The Constant Gardener, which apparently is a
remake of Erin Brockovich with more exotic
locations and less cleavage, is taking on the evil
pharmaceutical companies this time. Congratulations to
the makers of this movie for showing the bravery to
take on an industry which is universally hated. The
reason for the hatred, of course, is that they earn a
profit while they produce life-saving medications. How
many people can say they've done both of these
admirable things?
Fuck anyone who tells you you're immoral to receive a
value in exchange for the value you produce.
But this is all beside the point. My real problem, as
always, is with advertisers. The radio commercial for
this movie contains the following phrase, uttered by
the deep-voiced, authoritative-sounding prick:
"the most talked-about film of the year"
At one point, I would have just said: this is the
usual puffery. But with the popularity of the
Internet, it's getting to the point when these guys
can't get away with saying these things without
backing it up. Even before the Internet, I would say
it's bullshit to say something like this without
giving your evidence. Granted, it would be a focus
group of 25 people who were happy they got to see a
free movie, but there should be some evidence
presented.
Now, though, the standard for proof has risen. So I
did the obvious: I did a search on Google. (Please
don't ask me to use "Google" as a verb. Whoever asks
me that is going to need a box full of Kleenexes.) I
compared The Constant Gardener to another movie
from 2005, Sin City. Remember, the commercial
says it's the "most talked-about film of the year".
They don't say, "The rate of talk is such that it is
on schedule to be the most talked-about film of the
year." So, if it's the most talked-about, one would
think it's also the most frequently cited on the Web,
right? Not necessarily, but it's at least an
indication, right?
So, once I realized that this movie is spelled
"Gardener", not "Gardner", I collected some results.
Here they are, from 9/14/05:
Google (regular search)
"The Constant Gardener" - 3,510,000 hits
"Sin City" - 9,820,000 hits
Google (blogsearch.google.com)
(searched on 9/17/05)
"The Constant Gardener"- 4,865 hits
"Sin City" - 150,640 hits
Google (site:blogger.com)
"The Constant Gardener"- 2 hits
"Sin City" - 211 hits
news.google.com
"The Constant Gardener" - 1,540 hits
"Sin City" - 92 hits
I was going to leave off the last search result, but
decided to leave it in for fairness. Obviously, a new
movie will be in the news more than an old movie. You
might also say it's obvious that a movie that's
already been out will be more "talked-about". Sure,
but The Constant Gardener is the most
talked-about!
Shouldn't advertisers have to mean what they say? Are
we so accustomed to them saying nonsense (since they
know they'd get in trouble for telling lies that are
too obvious), that we don't even pay attention to the
words anymore? Probably, and this is a shame.
There's nothing inherently wrong with communication,
especially about products, some of which (not
necessarily the movie in question) may actually be a
value to somebody. If advertisers would recognize
their products' value, and neither be boastful nor
embarrassed by that value, there would probably be a
hell of a lot less animosity towards advertising.
