Rampant Gilliganism

[Orrex]

Despite having thought about this for a good while, I still haven't come up with a great way to articulate it, so bear with me:

I'm increasingly annoyed by the media's glorification of stupidity. I'm not just talking about 24/7 media saturation with celebrity "news" or the proliferation of increasingly mindless "reality shows," though these are indeed execrable. Instead, I'm frustrated by the role of the benevolent doofus in broadcast fiction.

The best way for me to describe this character is this:

Typically (though not quite always) the character is male
The character is never evil or malicious, which may be his one redeeming quality
He is usually (though not always) the main protagonist or one of several co-primary protagonists
He has one or more friends who are notably smarter, better educated, or more experienced
He routinely screws things up badly but comically, most often as a result of his ignorance, naivete, or flat-out stupidity
He always fixes whatever it is he screwed up--but he fixes it via a further application of ignorance, naivete, or stupidity
In the process of the above, he invariably shows himself to be superior to the "smarter" character(s)
He seldom if ever faces consequences or lasting ridicule for screwing things up, no matter how severely
Frequently, the character is praised for solving the problem that he himself caused, even when he didn't even solve it on purpose

I'm lately aware of this archetype as it appears (frequently) in children's programming, because my two young boys enjoy several shows more than others.

Gilligan is, for my forumlation, the archetype, but he's not the original. Still, every episode of the series had him solving the problem that eluded The Professor (the "smart character" archetype), and Gilligan himself usually caused the problem in the first place!

Curious George is another good example: in every episode (and in every book) he causes a catastrophe of varying severity, but in the end he achieves some sort of vaguely positive resolution, and he's roundly praised for it. This week, for instance, George toppled two dinosaur skeletons and hastily reassembled them, in the process correcting an error made by an internationally renowned paleontologist with years of experience.

The Phantom Menace offers several fine examples and in fact exemplifies Lucas' bizarre favoring of clumsy ineptitude over skill and discipline. Jar Jar manages--entirely by accident--to take out dozens of Battle Droids, even as his compatriots are fleeing for their lives. Young Anakin single-handedly destroys a massive starship--again, totally by accident.

Granted, the archetype I've described typically appears in comedies and escapist fantasy as opposed to "serious" drama, but that's not really an excuse. I can't think of a single show in the history of television in which the "smart" character was typically the hero, the problem solver, or the peacemaker. Instead, the bumbling bumpkin saves the day, while the smart character stands by and shakes his/her head with grudging admiration.

What bothers me is the subtext: the show seems to be saying "you'll do better by being stupid, trusting in your luck and innocent naivete, than you'll ever do by relying on education, wisdom, or experience." It's pernicious and widespread. I can't even think of when it started, but it certainly has clear precedents in silent films and vaudeville. Even King Lear's fool fits the mold, as does the fool who points out that the Emperor has no clothes.

In recent years, though, it seems to me that the Gilligan archetype has moved from simply being a comic character who speaks truth to power to a character whose idiocy is to be admired and emulated. Why is this? What is the appeal, other than the fact that intellectual laziness is easier than disciplined thought?


Incidentally, one can substitute "new age believer" for "the fool" while also substituting "skeptic" for "the 'smart' character;" we all know that the media love a woo-believer and hate a skeptic.


I could go on and on about this, but I suppose that I've written enough.


What are your thoughts on the matter? Is there anything to be done about it? Can we mitigate the influence of The Fool, or are we doomed to endure his comic misadventures as they show the "smart" guy the myriad errors of his ways?

[TZ]

1. Smart is NOT sexy in mainstream America.

If you are smart--you are portrayed as a nerd, socially inept, humorless, even cold.
Also, the proliferation of the evil genius abounds as well.
There is a hostility to intellectualism in this country (can you say "elite", "ivory tower type"). My god..McCain graduated in the bottom FIVE of his class and yet, he's supposed to be the one with better judgement? Give me smart but slightly inexperience over and old fool any day!
Alot of the adult versions of Gilligans are supposed to be the "everyman" type character..appealing to the average person...So they enjoy seeing someone less intelligent then themselves screw up and then succeed, ultimately making the average person think, "I'm not so bad, I can succeed if that fool can..."

[mr blur]

2. Here's an insight from The Guardian -

...But it is true that to small-town Republicans the world is not a complicated place, because they have seen so little of it.

I asked a sophisticated and well-travelled Republican why he voted the way he did. He described growing up "dirt poor" in a small town in Northern California where joining the military was your sole ticket out; where the people in his family who depended on welfare stayed where they were and the ones who worked their fingers to the bone managed to make a better life for themselves. For him, joining the army led directly to an education. In fact, it led all the way to Princeton. But how, I asked him, baffled, could someone as intelligent as he is believe that George W Bush was anything but a cretin?

Because, he explained, people in small towns don't like or trust intellectuals, particularly ones who appear to be sneering at them for their supposed stupidity. They admire a plain-speaking man; it's what they know and what they are used to.

