I'm thinking about the actor Morgan Freeman these days.
It isn't that I've ever been a big fan,but he has crossed my radar lately in two ways that may be related. So let's talk about Freeman, in this post and in the next.
Regular readers of my blogs know that I'm a devotee of the animated show South Park, the wisdom of which I have cited on issues like literary fraud and Ritalin.
Anyway, the day after out recent presidential election South Park ran an episode called "Obama Wins!"
Despite the simplicity of that title, the episode was a complicated one, involving stolen ballot boxes, a Chinese General, and Disney's recent purchase of the intellectual property of Star Wars.
At a couple of points in the convoluted plot, an animated version of Morgan Freeman shows up to explain things to the regular characters in the series. Indeed, one of the regular characters comments on how Freeman does exactly this in his movie roles.
Does he? Maybe some reader of mine can clue me in, in the comment section of this blog. But the only movie I can think of where Freeman plays an expository role is The Shawshank Redemption.
He has also played God in a couple of movies, with Jim Carrey and again with Steve Carrell, but I don't remember that he did a lot of explaining in either. If he did, that would of course make him what literary folk call an omniscient narrator.
Anyway, South Park used the conceit to amusing effect.
Why do I bring this up? Because Morgan Freeman also turns up as the alleged author of a essay meditating on the terrible school shooting in Newtown a week ago. And in asking myself why the real author or authors of that essay picked Freeman's name as the pseudo-author, the best answer I could come up with was ... South Park. Maybe they saw the episode I've just described and thought Freeman would be the natural person to have explain things to the various Facebook recipients of that essay!
Comments
Post a Comment