November 16, 2003

The Season of the Heirheads: Paris Hilton, you dirty bitch   http://www.nytimes.com/2003/11/16/arts/television/16GARN.html?th Dwight Garner writes about the spate of reality TV shows and documentaries about heirs to fortunes and their inhuman ways. The General can't wait to see the HBO documentary "Born Rich," but he may have to put bars in front of his TV to deflect projectiles. "Clearly, there's something new going on here. While no one expects Paris Hilton to behave, it's impossible to watch these shows without asking yourself: wasn't there a time when a basic law of membership in the ruling class was that its true habits were not to be shared with the plebes? What's the point of exclusivity if you are going to broadcast the details?" Good question. For a dirty whore like Paris Hilton (who is obviously behind the release of this sex tape of hers -- which just happens to coincide with her new TV show and her bit part in Cat in the Hat), the money isn't enough, and she doesn't have any dignity. The coin of the realm in the media age is exposure; and since rich fuckers like Paris Hilton have no talent to speak of, they are willing to generate exposure any way they can. It worked for Pamela Anderson, and it will work for Paris Hilton. As for the other rich fuckers, they probably think they're performing some kind of atonement for being trust fund babies by making films about themselves, or spoofing themselves on TV. The General has only one question about this phenomenon: When will the rest of us be enraged enough by the existence of these monsters to take action? They are not like you and me. They'd kill us if it were legal.  Let's start the revolution by outing the rich bastards: "Spike Jonze, the hip film director, didn't let the fact that he was born Adam Spiegel, heir to the clothing-catalog fortune, sink him into a slough of pampered despond. The music world is suddenly thick with kids who have, artistically at least, cast their own shadows. Most of the members of the Strokes first met at elite private school; the same goes for Radiohead." There. I feel better already. Eat the rich, man.   8:30:30 PM    comment []

The NY Times Writes About MPAA Ads; General Stuff Was There A Week Ago, Bitch   http://www.nytimes.com/2003/11/16/movies/16SCOT.html?th In today's NY Times, A.O. Scott sounds off on the MPAA ads meant to deter people from pirating movies on the Internet. The General, of course, already addressed this so-called problem last week under the heading Why Digital Piracy Is A Good Thing. Here's what Scott says: "Why else would the association [the MPAA] put these announcements up on the big screen? Because the thrust of this campaign is not to address a present crisis but, somewhat remarkably, to attack the cultural roots of one that looms just over the horizon. The easy exchange of sounds and pictures makes it easy to forget that someone — a lot of people — made them, and that someone (else) owns them, and that taking them without paying is a kind of stealing. No amount of cyberlibertarian sloganeering can wish this basic axiom of capitalism away. Information may want to be free, but art costs; property may be theft, but the theft of intellectual property is still a crime." Like I said, this misses the point. It used to be "legal" to own a slave, but people eventually overturned that "property" law, Mr. Scott. What kind of tunnel vision do you use to write for that would-be liberal rag, the NY Times? Think outside the box, man. Digital piracy is a good thing exactly because fewer movies will be made, and more people like the people in those MPAA ads will find different jobs doing something that (hopefully) does not contribute to the cumulative mental clutter in America's psychic economy.   7:58:51 PM    comment []

© Copyright 2004 General Stuff.