Idiocracy: A Failed Parody?

While I think Idiocracy provided an interesting example of the confluence of citizenship and consumerism, however, I had several issues with its depiction of this process. In the year 2505, the corporations have effectively taken over the country, with all food preprocessed and prepackaged and all drinks replaced with sports drinks. Clearly this is meant to be a parody of what Grewal and Kaplan term America’s "conjunction of consumer cultures and democratic rights cultures" (9). Corporations are considered the country’s most important economic citizens (Miller 44), and act as if their attempts to create profit are merely altruistic acts of “corporate citizenship” (Miller 49).

But what doesn’t make sense to me is that the CEO of Brawndo is depicted as a complete imbecile rather than a conniving businessman. The thesis of the movie seems to be that the infantilizing power of capitalism has, over time, allowed the entire country to grow less and less intelligent, while the corporations have honed their ability to appeal to the individual (lazy) consumer. Home entertainment systems include lavatories in the easy chair; Starbucks moves into a more intimate form of individual pleasure. Clearly these strategies are the inventions of savvy businessmen. Why, then, are the corporations depicted as dumb, too?

In addition, instead of presenting dispersed neoliberal power that would likely be apparent in a corporate-controlled world, the U.S. government and the president are still the seat of overwhelming official power. The president declares national initiatives such as the conversion to water with little or no input from Congress (shown as a mass of jeering idiots) or the relevant corporations (thus the retroactive backlash from Brawndo). He unmakes them just as easily, such as his decision to pardon Not Sure after officiating at his almost-execution. He has no apparent term limit, and appoints Not Sure the Vice President without an election or a congressional vetting. In short, the corporations may have grown more power, but they ultimately do not impede the power of the legitimate government.

This film has some relevant critiques of U.S. consumer culture, but its oversight of important details such as these dilutes its parodic effect, and as Victoria rightly points out, makes it very difficult to watch.