Entertain me, dammit!

It seems likely that entertainment and religion were once inextricably linked. Furthermore, the priest, the poet, and the chanter were likely one and the same person. Chanters would in time become what we recognize as singers. They added a musical accompaniment, at first only percussion. Then ritual dance joined in. These enhancements made the bond between entertainment and religion even stronger.

At some point, we realized that worship must engage eyes as well as ears. The visual arts were needed to give shape and color to shrines and representations of the divine. This was yet another form of entertainment. It had the mark of all that we call entertaining: the power to command our notice, evoke emotion, and give us an inexplicable sense of enrichment.

It was comedy that first made us think of entertainment as an independent phenomenon. There is nothing funny about religion. To laugh, someone’s dignity has to be punctured. It’s a minimum requirement. We can’t have gods tripping on banana peels, but if a proud hunter catches a spear in his ass, that might be hilarious. We noticed as well the artistic similarity between a heroic narrative and a comedic narrative. The droll story became an art form unto itself.

Entertainment evolved further when we realized how much in love we were with ourselves. Our flaws had given birth to tragedy and comedy. Might our opposite qualities, excellence of the mind and body, also be entertaining? Yes, in fact. Watching a savant compute the cube root of 53,582,633 or recall the box score of a baseball game on a given date makes us gasp at the magic of the mind. Watching jugglers and acrobats at work or a running back breaking tackle after tackle has a similar awe-inspiring effect. We love being amazed by ourselves.

Civilization had barely begun when entertainment, like Aphrodite emerging from sea foam, bubbled forth from the womb of religion. It seemed a gift from the gods, ready to be shaped into myriad wonders. But as I thought back across the intervening millennia, I felt the need to judge. Had entertainment kept its ancient promise to bring us a mirthful demeanor, a rich sense of the beautiful, a deep comprehension of our humanity, and the wisdom to know what is within our grasp and what is beyond it? The answer had to be complicated. Perhaps it could be derived from a broad survey of entertainment sources. I volunteered myself for this task. I turned on my TV, which is equipped with Roku, a device that gives access to dozens of streaming services. After sampling exhaustively, I compiled the following report about the state of today’s entertainment, broken out by contemporary genres.1

Awash in testosterone

The leading characters in this genre are always muscle men who are invincible in combat. They can knock out, maim, or outright kill a gang of vicious thugs set against them. They have no super powers (that’s another genre), but their skill in the martial arts is so exquisite that they’ve become a force of nature. We can stream them in the Bruce Lee movies; the Jean-Claude Van Damme movies; the Steven Seagal movies; the Kung Fu TV series; the Walker, Texas Ranger TV series; the Rambo movies; the Jack Reacher movies, where undersized Tom Cruise laughably plays the linebacker-sized Reacher; and the Reacher TV series, where the casting is less funny.

None of these men has a personality; it’s all bad guys versus a meat grinder. The only exception that comes to mind is Matt Damon’s rendering of Jason Bourne. Robert Ludlum gives us a backstory with considerable insight into who Bourne is, and it makes all the difference.

Deductive genius

Here it’s the brainiacs who entertain, and they all seem to do it in the same way — they pay preternatural attention to details. They are the heroes and heroines of murder mysteries. The benchmark for this genre is, of course, Sherlock Holmes, which is the same as saying Arthur Conan Doyle is the benchmark for mystery writers. The closest approach to his genius is the TV series Columbo, created by the gifted screenwriters William Link and Richard Levinson. The much revered and overrated Agatha Christie doesn’t match their standard, nor have any writers since. I had some hope for the TV series Poker Face, about a woman who can always sense a lie told in conversation. After a promising start, it’s quality has faded.

Masters of this genre will no doubt come again, but the wait may be a generation or more.

Fantasy run amok

All success breeds excess. Evidence of that is plentiful in the entertainment industry.2 It isn’t enough to amaze and delight with tales of physical and mental prodigies. To sell millions of tickets, you have to engage in fantasy. And I’m not talking about a boy who finds a magic lamp. That’s a simple, coherent fantasy. I’m talking about a character who commands thunder and lightning and travels between dimensions — Thor. Or communicates telepathically with marine life — Aquaman. Or deflects bullets with wrist bracelets — Wonder Woman. Or overcomes obstacles through sheer will power — the Green Lantern. Or exceeds the speed of light just by running! — Flash. Or regenerates his body so quickly he is virtually immortal — Captain America.

You might ask how such super powers are acquired. Turns out, the answers are just as fantastic as the powers themselves. The X-men, all mutants, are the result of aliens coming to earth a million years ago and experimenting with the DNA of proto-humanity. Aquaman got his powers directly from Poseidon so that he might take Atlantis back from an invading dimension. Captain America was infused with Super-Soldier serum. Batman was infused with, well, … inherited wealth, which he uses to buy a funny costume, a souped-up car, and an assortment of crime-fighting gadgets. And, of course, Spider-Man was bitten by a radioactive spider.

