When Did Satan Take Over T.V.

Jeff Flom | February 6, 2004
This doesn't seem right

Scott Hardie | February 6, 2004
I'm surprised it's not on FOX. Sandy Grushow really dropped the ball on that one; maybe that explains his resignation. I expect his replacement to play catch-up immediately; FOX has a reputation to protect! Maybe they will announce a show in which a group of Catholic choir-boys try not to get molested, or budding movie stars vie to get engaged to Jennifer Lopez for a two-picture deal.

Incidentally, as tacky and dehumanizing as our game shows have gotten lately, they're still nowhere near as bad as some of the painfully humilating game shows in Japan. I'm embarrassed for the human race when I see some of those.

Kris Weberg | February 7, 2004
Satan really prefers that you call him "Rupert Murdoch" these days.

Jackie Mason | February 7, 2004
[hidden by request]

Amy Austin | October 22, 2004
Here I am, digging up an old thread for ya... on the subject of TV ONCE AGAIN! (Heh... Between my TV and my computer, I'm definitely afraid of my ass growing roots... but I just chalk that up to my current state, and I know (hope?) that things will change once I get a job/life again.)

I went digging (and I didn't dig all that hard, so forgive me if this is ground you've already visited more than you care) specifically because of the commercials that I keep seeing on TBS for the "Gilligan's Island" "reality show"... and I thought this thread looked like a good place to comment on it.

I'm sure that I'm not alone in that I grew up on re-runs -- Gilligan and the Bradys being staples, of course. So I'm really curious to know what everybody else here thinks of this (quite possibly entertaining, but mindless) crap...

Anna Gregoline | October 22, 2004
I saw that a long time ago - I was hoping they would chicken out and not put it on the air. Dispicable.

Scott Horowitz | October 22, 2004
Am I the only one who thinks that the "new partridge family" show on VH1 looks scary?

Lori Lancaster | October 22, 2004
[hidden by request]

Scott Hardie | October 22, 2004
They mount new versions of TV shows all the time, usually with disappointing results (though "What's Happening Now!" and "The New WKRP in Cincinnati" had redeeming qualities). I guess the trend these days is to relaunch old sitcoms as reality shows. Certainly cable channels have successfully adapted popular dramas as documentary programs, like turning "ER" into "Trauma: Life in the E.R.", so there's an undiscriminating market for it. Personally, I wonder what a reality show version of "Herman's Head" would be like: We see footage of an ordinary guy going about his real daily life, punctuated with scripted commentary by four actors representing his psyche and asking themselves what the fuck he's thinking at every turn. Could be fun.

On a similar strain, I read that Will Ferrell's next film will be about an ordinary guy who can hear the film's deep-voiced narrator setting up each scene. Could be dynamite if the script really explores the possibilties.

Lori Lancaster | October 22, 2004
[hidden by request]

Amy Austin | October 22, 2004
HAHAHA... I like it -- "Herman's Head" -- that was a great show! I think it was among the first of that style... "Parker Lewis Can't Lose" also comes to mind... and now we have "Malcolm in the Middle" -- sort of a blend of Parker and "the Wonder Years"... I like that style. I think that would make a terrific "reality" show!

Will Ferrell. Now there's a guy that's (to me) hit or miss! Love him on SNL, love him in the Watabi bro character... I even thought "Elf" was pretty funny. But did anyone here think that "Anchorman" was as lame as I did??? P-U! And I heard some radio DJs carrying on about it and saying how much they liked being "old enough" to get the jokes that were not geared to the current teenage crowd. Well, I'm old enough to "get it", too -- but just like the real life references they were pointing to, I think it would have been much funnier on drugs. However, I could definitely give him a go on that concept...

Anna Gregoline | October 22, 2004
Anchorman was hysterical! I haven't laughed that hard in a movie theatre in ages.

Amy Austin | October 22, 2004
Hmmm... see, that seems to be the reaction of a lot of folks -- we don't understand it. We hated it and were glad that we were actually at a double feature drive-in where we got to take in Shrek 2... which made us chuckle. Also, partially compensating was the fact that we were actually in "the whale's vagina" when we saw it -- that's always good for a laugh.

