How has the 45th American presidency begun affecting the greater cultural landscape? What micro and macro markers are developing that will remain as part of the historical discourse locally and globally?
I've been listening to a lot of Bush-era music lately, and there's a real doomsday feel to it that seems positively adorable today. As I've been seeking more out it feels like there was a profound change of cultural outlook across the mass-media spectrum not only from 9/11, but from the rhetoric, actions, and global support of the American presidency that followed. Things moved sharply from mild embarrassment that Bush had been elected to (now) surprisingly bleak sentiments and predictions of an increasingly militarized and authoritarian future.
Considering the new abyss we're plumbing with 45 in charge, it feels like the zeitgeist hasn't had a chance to absorb and begin fully articulating the change in political climate and landscape. What cultural leaders and landmarks should I be looking to now to watch this shift in realtime? I've got the Oliver contingent covered, I'm thinking less directed but more pervasive channels like music, literature, movies, non-talkshow TV, etc.
I'd be curious what Bush-era music you were listening to.
I keep thinking it would be cool if earnest, folks music made a comeback. I watched the video last night of the students at UVA singing hymns and it was really moving to me.
The recent season of Supergirl definitely felt super progressive. After meeting the woman president of the US she says something along the lines of "I don't understand how anyone could have voted for that other guy."
I expect we'll see more of that with the Netflix originals as they're pretty fast on the concept-to-release cycle for most things.
I have not been following new music very much, but I have also been listening to Rage Against the Machine again...
I'd be curious what Bush-era music you were listening to.
Me too. Before or after Gavin and Gwen broke up?
DSGamer wrote:I'd be curious what Bush-era music you were listening to.
Me too. Before or after Gavin and Gwen broke up?
Niiice 
I was doing a chronological run through Radiohead's back catalogue and Hail to the Thief really stood out to me as about 1000% more relevant now than it was on release. I then dug up some low-hanging fruit (e.g., SoaD's Hypnotise/Mesmerise, NiN's Year Zero) and kept expanding out from there (El-P - I'll Sleep When You're Dead, Muse - Black Holes and Revelations, Strapping Young Lad - SYL, Linkin Park - A Thousand Suns). That's about where I started... as you can see I was pretty genre-bound back in the day :p
Run the Jewels had been putting out a lot of great stuff, as you might expect from someone heavily involved in the Sanders campaign. Most does predate the presidency but there is this gem:
On topic and in terms of fictional television, I have noticed subtle references to current events in Designated Survivor, a subtler one in Voltron, and of course the blatant references to Trump in the last season of Doctor Who.
I don't really understand this artistic nostalgia for the Bush era. From what I remember, it was largely dominated by pro authoritarian media, with a few relatively underground groups like the Thermals or Ted Leo. I'm not prepared for much different in the 45 era.
Wow.
(And anybody else find it weird that 16 of the 17 members resigned? Like, is it now a committee with an acting executive director and one member?)
Tipper Gore says hello.
Holy shit.
Look at the first letter of each paragraph of that letter.
(Also, even without that part: That letter is amazing.)
:O
Nice.
Sort of related to the thread:
I'm watching Dr. Strangelove right now. It's quite surreal given current events because the satire in that movie makes sense given the past. Nothing about 2017 and 45 makes sense. I mean, I can sort of explain how it all happened starting in 2014 with gamergate, but geez.
Can you imagine trying to create a satirical film of all that's taken place? I mean, it's easy enough to do SNL skits of events as they take place, but I can't imagine making a film about all this. It'll be interesting to see what kind of art comes out of this.
:O
Nice.
Oh, wow!
Holy shit.
Look at the first letter of each paragraph of that letter.
(Also, even without that part: That letter is amazing.)
Wow.
Were I wearing a hat, I would doff it in their general direction. That is beautiful.
So I fired up what used to be one of my favorite 90s action movies, Executive Decision, on HBO Go just now and I immediately thought of this thread because a.) Steven Segal, friend of Putin, is in it and b.) so was Trump's then wife, then credited as Marla Maples Trump. Plus one of the co-stars is John Leguizamo, who like many people is now an outspoken critic of Donald Trump. And now I suddenly want to hear all the behind the scenes dirt about any involvement by Trump or the Russians during the making of this 1995 movie.
Edit: Oh God, I forgot this movie also introduce the fake Oceanic Airlines, one of whose planes was the one that crashed in the first episode of LOST.
Hot hot takes: Bush 41 had better music.
Hottest take: Thatcher had the best music
Hottest take: Thatcher had the best music
When are you ever gonna give her up?
Hottest take: Thatcher had the best music
You misspelled "Callaghan."