In 2009, Disney bought Marvel Studios for $4.24 billion. It then owned the rights to nearly all the Marvel characters, which number in the dozens.3 Ever since, they’ve mixed and matched Marvel characters in adventures to save the Earth, the galaxy, and the universe. There’s now no end to the inanity and bad taste they’re prepared to bring to the movies and TV. I foresee a blockbuster in which Jiminy Cricket, Han Solo, Buzz Lightyear, Thor, Mulan, and Peter Pan embark on a voyage into the past to stop Buddy Holly, the Big Bopper, and Richie Valens from flying into a winter storm, thereby saving rock music.

Bankable ugliness

There are two emotions, both ugly, that audiences can’t get enough of. One is revenge, which has deep roots in ancient Greek drama. What today’s filmmakers have that the Greeks didn’t is the technology of special effects. Now audiences can immerse themselves in the deaths of the innocent and guilty alike, with mutilation and gore never presented to previous generations. The deranged thinking of the principals is also on display. It’s certain that there are members in every audience who are nursing a deep grievance, real or imagined. I cringe to think of the psychological effects that murderous thoughts and scenes have on bitter minds.4

The other ugly emotion is horror. The thrill of it lies in the anticipation of gore and its realization. A horror story differs from a revenge story in that the second thrill, the retribution, is absent. The antagonist may survive, be subdued, or be killed; it doesn’t matter so long as the horror has ended. The audience is grateful for the thrill of briefly escaping from their humdrum, predictable lives. I see this only as a failure to find joy in the humdrum and predictable.

Pop music

When we speak of musical entertainment today, it’s generally understood that we mean music for a mass audience, and hence music that is commercially successful. It’s usually vocal music with an instrumental accompaniment — often guitars and percussion. More often than not, it’s rhythmic, loud, and even raucous. The words are insistent but can be barely discernible because of amplification. The subject rarely deviates from sexual obsession, be it infatuation, yearning, aggrieved love, or in-your-face fornication. If you want music that’s socially meaningful or cerebral or imaginative or deeply affective, you’re a musical pariah. Look for a Broadway show or a venue for classical music.

To sample the depths to which pop music has sunk, you can do no better than look at Super Bowl halftime shows. It’s here you’ll see musical performances that the world’s biggest audiences crave most. Here’s a link — dive in!

If you’re a glutton for punishment, carry on. Here’s a recent selection from the US Top 40.

How did we reach these depths? I’ve found a couple of credible answers. Look here or here.

Laughter

Where do you look for a good laugh? I’m partial to stand-up comedy and topical humor. I don’t go to comedy clubs, so I rely on TV shows and YouTube videos. Trevor Noah is a stand-out; I can’t imagine The Daily Show without him. Stephen Colbert and Jimmy Kimmel are generally good for a laugh. John Oliver is more informative than funny. If only he would dial down the gratuitous vulgarity. Bill Maher is more funny than informative and has the same problem with the vulgarity dial. That said, his closing sermons on Real Time are often gems. Jimmy Fallon of The Tonight Show is the worst of the bunch. His expertise is schmoozing with celebrities, who show up only to promote a movie or a book. This drivel infects the other late night shows but to a lesser degree.

I rarely enjoy sitcoms. The ones about families — traditional, mixed, minority, whatever — range from awful to tedious. Once I got my Leave It to Beaver inoculation, I was done with lovable kids. Of course, I enjoyed Cheers, Taxi, and Frasier (all by the same production company) because the writing was brilliant and the comedy resided in the characters, not in the situation. If the characters have no edges, no situation can make them funny.

Romcoms are just as disappointing. Almost all are formulaic and rely on the celebrity of the he and she to create sparks. Producers speculate continually about the possible chemistry between Stud Muffin X and Sex Goddess Y. Seldom do you see a romcom in which the principals are well crafted and completely incompatible, yet fated to get their minds reshaped. A rare genius can pull this off, as we see in The Goodbye Girl, Groundhog Day, and You’ve Got Mail, three of my favorite movies. We’ll have to wait for the likes of Neil Simon, Harold Ramis, and Nora Ephron to grace our lives again.

Porn

The ancients didn’t have porn as theater, so far as I know. It would have made for a thrilling sideshow to, say, a slave market or a brothel. I’m sure they read pornographic stories. I read Ovid’s Metamorphoses in college. He hoped it would make his name immortal, and he’s still in the running.