They always assumed Bush was a regular guy who could keep his thoughts concise.

<snip>

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/sep/04/sarahpalin.johnmccain

[Orrex]

5. That certainly makes sense, sadly

But, at the same time, it's hard not to sneer at someone for his stupidity when he voted for Bush twice in a row...

[Orrex]

6. I've often wondered...

How do you suppose it would play in small towns if a candidate campaigned there with a message along the lines of "You're smarter than they think."

It could include a litany of the countless wrongs perpetrated by the Repubs, all of which are expected to pass without notice because the small town voter (according to the cynical politician) is too busy, dumb, apathetic, or detached to care. But the Dem could remind the voter, "You're smarter than they think, and now's your chance to prove it."

Sure, they'd have to word it more cleverly than that, but I'd love to see how it would go, if someone could manage to try it some time.

[TZ]

8. I actually think Obama tried to do something LIKE that

And it wound up being used agaisnt him..wrt your part of Pennsylvania actually--the whole "bitter" thing.
He wasn't trying to insult, but to explain why so many seem to so afraid of real change.

[Orrex]

10. I hadn't even thought of that

I may have mentioned previously that my enlightened county when to Bush in 2004, to my shame. However, for all the ill-founded complaints I've heard against Obama locally, I don't believe that anyone around here has taken him to task for his "bitterness" comments. This actually gives me a measure of hope, since it suggests--however dimly--that people in this area might actually be listening to what's being said and not just swallowing what Limbaugh and Hannity tell them to believe.

Hope springs eternal, I suppose...

[uriel1972]

3. There is a long tradition of

displaying simple people as 'moral' and intelligent people as amoral or downright evil. The depiction of serial killers as hyper intelligent is an extreme continuation of this tendency.

[Orrex]

4. Oooh! That's a great observation!

I was so busy worrying about who's getting "stupider" that I didn't even stop to think about who's getting "intelligenter."

[conscious evolution]

7. Good catch.

There is no doubt in my mind that television is one of the main means of manipulating peoples minds towards a predetermined outlook,second only to religion.

Consume
Create
Conform
Compete

[LeftishBrit]

9. There has always been a sort of cultural celebration of the fool in many places

There is for instance the story which in its English version is called 'Lazy Jack', about a young fool who eventually wins the princess and a fortune by making this sad girl laugh, as a result of going past the palace carrying a donkey on his back! This story has equivalents in many other cultures. As we all commit humiliating follies from time to time, and envy those who seem cleverer, such stories have an obvious comfort value.

What is more damaging, IMO, is the attitude that there is something positively wrong with cleverness. The UK, or rather England (the attitude is much less marked in Scotland and Wales), suffers from a significant amount of this. A 'smart-alec' or 'clever-dick' who is 'too clever by half' is seen as cheeky and arrogant, and quickly makes himself, or even more quickly herself, unpopular. Clever boys and girls, especially those who show an obvious interest in academic pursuits, are often classed as 'nerds', and have always been seen as stepping out of their gender roles. Kingsley wrote, "Be good, sweet maid, and let who will be clever"; and especially nowadays the male corollary might be "Be tough, young man, and let who will be clever." Class differences have historically fed into this: the 'lower classes' were seen as 'stepping out of their station' and 'not knowing their place' if they showed an interest in learning; and the 'upper classes' often felt that they did not *need* to learn; it was far more important to 'be a gentleman'. Until Prince Charles, I don't think any British monarch or heir to the throne had attended university; George 1 never even bothered to learn English when he came from Germany to rule us!

But it seems worse in the USA. Here the clever person is often seen as odd, unsociable, having bad manners - but not usually as actively sinister. There seems to be much more of an attitude in some American circles that an intelligent person is potentially or actively subversive. At least, that is the impression that I get.

[beam me up scottie]

11. Forrest Gump.

One of my dad's favorite movies, a hilarious spoof about the heroes we fools create and worship in America.

As much as I like and admire Forrest, I wouldn't want him as President.

[Orrex]

12. My wife suggested Gump, too

But I can think of some points in his favor (at least, relative to the archetype I offered in the OP).

One is that Gump doesn't revel in his stupidity, as many American fools do, nor does he lament it overmuch. When he says the iconic line "I'm not a smart man, but I know what love is," it's a simple acknowledging of his limitations and his abilities within those limitations.

Another is that he doesn't cause any of the disasters that he witnesses or resolves; he's just another player who more or less happens to be in the right place at the right time. Sure, it's preposterous to think that he could really have all of those wild and historically significant adventures, but that's the whole conceit of the story.

And another point in his favor is that neither he nor the film mocks the "smart" characters. In fact, Forrest Jr. is praised as "one of the smartest kids in his class," which is a nice counterpoint IMO to the senior Forrest's many accomplishments.

I believe that you're right in identifying it as a spoof of the heroes we create.


