Being Controversial

Unless you've been completely away from a television set, radio, or newspaper (both online and print) it's hard not to know about the stink raised by Ann Coulter in her comments regarding the widows of September 11th. In a nutshell, she accused the widows, who lost their husbands in the attack of 9/11, of revelling in the celebrity that followed. She accuses them of using their status of being on TV or in the paper as a reason to make millions by drawing out sympathy from the public. Now whether you believe her claims or not, it seems to be quite a bold statement to make. And whether you are a liberal or a conservative or a moderate, I don't know how you cannot be shocked when you hear such a statement. In a thousand such cases, there may have been one or two who would have fallen into that category, but to accuse them all of being that way is just ridiculous and wrong.

So why would she have done such a thing? Does she really think that this is the case? Honestly I don't think so. I'm not defending what Coulter did or didn't say, nor am I saying that I agree with her viewpoints. What I am saying is that she has taken the route that so many others have taken in order to raise awareness of their product. It worked wonders for Howard Stern when he first came on the radio. People who loved him tuned in to hear how outlandish he could get and just as many people who hated him tuned in to hear just how outlandish he would get. The end result? Howard Stern often had among the highest listenership ever.

How about the recent controversy over "The DaVinci Code"? The controversial topic of the lineage of Christ and its ramifications on the church were heard around the world. Was the book truthful? Was the movie truthful? Who knows, but at least it did what it was supposed to. You couldn't open a single booklist for months without seeing "The DaVinci Code" planted at the top of it. It was virtually a fixture on the hardback list; and when it finally came out in paperback format, it was a fixture there as well. Apparently the controversial topic of the book did little to detract from its sales. In fact, it probably boosted it to even higher heights. Why? Because people wanted to know exactly what the controversy was about.

And when the movie came out? Well, that furor was the talk of all the town a couple of weeks ago. Now that the initial hubbub has passed, it's almost another summer movie that failed to live up to the hype. The movie in itself was quite like the book but now that everyone has had a chance to see what the movie is and how the book is, the controversy has died down. But it managed to serve its purpose. The movie made back its money and is already showing signs of profiting. And despite not being a major hit over here in the States, the movie is raking in money overseas and is continuing to do well. So once again, the controversy is helping boost the sales.

That's not to say that all controversial decisions are solely based on profit. What about "Star Wars: Episode I" and the controversial move to cast Darth Vader as a child! The controversy abounded and.... well wait.... it is "Star Wars". Controversy or not, it would have done well anyways. This was after all two years after "Titanic" and sixteen years after the last "Star Wars" movie; all the Star Wars fans out there wanted the movie to make tons of money so that it would supplant "Titanic" at the top of the box office standings. It could have been two hours of starfields set to the music of John Williams and it still would have made money. We're quite fickle that way.

Controversy isn't always a bad thing, but when there are cases where someone says something totally outlandish; these days you best believe that it's probably being said with the intention of boosting sales. On that note.... Darth Maul would kick Yoda's butt any day of the week and twice on Sunday!