Fear and Loathing In 1903

Picture yourself in a movie theater in 1903. You've just sat down to watch this new "film" thingy called "The Great Train Robbery". The "film" starts, and you're skeptical. "The way that camera moved made me dizzy!". After an exhausting 12 minutes later, the film finally ends, except...suddenly, one of the bad guys from the movie faces you--THE AUDIENCE--and slowly raises a gun. Oh no! We're doomed! He's going to fire upon us! Nooooo!



Scared? No? Well, that's because we aren't idiots.

**********************************************************************************
I remember watching a great Simpsons 'Tree House Of Horrors' episode where they did their take on Edgar Allan Poe's "The Raven".

At the end of the story, Bart questions the poem's classification as horror:

Bart: Lisa, that wasn't scary, not even for a poem.
Lisa: Well, it was written in 1845. Maybe people were easier to scare back then.

Lisa suggests that people in the past were a lot more prone to easy scares than we are today. (How else could the romantic horror of "The Raven" ever give someone the chills they get today while watching something like "The Ring".)

Maybe using this theory, we could infer that in 1903, when Thomas Edison and Edwin S. Porter's "The Great Train Robbery" came out, people were still easily scared, and a fictional character on a movie screen could actually pose a real threat.

No, I'm sorry, I've got to call BULLSHIT.



I know film was a new medium at the time, and theoretically, many of the people in the theater probably didn't know what "the moving pictures" were capable of, but to honestly believe that a character on a screen can break the fourth wall and shoot you? Come on.

The movie-going audience of 1903 was more familiar with live theater like plays, and vaudeville, so maybe they though the same rules apply. In a live performance, yes, a guy holding a gun on stage has the ability to actually shoot through the fourth wall...but here's the kicker...I bet that if this was an actual live performance, the audience wouldn't have even blinked. I bring your attention to the Iroquois Theater Fire of 1903. At no more than a month old, the theater broke out into flames during a performance. As the fire spread out of control, THE AUDIENCE DIDN'T MOVE. They thought it was all part of the performance. The actors kept on acting and the dancers kept on dancing. It wasn't until comedian Eddie Foy told the audience that it's wasn't part of the act that anybody did anything.

602 people died because the audience wasn't scared of no heat and flames.

But a 2 dimensional movie character shooting through the fourth wall...well now, that's a pants pisser.


I also have to call bullshit on the idea that people were more prone to be scared back then than today. Case in point.

So, I'm calling every film professor in this country wrong. There ain't no way in hell the people of 1903 were scared of being shot by a two dimensional man. Unless of course, they were idiots.

The Politics of Fear in the 2006 Elections

The Politics of Fear has become very important in recent elections. The British documentary "The Power of Nightmares" showed how fear has been used in politics since the 1950s in both America and many Middle Eastern countries. Now that were in a conflict that involves both, its no surprise that its all we hear from critics of the current administration.

According to the Democrats the Republicans are apparently causing us to vote for them and Bush out of fear, that if we don’t, the terrorists win. It’s funny, that outside of possibly Bush himself, I have never heard a Republican candidate claim this. Its usually the Democrats saying this--to scare us!

Look back; the Democrats chastise the Republicans for using fear in all elections since September 9-11. A keen observer would notice that its the other way around; the Democrats are the ones that are using the element of fear, to induce a fear of Republicans.

It can’t be more evident than the recent Senatorial Race in New Jersey between Bob Menendez (D) and Tom Kean Jr. (R). Has anyone seen the ads for this? They’re all over TV. Menendezs ads are just attack ads against Kean Jr., claiming, "A Vote for Kean Jr. is a vote for Bush." He attacks the fact that Kean Jr. supports Bush on the War in Iraq, Social Security, National Defense and everything else that defines the Bush Administration. (I’m not sure if anything from this is true, but Kean Jr. doesn’t seem to deny the accusations). Menendez asks his constituents if they want a supporter of Bush in the White House. Aren’t you afraid of what he is going to do if elected? Aren’t you afraid that he’s going to support Bush’s agenda? Aren’t you afraid that he’s going to make you afraid of Terrorists?

Please tell me I’m not the only one who sees this. For a party that claims they are for the people and for a party that screams that the Republicans use fear to get elected, they certainly aren’t below being hypocrites.

I need to mention another political event that just occurred. Senator John Kerry called our troops all idiots. No, it wasn’t in those exact words, it was more like: "Education, if you make the most of it, you study hard, you do your homework, and you make an effort to be smart, you can do well, if you don't, you get stuck in Iraq." So basically he said that our troops are uneducated. Well, I’m sorry we all can’t go to Yale Senator Kerry! So, Kerry has refused to apologize, and his whole party is backing away from him. Even friggen Senator Hilary Clinton (D-New York) has come out and said that what Kerry claims is appalling and inappropriate. I don’t know what would drive the man to even make this statement and think its ok. Is this part of his attempt to be tough? Remember that whole charade, where it seemed he didn’t care what he did or said anymore? It was the verbal equivalent of Al Gore growing a beard. Senator Kerry, I’m not afraid to say this, you sir, are a shithead.

Here’s a picture a friend sent me from the troops in Iraq to the Senator. I think it gets the point across quite well: