(no subject)

[shadowkat]

If you want to know why I loved Brian Lynch's writing and Urru's art on Spike Shadow Puppets and Asylum, and why I'm looking forward to Angel: After the Fall, go read elsie marvelous review which can be found here: http://elisi.livejournal.com/297149.html?style=mine#cutid1

Am avoiding the Heroes debates, mostly because I think people are ignoring the fact that what we see on tv reflects what is going on in our world. Like it or not, we live in a misogynistic, chauvinistic, racist society. Heck, name one show on TV that doesn't reflect that in some way. I can't think of one. Better yet, name one advertisement.

Comments

[ponygirl2000.livejournal.com]

Hmm but do you think Heroes has any sort of awareness of what it reflects? I definitely enjoy the show - and my main criteria for enjoyment is that it not bores me so I'm not looking for any grand achievement - but I don't think it's particularly self-aware.

[shadowkat67.livejournal.com]

Oh, I'm sort of the same way. My main criteria when it comes to tv is to be entertained. If I'm bored? I'm gone. And there's no telling what will or won't bore me. Right now - I want to escape as well, which means I have a huge weakness for fantasy, science fiction and superhero shows that have no grounding in reality or shows that are so outside of my own situation they might as well be fantasy.

Regarding self-awareness? To be honest? I don't really think any of them are, including golden child of the moment Mad Men, which is about the closest to self-awareness that you are going to get. No, I think the reflection is usually completely unselfaware and that's part of the problem - not on tv, mind you, tv is just a symptom of the unselfaware mindset. Our society appears to be unaware of it or in deep denile. You ask people and they'll state - I'm not (fill in the blank) then do or say something that proves otherwise and they don't catch it.

Supernatural may come closest to self-aware - because I catch it at times commenting on itself. It sort of goes to the extreme then jumps back and says oh - see, did you see that? You should question that! I mean really.
Which I find intriquing. Mad Men - from what I've read (not seen) does more or less the same thing, except with less likable characters and in an achingly real setting.

Heroes is a comic book for television - and comic books have a horrid reputation for this. But they are by and large reflections of that industry. Very few comics are written by and drawn by women. Minorities are better represented actually. The ones that are written and drawn by women tend to be underground or literary comics - such as Strangers in Paradise by Terry Moore, the comics sponsored by Lulu such as the Girl's Guide to Guy Stuff, and of course Persepolis about the woman who grew up in Iran or Iraq, forget which. Superhero comics or action comics? I can't really think of many. I know Jodi Piccoult had a run writing Wonder Woman, and I think Jane Espenson wrote a couple Buffy ones, and there was one woman writer/editor who worked for a few years on X-Factor. Outside of that? No one. I don't know if the writers and industry is aware of this problem or not. My guess is they aren't. Whedon certainly seems to be unaware that he's doing it.

Heroes? You want to know what annoyed me most about Heroes and made me realize how completely unselfaware they are? The comment the head writer made about hiring a woman writer to write the scenes between Claire and West, to do the romantic bits. That was something they, as men, couldn't quite figure out how to do, so they got a gal to do it. If it weren't for that storyline, one wonders if they would have hired one. The statement is so full of gender stereotypes that it isn't even funny. But I think if you pointed that out to the person who said it - they'd look at you bewildered and in shock. (Sigh. Sucks being a woman in the Entertainment Industry.)

Most of the writers from Heroes come from an action or superhero comics background. Jeff Loeb. Kring. In fact Loeb has been grabbed by Whedon to write a portion of the Buffy comics. My biggest criticism of Whedon's Buffy comic project is he has only hired two women - one to write a one shot or miniarc and one to do cover paintings. The main writers and creators are men. Mostly? White men like Whedon who like to think of themselves as feminists - yet their view of being a feminist is sort of like the tv show Chuck and Bionic Woman - hot babes fighting each other. LOL!

I see glimmers of hope in Heroes on occassion - with the New Orleans storyline. My favorite new hero is the gal who can do whatever she sees on the tv screen and is the breadwinner for her family. I also adore Nichelle Nichols. Outside of that, the women are poorly represented but then they've always been. This season is oddly better than last in that regard, but not by much.

[ponygirl2000.livejournal.com]

No one. I don't know if the writers and industry is aware of this problem or not. My guess is they aren't.

There are vast swathes of the internet devoted to gender problems in comcis, womenincomics.blogspot.com is a good place to go for links, Sequential Tart has a good website too, and Newsarama's blog has a couple female contributors now who are good at pointing out the obvious.

