Page 8-Sunday, April 6, 1980-The Michigan Daily 9 w 0 bush (Continued from Page 3) arousing criticism from them. and making Reagan look like a martyr. "If George had said, 'Look, this has gone far enough, let's all debate,' then I think we'd have been 10 points better at the polls," says Richard Goodman, Bush's media advisor. Three days later, Bush suffered a crushing defeat. Polls showed him run- ning even with Reagan, but the final tally gave the former California gover- nor a 2-1 victor'y. The Bush machine had stalled. Another consideration is that Bush always runs on momentum-the cheerleader-but he rarely addresses specifically the issues. Goodman ad- mits the public felt Bush was am- biguous in speeches. "George Bush was that new face people were hungering for. We had a great advantage in the lack of perceptions of him, really, which meant we could present a fresh perception that would be considered new and different," Goodman says. During a critical strategy session af- ter the Iowa victory, the Bush camp met to decide whether to keep the same formula, or come out and be more specific on the economy and foreign policy. "We didn't put an issue base un- der the momentum like we should have. There's a false perception out there that George Bush doesn't talk about issues," said James Baker III, Bush's campaign manager. The potential switch in strategy seemed sound enough, for now that the media had made Bush its golden boy, the former CIA chief would have to with- stand more scrutiny than he had ever confronted. If he presented himself as the 1980 version of a wishy-washy no one-knows-where-he-stands-man (re- member the 1976 Jimmy Carter), the media could bludgeon him to sub- mission. UT IN POLITICS, rarely does a candidate tinker with a winning strategy. Bush kept talking a ut momentum, and rejected the idea of being more open about the issues. What the New Hampshire hurricane demonstrated is that the public, once eager for a fresh new face, had found out more about him and saw him as he really was, empty and shallow. They so desperately wanted to support Bush, but realized he was ac- ting liberal to the liberals, moderate to the moderates, and conservative to the conservatives. No one knew where he really stood. And once the only thing he had going for him-momentum-had vanished in New England, there was nothing else. After Iowa, Reagan still had his har- dcore supporters firmly behind him. After the early primaries, Kennedy still had the support of the longtime liberal constituency, the poor, and the unions. But so much of Bush's appeal relied on continued winnability. One loss in new Hampshire uncovered his weakness, destroyed his myth. "Wien you look behind George Bush's campaign, there was nothing there. He was a hollow shell," says Dick Bennett, a pollster for Rep. John Anderson. Both Carter's and Bush's campaigns have been victimized by a charge made by observers of primary strategies: As long as an unknown candidate looks and sounds good; the naive public will see only the surface and vote for him. But Bush's New Hampshire defeat and other setbacks disproved this notion. The public apparently wants a politician who addresses specific issues; thus, the emergence of John Anderson, a man whom the public can trust because it perceives him as willing to discuss the issues openly. Following the string of whippings Reagan dealt the former ambassador, the Bush organization finally decided to make a drastic move: Elimination of the public's perception that Bush avoids the issues. After a speech before the Council of Foreign Relations in Chicago, the candidate entered a small room to talk to the press for a few minutes. Polls had just come out the day before that showed Bush lagging a distant third behind Anderson 'and Reagan in the battle for the Illinois primary. The anxious press eagerly awaited a response from the candidate to the most recent bad news.-But Bush refused to answer any questions about the campaign's politics. From now on, he would only talk about specific issues and policies. Any questions about his race strategy would be referred to other members of his staff. The press was stunned. After all, here before them was the man who made the word 'momentum' such a key part of the political dictionary. This switch in strategy was a refreshing addition to the campaign, but it came too late. By now, Bush was a washed-up com- modify. He could still win or do well in some of the remaining primaries, but the Reagan momentum looks un- beatable. On that night two months ago in Iowa, it was the Bush momentum which looked unbeatable. The television camera lights were everywhere. With a broad smile, Bush thanked his troops and told them it was time to conquer the next state. He looked like a winner. On the day he changed his strategy in Chicago, he appeared tired and desperate. The press which had once swelled to two busloads had dwindled rapidly. The hopes and expectations of January had turned into the reality of March. George Bush looked like a loser. What happened in those two months is not only another strange develop- ment in a strange political year, but it reflects an underlying fallacy in a strategy that worked four years ago. Politicians cannot run only on momen- tum, they must offer the public firm goals and ideas as well. l u nclg l 1 - r a a F W 4F flamingos I comics (Continued from Page 7) them, and selling the babies to lesbian couples on a black-market adoption ring. WITH THE FIGHT for filth in full spendor, the movie can get down to its real story-namely, seeing how many silly/disgusting activities can be crammed into a 90-minute film. We see Divine's hippie son screwing his date while he cuts off a live chicken's head; policemen being slaughtered and eaten (Waters reportedly used fresh cow in- nards for the grisly sequence); a masturbation scene with the