This blog has percolating in my head for weeks now, and even now I only have time to commit a fraction of my thoughts to electronic paper.
Let me say that I love
Studio 60. For a reason that I am still trying to define and articulate. I think I relate to Harriet's character now, but I see myself evolving into Matthew Perry's...Which actually scares me a little.
I've been thinking about this ever since I read Jonathan Franzen's
The Corrections, years ago. I never bothered to read the critical review, so I have no idea what the intelligentsia thought, but the story of Midwesterners flocking to the East Coast, living sophisticated lives beyond the simple traditions of their parents, resonated with me, for obvious reasons.
I think I felt conviction. I am always trying to make sense of who I was and who I am becoming. At times, it's almost as if there were different versions of me, battling it out. And it's confusing, as conflicting loyalties always are.
I think Studio 60 gives us Red Staters some respect; my colleague thinks it belittles us. Maybe I'm just not smart enough to get the joke.
Anyway, this all ties into
Borat, which I have yet to see. Borat is supposedly hysterical, but allegedly is so at the expense of several sub-cultures, some of which are my heritage.
Anyway, my next thoughts all flew out ofmy head, so here is David Brook's piece from the NYT that is much more articulate than I could ever be, anyway. You have to be Times Select member to view it, so instead of the link, I have posted the text of the article.
DAVID BROOKS: The Heyday of Snobbery And so we enter the era
of mass condescension. Thanks to the creativity
of our cultural entrepreneurs, we enter a time when we can gather in large groups and look down at our mental, social and spiritual inferiors.
In retrospect, it's easy to see how this cultural moment crept up on us. There is "American Idol," which allows the millions to watch Simon Cowell ridicule people who don't realize how talentless they are. There is the middle segment
of "The Daily Show," during which correspondents sometimes go out and use postmodern interviewing techniques to humiliate rural goobers who think they were abducted by aliens or some such.
Then there is the rise
of culture-war comedians whose jokes heap scorn on the sorts
of people who are guaranteed not to be in the audience. ("Megachurches," Bill Maher joked recently on HBO, "are presided over by the same skeevy door-to-door Bible salesmen that we've always had, just in an age
of better technology. But they're selling the same thing: fear. Fear to keep you in line."
One could list other precursors and signs
of the times: network magazine shows that taught TV professionals to use the power
of ambush and editing to dominate their non-media-savvy prey; the "Jackass" movies, which acclimatized audiences to the mixture
of suffering and laughter. But,
of course, the crowning glory
of the current moment is the "Borat" movie, an explosively funny rube-baiting session orchestrated by a hilarious bully.
The genius
of Sacha Baron Cohen's performance is his sycophantic reverence for his audience, his refusal to challenge the sacred cows
of the educated bourgeoisie. During the movie, Borat ridicules Pentecostals, gun owners, car dealers, hicks, humorless feminists, the Southern gentry, Southern frat boys, and rodeo cowboys. A safer list it is impossible to imagine.
Cohen understands that when you are telling socially insecure audiences they are superior to their fellow citizens there is no need to be subtle. He also understands that any hint
of actually questioning the cultural suppositions
of his ticket-buyers — say by ridiculing the pretensions
of somebody at a Starbucks or a Whole Foods Market — would fatally mar the self-congratulatory aura
of the enterprise.
Cohen also knows how to rig an unfair fight, and to then ring maximum humiliation and humor out
of each situation. The core
of his movie is that he and his audience know he is playing a role, and this gives him, and them, power over the less sophisticated stooges who don't. The world becomes divided between the club
of those who are in on the joke, and the excluded rubes who aren't. The more tolerant the simpletons try to be toward Borat, the more he drags them into the realm
of anti-Semitism and vileness. The more hospitable they try to be, the dumber they appear for not understanding the situation.
In a society as fluid as ours,
snobbery is constantly changing form, and in the latest wave
of condescension media, various strains come together. We Jews know all about Borat's Jewish
snobbery — based on the assumption that Middle America's acceptance
of Jews must be a mirage, and that underneath every Rotarian there must be a Cossack about to unleash a continental pogrom.
There's also that distinct style
of young person's
snobbery. Young people haven't accomplished much yet so they can only elevate themselves by endlessly celebrating their own superior sensibilities. Finally, there's blue America
snobbery, as people on the coasts try to fathom those who would vote for George W. Bush. The only logical explanation is that they are racist, anti-Semitic idiots who can be blamelessly ridiculed.
I suspect this wave
of condescension media will repel as many people as it thrills. But it does illustrate an interesting shift in the culture.
Eighty years ago, H. L. Mencken's magazines, The Smart Set and The American Mercury, ridiculed exactly the same targets as today's condescension mavens: evangelicals, Middle American boobs, etc. (I actually think today's comedians are funnier than Mencken, though that may be a matter
of taste.)
Then, the condescending Menckenites were a small, educated sect, much less popular than the romantics who celebrated the Middle American common man in novels, movies and fanfares. Now, however, the Mencken sensibility is a mass phenomenon, found on networks and in multiplexes all across the country. We've democratized
snobbery and turned it into a consumption item for the vast educated class. Popular culture has traveled from "The Grapes
of Wrath" to Borat the magnificent.