Being on location is always a pretty cool thing to me, and the pinnacle of that was when I got to see the 2nd Tomb Raider movie in Hong Kong! Yes, it was probably a mediocre movie for most, but I will never forget it because the coolest thing was when they were running around that mall complex looking for that orb, and it looked just so much like the mall whose theatre we were in (they *all* look like that), that I was like, "It's HERE! IT'S HERE -- it's under my seat!!!" It really did feel almost like they would come bursting in running around at any moment -- very cool!!!

Anna Gregoline | October 22, 2004
What didn't you like about it?

I only saw part of the first Shrek movie, and besides not liking the animation, I hated the idea of it - seemed to be about how we shouldn't make fun of people - but they make fun of the short guy in it! I mean, how contradictory can you get?

Scott Horowitz | October 22, 2004
Drive in theaters... I wish we still had those on Long Island. I love seeing movies but I hate going to movies, yet I still go all the time. My friend and I went to see Scary Movie 3 (big mistake to begin with). At least 40 cell phones went off during it, which pissed me off to pay $9.50 to listen to cell phones. But the asshole next to me was translating the entire fucking movie into Spanish to the woman next to him. I was extremely pissed off so I said to him "Cahete." He gave me a dirty look, but I didn't care. It was really fucking rude. Since then, I try to avoid going opening nights to movies like that. I also try to catch late movies on either a Sunday night or during the week, when there are less kids there.

Todd Brotsch | October 22, 2004
HAHAAA Ask Mitz to hear more of this story....

We were at the midnight opening showing of Return of the King, I got up and asked the attendant if they were going to make an announcement about idots and their cell phones and how they don't turn them off.

The attendant said, yeah....there are some die hard people here, why don't you all turn off your phones.

Bloop bloop every phone went off.

Not one ring durring the presentation

Scott Hardie | October 22, 2004
I give credit to John Gunter for actually using those mandatory "please turn off your phones" announcements just before each film begins as a reminder to turn off his phone; it's not just in-one-ear-and-out-the-other for him like it is for most people.

I read that Kim Basinger went to a movie theater a few months ago, and while her friend used the ladies' room, she stood in the lobby and made a call on her cell phone. People gathered around and started laughing at her and pointing, and she grew frustrated, because not even rude fans will behave like that. When she finally finished the call and put the phone away, she turned around and saw that she was standing in front of a poster for "Cellular," featuring the prominent image of her talking on a phone.

Kris Weberg | October 24, 2004
I'm going to say something unpopular -- even more than cellphones, I can't stand parents who bring their very small children to movies that are PG-13 or higher in rating. The little kids invariably get bored or scared, start making lots of noise, while the parents do nothing or ineffectually shush them.

But then, I don't understand parents who bring their small children to fancy restaurants rather than springing for a babysitter. If you're at a fancy restaurant, you can afford a sitter; and the kids aren't exactly goign to enjoy the experience, in all honesty.

Scott Hardie | October 24, 2004
I totally agree with you, Kris. While I also want to give my kids early exposure to more sophisticated films and foods, I'm going to do it in the privacy of our home until they're mature enough to handle it in public. Parents here are welcome to tell me how unrealistic that is. :-)

I still get ticked off when I remember the father whose young grade-schooler sat between us at "Spider-Man 2." The kid opened his mouth to say something about every 13 seconds, and rather than shushing him, the father almost always responded to what the kid was saying, as though they were having an ongoing conversation at normal volume. Way to foster terrible manners in your kid, asshole.

Kris Weberg | October 24, 2004
The argument I get back, usually from parents of small children, is to the effect that having children shouldn't mean that you can't "have a life;" or that "it's good for the kids."

Guess what? Hvaing kids does mean your life HAS TO CHANGE! You don't get to pretend that a 4-year-old can behave like a proper adult just because you miss seeing the Matrix ont he big screen. Having a child means you make some sacrifices; the rest of us didn't choose to have children, you did -- therefore, you get to deal with the consequences of that choice. Trust me, the joys are more than worth the misfires, and in a few years, you can and should begin exposing your child to such things. But if they aren't ready, they aren't ready. And that means you either don't go out, or you bite the bullet and trust someone to watch the little dears.