FWIW, I really like the film. For some reason, there's a serious undercurrent of Gump hatred here on DU, most particularly in the Lounge, and I confess that the reason for the hatred escapes me. Hanks' performance is far more subtle and effective than many seem to want to credit it for being. I mean, it's easy to get caught up in the silliness and the ping pong and the now-dated digital tweaking of historical footage, but that's akin to saying "I can see the wires on the flying monkeys, so the film sucks."

[beam me up scottie]

13. Forrest's not the real Gilligan, he's the decoy.

"there's a serious undercurrent of Gump hatred here on DU"

Maybe it's because the fools know they've been played. :D

[uriel1972]

14. I admit

I never watched it as I believed from the shorts that it was hero worship of the idiot. Maybe I'll give it a chance.

[moggie]

15. What about MacGyver?

Not that I disagree with you, but perhaps I can't think of a single show in the history of television in which the "smart" character was typically the hero, the problem solver, or the peacemaker overstates the case.

Also:

[Orrex]

17. Well, yeah--KITT was smart, I guess...

MacGyver had totally slipped my mind and in fact does celebrate cleverness. A fine counter-example!

I've only seen a handful of episodes, but if I'd make one complaint, it's that I saw a number of MacGyverisms that were flatly impossible. Anyone can appear to be a genius when using a lightbulb to open a freezer door, if the SFX guys have rigged it up right in advance.

Still, you make a good point, even if you had to dig back 20 years for it.

A few others now come to mind, as well. The Office certainly features several smart protagonists, even if Mike himself is a dolt. And the only semi-admirable character on Arrested Development was Michael Bluth, and he was clearly no dummy, either.

Thanks for the reminder. My judgment was clouded by the preponderance of culpable idiocy in the media. Clearly, it's rubbing off on me!

[semillama]

18. And then there's House and such

but then again, you tend to get smarter characters on dramas.

[Orrex]

19. Yeah--if only the stupid OP had thought to highlight comedies specifically...

:evilgrin:

In fact, I particularly enjoy House because he's fiercely intelligent and an unrepentant asshole, and he's also a vocal atheist. As rare as sympathetic smart characters are in (light) American entertainment, interesting atheists are almost entirely absent.

[semillama]

20. Exactly

I do agree that smart people are generally absent from comedies except as objects of ridicule: Exceptions might include the show Big Bang Theory (I've only seen two episodes - seems to poke more fun at the characters being nerds than their intelligence in general) and Scrubs, which has Dr. Ross - curiously, another fiercely intelligent, unrepentant atheist asshole (and my favorite character).

[dropkickpa]

21. BBT

They are still objects of ridicule, it's "Haha funny, look at the nerds!! They're so dumb too!"

[realisticphish]

22. and the few atheists that ARE around

tend to be shown as "my kid has cancer, i'm sad, there must be no god" kind of thing, making atheism an emotional choice, rather than a reasoned one

[beam me up scottie]

16. What a coinky-dink! - "Darwin was a fool: There is a God:"

x-posted from R/T and AA forums

[onager]

23. Strange. I've been hearing this all week...

I'm on vacation from Egypt this week, and having great fun playing tourist in Budapest. For any lurking Repubs with Gilliganitis, that's in Hungary. Which is in Eastern Europe. Which is on Planet...well, you get the drift. On one day trip this week, we could look over the Danube River into Slovakia. Which John McGilligan believes is still half of a nation shared with the fine citizens of Czecho, even though they have been totally separate nations since 1993.

From all sorts of people, I've been hearing a variation on this theme since I got here last Friday. There was the nice British couple who were "shocked" at the alleged American news on their hotel TV. And they were talking about CNN-International.

(Weird note: they were from Torquay, famous to some of us time-wasters as the site of Fawlty Towers.)

Then there was the nice couple from Pennsylvania. They are baffled by the Holy Gilligans who are determined to fuse Church and State in the U.S.

It will not surprise some of you that I started that particular conversational ball rolling. Our tour guide casually mentioned that since the fall of Communism, schools in Hungary are coming back under control of the churces.

I just commented that there is certainly no better way to bring people together than religion, as the Hungarians' neighbors in the former Yugoslavia learned not long ago.

At the time, we were in a small town that already had a kerfuffle over a Catholic school.

The priests/teachers only wanted to matriculate boys. No girls allowed in the school, just like the treehouse when we were 8 years old. But in that case, the state stepped in and said the school could accept girls or it could close its doors.

Sort of on topic: I spent a good part of today roaming around book stores, and in one of them a huge blow-up of a cartoon strip caught my eye. It was The Good Soldier Svejk, the Czech Gilligan (maybe) who is still very much beloved in this part of the world. As Wikipedia puts it:

Svejk is so enthusiastic about faithfully serving his country that no one can decide whether he is merely an imbecile or is craftily undermining the Austro-Hungarian Army's war effort.