Learning to Write with O: The Bill O’Blues.

Bill O’Reilly continues his war on whipper-snappers and good writing in the latest installment of his weekly column Why I Fear Things that are Unfamiliar from my Childhood in a piece entitled “High School Musical Blues” [full text provided below for reference].

“High School Musical Blues” is another installation in his award-winning series of “blues” pieces, including such slices of opinion journalism as:

• “The Convention Blues” from August, 2004
• “San Francisco Blues” from November, 2005
  
• “The Left-Wing Blues” from January, 2006
  
• In his piece “Al and the Oscar” from this past January, Bill suggests various ideas for documentaries that Hollywood (arty-types, Jews, etc.) should be making because Bill—despite his popularity, access to production facilities, and the distribution/PR power of News Corp.—is apparently too lazy to produce himself. One of which was “The Kyoto Blues,” which O sells as “[a]n honest look at the Kyoto Protocol which, in order to blunt pollution, would require major economic changes in the USA, but would allow massive pollution to continue in China and India. Is Al Gore available to narrate?” Astounding!

But back to the High School Musical Blues—O’s in-depth analysis of how saccharine, teeny-bopper fare goes unlauded by pinko rags like Entertainment Weekly (whereas more patriotic journals of fair opinion manage to present a more leveled coverage of HSM2).

Let’s just go over the lead:

There is no doubt that some entertainment critics have glorified rap "artists" like Eminem, Snoop Dogg, and Ludacris. Twenty years ago, pro-drug, anti-woman, and pro-violence lyrics would not have been embraced by the mainstream media for fear of public backlash. But today, bring on perversity in the name of diversity. Anything goes.

We’ll assume the word “artists” is placed in “quotes” because “O” does not think these “musicians” should be “grouped” in the same category as all those time-honored, pro-establishment popular artists. Like Elvis. As it turns out, O has a big boner for Elvis, which he relates in a 2002 piece called “Long live the King” (see, because Elvis’ nickname was “The King”--get it?). Like many old people inching closer to the grave, and remembering things that weren't, O seems to forget that while Elvis was “non-threatening and totally acceptable to young people in the 1950s,” he was anything but acceptable to many of those young people’s parents.

Via PBS (emphasis added):

Presley has already appeared six times on national television, but it is his appearance on The Milton Berle Show on June 5, 1956, that triggers the first controversy of his career. Presley sings his latest single, "Hound Dog," with all the pelvis-shaking intensity his fans scream for. Television critics across the country slam the performance for its "appalling lack of musicality," for its "vulgarity" and "animalism." The Catholic Church takes up the criticism in its weekly organ in a piece headlined "Beware Elvis Presley." Concerns about juvenile delinquency and the changing moral values of the young find a new target in the popular singer.…

While a young Bill might have been titillated by a handsome young southern man gyrating his bountiful and jean-clad pelvis on national TV, surely many older folks in O’s community weren’t reacting with the same enthusiasm. Much like today’s youth are pumped up by Eminem’s murder-spree fantasies and Snoop’s pot-soaked misogyny, today’s younger generation does not see Em, Snoop, or Luda as “threatening” or “[un]acceptable,” while many of their parents certainly do. And that’s kinda the appeal. I will not defend wanton violence and anti-girl themes of today’s music (yes, I am against both murder and rape—you can quote me on that). I also do understand the use (if not the need) for anti-social fantasy. The same way I am against putting sexual thoughts and flesh-bound innuendo at the forefront of your existence—the kind of mentality enthroned in much of “The King”’s early royal work. Would the O of today feel the same as the Elvis of yore?

Moreover, these types of cultural dischords have been going on for a long time. O is only the latest to play up neophobic fears to make the argument that we are in the throws of a “culture war." the likes of which mankind has never seen before. The term “war” is frighteningly misused in this context. In a war, there are no rules. The only objective in a war is to win, by any means necessary. The Civil War was a culture war. What O and friends are talking about is a cultural discussion that has been going on in every society that has had a middle class since the beginning of time.

