http://www.heraldsun.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5478,19760178%255E2902,00.html

Did AE shag Marilyn?

Reminded me of Roeg’s film “Insignificance” where there is a lovely scence of Einstein explaining special relativity to Theresa Russell as MM. From memory an enjoyable filum.

http://www.heraldsun.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5478,19761542%255E2902,00.html

Here’s a trackback:

http://larvatusprodeo.net/2006/07/11/big-little-brother-06/

I was only, reporting my personal experience and motivation in watching what I see as an analogous show. I do think, however, that sexual interest and awakening does begin, and play a significant role in behaviour, before 14. And BB and soap operas are convenient vehicles for these emotions to be stirred and explored. Again this is from a sample of one.

But of course Channel Ten milk the show for all they can get out of it, and titilation certainly doesn’t do them any harm!

I was a devotee of “Number 96″ from when I was 11ish or so for a year or so I think, my memory is a little hazy. The see through blouses of Abigail, Georgina’s antics with many and various, the queerness of Joe Hasham and then the piece de resistance, the full frontal nudity of Vera Collins in the one hour special “Black Mass” episode.

The next big attraction for me after the titilation was the exhaustive post episode analysis in the school yard the next day.

But then one grows out of it…

I reckon the whole controversy is “Plus ce change….”

Once upon a time people entertained themselves … [with] the Bible, the Mahabharata etc etc etc. These epic stories communicated profound archetypes about how to live with wisdom, compassion and understanding. In effect they were transmission vehicles of/for truly human culture.

Now ALL we have is the dreadful banality of BB. No wisdom whatsoever…

So what’s the problem here? That Big Brother refuses to deliver moral messages?

The “epic stories” John refers to were nothing more than forms of moral and ethical conditioning, gently encouraging people towards acceptable standards of behavior. But since the Enlightenment, Western societies have progressed towards an environment where people are expected to construct a personal set of ethics and morals.

Big Brother is just a consequence of this philosophy — the “morality plays” of old are replaced with non-judgemental and ambiguous scenarios where people are expected to construct their own meanings and judgements. Look at The Age forums [1] after the incident [2]. Do these seem like people who are passively absorbing “bad morality”?

Drama or art it ain’t. But Big Brother taps into celebrity culture and the diminishing gap between public and private life. It also encourages public discussion of tricky issues such as peer pressure, social bullying and the line between sex play and sexual harassment. I can’t see any of those consequences as a bad thing.

John, you write “Once upon a time people entertained themselves by listening to stories and dramatisations of the great literay epics. The Bible, the Mahabharata etc etc etc. These epic stories communicated profound archetypes about how to live with wisdom, compassion and understanding.”

Hmm, well far be it from me to speak dismissively of material which, as you suggest is of great depth and import. As for “living with wisdom, compassion and understanding”, I think you’re romanticising. I’ve not noticed the Bible being a particularly good example. You wouldn’t want to be gay now would you? On BB though, it aint no crime. Maybe they’re a bit more compassionate, more human – wise? Who knows?

I don’t agree with the idea that because 1.5 million children ‘enjoy’ it, that this somehow bestows credibility on it, all it shows us is that there are indeed many many fools out there with nothing much better to do. Lots and lots of people go to public hangings too. This argument that something is given validation because so many people enjoy or do it (and who am I to suggest depriving them from this RIGHT of theirs. Sheesh) it is a really dumb nonssense. (Public hangings? now there’s an idea to raise a few quid).

I watched it once ie in a series. I think its unquestionably garbage as far as what television could possibly be, I’d rather watch Dr Who or Attenborough, but I did find it enthralling. John Howard won, the lefty lost. Life imitates art. The cuntry’s fuct. Sorry that was my tourettes.

Now ALL we have is the dreadul banality of BB. No wisdom whatsoever.
The barbarians rule OK.
Brought to one and all by the champion of the “culture” wars the Murdoch media

I think the actual show as well as viewing habits associated with it, are an interesting reflection on our society and sometimes it provides a useful platform for one or another issue. It can be, like Nicholas says, an interesting sociological study or human resources training tool and it can also be an interesting study in how our highly media-saturated and mediated society functions; how, for example, moral panics can be whipped up.

Hmm…Big Brother and Rock and Roll. As you say Steven, neither represents the decline of civilisation, but still, they do represent very different things – you can’t just lump them under the heading of ‘things that oldies don’t understand.’ Put another way; Australian Idol and the Saints – Compare and Contrast.

Big Brother is unquestionably garbage … By all accounts, it is an excruciating blancmange of meaningless banter … (emphasis added)

Part of me wants to applaud Andrew West’s transparency in admitting he has never actually watched the program he is rubbishing. Most writers at least pretend they have watched/read/visited the exhibit of cultural barbarianism du jour.

Of course, the actual nature of Big Brother isn’t important. It’s just a waypoint to touch on his way through to an all-too-predictable attack on John Howard. And Andrew’s approach is unfortunately typical of Left rhetoric these days — frequent assumption of values as fact (“[Howard and Costello's] doctrine of materialism”) and selective choice of facts (“When Labor was in power … Ten used to screen high-quality drama”) without any attempt to present both sides of the argument.

Last time I checked, you don’t win new converts to a cause by sticking your fingers in your ears and going “la-la-la”. Andrew may not want to hear the inconvenient truth, but the facts are that a large number of young people enjoy watching Big Brother. To trot out the old argument, it’s not a sign of the decline of civilisation any more than rock’n'roll was.