Lori Lancaster | October 25, 2004
[hidden by request]

Scott Horowitz | October 25, 2004
I went to see The Grudge this wekend. The theater I was at is where one of my friends is the manager. He came up to me before we entered and told me that if any one acts up during it, that I should alert one of his staff. He also said that making a horror movie PG-13 is a mistake, not because of the content, but because anyone under 17 is too immature to watch this type of movie. I also try to go to later movies (10PM showings or later) to avoid kids in the theater. Though it doesn't always work (what kind of parent takes their 3 year kid to an 11:30 showing of anything?), it helps.

When I go to the movies with my friend Liz, we sit there and watch the people that enter the theater. We say "Oh shit" and "Oh crap" to almost every group of high schoolers that enter the theater.

Scott Hardie | October 26, 2004
I'm all about the adult-only theaters, no one under 21 permitted. It was a stark contrast seeing "Spider-Man 2" there in peace and quiet, then seeing it with the chatty little kid beside me in a normal theater two weeks later.

Kris Weberg | October 26, 2004
I can't imagine small children enjoying Spider-Man 2. For every action scene, there were at least three (well-written and acted, IMHO) dramatic scenes.

Lori Lancaster | October 26, 2004
[hidden by request]

Kris Weberg | October 26, 2004
That's probably true, but I stubbornly retain my failure of imagination.

When reality and I disagree, reality is wrong. :p

Amy Austin | October 26, 2004
Hahaha! Good one, Kris -- recording that one in the gray archives for immediate future use!

Steve Dunn | October 27, 2004
Not to bring this back around to the topic or anything, but I TiVoed Amish in the City and it was not a bad show. Not great production-wise, but the underlying message was that the apparent diifferences between people are usually only superficial, even when they seem extreme. It explored the limits of tolerance and open-mindedness from both directions (the city kids and the Amish kids were coming from completely different perspectives) and ended up demonstrating that the most natural human tendency is to seek out and celebrate the elements of humanity common to all people.

It was not a bad show. Those people formed a family of friends, and if it could happen there, it can happen anywhere.

Reality TV has the potential to change the world in a very positive way. The mullahs shut down Big Brother Middle East after only two episodes, even though it was immensely popular with the oppressed population. That says something.

Reality TV gives society insight into itself. It is a cultural Trojan horse, subversive yet apparently innocuous. The ruling authority won't even deign to pay attention.

Kris Weberg | October 27, 2004
How do a bunch of people acting artificially because they know cameras are on them all the time telling us bout anything except their own apparently chronic exhibitionism?

Anna Gregoline | October 27, 2004
I have to agree - I'm not sure how reality television gives society insight into itself - except perhaps into how shallow a lot of the public really is.

Amy Austin | October 27, 2004
Well, I think that was a well-spoken commentary, Steve, and it brings to mind an interesting consideration: exactly how much *do* we modify our behavior when we know that "people are watching" us?

Personally, I have always tried to maintain myself in a way that would consistently acknowledge the possibility of an audience present -- the old "would you say that to/in front of your own mother?" test. Obviously, it's not EVERY circumstance that can pass that test (after all, no one in their right mind really wants to think of their parents in most any case involving nudity!), but If the answer is "yes" in 99% of your life, then I think you're on a pretty decent track in life.

Scott Horowitz | October 27, 2004
What you guys are missing here is the main reason that reality TV exists.... production costs. Instead of having to pay a principle cast $1 million per episode each. They only have to pay the host and maybe 1 or 2 more people a significant amount of money. The putz who wins gets some sort of reward, and even with that, they still pay a shitload less than they would if they actually had a cast.

Anna Gregoline | October 27, 2004
I'm not missing that - we weren't really talking about the factors of why there is so much reality television, but yes that's a good point. It's the main reason why reality television is here to stay.

Steve Dunn | October 27, 2004
Participants on reality shows uniformly report that the weird sensation of being followed around by cameras all the time wears off after a couple days. I acknowledge it's an artificial situation, but that alone does not render the genre incapable of producing insight. Presidential debates are artificial situations, too. So is Shakespearean theater.

Reality shows are modern day morality plays. The characters and plotlines are immediately accessible to viewers because they are literally real, therefore they are very efficient in transmitting cultural information. Reality TV easily achieves some of the highest potentials of theater through technological reather than creative means.

Contemporary notions of loyalty, collegiality, tolerance, betrayal, reconciliation, empathy, forgiveness, sexual attraction - all these and many other complex human negotiations are portrayed in every episode of even the dumbest reality shows. Mark Burnett's shows elevate the genre to high art via compelling storytelling and visual aesthetics, but at the end of the day, the reality is the thing, not the packaging.

