Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
House of Lies: How Do We Foreclose?
If you go to the corner of 8th Avenue and 42nd Street near Times Square in Manhattan, just down from the Wax Museum and around the corner from the bus station, and look up, you’ll see an oversized billboard for Showtime’s, fast -paced “House of Lies,” a new cable TV series that is more like a realistic docudrama about the world of hard-charging management consultants.
(Photo: Bauer Griffin)
Don Cheadle stars in this tightly written challenge to the popular "Mad Men" glorification of Madison Avenue in the 1950s, spiced with the insertion of pretty graphic hot sex that makes Janet Jackson’s Superbowl moment seem like it belonged on the Disney Channel. An actor on the series laughingly downplays the explicit physical grappling as “naughty.”
At a time when Mitt Romney, a former management consultant at Bain Capital, is running for president, this show offers insight into just how vulgar vulgar capitalism can be.
In one scene, the team headed by Cheadle who plays the superslick Marty Kaan (a.k.a. “King Kaan”) is pitching a bank president on how to win over the public by offering interest free loans and guarantees to keep customers in their homes.
When his prospective client rejects the idea, it is explained that very few of his customers will end up "qualifying” for the “benefit”; the benefit is designed as a phony image-enhancer allowing him and his cronies to take big bonuses without any criticism. When the client understands that he can get richer by appearing socially responsible, he hires the team. It’s all a clever flim-flam, but sounds suspiciously like what most of the big banks did when peddling fraudulent loans.
The Internet Motion Picture Data Base calls the series, “a subversive, scathing look at a self-loathing management consultant from a top-tier firm. Marty, a highly successful cutthroat consultant is never above using any means (or anyone) necessary to get his clients the information they want.”
Cheadle’s work in this series is very political even as it is promoted as only entertainment and comedy. Perhaps that is why cheeky reviewers in such high-level publications as Entertainment Weekly attack it by acknowledging that the issues it raises are appropriate but, of course, not the way they raise them.
Ken Tucker writes, “And at this time in history, who doesn’t want to see undeservingly wealthy people get fleeced, or at least brought low by their avarice? In practice, however, House of Lies becomes a zero-sum game: Creeps conning creeps, and the creeps we’re supposed to root for — Cheadle’s gang at Galweather & Stearn, led by their boss, The West Wing‘s Richard Schiff — don’t seem all that much more interesting than the clients they’re gouging.”
Au contraire. New York Magazine gets closer to the truth by writing:
“Marty and his clients portray the one percent at their very worst: ‘You look at the pilot and go, “Man, these guys helped these assholes be happier and keep doing their business,”’ says Cheadle. ‘But they give themselves the out that “we’re not the ones doing it. They’re doing it. We’re just helping them do it better.”…’
“The timing, between Occupy Wall Street and the presidential election, couldn’t be better for a sendup of corporate amorality and the kind of M.B.A. capitalism Mitt Romney, at Bain & Co., helped perfect.”
Remember, Cheadle starred in “Hotel Rwanda” (2004), a film about the Rwandan genocide. He later was active in promoting awareness of genocide in the Darfur region of Sudan. The IMDCB reminds us that, “In January 2005, he traveled to Sudan with five members of Congress to see refugee camps and to meet survivors of the genocide. Upon his return, he reported on his trip for ‘ABC News Nightline.’”
Today the only films about Romney, the real-world con(man)sultan(t) are full-length attack ads like the one that Newt Gingrich made and then apologized for making.
Increasingly, to get to the truth of any of this you have to watch TV entertainment or films, not news. Stephen Colbert can raise the critique about money in politics that he does because he is considered a comic, someone who “riffs” (to use a New York Times word), not a serious commentator.
Unfortunately, in our culture, information has to be presented as entertainment to be taken seriously because information programming and news reporting is so predictable and formularized. The best new film on the financial crisis is “Margin Call.” Documentaries like the ones I have done on banksters can’t compete in this environment.
That’s one of the reasons the big Internet sites went after the new bill on online piracy, arguing it would make it harder to reference copywritten material in social criticism and free speech.
Of course, they also did it because they were being threatened with fines and jail time for carrying, or allowing others to download, music and movies that Hollywood producers and the Music Biz want to control to keep their profits high. They are the real pirates in this piracy debate.
The lesson in the one-day so-called “internet strike” led by Wikipedia, Google et.al is that when usually competitive companies collaborate they have a lot of power.
The Left blogosphere could learn this lesson. While the right-wing punditocracy tend to share and reinforce the same message, radicals love to fight with each other in pursuit of the “correct line” and often dissipate their impact by magnifying small differences to prove some often-insignificant point.
I had that experience with some organizations I approached to work with Globalvision in creating the collaborative not-for-profit Mediachannel.org network to try to help build a media and democracy movement.
They insisted on not working together or cross-promoting each other’s work because it would, they feared, diminish their vanguard role. In their own way they were as single-mindedly competitive as any avaricious capitalist firm. Some said, “we will hurt ourselves if we help you,” retreating into what became a self-serving parochial cottage industry that was not growing.
In one sense, they projected the values that were the bain of the Bain “solution.” Today, Mediachannel is back as Mediachannel1.org, in an alliance with Rob Kall’s Op-ed News, hoping to reclaim its cutting-edge role in dissecting media as a window into what’s wrong with our system – and what we can do about it.
Join us as members or affiliates. Working together helps make the difference in the house of lies we live in.


