![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
shadowkat[Lots of people on livejournal are talking about lj april fools jokes, but it doesn't appear on mine. I don't see serialladder or stalkers, or any of this today. In fact my journal looks the same as it always has. Weird.]
Went out with my friend, CW and the IT geeks last evening. During the outing found out an exceedingly odd little tidbit:
Did anyone know that the Broadway (or rather Off-Broadway) revival of Fiddler on The Roof has removed all the Jewish or Judaic elements from the musical? There's no one Jewish in the cast. They've made the story completely secular. Why? Because they wanted to appeal to a broader audience. Now, to make this story just a tad weirder - CW told me that a friend of ours, work colleague, who is "orthodox" jew and a former "rabbi", saw this musical and loved it.
So here I am attempting to imagine Fiddler on The Roof with all the Jewish references removed from it. The musical is partly about anti-semitism and prejudice. Many of the songs actually comment on this.
Also saw what an iPod was. Expensive little gadget. But very handy. Now feel less like an idiot online for not having a clue what one was.
And had an interesting conversation about tv watching where I learned once again that I'm somewhat left of center on this (they adored the procedural shows which I find incredibly dull, I love the more metaphorical/emotional character arc shows)and how our responses to entertainment have a lot to do with our own emotional and psychological makeup at the time of viewing.
Rant on TV suspension of disbelief or shows that are stretching it:
1. 24 - okay how many things can a person possibly do within a 24 hour period? I think 24 just exceeded the suspension of disbelief quota on its gimmick again.
2. The OC - interesting show, but some of the teens look the same age as their parents, this is not good. Misha Barton who plays Marisa looks the same age as her mother. Actually the only two actors who look like they might be teens on this show are the ones playing Seth and Summer and even that I wonder about. Reminds me of Beverly Hills 90210 and the 30 somethings playing 19 year olds. At least the OC has made fun of this factor. I'll give them that. Interesting show. Still not a worthy replacement for ATS, but better than anything else on on Wed with ATS on hiatus.
3. Joan of Arcadia - Joan getting ankle stuck in a washing machine, and why does she always do what these supposed avatars of God tell her?
4. Tru Calling - why hasn't the police questioned Tru yet for always being on the scene of the crime and stalking people who get attacked?
Character bashing/criticism/venting (whatever you want to call it) has raised its ugly head online again. Always does when people get bored. Actually beginning to find some of it fascinating - the bashing/criticism/venting about S7/S6 and certain characters - tells me more about some fans than it does about the show or the authorial intent. It also says something fascinating about the relationship between the author/creators-the text-the viewer/reader. How that relationship can twist, turn and get clouded by outside factors: such as a horrible terrorist event, a fan's depression or own life experiences, an author's loss of interest or some other component of the creation process - say an actor's, and our own cultural values and environment.
There's a lengthy essay somewhere in all this, now the question is? Should I figure it out and write it? Or let it go? Probably let it go...since it's not like I don't have ahem other things I should be focusing on. But it is interesting to think about. How we react to certain characters or stories, why we reacte to them and even more important how we react to one another's views concerning them? It's relatively easy to support or even react to a view that validates your own but how do you react to one that is contrary to it? I'm not very good at reacting to contrary views right now, I admit, but that may be why I find it fascinating.
Went out with my friend, CW and the IT geeks last evening. During the outing found out an exceedingly odd little tidbit:
Did anyone know that the Broadway (or rather Off-Broadway) revival of Fiddler on The Roof has removed all the Jewish or Judaic elements from the musical? There's no one Jewish in the cast. They've made the story completely secular. Why? Because they wanted to appeal to a broader audience. Now, to make this story just a tad weirder - CW told me that a friend of ours, work colleague, who is "orthodox" jew and a former "rabbi", saw this musical and loved it.
So here I am attempting to imagine Fiddler on The Roof with all the Jewish references removed from it. The musical is partly about anti-semitism and prejudice. Many of the songs actually comment on this.
Also saw what an iPod was. Expensive little gadget. But very handy. Now feel less like an idiot online for not having a clue what one was.
And had an interesting conversation about tv watching where I learned once again that I'm somewhat left of center on this (they adored the procedural shows which I find incredibly dull, I love the more metaphorical/emotional character arc shows)and how our responses to entertainment have a lot to do with our own emotional and psychological makeup at the time of viewing.
Rant on TV suspension of disbelief or shows that are stretching it:
1. 24 - okay how many things can a person possibly do within a 24 hour period? I think 24 just exceeded the suspension of disbelief quota on its gimmick again.
