Monday, February 05, 2007

Commercials: Brainless or Significant?

Ah the Super Bowl. One of America’s favorite and overrated pastimes has ended, and the morning after, everyone wants to talk about the commercials (was there anything about the game that was really noteworthy?).

The New York Times Online took the “philosophical” approach to watching TV, and found that this year’s commercials were violent because “they reflected the toll of the Iraq War.” Ughhhhh… Via STUART ELLIOTT:
“No commercial that appeared last night during Super Bowl XLI directly addressed Iraq, unlike a patriotic spot for Budweiser beer that ran during the game two years ago. But the ongoing war seemed to linger just below the surface of many of this year’s commercials.

More than a dozen spots celebrated violence in an exaggerated, cartoon like vein that was intended to be humorous, but often came across as cruel or callous.”

Thank you New York Times! It’s sad enough that most Americans now need individuals to construe the news for them; we now need to have worthless commercials interpreted as well!

For the love: they are commercials! They are by definition stupid and worthless to anyone but the advertisers trying to get you to purchase what they are selling.


jams o donnell said...

Oh come now Roland. surely they are pearls of art worthy of critical analysis!

Roland Dodds said...

This is true Jams, and to be honest, I do think you could have honest criticism of commercials and the like. I do not think the commercials used in the Super Bowl using sophomoric violence did so because of some festering issue with Iraq. Last time I checked, slapstick and childish hostility were common before the war on American television sets.