extraor- dinarily repulsive Channing the butler; and Divine, capturing her rivals, the Marbles, giving them a hasty tar-and- feathering, and murdering them after a mock trial in which she tells an inter- viewer that she just lo-o-oves the taste of blood-especially "freshly-killed blood." The movie is capped by its celebrated finale: Divine (in an un- faked scene) devouring: dog feces,' staring into the camera with a grotesque grin on her face, as "How Much Is That Doggie In The Window?" pipes in the background with naughty glee. If this sounds like a revolting spec- tacle, it is, and it's meant to be. The movie is a feature-length Hustler Magazine cartoon, post-de Sade por- nography in which sexual stimulation, takes a back-seat to violence and repulsion. Even the humor has a mean- spirited wallop, as in a scene where Divine almost mows down some hit- chhikers and a wide-angle lens smears her nasty, crooked-toothed smile all- over the screen. (There is, though, one cute bit about a man who likes to expose himsel!with an enormous sausage tied to his dong.) Yet what's ultimately most ugly about Pink Flamingos is that the per- formers' haughty exhibitionism becomes as loathsome as any of their activities. The disgusting scenes are so graphically realistic that the line bet- ween onscreen and offscreen behavior is effectively dissolved. That's why Divine can call herself "Divine" in the movie; she's playing herself, perhaps not literally, but projecting her fan- tasies onto the screen as surely as .the writer-director projects his. You can't tell yourself that it's only a movie, but you can't help asking yourself, Why would anyone want to go out and make a movie like this? The movie's imagination is essen- tially prepubescent-a joyous celebration of bodily functions. Except that the jokey tone and innocent "playfulness" are a hoax, since these aren't kids locked into their anal stage (like the child-artist in Chris Miller's immortal National Lampoon story "The Toilet Papers") but real live grown-ups, who know perfectly well how their little performances are likely to effect viewers. That the whole business is tied to a limp satire of "bad taste" convinces some people that there's a message about society in all that scatological craziness. But Pink Flamingos is really a freak show for curiosity-seekers, and Divine, the queen freak, delivers even more than you expect (or want)? She really is the filthiest person alive. The movie makes some people cheer, others clasp their hands to their stomachs and dash to the bathroom. About all it really guaran- tees, though, is that you won't be bored. I guess some people get bored real easily. I _ -~---~ I -~ dt -2 U - ..- _M. f X- _1 I d m - Allor-Ir" 3m 9 Apr-wi Amit91 * U m A - ~- I 2:! (Continued from Page 6) worse than their smaller, less expen- sive, four-color cousins. They include the Warren magazines (Creepy, Eerie, Vampirella, and 1994), Heavy Metal and other imitators, the Marvel magazines (Howard the Duck, Tomb of Dracula and The Hulk), and others. These "adult" comic books usually contain what four-color comics do not: violence and sex. But they also contain what regular comics have in abundan- ce: poor writing. Although the artwork for the adult comics has been generally good, the prose has been terrible. In fact, the comic book's current sorry state can be justifiably blamed on the writers in particular, whose abilities seem confined to tapping out a few, flowery descriptive words for conver- sation scenes and snatches of "clever" dialogue to accompany the customary fight sequences. This has not always been the case. Good comic book writers used to be much more plentiful: Steve Gerber of Defenders and Man-Thing; Steve Englehart of Captain America; Len Wein of Swamp-Thing; and Denny O'Neil of Batman and Green Lantern. To understand the depths to which comic book writers have plummeted, take a look at a recent issue of one of the aforementioned larg format magazines, Howard the Duck No. 4. This comic tells theadventures of an English-speaking duck from a "parallel universe," who is now stranded on ear- th. Through the escapades of this alien duck, who wears people-clothes, smokes people-cigars, and feels people- physical passions, the writer airs his comical, and often sarcastic, view of our existence. But much of the duck's novelty has worn off; the social com- mentary provided through his sarcastic view of life has given way to a straight "humor" magazine. Comic books today are not all bad. There have been a few instances of recent comics that are worthy of being compared to some of the best in the field. The Micronauts (based on the toys of the same name) by writer Bill, Mantlo and artist Michael Golden, has achieved what seemed to be an awesome task: transforming toys into characters with real backgrounds and personalities into an enjoyable free- wheeling, space-opera series. Unfortunately, comic books of this quality are all too rare these days. Most of today's comics are poor examples of the art. But then, how seriously can one really accept comic books as true art? This is a question that troubles any serious collector or fan at-one time or another. The future of comic books' status in the culture world is unclear. The market for child-oriented comics is still strong, and it is possible that the gib- berish that pervades those will soon take over even all the magazine-format comics..Unless adult comics change soon, those struggling to preserve their artistic appeal will disappear altogether. .I 3 - Ak Ar-IML- WMET - L-jr 4W % -. "WA-ifti ig . {. . -va NONE= msiz!nml ft r undag 'A Why the Bi fire burned Co-editors Elisa Isaacson RJ Smith Associate editor Adrienne Lyons Assessing The Hulk's intellectuality, Supplement to The Michigan Daily The filthiest movie alive Cover by RJ SMITH Ann Arbor, Michigan--Sunday, April 6, 1980, ,