Ads a la Ludovico

About the fifth most disturbing image from Stanley Kubrick's adaptation of A Clockwork Orange is the sight of Malcolm MacDowell as Alex being subjected to "the Ludovico Technique," an adapted Pavlovian treatment for Alex's sociopathic impulses. Alex is strapped to a chair, his eyes are tugged open by creepy metallic pincher-pullers, and he is forced to watch video/film violence while chemicals induce nausea. As both Kubrick's film and Anthony Burgess' book make clear, this is not an especially effective "cure." I've always read both to strongly argue that enforced viewing of that which is nauseating reinforces Alex's sociopathic tendencies.

Nevertheless, this article, called to my attention by my student, Tom Dye suggests that the Ludovico Technique has some lingering appeal in Hollywood. The article references lawsuits by TV studios against the makers of digital video recorders (DVRs) like Tivo and ReplayTV, in which the studios argued that because consumers can use DVRs to fast-forward thhrough commercials, the devices enabled viewers to violate the studios' copyrights.

Wow.

Let's first pause to observe that the studios have no control over the nature, quality, or character of the commercials that are inserted between well-recognized break points within their copyrighted art products. Let's pause again to observe that people with VCRs have been fast forwarding through commercials for a quarter-century. And let's press on by observing that WE HAVE NO SPECIAL OBLIGATION TO WATCH ADs. We are free to page quickly through the fifty pages of ads in a typical fashion magazine. We are free to drive along the highways of this great land without necessarily noting the location of the next Denny's or that mortgage rates are at an all-time low. And, finally, we do not violate anybody's copyright, ever, by leaving the room to make a sandwich or go to the bathroom. The quid pro quo between the viewing public and the studio/advertiser nexus is simple. Compose compelling, richly informational, or aesthetically irresistible ads, and we'll probably watch. Compose ads like the current "Oven Mitt" campaign for Arby's, and we will invoke our fundamental right to fast-forward, change the channel, or better yet, ignore you altogether!

Hoping Against Hope

For days, this article by Joshua Micah Marshall has haunted me. Marshall argues that the introduction of chaos into the Middle East is essentially this administration's plan, writing, "In short, the administration is trying to roll the table--to use U.S. military force, or the threat of it, to reform or topple virtually every regime in the region, from foes like Syria to friends like Egypt, on the theory that it is the undemocratic nature of these regimes that ultimately breeds terrorism." Marshall does not cite many sources for this argument, and I find myself hoping he's wrong, even as I suspect he may be right. When I pair Marshall's portrait with articles like this one from James Kuhnhenn of the Pioneer Press' Washington bureau (the Pioneer Press being a right-leaning paper that strongly endorsed Bush) I wonder who the Bush administration will listen to. We've previously established that the administration feels no special obligation to revisit or revise its preferred positions when they are questioned or challenged by:

1) Our closest allies;
2) The U.N.;
3) Millions of protesters;
4) Noted conservative columnists and pundits;
5) The Pope;
and now . . .
6) A significant chunk of the Rebublican congressional delegation.

So I wonder and worry . . . if Marshall is correct, is there any power on earth that could prompt the Bush administration to retreat from this plan?