No Need to Mourn the Loss of 'Friends'
Star Tribune As opposed to a large and perhaps friendlier chunk of America, I won't be watching the final episode of "Friends" on Thursday night. Let me count first the tamer and then the tougher reasons why. The most innocuous reason for not tuning in is that I don't think I've ever watched more than one or two episodes from start to finish. So not only am I not invested in the series, I would be oblivious to the scores of inside allusions and jokes that will cause millions of others to nod fondly, laugh crazily, and tear up. I prefer to stay un-cool. I'll be turning 55 later this month (no, wait, I think it might be 56), meaning I'm already well past the stage when I'm obliged to know anything about popular culture. In keeping, I've never watched any of the current "reality" shows for more than five minutes at a stretch. This is not because I religiously resist watching fluff on television, but because shows like "Survivor, "Fear Factor," and "American Idol" are much too eager to humiliate. Who needs such cruelty and crassness? I have much better things to do with my time ... like spending time with my daughter. Yes, I agree that segue was far too cheap and I should be ashamed of myself. But think of how "Friends" has been on the air for a decade, always early in the evening, and if I had chosen to be a regular viewer, a curious kid would have sidled up in front of the set with me. Given the heavy-handedness of the sexual leitmotif of many such shows, this would not have been an admirable use of family time together. It's here, in fact, that my annoyances and objections with much in the popular culture grow tougher and weightier. In a speech several years ago about "protecting the innocence of childhood," the social critic Michael Medved said there was "no escaping Madonna," by which he meant that no matter how hard parents try, their chances have seriously diminished when it comes to erecting a firewall between their kids and what is blazingly questionable for them to see and hear. One need not be cloistered to view this as an assault or prudish to be offended by it. Think, for example, not just of the explicit raunchiness of MTV, but of the machine-gun double entendres of virtually every sitcom on television, aired and cabled all day long. Think of what passes for lyrics on radio stations aimed at adolescents but which seeps down ceaselessly to younger crowds. Now think of the near-impossibility of monitoring all of this and of maintaining age-appropriate moats around it. The necessity of this chore leaves a lousy taste in my mouth. Alienation may be too strong a word, yet increasingly I find myself losing respect for expanding tracts of Hollywood and other aspects of the popular culture. "Friends" may well be funnier and more appealing than most shows and its cast and writers may be more talented. But for me, I'm afraid -- and putting aside that no one in my demographic ought to presume having anything in common with Matthew or Jennifer's demographic, anyway -- the show hasn't escaped blending and blurring in. -- Mitchell B. Pearlstein is president of Center of the American Experiment, a conservative think tank in Minneapolis. Permission to reprint in whole or in part is hereby granted. |