Tanglebones wrote:Hottest take: Thatcher had the best music
You misspelled "Callaghan."
Tanglebones wrote:Hottest take: Thatcher had the best music
When are you ever gonna give her up?
Never.
He's never gonna let her down, either.
Regarding the above letter, while I sympathize with the writers, a direct reproach in the first sentence pretty much guarantees the D won't read the rest of it. You've got to butter up the butterball a bit before getting to the point or he'll angrily cast it aside.
I wanted to get GWJer's takes on the following story about a lovely old downtown Memphis theater I used to frequent when I lived there.
The Orpheum theater will not show ‘Gone With the Wind,’ calling film ‘insensitive.’ Following the trend of chipping away at history, the 2018 Summer Movie Series has removed the movie -which it has regularly shown for decades- saying "The Orpheum cannot show a film that is insensitive to a large segment of its local population."
Maybe I'm old fashioned but does showing a movie or live entertainment now mean an endorsement of everything in it? I'm troubled by this modern sensibility that books and movies must be hidden from public view if they don't adhere to today's cultural mores. My fear is that this trend will creep up on more movies, with increasing scrutiny of their content.
Maybe I'm old fashioned but does showing a movie or live entertainment now mean an endorsement of everything in it?
Maybe the question to ask instead is whether removing a movie constitutes a rejection of *something* in it.
In other words, don't assume people do things because they have a well-thought out philosophy they are adhering to, working from the general principle to a judgement of the specific. What most people do is they see an action that could have a positive effect on the world, and they take it. I wouldn't say it reduces down to pure symbolism, but the symbolism of the act is a major part of it. And symbolism works to change the culture even when you don't stop *every* showing.
edit to tl;dr: it's not about the movie. It's about how rejecting that movie announces that this is a place which rejects bigotry.
I'm all for symbolic actions that improve society, and it's laudable that the Orpheum Theatre Group rejects the highly racist atmosphere of that time in history. Instead of hiding the film though, I think it would be of greater value to the public if they showed the movie, with a live introduction about how far we've come as a society, as well as challenges we still face.
Instead of hiding the film though, I think it would be of greater value to the public if they showed the movie, with a live introduction about how far we've come as a society, as well as challenges we still face.
The greater value would be to show 12 Years a Slave instead of a Hollywood Golden Age whitewash of the South.
I disagree that omitting a historic yet highly whitewashed movie and replacing it with something more culturally appropriate is more valuable. Show them both, that would illustrate our progress and remaining challenges.
I disagree that omitting a historic yet highly whitewashed movie and replacing it with something more culturally appropriate is more valuable. Show them both, that would illustrate our progress and remaining challenges.
That's actually a good idea and a good approach. Not really the same in a political and social justice sense, but I remember back in seventh grade, we studied West Side Story and Romeo and Juliet back-to-back and did comparisons between the two.
I've been wondering if the political climate we've had for the past number of years/decades has contributed to my own media and entertainment choices. Currently, I cringe away from a lot of things that are overly-bleak, have bad endings, not much hope, etc. I rather despise the whole grimdark phase and the moral greyness to the point where it seems that everything is completely relative and there truly is nothing good under the sun.
Hence, I tend to avoid such choices unless they are included as part of a topic I'm studying for some other purpose.
And yet, I remember back in my teenage/very young adult years that I went through a big horror phase where people regularly came to bad ends and such, and it didn't particularly bother me or affect me.
I think that maybe now, our real world has become too much like the fantasy or vice versa and perhaps a reason why I now shy away.
Or maybe current media reflects current reality too much, and in the past, there was still a lot of distance between current reality and the darker stuff.
I disagree that omitting a historic yet highly whitewashed movie and replacing it with something more culturally appropriate is more valuable. Show them both, that would illustrate our progress and remaining challenges.
More culturally appropriate? Try more historically appropriate. The South was much more about 12 Years a Slave than it was Gone with the Wind.
And what progress have we made?
That 153 years after losing the Civil War morons from the South (and idiots from the North) are crying like babies that people want to tear down statues and monuments to literal traitors to our country?
Those people need to be reminded they actually lost the Civil War (and that their great grand pappy risked his life to keep other people enslaved). They should be deeply ashamed rather than Female Doggoing about muh heritage.
Those people need to be reminded they actually lost the Civil War (and that their great grand pappy risked his life to keep other people enslaved). They should be deeply ashamed rather than Female Doggoing about muh heritage.
This is a good point. After all, the Nazi's are a part of Germany's heritage now too, but you don't see them running about erecting monuments and swastikas all over the country in celebration of it.
Pages