"The Music Man" as Political/Economic and Social Commentary

I'm sure we are all familiar with Meredith Wilson's "The Music Man" (if not, I suggest renting it at any local Blockbuster or other video store). Originally run in 1957, then reproduced as a film in 1962, this widely acclaimed theatrical piece has been lauded for its humor and musical mastery. What seems to be lost in all the nostalgic revelry and beautifully corny Iowan values is the deeper message of the film. The Music Man is not only a very entertaining piece, it is also a somewhat serious socio-political commentary. The two most important, and most unrecognized, themes in the movie seem to be a subtle-yet-endearing criticism of midwestern corn-fed conservatism and a similar evaluation of American capitalism and politics.
Professor Harold Hill, the quick-talking big city hustler, descends on quiet River City, Iowa, planning to scam the whole town to make a quick buck. As Professor Hill gets a feel for the town, he notices something new in town: a pool table in the billiard hall. Not even an entirely new billiard hall - just one new table. Harold Hill then sets about the simple task of convincing the townspeople of the evils of that table. He proclaims his love for billiards, remarking: "I consider the hours I spend with a cue in my hand are golden," yet denounces pool: "Any boob can take and shove a ball in a pocket." What exactly is the difference between the billiards Harold Hill loves so much and pool? There isn't much of one. And that's just the point. From there on the scam commences. The people of River City need a marching band, lest pool give way to drinking, gambling, and every other sort of vice, says Harold Hill.
The symbolism behind it all? It seems reasonably obvious - the ultra-conservativism of River City's good people has made them vulnerable. Their fears overpower them as the new challenges the status quo. However, this criticism is lightened by the positive portrayal of the townspeople, even as they grope for safety amid their mounting irrational fears. Is it possible that Wilson's archetypical "River City" is representative of more than one Iowa town? It seems likely. Simply put, Wilson seems to have been commenting on the old-fashioned conservative values with which he was raised...both approving of the virtuous intentions of the people, and criticizing the results of their beliefs. But his message seems broader than that - River City seems to represent all of what America used to be - honest, hardworking and virtuous, yet sometimes vulnerable and fearful. In the end, Wilson finds a fairly fuzzy feel-good ending for the whole mess, when Harold Hill is seduced by the simple lifestyle (and women) of River City, and repents of his ways (but only after being caught). The people of River City are thrilled upon hearing the disgusting play of their children, and everyone hugs. As far as movies go, this is perfect, in the realm of social commentary, it's far from adequate - which leads to Wilson's economic commentary.
Why is it that the people of River City thought a marching band would keep their children from the wave of vice that was overtaking the town? Marketing, of course. Harold Hill was able to convince these people that their problems could be solved by...what else...buying something! It's the American way after all. In a nutshell, the sleazy opportunist hustler from the big city challenges the wholesome lifestyle of River City, and of course fails - this is Hollywood (or Broadway) after all. But in the real world, what could Wilson have been saying? Possibly River City (a.k.a. Anytown, U.S.A.) is the glorious past of America, which is threatened by change, and as the citizens react with fear to this change, they are exploited by the omnipresent opportunists of society. The logical (and not so happy) extension of the River City ordeal would be that every time change arises, there's Harold Hill waiting with his cure for every ill - all you have to do is fork over some cash. But where does all this lead?
It all leads right here, to U.S.A. 2003, where change sweeps over the population so fast no one can catch up, and thanks to marketing and hypercapitalism, wherever there is the slightest demand or discomfort, there are hundreds of products to choose from. Every problem can be solved with money, and the only real cost is the integrity of our society. Since "Harold Hill" rolled into town, our marching band has turned into a towering monstrosity that has consumed our whole culture - pills, electronics, reality TV - the list is endless. Maybe this is a little more depressing than the movie (ok, it definitely is), and although Wilson could not have in 1957 forseen our society as it is today, it seems more than likely that "The Music Man" was in part a lament, mourning the loss of honest rural America to the world of modern super-materialism. In addition, Wilson seems to blame our fear of change for this loss, at least in part. If we were only better at adapting to change and accepting the future, we would be stronger and our society might still be one of virtue, honesty and hard work.

The
(sometimes contradictory, often offensive, always thought-provoking)
Musings of Odhav

What is the key to progress?
Put down your guns and read books.
Now pick up your guns again.

