A Book About Shows About Nothing
Published August 10, 2003
Which leads to Hibbs' other key philosopher, Hannah Arendt, and her book, The Banality of Evil. Covering the trial of Adolf Eichmann for the New Yorker, Arendt expected to see a raving madman. Instead, what she found was an aging bureaucrat in a Hugo Boss suit and tie, who killed without remorse as a way of social and political advancement: the banality of evil, indeed.
It's not too far a leap from Eichmann to Thomas Harris's Hannibal Lector and "John Doe", portrayed by Kevin Spacey in Seven, and Hibbs devotes several pages to each of these films. Both are wealthy, cultured men, extremely well read, with no remorse for their atrocities. Both were classic Hollywood anti-heroes of the 1990s.
While Hibbs would probably identify as a conservative, he seems to go out of his way to not bait or antagonize the left--but picking up Medved's quote above, how do you write about pop culture without discussing their influence-and their influences? Significantly, Hibbs really likes Seinfeld (heck, who doesn't?). And he has some very good words to say about both Forrest Gump, and Morgan Freeman's Somerset character in Seven. And indeed, Somerset's last line in Seven serves as a touchstone to the post 9/11 world:
I agree with the second part.
- A Book About Shows About Nothing
- Published: August 10, 2003
- Type:
- Section: Books
- Filed Under: Books: Entertainment, Books: Philosophy
- Writer: Ed Driscoll
- Ed Driscoll's BC Writer page
- Ed Driscoll's personal site
- Spread the Word
- Like this article?
- Email this
Save to del.icio.us
Comments on this articleComments
Bob,
You're absolutely right--there's a long tradition of comedies "about nothing". You could include the anarchy of the best of the Marx Brothers' pictures, or Bing and Bob's "Road" movies to the list as well.
But there's also a long tradition of American television sit-coms having certain formulas: the characters usually try to "grow a little" by overcoming some sort of moral dilemma in each episode, and the shows were usually oriented around a family environment. This tradition runs through all-American shows from Ozzie & Harriet to Happy Days, and even an apparently subversive show like M*A*S*H played by those rules as well.
Hibbs argues that Seinfeld's creators and writers' deliberately dynamited those rules, as simultaneously, numerous movies flirted with nihilism in the 1990s as well.
Here's an article that focuses a little bit more on Hibbs thoughts about the Seinfeld TV series, than I apparently did above.
In any case, while I'm not sure I fully agree with his conclusions, it's an interesting book, and an enjoyable read.
Regards,
Ed
Fascinating and important Ed, great job. I would add that "being" about nothing isn't the same thing as "believing" in nothing, which is the actual meaning of nihilism, and even seemingly amoral picaresques like Forrest Gump may not take a stand on the big issues, but certainly do on interpersonal issues, celebrating friendship, loyalty and family, while dramatically demonstrating the instant karma results of a life led nihilistically.
Add your comment, speak your mind
(Or ping: http://blogcritics.org/mt/tb/7495)
The Jack Benny radio show was a show about nothing. Exactly as much as "Seinfeld", since they're the same show. (Star: a stand-up comedian playing himself. Regular cast: a gang of neurotics, including one beautiful woman. Recurring one-joke characters. Repeat a joke 3 times in a show. Admittedly, the Benny show was more anarchic and post-modernist.) The Benny show was top-rated in the 1930s, 1940s, and 1950s. Was the audience nihilistic all that time?