I understand some of you look down your noses at reality TV (and for that matter, rap music) and that's fine - to each his own. At some point, however, you may wish to consider taking a fresh approach to things you don't think you like. There will always be room for individual taste, but I find it productive and enlightening to discover what's cool about any cultural movement of significant size. I try to avoid broad statements such as "I don't like [insert genre here]" because it borders on a predilection for willful ignorance.

In 200 years, people will still be talking about Survivor, not Desperate Housewives.

Anna Gregoline | October 27, 2004
I love rap music - the good kind. But 99% of it out there seems to be crap.

I like some reality shows - but 99% of it is crap.

I'm stunned that they could be called "some of the highest potentials of theater."

I don't think my decision not to watch shows like "Joe Bachelor" can be called "willful ignorance." That's kind of offensive, really. I've watched some reality television, and I don't like it. I choose not to watch most of it. I choose not to fill my head with what I regard as crap. I'd rather watch a documentary or something with actual knowledge or value.

These shows can be interesting social experiments, but they really lack any kind of historical ring for me. And they numb my brain besides.

I resent being told that I am rigid in my ideas and not able to take a fresh approach to liking something just because I said I don't like something. I'm sure that wasn't your intention, but it just comes off very condescending to me.

Scott Horowitz | October 27, 2004
Hey, at least with Reality TV, we have someone to blame. Mark Burnett started this whole craze, so we can flip him off if we ever see him.

Steve Dunn | October 27, 2004
That's neat how you took a comment that was not directed specifically at you, twisted it into something I did not even say, and then proclaimed yourself offended. All within ten minutes of my post. Bravo.

Should you elect to dismount your high horse, you might notice my comment did not refer to you at all. You state specifically that you like some rap music and some reality shows, therefore you apparently do not fall into the category of wilfully ignorant people who write off entire segments of culture without even dipping a toe. Congratulations on your inquisitive mind. You're obviously extraordinarily proud of it, and you should be.

Kris Weberg | October 27, 2004
I also like some rap music -- not all of it, but does anyone who likes, say, rock 'n' roll like all rock music? -- but I find Reality TV contrived from the start.

The problem isn't just that the "characters" are aware that they're on camera, but also the self-selection element involved in wanting to be on Reality TV to START WITH. This is where the exhibitiopnism comes in -- someone volunteers to live in a fishbowl BEFORE the cameras roll. Already, you're not going to get normal people. Most people wouldn't consent to having cameras jammed in every corner of their home, or having their private lives broadcast to everyone.

How many people here have a 24-hour webcam, or would want one going? Who here, in all honesty, would agree to be on Big Brother or one of its ilk? Not many, I'd expect, and fewer still if the choice were more than hypothetical.

Too, you're not getting 'what's really going on" anyway -- reality TV participants routinely report that content is edited (and it'd have to be, for a variety of reasons) to "create" plotlines and conflicts for the viewers at home. And in return for betraying their clams to "honesty," they don't gove us anything back except an chance to indulge a kind of creepy postmodern voyeurism.

Shakespeare and TV drama may be artificial, but you know that going in. And besides, th dialogue is usually more insightful, and the characters better-rounded.

Anna Gregoline | October 27, 2004
What I don't like about reality television is the conflict angle - most of it relies on people being ugly to each other. There's enough of that in the world that I don't feel the need to watch more of it.

And there's enough of it on this thread now that I'll go elsewhere.

I wrote my impression of your comments - you attacked me directly. That's ugly.

Scott Horowitz | October 27, 2004
Can't we all just get along? :)

Steve Dunn | October 27, 2004
All apologies, Anna. I admit giving you a hard time, but it was not my intention to be ugly. I will not escalate any more arguments with you.

Kris, the exhibitionist aspect of reality TV is just part of the deal. Oliver Stone explored the same themes in Natural Born Killers. South Park deals with it all the time. "Being on TV" is some measure of importance and success in society, such that people will do virtually anything for it.

So yeah, you're seeing how exhibitionists behave in contrived situations. It still provides insight into various aspects of human interaction, certainly more than ER informs about medicine or the West Wing informs about politics.

Also, we're focusing very much on one narrow segment of what I consider to be "reality TV" - we're only talking about shows placing exhibitionists in contrived predicaments. I'm defending those shows to illustrate my point, but I view the genre more broadly to include news, sports, game shows and documentaries.