Why is it that we will die for ideas, but not live for facts?

Love may be more powerful than hate, but hate has bigger explosives.

One strong man cannot change the world by himself, he needs a thousand weak men to follow him.

Next time you walk down the street, look around. If you see one person you would not die for, you have missed the point of Jesus' teachings.

The secret to happiness is self-control. If someone slaps you in the face, you cannot help but feel pain. If someone insults you, you can.

There is a thin line between genius and insanity. The happiest people in the world stand on that line.

Special Blog:
The War in Iraq

As increasingly deadly attacks on American soldiers in Iraq turn temporary occupation into a continuing war, media critics have jumped to use catch-phrases, sensationalizing the conflict as a 'quagmire' or 'the next Vietnam'. This is not surprising, given the fact that all of the media bows down to the golden calf of profit - first and foremost is always money, after that truth can be added, so long as it does not cut into consumer-appeal. Clearly it is far too early to make such claims regarding the war, but it is undeniable that the situation merits serious consideration by every American citizen. Lets take a look at the situation from both sides:

Fact: A CIA report released November 16th states there to be "No evidence of any Iraqi effort to transfer weapons of mass destruction or weapons to terrorists." (story)

If America was to go into Iraq as part of a war on terror, wouldn't that logically necessitate some form of connection between Iraq and terrorists? Earlier claims by the Bush administration of Iraqi/al Qaeda ties turned out to be inaccurate. Coupled with this new CIA study, it seems there is no defensible argument placing the war in Iraq as part of the "war on terror."

Fact: Eight months after Hitler's fall, an American paper published the headline "How We Botched the German Occupation." (story)

Once again the unholy confederation of lies that we call the American media becomes the issue. How much of the pre-war hype was exaggerated or fabricated by the media? War is the most profitable venture for media, even more so given the almost cartoonish spectacle that was this Iraqi war. (war blogs, embedded journalists, live broadcasts of bombings, etc.) More pertinent is the media's treatment of the post-war situation. Is the U.S. really trapped in a losing 2nd Vietnam? There's no way to tell right now, but media sensationalizing may lead one to believe that the Fox News and CNN war chiefs are hoping for a second run at "Operation Iraqi Freedom," and the profits that come with it.

Fact: More U.S. soldiers have already died this year in Iraq than during the first three years of U.S. operations in Vietnam. (story)

Although statements equating the Vietnam war and the current Iraqi situation are overblown and premature, it is a simple and grim statistic that Iraq's 'liberation' has cost more American lives than 3 years of mismanaged war in Vietnam. Is this Iraqi conflict worth the lives of that many American soldiers? There isn't much that can be said about this statistic without delving into conjecture and assumption, so I leave it for your consideration.

Fact: Power and water have been restored to pre-war levels or better; most schools and universities have reopened; over 170 newspapers are in circulation; hospitals are functioning. (story)

America is doing a fairly commendable job in the infrastructural reconstruction of Iraq. Although political progress seems stalled for the moment, the Iraqi people are enjoying improved conditions. Whether or not the Iraqi people by and large support American occupation is debatable...it seems to have fallen into the realm of media bias, where the opinions of the Iraqi people seem to magically change with every new opinion column. It looks like only time will tell the mindset of the Iraqis.

Fact: Osama bin Laden is still alive. Al Qaeda is alive and well.

Al Qaeda has executed more terror attacks since 9/11 than they did beforehand. Many believe that the occupation of Iraq has done nothing but strengthen anti-U.S. sentiment in the Middle East and sent more new recruits to al Qaeda. Some may contend that al Qaeda has been hurt by U.S. attacks, but no one is claiming that al Qaeda is squirming under the wrath of U.S. military might, or that al Qaeda is even close to extinction. With all the money (estimates fall around 219.6 billion dollars) going towards this war on terror, shouldn't we have weakened al Qaeda considerably by now, or at least gotten rid of bin Laden? Critics say we've missed the mark completely, war proponents say we're well on our way...at this point it's hard to tell who is right.

Well there's the situation...we're all going to make up our own minds no matter what, so I'm not going to spin this one way or the other. You have the facts...to quote the veritable fount of truth and non-bias that is Bill O'Reilly, "I'll give you the last word."