Anyone ever notice that the majority of celebrities come from good homes? Not one rags to riches story among them?
Gad, now I know why they have problems acting poor authentically in a show or movie, especially on soap operas.
I feel Traffik was more authentic than Silence of the Lambs, as even Hannibal Lector and his dead sister were born of good parents. His psychopathy had to do with the evil of other men who kills his sister, and his inability to let go of anger. I do not believe anger should ever be allowed to be vented in a violent manner.
Rather anger requires loving-kindness to transmute into compassion and a righteous concern for the welfare of others.
However, killing brings everyone down to their lowest denominator: survival.
Mercy in contrast needs compassion and loving-kindness to throw away the Law of Hammurabi and replace it with Roman-based laws, of which most of Western civilization is based.
It also takes an act of mercy for a celebrity to actually see a poor person as a human being. Charlie Sheen.sometimes acts out of mercy when he's sober, more so than when he's either drunk or high on recreational drugs, as is evidenced by his ex-wives and ex-girlfriends, not all of whom are on a higher road than the one he travels. Mercy is derived from the power of humility to transform a person's life.
Though, I don't take the moral high ground on the matter of celebrities. For the moral code according to Hollywood are mean and despicable, and ought not judge the poor, and the inaccurate portrayals of people on poverty are indeed telling.
Unlike today, when you look at an old movie and the family is portrayed authentically as poor, the movie is in black and white, so you know it represents a time when becoming a celebrity was a rags to riches story.
Based on what I have observed so far, watching movies and reading the newspaper, mass media is manufacturing propaganda to urge consumers to lead productive lives so that they might be able to meet their favourite celebrity.
I don't think Hollywood can accurately portray poverty because hardly any actor ever goes that far into the rural Midwest or even Kentucky and Tennessee to be that accurate.
Often a news story focuses on a crime but the widening gap between the rich and the poor is overlooked because such details tend to politicize the crime and turn it into a moral drama.
Yet the purpose of mass media's obsession with success is to motivate consumers to become financially successful.
In doing so, mass media is complicit in manufacturing the myths about poverty and failure, which are just as exaggerated as the myths about wealth and success.
Indeed, we may need more stories about riches to rags to riches which may be more authentic than the stereotypical rags to riches story.
As well, to even out the mix, a few riches to rags stories could be told by a narcissistic homeless person. ;)
In my case, I live my life authentically as one of the millions of people known as the working poor. Since my father worked on the green chain at a sawmill, he would be one of the many working class poor. Most definitely, ours was a modest family financially.
So mass media wouldn't be knocking at my door because a consumerist society craves only success stories. In this way is mass media the biggest propaganda tool of the 1 percent manufacturing myths about the reality of poverty with any authenticity in its various portrayals.
That's because the writers are unable to get a sense of what it is like to be poor since it would not sell very well in the box office.
That's what makes mass media a propaganda tool for the myth of success.
Originally posted: February 4, 2013 at 0131H
Currently posted: November 28, 2013 at 2356H
Showing posts with label Hollywood. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Hollywood. Show all posts
20131128
How the State Fails Us (satire)
How does the State fail us ?
It fails us when politicians who claim to be ensuring the safety of its citizens put them at risk of injury either from overcrowding in mental health facilities, over-medication of patients by family doctors, and overreacting to mostly harmless people who daily beat the stigma.
Take, for example, the State's handling of mental health.
Only effective forms of medication are covered by state health insurance i.e. Medicaid/Medicare.
Medications deemed old and inefficient are not covered, nor are the newest ones approved in another jurisdiction universally available.
The State does so to protect people from harm, since it knows what is best for the People.
Yet it does not go further to protect the mentally ill from stigma, citing "free speech" when Hollywood stereotypes the mentally ill as evil in the guise of violent psychotics, zombies or agents of the Devil.
Could it be that the stigma of mental illness is manufactured by society to motivate each of us to pro-actively develop mental health strategies through education and therapy.
Perhaps the State implies through its administration of Medicaid/Medicare that medication does the least harm while allowing local government to section/hospitalize mentally ill people who pose potential harm to themselves or others.
At the same time, it surely cannot protect the People from benign sociopaths who become politicians. Why can't the State protect the People from politicians? While the laws of the State are often written to remedy social problems such as mental illness, they also ensure that "the rich get richer while the poor get poorer."
In this way, doing what's best for the People profits the State through the private sector. Hopefully it also helps us to promote the mental health of the People.
While ending the stigma of the mentally ill may not be profitable to the State, it still is a basic human right for the People.
Yet the free speech observed by Hollywood producers trades a few laughs gained by parodying the mentally ill for profit.
Even if the State fails us by helping the pharmaceutical corporations profit from increased psychiatric medication sales, that should provide adequate motivation to beat the stigma of mental illness daily.
If we want to end such stigma, then it is only worth watching a movie which casts mental illness in a negative light by discussing the stereotyping that casts the shadow stigma on the characters in it.
In that way, it is possible to educate family and friends about how stereotyping the mentally ill subtly promotes the stigma.
If we want to reduce the cost of lives lost due to over-medication, then prevention could save costs.
For not everyone wants to rush forward where the extremely nervous of people fear to tread.
Original post: June 25, 2010 1154H
Previous updated: March 15, 2013 2327H
Currently revised: November 28, 2013 0447H
It fails us when politicians who claim to be ensuring the safety of its citizens put them at risk of injury either from overcrowding in mental health facilities, over-medication of patients by family doctors, and overreacting to mostly harmless people who daily beat the stigma.
Take, for example, the State's handling of mental health.
Only effective forms of medication are covered by state health insurance i.e. Medicaid/Medicare.
Medications deemed old and inefficient are not covered, nor are the newest ones approved in another jurisdiction universally available.
The State does so to protect people from harm, since it knows what is best for the People.
Yet it does not go further to protect the mentally ill from stigma, citing "free speech" when Hollywood stereotypes the mentally ill as evil in the guise of violent psychotics, zombies or agents of the Devil.
Could it be that the stigma of mental illness is manufactured by society to motivate each of us to pro-actively develop mental health strategies through education and therapy.
Perhaps the State implies through its administration of Medicaid/Medicare that medication does the least harm while allowing local government to section/hospitalize mentally ill people who pose potential harm to themselves or others.
At the same time, it surely cannot protect the People from benign sociopaths who become politicians. Why can't the State protect the People from politicians? While the laws of the State are often written to remedy social problems such as mental illness, they also ensure that "the rich get richer while the poor get poorer."
In this way, doing what's best for the People profits the State through the private sector. Hopefully it also helps us to promote the mental health of the People.
While ending the stigma of the mentally ill may not be profitable to the State, it still is a basic human right for the People.
Yet the free speech observed by Hollywood producers trades a few laughs gained by parodying the mentally ill for profit.
Even if the State fails us by helping the pharmaceutical corporations profit from increased psychiatric medication sales, that should provide adequate motivation to beat the stigma of mental illness daily.
If we want to end such stigma, then it is only worth watching a movie which casts mental illness in a negative light by discussing the stereotyping that casts the shadow stigma on the characters in it.
In that way, it is possible to educate family and friends about how stereotyping the mentally ill subtly promotes the stigma.
If we want to reduce the cost of lives lost due to over-medication, then prevention could save costs.
For not everyone wants to rush forward where the extremely nervous of people fear to tread.
Original post: June 25, 2010 1154H
Previous updated: March 15, 2013 2327H
Currently revised: November 28, 2013 0447H
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)