Sometimes I Feel Like an Idiot: Mike Judge's Idiocracy

Satire is difficult, and Mike Judge certainly doesn't pull punches. Unlike in King of the Hill, subtlety isn't his style in Idiocracy. Instead, he goes all out for every gag in the book. Every nuance is there to portray society as simply stupid.

What works in the film is the premise. That's even what carries it through until the end. You probably already know what it's about: society has gotten dumber and dumber (sic) until by the year 2500, the world (or at least America) is on the brink of collapse because they can't solve any of their problems, ones that they caused in the first place. In comes an average guy from the year 2000, and he's hailed as a genius. He must now solve all of humanity's problems, from the death of crops to the overflow of garbage.

It's a good premise.

What doesn't work, though, is the way the movie becomes a series of gags: sight, sound, etc. I guess a world of really stupid people would actually be full of gags, but it really just seems like a bunch of stupid people from the year 2000, not from the year 2500. Nothing has really changed in those 500 years except that people still can't solve their own problems.

So all in all, Idiocracy is a decent film with a great premise. The genius of it is also its problem: it is couched in a faraway land (like allegory or a lot of satire) that is really available right here at home. But the truth is generally easier to take when it seems faraway.

The other thing I like about this post is how people like to think they're above the critique. Just look at some reviews for the movie. Really, though, we're all kind of that stupid, either like Luke Wilson or like the stupid people there for laughs.

Robert (Sean) Penn Warren's All the King's Men

Reading Robert Penn Warren's 1946 novel All the King's Men is like riding an academic roller coaster through early twentieth century politics. The narrator, Jack Burden, is a student of history, and his journey through life illustrates the character of Willie Stark, the Boss, the Governor of whichever southern state it actually takes place in. Burden's narration is lush, vivid, and sometimes bogs down in its own detailed prose as it describes the landscapes and peoplescapes, even delving into philosophical ramblings about the meaning of a specifically placed finger or a supposed wink.

The book, frankly, borders on genius. It's a difficult read, sure, but it's a great story. It's the narration and description that makes it so good, though, not necessary the story itself. We come to know the characters only through that narration, but they are fully realized by the end.

The 2006 movie doesn't have those strengths. It tries to make a standard story out of the difficult prose and narrative. Not that it makes the novel strictly linear, but it leaves out all of the interesting philosophical meanderings. Jude Law (Jack Burden) tries to insert some of the stuff about the Friend of your Youth (one of the philosophical inserts) into the movie, but it falls flat because we don't get enough of it to fully appreciate it. All of the characters are that way, too: they're all one-sided, even bordering on stock characters.

We do see some brilliance in Sean Penn's Wille Stark, however, at least when he is giving speeches. When he comes out of his shell and attempts to connect with the world, his speeches are good. Watching this movie in 2009 is a strange experience, however, for we have seen the inauguration of Barack Obama, whose speeches sometimes mirrored those of Willie Stark, although his aren't nearly as mean-spirited. Stark represents the new kind of politician that cares for the people and wants to get rid of money-riddled politics. Instead, he wants to do good, even though he will still use corruption, for it is only through bad that good can ever come (at least according to Stark).

We have some good themes here, but most of them are minor. The primary theme is about the purpose of political life and whether politics can remain above the fray. The movie hints that politics is about service, but it cannot be above anything. Instead, it is as debased as any other human endeavor. Therefore, the very nature of political service is debased.

I'm not sure if the movie can be appreciated without having read the novel, for the plot gets a bit confusing, but the theme about politics and service is still evident. Watch it for that alone, but only if you generally vote Democrat. I guess a Republican can enjoy it, too, for it points out that even "idealists" are flawed and are really just as corrupt as any politicians.

Grade for All the King's Men: 6