▼ EDITORIAL EOITOIMN-CHIEF: Sarah Kickler ASSOCIATE EDITORS: Ryan Frank & Carl Yeh NIGHT EDITOR: Sarah Kickler EDITORIAL EDITOR: Mike Schmierbach editorials, letters, commentary and perspective NEWSROOM: (541)346-5511 DISPLAY ADVERTISING: (541) 346-3712 BUSINESS OFFICE: (541) 346-5512 CLASSIFIED ADVERTISING: (541)346-4343 Kids’ films encourage summer reading ■ OUR OPINION: The latest batch of summer childrens movies helps make kids as idiotic as the on-screen action You know it’s a bad summer when Disney’s latest batch of animated fluff and merchandise tie-ins is the best movie available for kids. The heat of summer has combined with the noise of EMU construction to leave us seeking respite in the air-conditioned shade of local movie theaters. While sum mer pickings are always slim, this year has seen a particular drought in one big-money genre: children’s films. Consider, for a moment, the most heavi ly advertised and widely available offer ings being served up to the pre-teen crowd. Hercules. Good Burger. Wild America. George of the Jungle. And, God help us all, Air Bud. Seizing the cultural high ground, Her cules features a reworked Greek myth, made palatable for the average filmgoer. Unfortunately, the new tale, in which Her cules is bom of a legitimate coupling be tween Zeus and Hera, is anything but palatable to someone familiar with the original story. Placing that artistic atrocity aside for a moment, consider some of the other plots out there. On the far end of the spectrum from Hercules is Good Burger, which shows every sign of being a regressive re working of Amos and Andy for the 1990s. Equally frightening is Air Bud, a film about a basketball playing dog. And we thought Shaq was the worst actor to come out of sports. More disturbingly, critics have actually been praising some of these films. George of the Jungle has received many positive reviews, and Hercules has been lauded by some as the best film of the summer. Sig nificantly, a trend has emerged in the crit ics’ responses to bad cinema — bad movies are okay as long as the kids will like them. READER VOICES A number of critics rate films on sepa rate scales: one for children, and one for the rest of us. While we admit that a partic ularly elusive film by Lynch or Felini will probably escape the average youngster — or the average American — this form of split criticism is still a bad idea. The problem we have With these ratings is the same we have with the current crop of films: they treat kids as though they are idiots. Children, like the rest of us, have a wide range of artistic tastes. Undoubtedly, there is a group of people out there who en joys the fart jokes and tree smashing of George of the Jungle. We’re sorry. Unfortunately, critics and film produc ers seem to have decided that every kid in America tits into this category. It we want to sell to children, the logic goes, let’s make an idiotic film. And if the film is idi otic, then children must enjoy it. The mentality of a culture is very often determined by the artistic language it is taught. When PBS is presented as exclu sively intellectual, and even PBS dumbs down to its perceived audience, it is little wonder kids would rather watch people roll around in slop than learn about litera ture and art. If children were not force-fed utter sludge and told that “high” art is beyond their grasp, those children might show an interest in films that went beyond food fights and flatulence in search of humor. This could be a wonderful thing for soci ety. Imagine a youth raised to demand class and aesthetic value instead of booger jokes. A youth that would actually prefer to learn, and to learn in an intellectual way, rather than in the prepackaged music video style of PBS and Channel One. Perhaps the real problem is that the cor porations who make children’s entertain ment have imaged such a world and have decided it would significantly lower their profit margin. Now there’s a fantastic myth worth making a movie about. This editorial represents the opinion of the Emerald editorial board. Responses may be sent to ode@oregon.uoregon.edu. How do you feel about all the construction on campus? ‘It really hasn’t dis rupted me. I notice it, but it hasn’t altered my daily routine. ” Brian Fitzgerald Community education “It’s great to improve the campus, but they should do it at night when no one is here." Jeremy Bucy Art history “The noise is definitely a problem, especially in Gerlinger. Is it all necessary? ” Stacey Wolfe Economics “It’s really inconvie nient to get through the EMU. I don’t like that the food court and the convenience store are gone.” MayumiEgawa Pre-joumalism “It’s great because they’re improving the EMU, and it hasn’t af fected my entrance to the building." Kiri Johnson Biochemistry “The construction on campus hasn’t both ered me, but the jog ging path near Autzen has been graveled over." Allan Kays Professor, geology To coverage of the Versace tilling: Not only did the media and police agencies go orgas mic over die event, but coverage too often focused on the gay lifestyle of the suspected killer. NBC went so far as to speculate Cunanan would re turn to his home town of San Diego simply because it was Gay Pride weekend. To saving the tion tax waiver: Congress has ap parently dropped plans to eliminate a waiver currently in place that exempt ed free tution from taxes. Such waivers i are an important part of a university system necessary for preparing edu cated voters. Or is that why Congress was upset in the first place? •