This video essay is LITERALLY A DOCUMENTARY. Check out http://www.audible.com/sarahz or text sarahz to 500-500 to get a 30 day free trial!------Support me: M...
Most of the Mike Judge oeuvre is what :thinky-felix: called “Irridescent media” in that the vantage point of the viewer drastically changes the content. A reactionary would obviously see idiocracy as “Eugenics good.” A lib would see it as an ode to the “adults in the room,” but a leftist could certainly see it as a call for radical change in things like environmental, health, education and agriculture policy.
Idiocracy always had a weird eugenics undertone to me. That undesirable people will out procreate desirable ones. I feel people misunderstand the message of the film. They come away thinking the idea we need to fix people, not systems that which people find themselves. I know it’s all for laughs, but I think a lot of people who watched that and just thought the problem was individual acting “poorly” rather that the MEGACORPs/Systems that control everything. These systems limit individuals’ agility to act (let alone act “well”). Worse yet, these systems can even reward “dumb” behavior or whatever. I felt its critique was of “dumb people” not of the systems that create and refuse to take care of those “dumb people” and also create cultures around them. It made fun of consumers rather than consumerism. Maybe I’m overthinking it, but it seemed ill-spirited, or at least misguided. The lack of structural critique makes it feel a bit icky.
King of the Hill can be a similar experience at times, Idiocracy is just more overt. I get the feeling Judge was trying to “both sides” a lot of the issues his characters face and make fun of everything and everyone involved.
Most of the Mike Judge oeuvre is what :thinky-felix: called “Irridescent media” in that the vantage point of the viewer drastically changes the content. A reactionary would obviously see idiocracy as “Eugenics good.” A lib would see it as an ode to the “adults in the room,” but a leftist could certainly see it as a call for radical change in things like environmental, health, education and agriculture policy.
Idiocracy always had a weird eugenics undertone to me. That undesirable people will out procreate desirable ones. I feel people misunderstand the message of the film. They come away thinking the idea we need to fix people, not systems that which people find themselves. I know it’s all for laughs, but I think a lot of people who watched that and just thought the problem was individual acting “poorly” rather that the MEGACORPs/Systems that control everything. These systems limit individuals’ agility to act (let alone act “well”). Worse yet, these systems can even reward “dumb” behavior or whatever. I felt its critique was of “dumb people” not of the systems that create and refuse to take care of those “dumb people” and also create cultures around them. It made fun of consumers rather than consumerism. Maybe I’m overthinking it, but it seemed ill-spirited, or at least misguided. The lack of structural critique makes it feel a bit icky.
King of the Hill can be a similar experience at times, Idiocracy is just more overt. I get the feeling Judge was trying to “both sides” a lot of the issues his characters face and make fun of everything and everyone involved.