Porn blossomed only when it leapt from novels, paintings, and photographs to film, and I cheer for its progress. I find it a legitimate and welcome form of entertainment. What I lament about it is the same lamentation I have about other forms of entertainment: it’s so damn easy to do it badly. What I see too often in porn is the objectification of women in heterosexual sex. The man becomes a beast. He slaps the woman’s breasts and buttocks. He lays hands on her throat. He uses bondage. He forces her into impossible contortions … and she enjoys it! Then there are the contrived scenes of 2-on-1 or 3-on-2 or full-blown orgies. I call this Rube Goldberg sex. It’s just stupid.

The only thing I demand from porn is not to model perverse love making. I’ve found that the only porn makers who reliably follow this requirement are women!

Virtual reality

I haven’t sampled this form entertainment; it’s still in its infancy. Nevertheless, its power will soon be upon us, so speculation is imperative.

Obviously, we’ll want VR to create mind spaces where we can fulfill our deepest desires. Some will take rapturous vacations in Fiji. Some will walk on the moon and search for golf balls. Some, like the Trump brothers, will hunt big game and fill up trophy rooms. Most, I’ll wager, will use VR to create porn fantasies. The most glorious VR achievement will be a technology that can mine memories and interpret brain waves. It will then be able to customize dreamstuff and maximize pleasure.

At that point, we’ll be ready to ask the ultimate question about entertaining ourselves: Is it the goal of human life to replace reality with entertainment?

________________________

1You won’t see Reading in this sampling because I rarely find it entertaining. I read mainly to gather information. I prefer to say that reading, at best, is “gratifying.”

2Yes, industry. Entertainments are now products made for and distributed to mass audiences. Such products require a collaboration of businesses, an industry. One could speculate on how industrialization affects artistic minds, but this isn’t the time.

3This diagram shows which characters Disney owns and which they share with other enterprises.

4Revenge movies are often notable successes at the box office. See a list.

13 thoughts on “Entertain me, dammit!

  1. If you want to be properly entertained by a real spy log on to TheBurlingtonFiles website and browse around it including some recent news articles (such as on 31 October 2022). You’ll soon want to read Beyond Enkription and we understand the eBook is a free read for certain classes of Amazon customers.

  2. Ken, you must be a superhero yourself, to have “[sampled ‘entertainment’ exhaustively to compile this report],” for I am exhausted from merely reading it – a superhero I am not! I hope no producer gets the bright idea of developing a show depicting your odyssey.

  3. Ken, whether you achieved your goal or not depends on what it was. What goal were you trying for or did you think you had achieved?
        Other than weariness, I came away with a need to review what “entertainment” means, and what I myself find entertaining. What immediately struck me in reading your opening paragraphs is that our respective conceptions of entertainment, and what we find entertaining, seem to be quite different. I think my exhaustion stemmed from finding the things you surveyed highly unentertaining – SO unentertaining that just reading about them, even in your scintillating way, depleted my energy. (In fact, I was in a funk most of the day yesterday.)
        Right off the bat, with your opening, unsupported statement that “It seems likely that entertainment and religion were once inextricably linked,” you had me reeling. Huh? Why does that “seem likely”?
        And then, in the same, opening paragraph: “It had the mark of all that we call entertaining: the power to command our notice, evoke emotion, and give us an inexplicable sense of enrichment.”
        But maybe my understanding of “entertainment” and “to entertain” had been wrong all along? I went to Merriam-Webster:

    entertainment
    1 a: amusement or diversion provided especially by performers
        “hired a band to provide entertainment”
    b: something diverting or engaging: such as
    (1): a public performance
    (2): a usually light comic or adventure novel

    to entertain
    1: to show hospitality to
        “entertain guests”
    2: to provide entertainment (https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/entertainment) for
    3 a: to keep, hold, or maintain in the mind
        “I entertain grave doubts about her sincerity.”
    b: to receive and take into consideration
        “refused to entertain our plea”

    It seemed I was right: you were using the terms in much different senses. “Power to command our notice” is a far cry from amusement or diversion. “Sense of enrichment”?! In your Footnote 1 you seem to contradict yourself: “You won’t see Reading in this sampling because I rarely find it entertaining. I read mainly to gather information. I prefer to say that reading, at best, is ‘gratifying’.” You don’t get a “sense of enrichment” from reading? Mere gratification?

    • My post is a critique of contemporary entertainment. My goal is for readers to find the criticism insightful and provocative. I’m hoping to get comments like “I realize now why …”, “What you don’t understand about fantasy is …”, “Today’s music is wonderful because it …”, or “I never watch ‘manly men’ movies for another reason …”.

      I can’t understand why you don’t see the link between religion and entertainment. It seems self-evident to me. Nor do I understand why you needed to look in a dictionary or why you feel vindicated by what you found. But I do see that you took away much more than the need for a nap, and I thank you for that.

