▼ 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? •