Todd Brotsch | October 27, 2004
My favorite form of reality tv: Sporting Events. Closely followed by Survivor. Please don't attack me.


This message has been approved by the Society for flame free posting.

If need be, I'll don the Nomex and utter the sacred words of The Human Torch.




FLAME ON!!!!

Anna Gregoline | October 27, 2004
Sorry about all that as well - I know I come across as abrasive on these forums, but I try to limit my comments to what is said and how I perceive it - not to any direct attacks on anyone. I apologize if the latter is how it's perceived by others, but know it's not my intention.

Kris Weberg | October 27, 2004
to Steve: I'm not sure the news or traditional documentaries can be called "reality TV" in the same way the game shows and "fishbowl" shows. One involves presenting events that happened, to a degree, independently of the camera -- the news, generally speaking, doesn't exist only because of the news show nor the subject only because of the documentary. In nearly all cases, the events chronicled would occur without the medium. This isn't true of Survivor or Big Brother. Shows like the latter two don't merely chronicle, however selectively, an extant situation or topic -- they produce the conditions of the human interaction they purport to show, not merely our view of them. And for me, that's a vital distinction in making claims of authenticity.

to Anna: I often think people mistake attacks on their ideas or statements as attacks on them. I don't know that it's always a problem of tone -- communicating tone properly is always elusive to start with on a message board -- as much as it's a kind of personal investment in one's viewpoints, a self-identification that rests on them. If true, that's a little scary; it suggests that we don't believe our ideas can change without our own identities changing.

to Steve, again: Actually, my statement to Anna might be a similar argument about confusing behavior in clearly public, self-selecting settings for authenticity on the part of the "actors."

to Todd: Those are also the sacred words of Scott Thompson.

Todd Brotsch | October 27, 2004
He says that too? I've never heard him do that, though I only see him do bits on the Tonight Show and The Late show. I thought he was funny for a while, when he was 'new' but then prop commedy becomes boring after a while.

Kris Weberg | October 27, 2004
No...that wasn't the joke. Remember his "Buddy" character from Kids in the Hall?

Scott Hardie | October 27, 2004
See, I think the problem with reality shows is the misnomer of the genre itself; exactly like Kris says, they're artificial in setup even if they star real people. But just like Steve says, there's value in them that cannot be gained in other mediums; if observing how humans behave in contrived circumstances had no value, then psychologists would be out of jobs. I've always thought of "Survivor" and "Big Brother" as game shows, while something like "The Real World" as a reality show. "Real World" purports to show real people dealing with their real lives, while "Survivor" only purports to show real people dealing with a highly unusual, pre-arranged situation. Besides, only the first season of "Survivor" really dealt with the people as people; since then they have been treated as players, as embodiments of various strategies instead of various personalities.

When it comes to people not being themselves on camera, for me that's the whole point. "Survivor" is an elaborate confidence game: The essence of the objective is to trick other people into trusting you. If you fail to recognize and eliminate the more prickly elements of your personality, you lose the game. There have been lying, scheming winners who have said they're nice people in real life, and there have been nice-guy winners who have said they faked their cheery attitudes to get the prize. The show is not actually about real personalities vying for power, it's about how the smart people trick the dumb people into believing something untrue about them. Look at the presidental campaign ads on television and tell me that's not a microcosm for society. :-)

Anna Gregoline | October 27, 2004
What I don't get about Survivor is how come anyone trusts anyone anymore?

Scott Hardie | October 28, 2004
You have to trust other players. Alliances are the only way to win the game without an enormous amount of luck, and nobody goes through 39 days of tropical hell with a million dollars on the line and leaves the outcome to chance. Even the two winners who had no allies among their respective "final four" (Jenna Morasca and Sandra Diaz-Twine) would not have gotten to the final four without making alliances along the way and benefitting from it. The ongoing questions of the series are, who will gain whose trust, and who will turn out to have been wise or unwise in extending that trust? Players who control their tribes psychologically are interesting, but I prefer the snakes, the guys like Rob Cesternino and Jon Dalton who weasel their way into a different alliance every week and have an ongoing role as the swing vote by perpetuating the situation so that the rest of the players will always want them on their side in the next vote. The tribes would be smart to eliminate these cancerous players early, but they rarely are.

