The NYT is never worse than when trying to glibly deal with pop culture and/or trying to treat glib pop culture too seriously. They're not Entertainment Weekly and shouldn't try. Here's the NYT on "Miami Vice" from Friday's paper:
[Crockett and Tubbs] were hardened, dedicated officers, but they also made their fair share of blunders, mistakes and dumb assumptions. They were dissolute but human, gritty but glamorous: the MTVification of "Hill Street Blues."Crockett and Tubbs were hardened and dedicated? "Miami Vice" -- the show in which, as the NYT mentions, Crockett kept a pet alligator, they floated around Miami in designer clothes and drove ultra-expensive automobiles to the sounds of Phil Collins -- was realistic, in the tradition of "Hill Street Blues?" It was fun, but gritty? Really? And then there's this from the intro:
It's settled. The '80s were more fun. Aerobics, unlike elliptical machines and Pilates, were inclusive.Huh? I'm still arguing with Monkeyboy about what that means. I thought it was referring to class, as if aerobics were for the masses and Pilates and elliptical machines for the wealthy. Monkeyboy says it refers to the way they were done, aerobics typically in classes and Pilates more often with a one-on-one instructor and elliptical machines in the isolating world of the gym, I suppose. He couldn't be bothered to put up much fuss when I argued the classic '80s image of aerobics was women performing it at home, alone, via the Jane Fonda Workout tape and that Pilates can be done in groups. (Can't it?)
What do you think this rather bizarre sentence is referring to? Besides, shouldn't that read "Aerobics WAS inclusive" anyway, since aerobics is singular?
No comments:
Post a Comment