      • Ken, I appreciate the care you take in all your writing, even (or especially) your comments. The majority of commenters seem to dash their comments off with little attempt to make them clear (or even grammatical).
        I use your reply to me as my template in replying to your reply:

        This reader did find your latest critical scratching both insightful and provocative.
        I realize now that I should have drunk a power beverage and studied the post with sympathy toward the sorts of “entertaining” films and programs you invested so much time in examining and critiquing.
        What you don’t understand about entertainment I tried to elucidate by quoting from an austere word authority and critiquing a couple of examples of your uses of the word. I of course understand (and sympathize with) your rejection of my critique as my own attempt at self-vindication. You are a much more highly skilled self-vindicator than I could ever hope to be. (I believe I acknowledged your being a superhero in my very first comment.)
        Today’s music contributes to a general numbing of people’s ability to detach themselves from the buzz of confusion coating human life with thicker and thicker layers of unselfconsciousness.
        I sometimes watch programs I don’t like because my wife wants to watch them, and she repays me the same communal courtesy. You’re familiar with the wedding-vow line, “for better or worse”?
        I recognize that your saying you don’t understand my not seeing the link between religion and entertainment is a ploy (a clever ploy, right up there with the best of your ploys) to try to get me to say why I don’t think there’s a link, but you are the one in the witness box, and one of your readers has asked you to please explain why you think it’s “highly likely” that religion and entertainment are linked.
        I appreciate your graciously ending your comment by complimenting me on taking more than exhaustion away from your post. I hope that this comment of mine gives you something of value as well and has not left you tired and regretting I wrote it.

      • I accept your invitation to dance, and I will follow your lead.

        We use dictionaries when we don’t know the meaning of a word — not your reason — or when we’re looking for a nuance that may have eluded us. You found a correspondence to my meaning in entry 1a and 1b (although the “especially” is outright wrong and the “such as” examples are pitiful). But you didn’t credit the possibility that my probing of the word went beyond 1a and 1b. I wrote that entertainment had “the power to command our notice, evoke emotion, AND give us an inexplicable sense of enrichment.” I call that an amplification. You can accept it or not, but it’s not a different meaning.

        (I capitalized the word “and” to show that entertainment must have all three characteristics. I grant that reading for information is enriching, but I choose to do it. It doesn’t command my notice and may or may not evoke emotion.)

        Why is it “highly likely” that religion and entertainment were linked? In primitive tribes, religion had a primacy above all other communal activities. The world was fraught with danger, and appeals to supernatural forces were essential. To make these appeals emphatic, “decorations” were called for. So the appeals — or better, prayers — were sung. And they were rhythmic. Hence poetry, and perhaps drumbeats. Think of a rain dance or a plea for heavenly protection on the eve of battle or a funeral prayer for the afterlife of a loved one. Think of me as a child reciting the Four Questions in a singsong voice at a Passover celebration. Convinced yet?

  4. Ken, I’m a bit dizzy from being twirled about.

    No, I am not convinced that religion and entertainment are linked, and I think that your opening paragraphs resting on that assumption add little or nothing to your critique of the entertainments you examined.

    Your triumviral conception of entertainment as requiring all three of the attributes you specify (“the power to command our notice, evoke emotion, AND give us an inexplicable sense of enrichment”) seems unsupportable, given the reality of entertainment as commonly understood. But you are an uncommon person, and I concede that you must be granted the license to amplify as your brilliant insights direct you. Have at it! Keep scratching! Readers competent to understand you may be enriched.

  5. Ken, as I was climbing the stairs to my computer for no reason related to blogging, it dawned on me that I may have missed the key to your beginning your post with entertainment’s roots in religion. That beginning brought you to the end of your introduction armed to ask an essential question prior to launching your examination and critique: “Had entertainment kept its ancient promise to bring us a mirthful demeanor, a rich sense of the beautiful, a deep comprehension of our humanity, and the wisdom to know what is within our grasp and what is beyond it?”
        With the light of that dawning I at last understood why you amplified “entertainment”: to render it worthy of the gods (known in secular terms as discerning members of the audience – people like you and me). The amplification provided you a yardstick by which to judge the “genres” you examined. Of course, they fell below the bar. Brilliant!
        I apologize for having taken so long to see this, and then only with the help of my muse.
        I hope that you can at least derive some satisfaction from knowing that I hung in there and finally saw the light.
        At any rate, I HOPE I have seen some light. I await your reply telling me whether I have or not.

    • Yes! I rejoice!

      You’ve seen the light, or at least my intention. Entertainment has made an odyssey from an accompaniment to religion to a commercial behemoth to … my fearful speculation … a replacement for reality.

      Thank you for the dialogue.

      • Yes, I think we really did have a DIALOGUE, and I value it.

        An interesting question, for me, is whether it would have been a better read if your intentions had been clearly stated. Probably so, at least in my case, because your opening threw rather than gathered me, and it was downhill from there. I hope you have feedback from other readers to provide additional information to answer the question. (Or maybe you have already reached some conclusions on that score?)

Leave a comment