Alarming News: I like Morgan Freeberg. A lot.
American Digest: And I like this from "The Blog That Nobody Reads", because it is -- mostly -- about me. What can I say? I'm on an ego trip today. It won't last.
Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler: We were following a trackback and thinking "hmmm... this is a bloody excellent post!", and then we realized that it was just part III of, well, three...Damn. I wish I'd written those.
Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler: ...I just remembered that I found a new blog a short while ago, House of Eratosthenes, that I really like. I like his common sense approach and his curiosity when it comes to why people believe what they believe rather than just what they believe.
Brutally Honest: Morgan Freeberg is brilliant.
Dr. Melissa Clouthier: Morgan Freeberg at House of Eratosthenes (pftthats a mouthful) honors big boned women in skimpy clothing. The picture there is priceless--keep scrolling down.
Exile in Portales: Via Gerard: Morgan Freeberg, a guy with a lot to say. And he speaks The Truth...and it's fascinating stuff. Worth a read, or three. Or six.
Just Muttering: Two nice pieces at House of Eratosthenes, one about a perhaps unintended effect of the Enron mess, and one on the Gore-y environ-movie.
Mein Blogovault: Make "the Blog that No One Reads" one of your daily reads.
The Virginian: I know this post will offend some people, but the author makes some good points.
Poetic Justice: Cletus! Ah gots a laiv one fer yew...
The “Lou Grant” effect is a creation of Bill Whittle, who confesses to having rambled a bit in this pre-Iraq-invasion essay. To do as fair a job as I can summarizing it, the Lou Grant effect is this: The more capable a made-up character is at grappling with hard-boiled reality, telling good apart from evil, showing action in the face of danger, being able to tell a fact apart from an opinion, et al, the more ditzy, airheaded, peace-luv-rock-n-roll is the actor who plays him.
He’s got a few more examples of this than you might think. But a warning: After de-fattening, his essay is still an impressive 84 paragraphs in length. A little light reading for ya. If you must have an excerpt, this is probably my favorite one, toward the end…
As long as celebrity worship is about who’s dating whom and what gown was worn at what self-congratulatory award show, there is really very little harm in all this. But when people with this degree of influence over the public step into the political arena, we might perhaps be a little concerned that all of the fact-checking, criticism and downright surveillance that the press correctly applies to political figures is completely lacking when it comes to celebrity proclamations. So they get to have things both ways. They have the influence without the responsibility. They can claim that they are just a citizen exercising their right to their opinion, and in this they are absolutely correct.
But is it too much to ask, that in return for all of the largesse and privilege and adulation that we lay at the feet of these idols, that perhaps they develop some cogent, defensible argument, something based on history and research and logic rather than on what feels good to them? Something worthy of the disproportionate weight their opinions are given?
My question is — why does there seem to be a sexist aspect to the Lou Grant effect? The Grand Dames of the silver screen seem to need a checkup from the neck-up both on it & off of it. Maybe the gentlemen are typecast into a John Wayne mold in which few left in Hollywood seem to believe anymore? Or, they feel more of a burden to “prove” something about themselves that isn’t really true?
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.