Television Shows and Reviews
Jun. 4th, 2017 08:34 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
shadowkat1. Question: Are any television shows worthy of obsession?
Answer: Probably not. Doesn't keep me from obsessing about them, though. Or anyone else for that matter, apparently.
I don't know. This Sat, I had a conversation about how I was going to try to be less judgmental about things and people. But it's really hard to do, since "judgment" is prevalent in our society. I'm not talking about being constructively critical or critical, but judging. I'm finding it tough to do.
When I was obsessed with Buffy, I remember being embarrassed about it. I was very judgmental of myself. Why this show, I'd ask myself and not something like the Sopranos? Or Six Feet Under? Or the Wire? (Okay, I was briefly obsessed with The Wire...so never mind). I didn't go to conventions. Just obsessed online, and wrote lots of meta on it. Nor did I bother with autographs. It was the story and characters that obsessed me, and the writing. Something about it grabbed me by the jugular and would not let go. Perhaps, it's because it more than anything else at the time -- spoke to what I was feeling, and could not express after 9/11 happened and everything I knew and thought I knew turned inside out and upside down.
I remember being obsessed with Battle Star Galatica, the first version, when I was a child. Loving it in that weird way that you fall in love with a piece of art. But I didn't write about it. I just couldn't wait for the next episode. I had a crush on Apollo, I was 12 years old.
And Farscape, much later of course, something in it spoke to me -- but it was short lived. I did buy the DVDs. But I didn't rewatch them and rewatch them.
I remember when I was 13, I was obsessed with the Hobbit, the animated film, the book, and even was in the play at a Children's Theater nearby during the summer.
It spoke to me.
As an adult, I've been obsessed with fare that most would judge me harshly for, hell they already have. And I think there's something to be said for not giving a shit what other people think. People either get it or they don't. Regardless of what you are obsessed with, whether it be The Godfather movies, Star Wars, Star Trek, a series of classical novels, Shakespeare, funky shows about gangsters, video games, petunias, cats, daytime soaps, vampires, television shows, or comic books, I'm not sure it matters. If it makes you happy, cheers you up, pushes the black clouds away...does it matter?
2. Question: What qualifies as kid fare and adult?
Answer: I've been wondering about this for a while now. I will go through the children's shelves in book stores, and while much of the books on the shelves are obviously kid's fare, such as Goodnight, Moon. Other's I wonder about from time to time. Peter Rabbit has some disturbing bits in it. As does The Hobbit and Harry Potter, and Twilight.
Some books I honestly think are adult and kid, Huckleberry Finn and Animal Farm come to mind. As too does The Jungle Book, Fairy Tales, and The Hobbit.
And then there are television series...apparently people think if teens or kids are the main characters - it's a children's show? Except Vampire Dairies, Buffy, The 100, Game of Thrones, Glee, all struck me as adult fare. Sure some shows are obviously kid fare such as Sesame Street, Mister Rogers, Bear in the Big Blue House, Sarah Jane Adventures...but others, like Doctor Who, Star Trek, Buffy, the Hunger Games, and The 100 do not feel like kid shows to me, they feel very adult.
I know I watched The Muppet Show, which people thought was a kid's show. It really wasn't. It has a lot of subtle political and sexual satire in it.
And don't get me started on cartoons. People are weird about them. Some label anything animated as a "cartoon", just as they label anything that is a book with storyboarding or illustrated panels telling a story -- a comic book. It's not. Cartoons also aren't just for kids. Fritz the Cat -- notably was an R rated adult cartoon, as was Betty Boop. Many of the Looney Tunes cartoons are very adult, as are some of the Hannah Barbara. Bulwinkle was an adult political satire. The Family Guy is for adults.
What's always annoyed me about it -- is this: if it is kid's fare, and you are an adult, there seems to be something automatically wrong with you enjoying it. Several literary writers have blogged and written essays in mags about how it is wrong somehow to enjoy children's books as an adult. That somehow you should be reading much harder or loftier fare, as if such a thing exists. How dare you read and be obsessed with Harry Potter! When you should be reading...I don't know Gone Girl? The latest National Book Award Winner?
Why is that?
3. Television Reviews well sort of...
* Doctor Who - The Lie of the Land
Don't have a great deal to say about this episode. It was okay. I thought it was better than last week's episode, less obvious plot holes. But I also felt like I've been there done that...which was the problem with this particular arc, well amongst other things.
I did like some things about it, which are spoilery, so beneath the cut:
* The Doctor and Missy's discussions were rather fascinating. How she suggests that he kill Bill, no worse, make Bill a brain dead husk to defeat the monks - for the greater good. Which is a concept of morality that science fiction has been fiddling with forever.