20 Comments so far
Show Alldanny's a good guy
but i have a suggestion - turn the fucker off
no tv
period
it is a mind control mechanism but it comes with a cure
its called the off button
especially when the tv shows are real and the political campaigns are cartoons
read a book, hug your kid, talk to your spouse, weed the garden
you'd be surprised how much time you will have on your hands
and that surreal quietude you become engulfed in is called your life....
turned my insanity faucet off in 2000...
i'm 2 years clean and the only thing i miss is katie couric's ass polyps...
Excellent points. Most environmental websites do not link to each other because they are really worried about donations being siphoned off. Egotism is also the driver of both sides. Elite liberals worry about a diminishing of their vanguard role and the egos of CEOs is legendary. Why do so many people support movie, sports, music and business celebrities? Because they hang on to their hope that they may someday achieve the fame and fortune these people have. This is why these same people are against internet piracy. Success is the god particle of our human-made universe that holds it all together. The idea of the celebrity, Cheadle, playing a slimeball executive that so many secretly admire is a bit overmuch. The scary part is that while news has become entertainment, entertainment has become news.
Why is it that too many threads begin with the dashing duo of Medmedude and his new sidekick, "Robert C?"
Danny has tried to set up a media channel that is NOT owned by the usual suspects. My only question (or concern) is that he may take for Left media (the ones he defines as refusing to give up their particular area of focus, or fear the loss of their vanguard) those who more truly qualify as centrist GATE KEEPERS.
How often has a blogger or writer been tagged as "Left" or "Liberal" or "Progressive," and shown support for Obama? That's a virtual non-sequitur.
This is why it would be far more accurate to have individuals fill out forms identifying their positions on a scale of 1 (strongly agree) to 5 (strongly disagree) on the top 35 issues of our times, and allow a COMPUTER to generate their most applicable "political camp."
Perhaps the rogue category of "anomaly" might also be used. Some Ron Paul supporters would likely fit right in there.
dashing duo? why i... blush
dontcha love it
we are being stalked by a bipolar rockefeller acolyte
Gee, Siouxrose, I can’t imagine why you’re pounding on medmedude and Robert C. They’ve said nothing you’d usually think offensive, as in turn off the TeeVee and get a life, and people who want Internet strictures have weird agendas. Do you disagree with those points, or have you forgotten to take your meds? Maybe you need to “up” them. You seem to be going “bipolar,” as the ignoramuses like to say.
elizabeth: i'm guessing that siouxrose is a plant - rockerfeller ngo i would guess
she has reduced herself to vile hateful rants of no substance but they are not restricted to me - yesterday she was defaming folks at 3 flames per post
what can you do...its sad really
but to respond to her latest hate bomb: maybe the reason i am in the early posts here is that i get up in the morning...
and suzy dear - i have no idea who robert c is but his is not my sidekick, nor i his. (but he does seem a bloody decent fellow)
another one of your baseless hate theories down the drain
you seem pathetic
My best guess is that she's a wanna-be paid psyop agent for the Department of Education or the mental health industry.
Rid yourself of the TV monster, it radiates nothing but poison. Take a walk.
No. I watch TV for the same reason militaries monitor enemy propaganda -- to know what's being said, how it's being said, and if there is any way to counter it. But if all you "turn off the TV" types can't watch TV without seeing the lies and manipulations, without getting sucked into the goofy-ass world it depicts, then most certainly you all should not watch. It's like alcohol -- some people can drink moderately in appropriate amounts, others who have one drink go on a binge and end up in jail or in the gutter. TV is like that too, only more people are on the binge side of things than the critical evaluators.
The internet allows more selective picking and choosing of the b.s., but it is possible to watch TV sometime, take a quiet walk other time, surf the net and fact check assertions that are made on TV other times. But if you can't do that, hey ...
You've got a good point. I compromise by viewing others' TeeVees, but it's not the same. Plus I miss Turner Classic Movies.
It's not just about the content. There are other things going on. It also feels good to not be paying the corporation, high prices for such worthless dehumanizing crap.
And that's what's really important -- feeling good about yourself. Well, go for it. I'm not telling anyone to watch TV, you are telling people not to. Therein lies the difference.
Thanks, I'm not telling anyone to do anything. It seems like you are saying I'm trying to feel good about myself by telling people not to watch TV, strange!
Though the comment I posted a little farther down the thread would indicate otherwise, I do agree with your comparison of binge television watching with binge drinking or other destructive binging...and that there is an off button and/or channel changing method always available. It's a good analogy of the kinds of behavior that inspire such admonitions as, 'moderation in all things'. I also agree with your reasons for watching and why you think it is a good idea.
Too bad, in the case of such things as television...the admonition to reduce or modify usage, however intelligently and persuasively stated, too often falls on ears that seem unable to process much other than the digital frequencies emitting from the 'control boxes' in their living rooms, dens, bedrooms, nurseries and yes, even bathrooms telling them what to watch, drink, eat, wear, play with, sleep on, brush their teeth with, stop their body odor with, drive around in, where to shop, where to worship, where to live, who to love, who to hate, how to breath, how to interact, how to........sorry...I imagine my point was made in the first paragraph.
I salute all who have identified, rejected and removed from their lives the most insidious and powerful propaganda delivery system ever devised!
"but he can't be a man cause he doesn't smoke the same cigarettes as me"
I just watched the Winter Soldier Hearings on TV. The testimony from IVAW was one of the most powerful anti-war statements I have ever seen. I also have learned a lot from C-span and C-span2 Book TV. Yes, 95% of what is on TV is horrific, but the other 5% is great.
Also, most communities have a community channel which is open to all. As censorship of political speech grows, that is one way to get the word out. Books are great, but where I live some books, especially political books that criticize the dem/repubs, are banned in the local public library which receives tax funds - a violation of the First Amendment.