Was Clint’s half-time Superbowl ad ‘message malfunction’?
The Superbowl, it turns out, was the most watched event in American TV history.
More than 111 million people tuned in to witness the Giants defeat the Patriots, as well as Madonna gyrate in a Roman tunic during the half time show and the rapper MIA flick the middle finger.
When so many American families are huddled in front of the screen questions will be asked. Needless to say the middle finger was inadvertent.
A “digit malfunction”, as opposed to the “wardrobe malfunction” which caused Janet Jackson to flash a boob into America’s living rooms during the 2005 Superbowl.
In both cases the offending malfunction was so swift you had to be glued to your screen in hypnotic concentration to catch it. Thankfully, if you missed it there were dozens of opportunities later in the week to see it again on dozens of news shows, albeit pixilated, to protect innocent American eyes.
Whether on the pitch or during the half time show what happens in the Superbowl doesn’t stay in the Superbowl. From cable TV to the blogosphere tomes are now being written about the anthropology and the methodology of the middle finger in history.
Did you know, for instance, that the ancient Romans were big on flipping the bird? Did Madonna know this when she staged her half time show in 250 AD?
And then of course there are the TV ads, screened during the game. We all know that they are absurdly costly – $3m for a thirty second slot. I am not sure if that has ever translated into washing machines, cars or vitamin supplements sold. But the advertisers must be happy since everyone seems to be chewing over their work.
The commercial that has exercised the political universe here is a two minute slot – presumable airing cost $12m – that features the great Clint Eastwood plugging Chrysler cars.
In a rasp that manages to be almost inaudible and therefore all the more menacing, Clint tells us how it is half time for America and how the country is regrouping to win the game. To be honest I am not sure what this has to do with Chrysler cars in general and my 2002 Chrysler convertible in particular.
The roof leaks, even when it is firmly shut. The car has filled up like a bath tub. The smell is unbearable. My kids refuse to get into it and I can only drive it without being asphyxiated by keeping the roof down in the middle of winter. Sadly Clint addressed none of these issues during his ad.
In fact he said very little about Chrysler cars themselves, which, I am told, have become a lot better since an Italian was put in charge of the company. You may know that America’s car companies have had a dramatic turn around ever since they went bust and almost disappeared after the start of the Great Recession. They had it coming of course.
Chryslers and GMs were not just rickety, cluttering contraptions compared to your average German or Japanese car, they also guzzled herculean amounts of gas, i.e. petrol. Now they are better, cheaper and less gas greedy.
The companies are making more money than they have in decades and, as the administration likes to point out, none of this would have happened if Obama hadn’t poured billions of dollars into the car giants to keep them alive and prevent millions of auto workers from losing their jobs.
This is also true, although it should be pointed out that the first $4bn pumped into Chrysler came from President Bush. The next $8bn were sent by President Obama soon after he took office.
There are four reasons why some Republicans, especially Karl Rove – President Bush’s former election guru – are so upset by the Clint Eastwood ad. Firstly they have a conflicting view of bail-outs.
Officially they are viscerally opposed to them, because they reek of big government intervention in the private market. Privately they acknowledge that some bail-outs have helped the economy.
Secondly Karl Rove hated the ad and said so repeatedly on FOX TV because it is precisely the kind of subliminal message making that he was so good at. Chrysler have been adamant that there was no political intent but no one seems to be listening.
Thirdly, and yes this hurts, Clint Eastwood is a Republican. He is the guy with the shot gun, sitting on the porch, chewing on a cigarillo and keeping away the bad boys from the hood. Clint has the kind of screen DNA that the Grand Old Party would like to bottle and sell.
So what was he doing batting for the kind of Americans who drive hybrids, eat Muesli and hate guns, ie Democrats? Except that he really wasn’t. If he did advocate the re-election of President Obama it was nothing more than a “message malfunction”.
And so to the fourth reason. The Republicans are panicking. The economy seems to be improving. The new trend is up, not down and this has been reflected in President Obama’s approval ratings.
Mitt Romney’s main appeal is that he is a turn around guy who can fix a failing economy. But if there is less reason for a turn around, why should America switch in half time to the turn around guy?
Especially since Mitt doesn’t exactly do any of the things that get you talked about, like flip the middle finger, wear a Roman tunic, or indeed just keep you awake.