It's very Machivellian - the ends justify the means. It is also a nice twist on Bill's choice, she chose the Doctor and doomed humanity. So here, Bill must sacrifice herself for humanity or the Doctor sacrifice Bill for humanity. "The needs of the many outweigh the few" -- Spock states at the end of The Wrath of Khan, but Kirk apparently disagrees and hunts a means of saving Spock.
I liked the discussion at the end best. It actually made the episode for me. And changed my mind about Missy/Master -- where she states that she remembers the names and faces of everyone she's killed and there are so many...how he didn't tell her about this. Tears streaming down her face. He says how this is actually a good thing.
The writer's of Doctor Who are obviously not pro-death penalty and believe in redemption -- I agree with them for the most part. Death solves nothing, unless someone is a threat and there is no other way to stop it. But I'm not sure about redemption. I've met and seen people who...well...can a sociopath truly change?
* Bill's ability to free the world by focusing on her own reconstructed memory of her mother...a memory constructed largely from photographs provided by The Doctor.
Focusing on a pure, loving memory of someone who cared for her without wanting anything in return breaks the monks spell. Demonstrating that they didn't understand love completely. Or rather they don't understand "unconditional love".
* Nardole and Bill's banter.
That's it really. Didn't like anything else.
* Riverdale
Two episodes left. I'm enjoying the series. It's beautifully shot and has an amazing color scheme. The production, set design, cinematographer, editors, makeup and costumes are doing a great job. The only weak points are well, the direction and writing...which is rather limp. But I'm enjoying it.
It has a graphic novel feel to it. Jughead is my favorite character. The actor is doing a great job...emoting. And I love Skeet Ullrich as Jug's dad "FP". Molly Ringwald, who plays Archie's mom, looks weird. Has she done botox or plastic surgery? Her face is oddly stiff and lop-sided. It's admittedly odd to see her as a Mom, but then it is also odd to see Luke Perry (who played Buffy's high school boyfriend Pike in the Buffy movie) as a Dad, and Ringwald's hubby.
I like the tone of the series and find it captivating enough to stick with.
*Still Star-Crossed
Well, I'm not sure it's very good, but it is definitely intriguing. (Reminds me a bit of Reign actually in quality - so more a CW series than an ABC series...). But it is intriguing enough to hold my interest at any rate. It focuses on the twenty-somethings in the cast. But I like Grant Bowler's turn as Montague. Head, I'm on the fence about at the moment. The casting is the most diverse and colorblind that I've ever seen. They have interracial couples all over the place and aren't blinking an eye. Romeo is black, with a white father, white cousin, and in love with white Juliet, who has black cousins. It's startling because a mere ten years ago, such a thing was...well rarely done.
Don't get me wrong, I love it. But it surprised me a little. Time was, the networks would have prohibited it. And this is on a major network - ABC.
The first episode pretty much retells the Rome and Juliet storyline, except from Benvolo (Romeo's confidante) and Rosalind's (Juliet's confident) perspectives.
And it changes a few things from the Shakespearean version which I found intriguing.
Here's how the show differs:
Instead of Juliet's nurse helping her, her cousin, Rosalind who is both a servant and a Capulet does. Rosalind and her sister Olivia, after their parents died, were taken in by their Aunt and Uncle (Juliet's parents) and forced to be servants. Their Aunt was apparently jealous of their mother for marrying their father. Their Aunt went for the richer, titled brother (Anthony Stewart Head) instead of the brother she loved and is blaming them for her mistake.
Romeo's father, Papa Montague, has manipulated his son into falling in love with Juliet Capulet. He paid the Priest to ensure their union. With the view that once she got pregnant with his son's child, he'd have a Capulet under his family name. But alas, the Priest gave them poison and they died. He's not happy with the Priest. That's a nice twist. And it works. Montague came from the labor class and worked his way up to the elite. But he's still frowned upon.
Romeo and Juliet both take the poison. She doesn't kill herself with his dagger upon waking, he has enough poison left in the vial so she can die too.
Paris happens upon Romeo entering Juliet's tomb and they fight. Romeo stabs Paris in the stomach. Paris survives and is taken in by Juliet's mother, Lady Capulet, who is frantically trying to nurse him back to health. Olivia, Rosalind's sister finds them and asks to be his nurse.
Meanwhile, Rosalind is in love with the Prince of Verona. (The father died leaving the nation in his son and daughter's hands. The daughter is the more pragmatic of the two.) But after Romeo and Juliet die, the Prince decides to marry her off to Romeo's cousin Benevolo. Neither are happy about it. They argue constantly. This to stop the incessant rioting and fighting that has been happening since R&J's deaths.
Everything else is pretty much the same.
Paris isn't the son of the Prince of Verona, like he was in the play, but a neighboring territory. The rulers of Verona are worried about other territories in Italy invading them, like Venice, the Medicis, etc. So they need to quell their infighting, or they'll be defenseless.
