Trending to the moronic, or Caring about whose ass it is and why it is farting

Well, I finally turned some brief attention to the Mike Judge, Luke Wilson cult-favorite Idiocracy. There were some instances and scenes which brought on a chuckle or two and there is no doubt that it was specifically designed to tug/pull at current - though frankly mild, or at least not pronounced enough for many to really be pressed into any sort of action - generalized cultural concerns. Indeed, on/in another forum I have already been drawn into some discussion concerning both the film and the concerns it ostensibly raises/addresses. Let me say this, now that I have actually watched the film (as opposed to so much else that I am prone to pontificating about with little experience), while I will admit to chuckling at parts/places/scenes and it is certainly an example (if not a particularly good one) of "hotel cinema" that I might not turn off while traveling and alone in my room with a bottle of whiskey, it is, simply put, a sloppy piece of filmmaking. One that relies on poorly thought-through cultural assumptions that themselves rest on fears first articulated by "elites" in the 19th century as they were confronted by ever-growing populations of poorly educated, unwashed masses in industrial centers who were often prone to crude/radical political demonstrations against the established powers given their entrenched predicaments. Born out of the economic condescension that came from David Ricardo's "Iron Law of Wages" that (in brief) was built on/influenced by the earlier work of Malthus and argued that given the pressures of population the wages of the working class will forever be at just the level needed to avoid starvation and little else. Over the course of the 19th century, this supposedly "objective" conclusion of "social science" fairly smoothly morphed into a notion that it was unnecessary to offer assistance to the poor because if "they" are poor it is only because they are too stupid to realize that it is their profligate reproductive nature that keeps them trapped in that "iron law." Hence, it becomes an issue of the stupidity of a particular economic class rather than the fact that industrial capitalism is as dependent on a pool of variably employed and unemployed workers at the bottom as it is reliant on the investment of capital at the top to push growth. Frankly, those out and about (and some of them are friends of mine) who have complained and opined about the fact that a humorously important film was nearly scuttled and likely sabotaged by its own parent studio are no different from those in the broad religious community who insist that the fact that productions like the "Left Behind" series are seldom given any real play in the "mainstream" media is proof of an anti-Christian bias in American culture/society. It is a "boutique" film that is pointed at a narrow segment of the cultural economics of the US. And it is the same one that boasts of MBAs, feels better about their golf habit because of Tiger Wood's success, and complains about the commodification of the lifeworld while leafing through Pottery Barn catalogs all with more than a little touch of smug self-satisfaction that they alone are right. Let us return to the question of the treatment of the movie at the hands of 20th Century Fox: the most common thesis seems to be that the studio was at best uncomfortable with the cynically anti-corporate message of the movie, and at worst, given the portrayal of Fox News, it was simply hamstrung by News Corporation which owns both enterprises, and was likely directed by the very hand of that dastardly Aussie Rupert Murdoch. The NYTs made a higher-brow/intellectual argument that 20CF might well not have wanted to be associated with a film that rested on the dubious, elitist and potentially racist, junk-science theory of dysgenics. I might add another, perhaps the deciders at 20CF realized that it was a poor movie and the only way to recoup their (admittedly fairly meager investment) was to build the "cult" buzz and let it make its way on the DVD market. Or, even more likely, it's just not a very good movie.