An Inconvenient Truth: Bill Maher Resembles a Rat

I've not watched the comedian Bill Maher for more than a few minutes, but HBO has been running advertisements about his show.  The advertisements make me want to cancel HBO.  The material on Netflix, such as Zoey Barnes's murder on House of Cards, is at least as good as the HBO programming. Who needs HBO?

Why have television and the entertainment industry, which have always emphasized attractive appearance over substance, elevated an announcer as ugly as Maher? After looking at his ad a few times, I thought of a deeper philosophical question:  Why does a television network sponsor an announcer who  looks like a rat?

Maher's predictable, politically correct views are the obvious answer.  Other commentators who have the patience and stomach to watch his show have described his tasteless humor and his bigoted remarks about others' religious beliefs. Putting an announcer on HBO who makes distasteful remarks about Blacks or Jews is unthinkable, and rightfully so.  Putting an anti-Catholic bigot like Maher on television is acceptable to the ignorant left-wingers at HBO.

HBO's programs  aren't good enough to compensate for Maher, and in addition to the outlandish cost of Comcast's services, Maher offers an excellent reason to terminate cable television service. Many of the left-wing and pro-Fed blogs consider Maher to be "brilliant."  In the same way the coarse, realist art under communism and the cliched neoclassical art under Hitler were held up as "brilliant" in those totalitarian lands. When media is state controlled, the coarse, ugly and mediocre are elevated, especially when they serve the state.

HBO's "John Adams"

I just watched the first and second episodes of HBO's John Adams and have renewed faith in the liberal media. HBO has produced something very good about American history with a relatively small amount (for HBO) of political correctness and a lot of respect for the nation's heroic founders.

The miniseries makes clear the Continental Congress's great courage. The acting is beautiful, the historical narrative familiar but with enough that is new to the non-historian to make it interesting; and the sets, to include the flags, are superb, in the tradition of HBO's Deadwood series.

Laura Linney plays a fine and inspiring Abigail Adams. David Morse plays a dignified Washington but is more modest than I would have envisioned. Tom Wilkinson is convincing as Benjamin Franklin. But I seem to recall from college that Franklin and Adams spent a couple of days editing the Declaration, not just a few minutes. I'll have to refer to that old Becker book that I read in college on the writing of the Declaration (I still remember after 33 years!).

This has got to be Paul Giamatti's breakthrough to superstardom. According to IMDB he's been in alot of first rate TV shows and movies in character roles (Donnie Brasco, Saving Private Ryan) but in recent years has had several major award nominations. Giamatti is a rare talent. His performance as Harvey Pekar in American Splendor and as Miles in Sideways were both remarkable. His is the kind of talent you get only once in a while, kind of like Lionel Barrymore or William H. Macy. Despite the criticisms of the pretentious-mashed-potatoes-a-la-mode critic set, Giametti is wonderful as John Adams and HBO has done us a service.

For an example of a pretentious-mashed-potatoes-a-la-mode critic, Slate's Troy Patterson writes:

"Sometimes the show feels like an eighth-grade field trip to Independence Hall or maybe a citizenship test..."

Likewise Robert Bianco in USA Today writes:

"sadly, in this elaborately produced, incredibly well-intentioned seven-part HBO miniseries adaptation of the book, Adams recedes once again, outshone not just by his more famous peers but also by just about every minor character. And the blame for that rests on Paul Giamatti, an odd and seemingly uncomfortable casting choice."

I disagree. Giametti is a brilliant casting choice and he does an excellent job. I wonder if critics concentrated on entertainment value and quality rather than on self-important quests for trendy conformity, Hollywood would be in better shape. As well, is it possible that critics like Bianco and Patterson are simply irritated at a positive depiction of the founding fathers that doesn't resort to the liberal media's air-headed ideology?