What is intriguing is that the story is obviously not going to be about racism, because that does not appear to be an issue here, but about classism, gender inequality, and power politics.
The only drawback? It feels like a CW teen show. Not that this is a huge problem. But ...I wish it focused more on the older characters.
* Nashville
Hmmm, I'm really enjoying the new writers of this series. The show's quality has improved. Also certain storylines have opened up. It's not predictable and has surprised me time and again. Completely different show than the past several years. Instead of a soapy melodrama about the music industry, it's become a relatable drama about the country music industry.
There are some...sentimental moments, but nothing too manipulative and overall it worked.
What surprised me was that Juliet's Gospel album failed, but they didn't focus on her whinging and throwing a fit, but on her understandable struggle to process it. It also demonstrated the narcissism of that industry. Juliet has spent her life trying to please others. She cares what people think. She reads the reviews.
But the people who helped her on it, think it was good and don't understand why this matters.
Flip to Maddie, who Juliet is now managing. And Juliette pushes Maddie to change how she is singing a specific song, that it needs more of a hook. Maddie has her boyfriend listen to it and he prefers Juliet's version. Maddie is upset. But Clay is good with her -- he conveys that she should do what she feels best with her music, not what anyone else thinks is best. Write and sing for yourself, because at the end of the day you aren't going to please everyone. There's always going to be people out there who hate it. Or don't get it. But if you don't...
Meanwhile her father tells her...that music is not a solo thing. Even her mother didn't own her own sound or voice. She had collaborators, producers, managers, and other musicians involved in various ways. Also the fans have input and interact with it and have a say.
I liked how the writer's explored it. Without falling into soap cliche. They explored a real issue in the industry in a relatable way. From four different perspectives. Maddie listens to both versions and finally, on her own, chooses Juliet's.
The other story that could have been cliche but isn't was Daphne, who has realistically fallen into a depression after her mother's death. And can't quite cope. Her depression is realistically portrayed.
Then there is Scarlett, Gunner, and the Baby -- which predictably turned out to be the British music producer's kid. I could see that coming. But they did play down the soap elements and cliches. Gunner stepped up, but struggled. Her real problem is going to be the baby's father.
Overall a good episode. The series continues to deliver, and is much better than it was before. A rare example of a television series benefitting from new writers and a bit of a reboot.
Answer: Probably not. Doesn't keep me from obsessing about them, though. Or anyone else for that matter, apparently.
I don't know. This Sat, I had a conversation about how I was going to try to be less judgmental about things and people. But it's really hard to do, since "judgment" is prevalent in our society. I'm not talking about being constructively critical or critical, but judging. I'm finding it tough to do.
When I was obsessed with Buffy, I remember being embarrassed about it. I was very judgmental of myself. Why this show, I'd ask myself and not something like the Sopranos? Or Six Feet Under? Or the Wire? (Okay, I was briefly obsessed with The Wire...so never mind). I didn't go to conventions. Just obsessed online, and wrote lots of meta on it. Nor did I bother with autographs. It was the story and characters that obsessed me, and the writing. Something about it grabbed me by the jugular and would not let go. Perhaps, it's because it more than anything else at the time -- spoke to what I was feeling, and could not express after 9/11 happened and everything I knew and thought I knew turned inside out and upside down.
I remember being obsessed with Battle Star Galatica, the first version, when I was a child. Loving it in that weird way that you fall in love with a piece of art. But I didn't write about it. I just couldn't wait for the next episode. I had a crush on Apollo, I was 12 years old.
And Farscape, much later of course, something in it spoke to me -- but it was short lived. I did buy the DVDs. But I didn't rewatch them and rewatch them.
I remember when I was 13, I was obsessed with the Hobbit, the animated film, the book, and even was in the play at a Children's Theater nearby during the summer.
It spoke to me.
As an adult, I've been obsessed with fare that most would judge me harshly for, hell they already have. And I think there's something to be said for not giving a shit what other people think. People either get it or they don't. Regardless of what you are obsessed with, whether it be The Godfather movies, Star Wars, Star Trek, a series of classical novels, Shakespeare, funky shows about gangsters, video games, petunias, cats, daytime soaps, vampires, television shows, or comic books, I'm not sure it matters. If it makes you happy, cheers you up, pushes the black clouds away...does it matter?
2. Question: What qualifies as kid fare and adult?
Answer: I've been wondering about this for a while now. I will go through the children's shelves in book stores, and while much of the books on the shelves are obviously kid's fare, such as Goodnight, Moon. Other's I wonder about from time to time. Peter Rabbit has some disturbing bits in it. As does The Hobbit and Harry Potter, and Twilight.
Some books I honestly think are adult and kid, Huckleberry Finn and Animal Farm come to mind. As too does The Jungle Book, Fairy Tales, and The Hobbit.