2. The OC - interesting show, but some of the teens look the same age as their parents, this is not good. Misha Barton who plays Marisa looks the same age as her mother. Actually the only two actors who look like they might be teens on this show are the ones playing Seth and Summer and even that I wonder about. Reminds me of Beverly Hills 90210 and the 30 somethings playing 19 year olds. At least the OC has made fun of this factor. I'll give them that. Interesting show. Still not a worthy replacement for ATS, but better than anything else on on Wed with ATS on hiatus.
3. Joan of Arcadia - Joan getting ankle stuck in a washing machine, and why does she always do what these supposed avatars of God tell her?
4. Tru Calling - why hasn't the police questioned Tru yet for always being on the scene of the crime and stalking people who get attacked?
Character bashing/criticism/venting (whatever you want to call it) has raised its ugly head online again. Always does when people get bored. Actually beginning to find some of it fascinating - the bashing/criticism/venting about S7/S6 and certain characters - tells me more about some fans than it does about the show or the authorial intent. It also says something fascinating about the relationship between the author/creators-the text-the viewer/reader. How that relationship can twist, turn and get clouded by outside factors: such as a horrible terrorist event, a fan's depression or own life experiences, an author's loss of interest or some other component of the creation process - say an actor's, and our own cultural values and environment.
There's a lengthy essay somewhere in all this, now the question is? Should I figure it out and write it? Or let it go? Probably let it go...since it's not like I don't have ahem other things I should be focusing on. But it is interesting to think about. How we react to certain characters or stories, why we reacte to them and even more important how we react to one another's views concerning them? It's relatively easy to support or even react to a view that validates your own but how do you react to one that is contrary to it? I'm not very good at reacting to contrary views right now, I admit, but that may be why I find it fascinating.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
But what happens when the hero becomes monsterous?
Date: 2004-04-01 08:35 pm (UTC)But what happens if the hero, the pristine lovely girl suddenly becomes monsterous? What then? On the boards I've seen this on - the posters adore Spike and like Angel, it's Buffy, oddly enough, that they can't stand. Actually I'll extend that - it's Buffy, Xander, Dawn, and to a degree Willow. Our heros. The ones who look pretty and aren't monsters. This would sort of be like disliking Beauty as opposed to Vincent the Beast in Beauty and The Beast. Now this is fascinating. Why the sudden dislike for our heroine? Is it because she has human foibles? Or is it because they see her abusing the aforesaid monsters? Excluding them. Slaying them. Is the viewer over-identifying with the monster? In S4 BTVS, the writers were taken aback by the number of fans who prefered bad-boy Spike to heroic Riley. Fans hated Riley. Not all, of course. But many did. There was no monster in Riley. Not really. He was normal. But in *some* fans minds he was monsterous. About 60% of the fans online at the time As You Were aired saw Riley as the bad guy, not Spike who was the misunderstood monster with the demon eggs. There was also a huge number of fans who turned their back on the heroine - their view was - "she's superior, she's holier than thou, she's beating him up because she thinks she's all that..." - it wasn't the darkness in themselves or the heroine they seemed to be responding to here, but something else. Perhaps they saw in Buffy - people who had tormented or hurt them. The heroine they'd sympathized with all these years - suddenly took on the face of their tormentors.
It reminds me of a very interesting passage in the last Harry Potter novel - where Harry discovers his heros, his father and Sirus doing things in the past that have been done to him in the present. They tormented weaker students to show off. Harry is understandably discombobulated by this information, how can his father have been a bully?
Well, his father was fifteen years of age at the time and human - that's how. The same thing happened on BTVS - we ask ourselves how can our heroine be a bully? How can our hero be one? How can they take on the face of the people who hurt us? They are supposed to have the face of our defender. Now they have the face of our enemy.
Another example - Spike in S6 BTVS attempted to rape Buffy, this bothered some fans horribly, particularly Spike fans who had suffered a sexual assault or been raped. How could they like this character or identify with him? If they identified with him were they allowing themselves to identify with their attacker? Were they okaying that action? Of course not, but logic as you know seldom enters into an emotional response. The situations are very different. For one thing Spike is not real, he's a vampire, he's soulless at the time, and the relationship was *very* different than that of any real person. But it's hard to see that when emotions are involved.
It's really very complex in a way, isn't it?
Re: But what happens when the hero becomes monsterous?
Date: 2004-04-02 06:58 am (UTC)If I remember correctly, Harry was forced to develop a more complex understanding of human nature through his new knowledge of Dumbledore, Snape, James and the others. He's learning about the gray area between bad and good. Rawling did a good job of hinting at why Snape grew up to be such an unpleasant man without excusing him or James for their behavior.