Movie-Goers Can Think for Themselves; T. Machan

What exactly are these critics complaining about? They are insulting movie-goers by implic itly accusing them of being robots who cannot keep from going out and buying what is shown on the screen. Imagine it. The viewer is con ceived of, not as a person with a will of his own, nor as someone who knows what he wants, but as a mechanism that responds automatically to sub tle stimulation. The movie makers, by implicaTibor Machan teaches philosophy at Auburn. Universi ty, Alabama. He recently edited Commerce and Morali ty for Rowman and Littlefield. 409 tion, are accused of being manipulative and ex ploitative. The evidence for both these charges is feeble. People aren't robots available for easy exploita tion: the advertising industry has learned that you cannot sell things that people don't want. Of course, people may want silly and useless things, but they have to want them before they really pay attention to brand-name ads. If this weren't so, advertising campaigns wouldn't flop as often as they do. (Even ads we love to see don't always manage to sell the products we are invited to buy-we like the jokes, the characters, the themes, the scenery-but not necessarily the product or service.) Furthermore, why must these critics assume that movie makers have nothing else in mind when they include various brand-name products in their films? Why not assume that they simply wish to be realistic? Why not consider the possi bility that they see the phoniness of pretending that while everything else in the film fits the pic ture, those disguised products do not?

Consider, also, that every movie "advertises" the actors who appear in it, the locales in which the movie takes place, the kind of clothing worn by the characters, and so on. Noone, as yet, has complained about that. I am confident that this special attack on the movies is yet another way in which the critics ex press their hatred for the market. These critics are power-seekers-admittedly for motives that seem sincere and virtuous to them. But these motives are not virtuous, however sincere they may be. They are dangerous and should be exposed as such. They are subtle mes sages to the public that consumers are generally inept, and need the wise guidance of intellectuals who will occupy various seats of power and tell film makers and television producers what to do. Let us respond to these folks forcefully,and tell them to take care of their own problems and leave us to cope with OUTS. We are able to handle any thing offered us on the screen-we can even walk out if we find something offensivelypushy. D 410 A REVIEWER'S NOTEBOOK A Critical Examination of Socialism by John Chamberlain ,~ 11 through our childhood they hung around the houses of our minds, the Four Uncles: Uncle Shaw, Uncle Wells, Uncle Galsworthy, and Uncle Bennett."