And then there are television series...apparently people think if teens or kids are the main characters - it's a children's show? Except Vampire Dairies, Buffy, The 100, Game of Thrones, Glee, all struck me as adult fare. Sure some shows are obviously kid fare such as Sesame Street, Mister Rogers, Bear in the Big Blue House, Sarah Jane Adventures...but others, like Doctor Who, Star Trek, Buffy, the Hunger Games, and The 100 do not feel like kid shows to me, they feel very adult.
I know I watched The Muppet Show, which people thought was a kid's show. It really wasn't. It has a lot of subtle political and sexual satire in it.
And don't get me started on cartoons. People are weird about them. Some label anything animated as a "cartoon", just as they label anything that is a book with storyboarding or illustrated panels telling a story -- a comic book. It's not. Cartoons also aren't just for kids. Fritz the Cat -- notably was an R rated adult cartoon, as was Betty Boop. Many of the Looney Tunes cartoons are very adult, as are some of the Hannah Barbara. Bulwinkle was an adult political satire. The Family Guy is for adults.
What's always annoyed me about it -- is this: if it is kid's fare, and you are an adult, there seems to be something automatically wrong with you enjoying it. Several literary writers have blogged and written essays in mags about how it is wrong somehow to enjoy children's books as an adult. That somehow you should be reading much harder or loftier fare, as if such a thing exists. How dare you read and be obsessed with Harry Potter! When you should be reading...I don't know Gone Girl? The latest National Book Award Winner?
Why is that?
3. Television Reviews well sort of...
* Doctor Who - The Lie of the Land
Don't have a great deal to say about this episode. It was okay. I thought it was better than last week's episode, less obvious plot holes. But I also felt like I've been there done that...which was the problem with this particular arc, well amongst other things.
I did like some things about it, which are spoilery, so beneath the cut:
* The Doctor and Missy's discussions were rather fascinating. How she suggests that he kill Bill, no worse, make Bill a brain dead husk to defeat the monks - for the greater good. Which is a concept of morality that science fiction has been fiddling with forever.
It's very Machivellian - the ends justify the means. It is also a nice twist on Bill's choice, she chose the Doctor and doomed humanity. So here, Bill must sacrifice herself for humanity or the Doctor sacrifice Bill for humanity. "The needs of the many outweigh the few" -- Spock states at the end of The Wrath of Khan, but Kirk apparently disagrees and hunts a means of saving Spock.
I liked the discussion at the end best. It actually made the episode for me. And changed my mind about Missy/Master -- where she states that she remembers the names and faces of everyone she's killed and there are so many...how he didn't tell her about this. Tears streaming down her face. He says how this is actually a good thing.
The writer's of Doctor Who are obviously not pro-death penalty and believe in redemption -- I agree with them for the most part. Death solves nothing, unless someone is a threat and there is no other way to stop it. But I'm not sure about redemption. I've met and seen people who...well...can a sociopath truly change?
* Bill's ability to free the world by focusing on her own reconstructed memory of her mother...a memory constructed largely from photographs provided by The Doctor.
Focusing on a pure, loving memory of someone who cared for her without wanting anything in return breaks the monks spell. Demonstrating that they didn't understand love completely. Or rather they don't understand "unconditional love".
* Nardole and Bill's banter.
That's it really. Didn't like anything else.
* Riverdale
Two episodes left. I'm enjoying the series. It's beautifully shot and has an amazing color scheme. The production, set design, cinematographer, editors, makeup and costumes are doing a great job. The only weak points are well, the direction and writing...which is rather limp. But I'm enjoying it.
It has a graphic novel feel to it. Jughead is my favorite character. The actor is doing a great job...emoting. And I love Skeet Ullrich as Jug's dad "FP". Molly Ringwald, who plays Archie's mom, looks weird. Has she done botox or plastic surgery? Her face is oddly stiff and lop-sided. It's admittedly odd to see her as a Mom, but then it is also odd to see Luke Perry (who played Buffy's high school boyfriend Pike in the Buffy movie) as a Dad, and Ringwald's hubby.
I like the tone of the series and find it captivating enough to stick with.
*Still Star-Crossed
Well, I'm not sure it's very good, but it is definitely intriguing. (Reminds me a bit of Reign actually in quality - so more a CW series than an ABC series...). But it is intriguing enough to hold my interest at any rate. It focuses on the twenty-somethings in the cast. But I like Grant Bowler's turn as Montague. Head, I'm on the fence about at the moment. The casting is the most diverse and colorblind that I've ever seen. They have interracial couples all over the place and aren't blinking an eye. Romeo is black, with a white father, white cousin, and in love with white Juliet, who has black cousins. It's startling because a mere ten years ago, such a thing was...well rarely done.
Don't get me wrong, I love it. But it surprised me a little. Time was, the networks would have prohibited it. And this is on a major network - ABC.