Further curiosity is O’s nostalgia for the pop sensibilities of “20 years ago.” Do you remember 1987? A simpler year. A better, more innocent time when a wise-cracking Alex P. Keaton had all of America in stitches and AIDS was the new Polio. And, according to Dr. O, Professor of Popular Culture Studies, there were no “pro-drug, anti-woman, and pro-violence lyrics … embraced by the mainstream media for fear of public backlash.” Before 1987, these themes, of course, were never explored by the mainstream media. Except for that whole multi-platinum Hair Metal scene (not to forget the controversies of early-’80s actual metal scene). I think the Beatles, the Rolling Stones, Jimi Henderix—basically the whole musical landscape of the ’60s and ’70s—were known for talking about prohibited substances on occasion (Jefferson Starship made their way into 1978’s Lucas-banished and very mainstream Star Wars Holiday Special). Ice T and Slayer were waxing violent on subsidiaries of publicly-traded companies. Perhaps he meant 30 years ago?

Perhaps O’s strangest comment is the use of the phrase: “perversity in the name of diversity.” I’m not exactly sure what diversity has to do with High School Musical or naughty rap lyrics. Is he referring to racial diversity (which, I will go out on a limb and state: I am for racial diversity—O will have to answer for himself). I can suppose that he is referencing the tired defense that boring gangsta rap utilizes that diversity of the crowds counterbalances the values of the content. If this is the case, O should have made that more announced, otherwise people might think he’s simply referring to negros in music. But of course, it’s not just rap music, and certainly not just black folks, saying and doing controversial things. While “perversity” and “diversity” do rhyme (worthy of Snoop, if I do say so myself), their elected use seems like it might relate to something lesser in civil society. Sometimes, people should think what they're putting out into the media, ya know?

---

High School Musical Blues
By Bill O'Reilly for BillOReilly.com
Thursday, August 23, 2007

There is no doubt that some entertainment critics have glorified rap "artists" like Eminem, Snoop Dogg, and Ludacris. Twenty years ago, pro-drug, anti-woman, and pro-violence lyrics would not have been embraced by the mainstream media for fear of public backlash. But today, bring on perversity in the name of diversity. Anything goes.

The same thing can be said for these revolting torture movies. A number of critics believe they're just great—the more eye-gouging, the better. The director Eli Roth, whose sadistic films are beyond disturbing, is considered a genius in some quarters.

Thus, when wholesome movies like High School Musical and its sequel become big hits, there is cheering among many traditional Americans. But not among some critics.

Entertainment Weekly magazine said High School Musical 2 was "too simplistic." And writing in the Chicago Tribune, critic Maureen Ryan gently mocked the movie writing: "How strange and amazing that the most popular teen musical of our time features so little kissing. Honestly, High School Musical and its sequel make Grease look like Caligula."

So now I must break this to Ms. Ryan and Entertainment Weekly: These movies are not being viewed by high school kids—little children are watching them. "Simplistic" plays among 7-year-olds. Get a clue.

More than 17 million children and their parents watched the second installment of High School Musical, giving Disney an enormous money making machine. Even Caligula could figure this out: Many American parents are desperate for clean-cut entertainment for their kids. Kissing isn't an issue for most elementary school urchins; they just like singing and dancing minus the obscenities.

But that concept is unsettling among some liberal entertainment people. Richard Roeper, the film critic for the liberal Chicago Sun-Times, put out a column entitled "Disney Hit is No Victory for Right-Wing."

In said column, Mr. Roeper says that he doesn't believe critics would hammer High School Musical simply because it is wholesome. Roeper goes on to say that conservatives might distance themselves from the movie because it embraces "liberal" (his word) values like tolerance and interracial dating.

That's right, Richard, all those mean conservatives would never like anything tolerant, would they?

Here's what I believe, based upon more than thirty years of working in the media: Many critics are jaded and cynical. Most are extremely liberal. If the property is "edgy," anti-American, or over-the-top offensive, they will like it. If the writers of High School Musical had turned the dancing kids into flesh-eating zombies, the critics would have been wowed.

The sad truth is that if an entertainment project espouses traditional values, applauds the USA, or embraces religion, a good number of American critics will hoot at it, and demean those who find it worthy, sometimes even citing Caligula.

So here's my review of High School Musical. It makes little kids happy without encouraging stuff parents don't approve of, therefore it's a good show.

With apologies to decadent Roman emperors, that's the veritas.