A Stickler for the Truth

A Stickler for the Truth


One way to know that a film isn’t working for me is when I turn to my wife and say something (not in the theatre, but at home) questioning the veracity and reality of what I’m seeing. Usually my wife will answer, “Ron, it’s just a movie.”

I’ll reply, “But how does she afford an apartment like that? It must cost three grand a month and she’s only a salesclerk at Macy’s! And look at her clothes!”

So much for setting aside disbelief.

Of course, in a really good film, even a finicky viewer like me can be silenced. I stop questioning the overacting, and illogical plot sequence and just watch the human drama expressed through great dialogue, a realistic enough dramatic arc, and good acting.

That doesn’t make it any easier to sit by me when I’m on a roll: I question everything! (Luckily for her, Naomi is able to ignore me or simply say, “Enough already!”)

Talking back to the television isn’t really that bad a thing to do, in moderation. Why believe everything you see and hear?

Take that commercial for dentures. Don’t tell me that the young woman talking to the screen relating the great qualities of her denture cream is really wearing dentures! Are you kidding me? (Who wears dentures anyway these days? Is there really a market for denture cream for young people?) When I think of dentures, I think of my parents’ generation’s great-grandparents putting their dentures in a glass before going to bed.

A youngish woman wearing dentures nowadays? Who are you (denture-manufacturer, ad exec) trying to kid?

What about those two young women dancing around (at least it’s indoors) because they’re so happy to be wearing a certain brand of adult diapers? Do so many young women have trouble keeping it in these days? Or are you jeopardizing your chances of selling adult diapers if you show who really needs and wears them – old people?

What about all the drug adverts that they show around news time? All these happy people proclaiming the benefits of a certain drug and then, conforming to Truth–in-Advertising laws, the voiceover relates a horror story of debilitating side effects of said drug. He might as well say, “Don’t take Veradril if you wish to live.”

Course, they would never list the terrible side effects of Veradril: vomiting, diarrhea, migraine headaches, dizziness, chills, suicidal thoughts, to name a few, if they didn’t have to.

Yesterday evening, I was back talking to the TV again.

NBC News had a congratulatory piece on three women who alerted authorities (the restaurant owner, the police) when they noticed a man adding a suspicious-looking powder to his date’s drink at a restaurant where they were eating.

I have no problem hearing the women tell their side of the story and what they did in this instance (it didn’t start the News, after all, but was an intriguing filler).

They caught the guy. They even showed his photo and gave out his name. Then, at the end, the newscaster added the fact that the contents of the drink had not yet come back from the lab where it was being analyzed.


This man’s life is temporarily, and perhaps permanently, destroyed and the evidence has not yet been adequately produced?

What’s the rush to bring this to the news other than the fact that the story was all over social media and the network obviously wanted to cash in on something fresh and provocative?

I don’t mind the whole story being shown after it was determined that a certain drug was discovered to be in his date’s drink.

But before?

Not right.




Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s