The first episode pretty much retells the Rome and Juliet storyline, except from Benvolo (Romeo's confidante) and Rosalind's (Juliet's confident) perspectives.
And it changes a few things from the Shakespearean version which I found intriguing.
Here's how the show differs:
Instead of Juliet's nurse helping her, her cousin, Rosalind who is both a servant and a Capulet does. Rosalind and her sister Olivia, after their parents died, were taken in by their Aunt and Uncle (Juliet's parents) and forced to be servants. Their Aunt was apparently jealous of their mother for marrying their father. Their Aunt went for the richer, titled brother (Anthony Stewart Head) instead of the brother she loved and is blaming them for her mistake.
Romeo's father, Papa Montague, has manipulated his son into falling in love with Juliet Capulet. He paid the Priest to ensure their union. With the view that once she got pregnant with his son's child, he'd have a Capulet under his family name. But alas, the Priest gave them poison and they died. He's not happy with the Priest. That's a nice twist. And it works. Montague came from the labor class and worked his way up to the elite. But he's still frowned upon.
Romeo and Juliet both take the poison. She doesn't kill herself with his dagger upon waking, he has enough poison left in the vial so she can die too.
Paris happens upon Romeo entering Juliet's tomb and they fight. Romeo stabs Paris in the stomach. Paris survives and is taken in by Juliet's mother, Lady Capulet, who is frantically trying to nurse him back to health. Olivia, Rosalind's sister finds them and asks to be his nurse.
Meanwhile, Rosalind is in love with the Prince of Verona. (The father died leaving the nation in his son and daughter's hands. The daughter is the more pragmatic of the two.) But after Romeo and Juliet die, the Prince decides to marry her off to Romeo's cousin Benevolo. Neither are happy about it. They argue constantly. This to stop the incessant rioting and fighting that has been happening since R&J's deaths.
Everything else is pretty much the same.
Paris isn't the son of the Prince of Verona, like he was in the play, but a neighboring territory. The rulers of Verona are worried about other territories in Italy invading them, like Venice, the Medicis, etc. So they need to quell their infighting, or they'll be defenseless.
What is intriguing is that the story is obviously not going to be about racism, because that does not appear to be an issue here, but about classism, gender inequality, and power politics.
The only drawback? It feels like a CW teen show. Not that this is a huge problem. But ...I wish it focused more on the older characters.
* Nashville
Hmmm, I'm really enjoying the new writers of this series. The show's quality has improved. Also certain storylines have opened up. It's not predictable and has surprised me time and again. Completely different show than the past several years. Instead of a soapy melodrama about the music industry, it's become a relatable drama about the country music industry.
There are some...sentimental moments, but nothing too manipulative and overall it worked.
What surprised me was that Juliet's Gospel album failed, but they didn't focus on her whinging and throwing a fit, but on her understandable struggle to process it. It also demonstrated the narcissism of that industry. Juliet has spent her life trying to please others. She cares what people think. She reads the reviews.
But the people who helped her on it, think it was good and don't understand why this matters.
Flip to Maddie, who Juliet is now managing. And Juliette pushes Maddie to change how she is singing a specific song, that it needs more of a hook. Maddie has her boyfriend listen to it and he prefers Juliet's version. Maddie is upset. But Clay is good with her -- he conveys that she should do what she feels best with her music, not what anyone else thinks is best. Write and sing for yourself, because at the end of the day you aren't going to please everyone. There's always going to be people out there who hate it. Or don't get it. But if you don't...
Meanwhile her father tells her...that music is not a solo thing. Even her mother didn't own her own sound or voice. She had collaborators, producers, managers, and other musicians involved in various ways. Also the fans have input and interact with it and have a say.
I liked how the writer's explored it. Without falling into soap cliche. They explored a real issue in the industry in a relatable way. From four different perspectives. Maddie listens to both versions and finally, on her own, chooses Juliet's.
The other story that could have been cliche but isn't was Daphne, who has realistically fallen into a depression after her mother's death. And can't quite cope. Her depression is realistically portrayed.
Then there is Scarlett, Gunner, and the Baby -- which predictably turned out to be the British music producer's kid. I could see that coming. But they did play down the soap elements and cliches. Gunner stepped up, but struggled. Her real problem is going to be the baby's father.
Overall a good episode. The series continues to deliver, and is much better than it was before. A rare example of a television series benefitting from new writers and a bit of a reboot.
Still Star-Crossed
Date: 2017-06-05 08:41 am (UTC)This maybe comes in through the Shakespearean theatre connection. Shakespeare (in this country at least, and I know a lot of our shows travel to the States) is normally cast in a colour-blind fashion, sometimes to the point of genetic impossibility. It works because most Shakespeare productions step outside realistic norms and into a universe of their own rules.
This wouldn't worry me unless Romeo's mother was also white. In a TV show I want a higher standard of reality and in-world logic than I am willing to accept on stage. But maybe that's just me.
