...many folks use the "understanding society" framework to simply engage
in low brow entertainment without losing their high brow reputation as intellectuals.
===================
I remember listening to film critic Roger Ebert, years ago, describing why he admired his (departed) colleague Gene Siskel despite numerous disagreements and fundamental differences in temperament and outlook.
Ebert told a story about a film - a softcore, Euro pr0n production titled "Emanuele" - that was creating a minor stir in art house circles in the early 80's (or perhaps it was the late 70's). Although some critics strained to intellectualize their enjoyment of the film, Siskel was among the very few who clearly laid out his cards on the table saying that while the movie surely stunk, he was turned on by the female lead so he appreciated it on the basic, and completely legitimate, level of arousal.
Ebert recalled this with obvious pride the man he'd been professionally partnered with for so long was bullshit free - at least at that moment.
Not only that, he admired the way Siskel was able to precisely identify different levels and types of enjoyment and avoided the trap of trying to pour all sorts of wine into the same perceptual bottle.
A very useful skill.
...
And speaking of fictional gangsters and stylized violence...
A month or so ago I went to see director Michael Mann's most recent film, "Collateral" starring Jamie Foxx and Tom Cruise. Mann is a very accomplished filmmaker who creates a series of perfect moments, linked to form a polished product. It's a roughly beautiful film (almost cyberpunkish in its outlook if you'll forgive the dated coinage), oddly aware of the sprawling technosphere in nuanced ways.
Even so, though it (convincingly) aspires to existential themes, it is, at its heart, a 'bad ass men doing bad ass things' fantasy piece and shouldn't be confused with a true analysis of our adrift state.
I'll admit there's something about the dude-in-Hugo-Boss-suit-with automatic-pistol-and-deadly-skills dream that appeals to me - at least some of the time.
We spend many (perhaps most) of our hours trapped in one form of amber or another - in traffic, in offices, in, if we're very poor, run down and perhaps dangerous environments, etc. Under these circumstances, it's natural to indulge in a dream of immediate liberation from these heavy chains.
There's a moment in "Collateral" when Foxx, driving the cab Cruise's character has essentially hijacked, is pulled over by an LAPD patrol for some minor infraction (a broken tail light I think). "If you don't get rid of them, they're going in the trunk" Cruise tightly whispers to Foxx from the darkness of the backseat as the cops slowly approach the car.
This is absurd of course but a powerful bit of fantasy nonetheless. The professional killer, floating above our mundane concerns such as traffic stops and possibly abusive police, patiently waits for an opportunity to kill these irritants should they get in his way - he knows he has both the will and the ability to rapidly dispatch them. He's beyond fear, beyond even annoyance. For us, in real life, this might be a nerve wracking event. But for our film proxy, it's less than nothing.
The gleaming seductiveness of this scenario for millions shouldn't surprise and doesn't require very much intellectual investigation to be understood.
Likewise with "The Sopranos" a show that, its dramatic complexities notwithstanding, is really just about a man who has an alternative method available to him for removing problems - pure, uninhibited violence.
The dream of removing obstacles via violence is natural, given the constraints we face.
.d.