Kris Weberg | October 28, 2004
I'm not sure why we'd need a reality show to learn about the powers of a high Social Intelligence Quotient when a quick glance at political, legal, or business careers would do the job in a tenth of the time.

Scott Hardie | October 28, 2004
Ironically, I think it's the artificial nature of "reality" shows that allows them that merit. It's hard for anyone to see the presidential election in purely academic terms, because anyone who looks at it closely gets wrapped up in the outcome. And why not?; the outcome is what the election is all about. But an election has real meaning in our society, and scowling at the people who don't "play the game" the way we think it should be played is no fun when those people win the election and take office for several years. On a reality show, we can observe the interchange, approve or disapprove of strategies, and cheer or jeer anyone we like, with no societal consequences in the end to make it anything less than a hypothetical. The microcosmic element of the shows is what drives their appeal.

Steve Dunn | October 28, 2004
I agree with everything Scott says.

I reassert my apology to Anna and reaffirm my commitment to making this a happy, friendly place. Hugs all around. (And free wings and beer at the 56th Street Hooters in New York tomorrow night - Anthony, I'm looking at you).

Now as to Kris...

the news, generally speaking, doesn't exist only because of the news show

I disagree with that. I think the news is, by definition, whatever appears on the news show. Moreover, I think a large and increasing percentage of ostensibly naturally occuring political events are packaged and sold specifically for the purpose of being on the news. Reality shows make explcit something that was heretofore often ignored or denied - the things we see on TV are not "real." Even the news is a heavily edited Cliff's Notes version of reality.

Todd Brotsch | October 28, 2004
ooo, I thought you were talking about carrot top Kris, someone else?

Anna Gregoline | October 28, 2004
He said Scott Thompson, how much more specific can he get?

Todd Brotsch | October 28, 2004
That's what I said earlier, and he said no his buddy. So obviously he was talking about someone else. Read the post again sweet heart, before i get mad.

You wouldn't like me when I'm angry.

Anna Gregoline | October 28, 2004
Stop. Calling. Me. Sweetheart. or Baby. or. whatever.

It's extremely annoying.

Amy Austin | October 28, 2004
oooohhh...

I swear, Anna -- I had not yet read this thread before posting my last...

Amy Austin | October 28, 2004
..."What I don't like about reality television is the conflict angle - most of it relies on people being ugly to each other. There's enough of that in the world that I don't feel the need to watch more of it"

And I agree with this point of yours on this subject.

Anna Gregoline | October 28, 2004
It's the main reason I stopped watching "Fear Factor." Yes, it was gross, but the thing I couldn't stand about it was the contestant's standing around saying, "You're so lame, you won't win, I'm better than you, nyah!" Boring and irritating.

Scott Horowitz | October 28, 2004
Oh, and I thought the worst thing about Fear Factor was Joe Rogan.

Anna Gregoline | October 28, 2004
Indeed. I had forgotten about Joe Rogan.

Kris Weberg | October 28, 2004
Carrot Top's real name isn't Scott Thompson, as far as I know.

Kris Weberg | October 28, 2004
And Anna's right -- my other big probem with Reality TV is that it's exactly the last people on Earth I'd want to talk to at a party.

Why would I want to spend an hour with them every week?

Todd Brotsch | October 28, 2004
http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0005488/

Anna Gregoline | October 28, 2004
Huh. Weird.

Personally, I never wanted to nor bothered to find out his real name.

Amy Austin | October 28, 2004
Thanks for clarifying that, Todd... I was a little confused, too -- that *is* interesting. (And I think he's still pretty funny, BTW... minus the AT&T spots) You do remember "Buddy", though, right? ;>)

Scott Horowitz | October 28, 2004
I think Chairman of the Board could be construed as the worst movie ever made!!!

Kris Weberg | October 28, 2004
Obviously Mr. Horowitz has yet to see Manos, the Hands of Fate.

Anna Gregoline | October 28, 2004
At least Manos has kitsch appeal.

Lori Lancaster | October 28, 2004
[hidden by request]

Kris Weberg | October 29, 2004
Manos doesn't have kitsch appeal -- kitsch is generally aware it sucks.

Anna Gregoline | October 29, 2004
I don't agree with that - all the kitsch I consider kitsch was altogether earnest in it's day.