That is a really nice twist! I wonder if as the show goes along they will twist it further and reveal that the Capulets also had an agenda.
Oh that sounds so crunchy and I really, really want to watch it! But I share your surprise that an American show is ignoring race and discussing class. When Americans decide to discuss class in their literature it is always really enjoyable and explores the subject in a beautifully subtle way (I am thinking of Supernatural and Suits), but they do it so rarely.
Well if it survives, and if the older actors are better than the younger ones (which they probably are just thanks to experience) then if things follow the normal course of events they will just quietly take over the show. They will keep the pretty young things to maintain their original audience and use the intriguing older ones to build the audience.
Re: Still Star-Crossed
Date: 2017-06-05 03:44 pm (UTC)This wouldn't worry me unless Romeo's mother was also white. In a TV show I want a higher standard of reality and in-world logic than I am willing to accept on stage.
As far as I can tell, Lady Montague appears to be dead. She's not shown or wasn't in the premiere episode. Which was odd, unless she's dead. And Romeo appears to be Montague's only son, as Juliet appears to be Capulet's only child. Tybalt was her cousin, not her brother in this, or so it appears.
And they make a point of how children are pretty much commodities, to be traded for land, title, advancement. Which is interesting...and fits that time period. Marriages are arranged.
Rosalind is fighting against the order of things, she wants to go to a nunnery, and not be the powerless wife of some man. With her fate decided by such. Also she resents the Prince, who claims to love her, but is insisting she marry a Montague to preserve the peace, such as it is.
But I share your surprise that an American show is ignoring race and discussing class. When Americans decide to discuss class in their literature it is always really enjoyable and explores the subject in a beautifully subtle way (I am thinking of Supernatural and Suits), but they do it so rarely.
Depends on the genre, really. The romance genre is obsessed with class, often to the exception of all else. Class and gender politics. I think because often class and gender politics go hand in hand? I don't know.
Sci-fi also will delve into class more, over here. But generally speaking, it is overlooked. Mainly because class is different here -- it's based on "wealth" and how it was obtained. In Still Star-Crossed-- the class distinction is "old wealth/entitled wealth" vs. "new wealth/self-made", which is an American thing.
Hamilton for instance was "new wealth" while Burr was "old wealth/established" in the 1800s.
Europe looks at it more from an aristocracy perspective, which we don't quite understand over here. Although we do try. Still Star-Crossed is trying to delve into it in greater detail.
Part of the reason for the racial diversity/colorblind casting is the show-runner/executive producer - who is Shondra Rhimes. (Grey's Anatomy, Scandal, How to Get Away with Murder) who is among the few female African-American show-runners on a major broadcast channel.
Re: Still Star-Crossed
Date: 2017-06-05 05:07 pm (UTC)That is as Shakespeare has it, actually. But if there was no brother in the family a first cousin could well mean as much to Juliet emotionally.
Are they trying for an accurate period setting or is it a generic fantasy middle-ages? Because if they are trying to make the setting period accurate then I would have big issues with the colour-blind casting. I hate that, I think it's racist. Also most TV shows are dreadful at every aspect of historical accuracy so the bugs become too irritating very quickly. I actually prefer fantasy pasts like in Merlin. Then they can tell all the stories they want, cast them as they please, and still include all their historical tropes of choice without causing annoyance.
Another genre I'm not familiar with. But a class focus makes sense.
Well they obviously don't have to, but maybe they often do if class is explored through a (heterosexual) romance lens, since by definition to do that you will have a male and female from different classes.
I really haven't noticed that, and I watch a fair bit of sci-fi.
...
Years ago I described a theoretical show in which Buffy was set in the Uk and how the class differences between the characters would mean the kids had never met one another. This prompted a very interesting discussion where most of the Americans agreed with one another that their class system was very different to our own. However, one woman spoke to me in PM, explaining that she came from the US upper class and that the system I was describing was in fact very similar to her own experience of class - just that most Americans of lower classes were oblivious to this fact. Anecdotal and I have long since lost touch with her, but from other friendships I do get the general impression that the higher up the system you go, the closer it all becomes to our class system, with inherited culture being as important as inherited wealth. So that someone of the upper class culture will remain part of that culture even a couple of generations after the wealth has been lost. That is close to aristocracy.
Yes, it would be very unusual to examine class in those terms over here. Class tensions are done very crudely on the whole, with either a simplistic upper/middle/lower tension scenario, or a battle between those upper-class people who believe in noblesse oblige and those who are snobs. That is why I find the American explorations of class far more satisfying and nuanced on the whole. It's almost as if class is so all pervasive in our society we can't see the wood for the trees.
Cool.
Re: Still Star-Crossed
Date: 2017-06-05 07:48 pm (UTC)Are they trying for an accurate period setting or is it a generic fantasy middle-ages?
