrong, not their sweet baby.

But even if he's re-elected, Barack still has to leave the White House at some point.  And how comfortable will they be with another Democrat or with a Republican over the Drone War?

How our history is preserved

This weekend, we saw an interesting thing on the "Movies" screen of Netflix.

netflix

"Popular on Netflix" is a series of films that Neflix-ers are streaming.  There next to offerings by Jason Statham (2011's Blitz) and Mark Walhberg (2007's The Shooter) is Jane Fonda's Barbarella


Barbarella was a French comic strip that appeared in V-Magazine.  The strip, created by Jean-Claude Forest, followed a female astronaut through various adventures throughout the galaxy.   Roger Vadim would direct the film based on the comic strip starring his then-wife Jane.  The film angered prudes and entertained film lovers (such as The New Yorker's Pauline Kael who found the film (and especially Jane) worthy of praise.

Over the summer, the film got a Blue-Ray release which really does justice to its visuals.  (Roger Vadim was one of the masters of using colors to evoke moods and emotions.)  This is not the version Netflix is streaming.


Jane has nothing to be embarrassed of, she's hilarious in the film and it's' a classic of the French New Wave.  But Jane's also gone on to be nominated seven times for an Academy Award (she's won two Best Actress awards -- for Klute and Coming Home).

But does a young Netflix streamer know about that?  Do they know The China Syndrome, for example?  How about her amazing performance in The Morning After?

We ask that for a reason.

Films are a part of our American history.  In the early days of television, the stations so chopped up films for commercial breaks, there was little point in watching. (A point made in Billy Wilder's The Apartment when Jack Lemmonn attempts to settled down for a night in.)  Revivals at art house theaters and people like Pauline Kael and writer Peter Bogdanovich (later director of classics such as Paper Moon, The Last Picture Show and What's Up Doc?) helped correct these wrongs.

Then Jane Fonda led a home entertainment revolution when she moved the video cassette market from strictly rentals to purchasing for your home library.   Since then, for the most part, the industry's done a good job promoting the past and keeping film history alive.

But everyone seems to be lagging with streaming.

It doesn't seem the same effort is going into promoting streaming when it comes to the classics, not the same effort that was there earlier with releasing them on video cassettes, laser discs, DVDs, etc. For example, on Netflix currently, 1963's The Caretakers is the only streamable in the Joan Crawford filmography.  This iffy picture in which Crawford's third billed, is that really how to educate anyone as to what she could do or why Joan was able to have a decades long career?  Still, Joan's got one more streamable film than Carole Lombard.

An actress many have longed to be or to emulate, one of the first female comedy stars of talking films, Lombard's classics include Twentieth Century with John Barrymore (Drew's grandfather), My Man Godfrey, To Be or Not To Be, Hands Across The Table, The Princess Comes Across, Nothing Sacred and True Confessions.

Or take Alan Ladd.  You can stream him in the classic Shane but that's an 'idea' film.  It didn't make him a star.  It was the films This Gun for Hire, The Glass Key and The Blue Dahlia that made Alan Ladd one of the biggest actors of the 1940s. 


 Does any of it matter?

It matters in terms of both film history and our country's own history.

It matters in terms of dollars and cents as well.


People didn't care a great deal, for example, in the 60s about It's A Wonderful Life.  It was only when it became a staple of television in the seventies that the tide began to change and it began to be considered a holiday classic.  We can think of many holiday films that are actually better than It's A Wonderful Life (including Frank Capra's Meet John Doe starring Gary Cooper and Barbara Stanwyck) but they didn't get mass saturation.

That kind of access to a film creates both memories and a bond that lives on.

Whether it's Netflix, Hulu or Crackle, the studios don't seem to grasp that currently and aren't using their product to enrich film history or themselves.  They could easily do both.  One of Alan Ladd's classics featured prominently online for streaming would result in people being aware of and interested in his other film noir roles.  In other words, for the first time in many years, the studios are back to failing to create a market for their archives.






We're thrilled Jane Fonda's Barbarella is popular on Netflix.  We think it's a film worth watching and that she's a real pleasure in it.  We're also aware that she's done a lot more in other films.  Access is what creates bonds and identification.  We think the studios need to grasp that.  To focus on Jane, studios would do well to grasp that she's only made one sci-fi film thus far and if you're wanting to build an audience for the films you retain the rights to that she stars in, you probably need to create a streaming model that both lures and showcases.
Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported License.
 
Poll1 { display:none; }