More Renaissance or Shakespeare, which is post-Middle Ages. I don't know if there are fantasy elements...haven't seen any so far. The racial bit may not matter too much because Italy, and the Moorish influence. But I agree, that if it is meant to be historically accurate, it doesn't work. But my take on this is it is meant to be more like "Reign" and not historically accurate and more fantastical. (It's adapted from a series of popular YA novels, apparently.)
However, one woman spoke to me in PM, explaining that she came from the US upper class and that the system I was describing was in fact very similar to her own experience of class - just that most Americans of lower classes were oblivious to this fact.
She's right. How to explain?
Our system is :
People with inherited wealth include the Rockerfellers, Vanderbuilts, the Hiltons, etc. For an American novel about the clash between inherited and new wealth - try F. Scott Fitzgerald's The Great Gatsby. He wrote about it a lot.
Donald Trump. His father or grandfather came from middle class or working class and worked his way up. Trump inherited the riches, but he's new wealth. Unlike George W. Bush who is old wealth.
This would be Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, the Clintons for the most part, Bloomberg, Turner, many movie stars, Obamas, Alexander Hamilton. These people became millionaires or billionaires, but had to earn it. It was not inherited. Most of these guys came up from the middle class or lower middle class. They had poor childhoods in some cases and went to school on scholarship.
Beneath this group are the lottery winners or people who just accidentally come into money through unexpected inheritance -- maybe in the millions not billions.
Of course then there's a hierarchy based on how much you have, bankruptcies, etc.
Income? Six figure to seven figure salaries
Middle Class - people like myself, which is up to six figure salaries, depending on where you live. Six figures in NYC = Middle Class.
Lower Middle Class - below $50,000 a year in NYC.
Working Class
Working poor
Homeless/poor
In the US - 99% of the population falls between 9-5. 1% is between 4-1.
The taxes are mostly on 4-7, with 1-3 barely paying much at all due to loopholes in the tax code. Trump is adding more.
Our royalty is basically movie stars, and 1-2. The old wealth inherited and the second to third generation inherited.
There's a lot of anger in my country right now -- directed towards 1-3 and possibly 4.
Re: Still Star-Crossed
Date: 2017-06-06 07:47 am (UTC)(Your numbering went weird btw, but I was able to follow.)
Okay, so your system is based far more around actual wealth than ours. What seems to matter is how much money you have and where that money came from.
Ours class system is more cultural. Class here is a combination of inheritance and education, so money is nice and useful to have but doesn't really affect your class. Maybe more of a cast system than a class system. I have a friend who earns well over 20 times what I do, but we both know I am from a higher class than her and that will be true for the rest of our lives. It takes several generations to move up or down a class. My class doesn't help me pay the bills, but it can help me get a better table in a restaurant. Then she pays the bill ;)
Except at the very top the US obviously does have cast-like cultural distinctions, because they are going to different schools and don't mix much. That was clearly the level my correspondent was talking about.
I also wonder if there might be cast elements at the bottom? Where everyone is poor the fine distinctions of where you came from and what your work is can become terribly important as relative status symbols. It may only be in the melting pot of the middle that it is only wealth that counts, but since the middle is culturally dominant that is what sets the tone.
Re: Still Star-Crossed
Date: 2017-06-05 07:51 pm (UTC)In addition, it's rare for the folks born into categories 1 and 2 (inherited wealth) to socialize with or see the people born in categories 3-9. They go to private schools, Harvard, Yale, Oxford, and preparatory schools.
School's like Dalton in NYC. My sister-in-law went to school with a lot of them on scholarship. I've met people from categories 2-9, and a few from 1. And yes, it is similar.
Re: Still Star-Crossed
Date: 2017-06-05 07:58 pm (UTC)Oh, one caveat...about generalizing. One of my sister-in-law and brother's best friends who comes from category 1 or 2, is a public defender on the lower east side. So people defy class conventions. And cross over a lot.
I knew people in college from upper class, lower class, middle, etc...they are similar in many ways, but there are differences here and there. Like one gal's father died in "private plane crash", she was a Tory and a Republican (dual citizenship), and had a huge ranch, with an entitled air about her. We were good friends for a bit, but she would breeze through things with a sort of careless la di da attitude that my friends who were working class and middle didn't possess.
Re: Still Star-Crossed
Date: 2017-06-06 07:55 am (UTC)They teach it in nursery school ;)
A lot of it comes from having been sent away to board at a young age, although people who were only day pupils have it as well because it can be picked up from your peers. It also comes from having had a huge range of experience from a young age, so fewer situations feel strange or intimidating. One of the ways in which the Doctor is a genuine Time Lord is his ability to walk into any situation and talk to anybody from any background without ever showing any lack of confidence. Also his tendency to assume he is in charge. And he probably eats his peas off the back of his fork.
Re: Still Star-Crossed
Date: 2017-06-07 04:10 pm (UTC)A lot of it comes from having been sent away to board at a young age, although people who were only day pupils have it as well because it can be picked up from your peers.
I noticed that. The friends who spent time away at boarding schools or in preparatory schools had a completely different view of college than the one's that had gone to public school. Also a vastly different education in some cases...many had read books or done things others hadn't.
Not sure what it is like in the UK? But not all public schools are created equal here. Some are much better than others, and where you go is defined by where you live.
My mother had a bit of a prejudice against private schools (she'd been a speech therapist and done the school circuit in Chicago), and you had to test well to get in. (My brother and I tested horribly on those computerized tests -- we were both dyslexic.) The public schools in Chester County, Pennsylvania -- which is more rural (big back yards, our backyard had almost a forest, creeks, a forest in front, and lower to middle class, basically horse country, had horrific public schools. The worst in the country -- they were ranked at the bottom. We moved to Johnson County, Kansas when I was in the 5th grade -- and Johnson County has the top schools in the country and is suburban, less rural, lower to upper middle to wealthy.
The difference in education was night and day. I went from studying the American Revolutionary War and Civil War for the 15th time to studying the Ancient Greeks, Hebrews and Egypt. I went from doing rudimentary math to algebra. We went from science being a field trip on how to make cider and donuts, to experiments.
The library was also different -- I went from reading Nancy Drew to reading Tolkien and CS Lewis.
So location has a lot to do with it. More rural areas in the US don't have the educational advantages that more suburban and urban areas often do. However, if you ever see The Wire or Waiting for Superman - the public schools in the urban areas are a mixed bag -- and many go to private, safer and a better education.
Re: Still Star-Crossed
Date: 2017-06-08 11:22 am (UTC)Our state schools are very variable. They have improved a lot in the last ten years and some of the inner-London academies and free schools (like your charter schools) are now educationally as good as the best public schools. There are also a very few surviving grammar schools which provide a specialist academic education, and some schools that specialise in things like the performing arts or sport. However, a standard state school in a middle sized town will be churning out a very mediocre education. And the worst sink state schools are frankly dreadful. The small rural schools are often very good but tend to only educate up to 11, with older children having to commute to the nearby town. In the case of the Scottish islands, many older pupils have to board because there is no day school in reach.
So an awful lot depends on your location because you have to be in the 'catchment area' to get into a state school. So people who don't approve of private education (it wasn't only your mother who had that prejudice!) will often spend as much as the school fees would have cost to move to an area with a good state school.
This sort of difference is what is so sad and is why one of my biggest political interests is in improving education. The products of our standard state schools have been deprived the basics of a decent education by ideology and lazy assumptions about what children are capable of. It makes me furious. And I have met so many young adults who are acutely aware of how ignorant they are and are desperate to make up for what they have been denied. That generation will probably never make up the difference, but we are at least starting to do something for the younger ones. The educational 'blob' that ruined our schools has begun to be broken.
Did they not allow extra time for certified dyslexics?
Our public (in the British sense of the word) and independent schools mostly use something called the Common Entrance Exam, which is produced by a central board but marked by each school being applied to. Other schools organise their own exams. So the schools have perfect flexibility to mark and select according to their own needs, nothing is standardised. Also a lot of independent schools don't have any minimum academic requirement at all - after all, there are plenty of thick rich kids out there :D
So the best schools in the country are still the elite academically selective public and independent schools, but there are plenty of other public schools that provide the same cultural experience with a non-academic vocational education. There are also layers and layers of nuance in the exact culture of each school, and the facilities and experiences provided. The differences between public, independent and private schools are all important to people who went to one or the other, even though to outsiders they are all just fee-paying schools. So exactly which school you went to is very important, and is often the first thing people will find out about you at college since it allows them to mentally fit you into an exact slot in their social filing system. And the basic sense of self-confidence is taught at all of them but more so at some than others.
As far as I know, even the very best free schools haven't managed to replicate that self-confidence. They can give an academic education as good, and they teach them wonderful manners (last year I went to a Shakespeare performance that turned out to be a schools' matinee, and the behaviour of children from the free schools was remarkable compared to those from ordinary state or private schools) but the effortless self-confidence still seems to elude them. Maybe it will start to emerge in a few years time.
Re: Still Star-Crossed
Date: 2017-06-08 05:01 pm (UTC)Did they not allow extra time for certified dyslexics?
They didn't discover we were until we were adults. It's not as easy to diagnose as you may think, and there's a spectrum. Also this was in the 1970s and 1980s, and they only caught people who fit a certain model.
When I hit law school, I did get certified or rather assessed by trained psychologists who determined that it was visual and audio coordination disorder, they hate the term dyslexia, and was given additional time for the Bar Exam.