I am hopeful about Monica on Heroes, and Nichelle Nichols, and that Mama Petrelli will get character development comparable to Mr. Bennet... but Heroes has let me down before.

[shadowkat67.livejournal.com]

The internet is actually doing a good job of giving a voice to the problem. I think what has happened with the net is it has given people a free bulletin board to post their views on. Prior to the net, you could only get your views heard if you got them published by someone or broadcast via a ham radio or public access station. The net is a much better forum - partly because governments and whomever is in power can't figure out how to police it. We can't be as easily censored on the net as we can elsewhere. Plus - we can post and voice our views, while protecting our real identities so no one comes and fires us or hurts us for them.

I have very low expectations when it comes to Heroes. It surprised me this year for being better than I expected. Consider the source after all - Brian Fuller (who was perhaps the only self-aware writer in the bunch - left for Pushing Daisies) this left behind Jeff Loeb (a Marvel comics writer) Tim Sale (he of the pin-up girl paintings), and Kring.
They did hire a female writer - so this may help. But it still feels very "geeky guy" centric with men as its target audience -so I wouldn't expect too much. I honestly think the good female action shows are a thing of the past at this point - although the Sarah Connor Chronicles could prove me wrong.

[deevalish.livejournal.com]

Regarding the Heroes debates, I've actually defriended a couple of people because I became tired of it. I don't turn to prime time tv shows to educate myself about the world and how to interact with the many people on it. The disappointment and anger that they spew about how too many X are being killed or how few Y or Z are on screen is just tiring. It's tv people! Not the United Nations or whatever. Nothing is ever perfect.

[shadowkat67.livejournal.com]

Exactly. I kept deleting posts in which I stated - uhm guys - this is a tv show. It's not meant to educate. It's not meant to be politically correct. It's just a tv show meant to sell advertising space. Don't like it? Don't watch it! No one is making you.

Of course we all rant from time to time...I ahem, have been guilty of it. Did it with Supernatural, but that was mostly because I was trying not to like the show. Now that I've ahem, fallen in love with the characters and become hopelessly addicted, I'm tad embarrassed about that. Hypocrite, me?
Nooo. Hee.

At any rate, I completely agree with you. I enjoy watching Heroes. I know its not politically correct but then nothing is and the things that are are incredibly dull. The problem with art is it is bound to offend someone, it wouldn't be good art if it didn't. Or at least that's my view.

[deevalish.livejournal.com]

The problem with art is it is bound to offend someone, it wouldn't be good art if it didn't. Or at least that's my view.

That's exactly the purpose of art. To evoke an opinion or reaction.

[embers-log.livejournal.com]

At Comic con I attended the 'Heroes' panel, and a woman got up and asked if there was any hopes of women being portrayed as anything other than a stripper or a cheerleader. The producers/writers were all surprised and hurt, and very defensive; it was clear that this had NEVER occurred to them as a problem (talk about not being self aware, don't they even have focus groups?).
But I do have hopes that we'll see some more interesting women characters this year, and like you I don't really want to bash the show because it is entertaining. I would rather bash shows like 'The Bachelor' or 'Big Shots' or hundreds of others with no intelligent/competent women at all.

[shadowkat67.livejournal.com]

Yep. I see the flaws - did last year and even posted on them. This year is actually a lot better - we have Monica and Maya who are not cheerleaders or strippers. And neither Nikki nor Claire are playing those parts now. Plus there's a nifty line in this week's episode stating that cheerleaders are people with power and strength, which I found amusing yet also true. In high school they were the power group. Wonder if that was a reaction to the woman's comments?

I think art is a subjective experience. And if it is good art? It's bound to offend you on some level. That said, I have troubles seeing the worthiness of shows like the Bachelor (which makes cringe since I find it demeaning to both sexes) and Big Shots (equally demeaning to both sexes). On the other hand I guess there's something to be said for being offensive to both genders as opposed to just one.

[embers-log.livejournal.com]

I just had a friend point out the amount of violence toward women depicted in 'Supernatural'
http://sisabet.livejournal.com/365275.html
they have the download to links of a video that showed how disturbing the images are, and how ubiquitous they are....
I'm not criticizing 'Supernatural', but it did seem to tie into the discussion here.

[shadowkat67.livejournal.com]

I was thinking about this today, (not directed towards you but more towards people like your friend and others online)...and it occurred if the people who spent so much energy tabulating the violent acts against women in television, books, art or film - expended some of that energy in volunteering at a rape crisis center, writing letters to congress about rendition clauses/unfair immigration/human rights infractions, or got involved in the fight against breast cancer - how great would our world be? Instead they waste time whining about things that offend them on tv shows, with a view to do what exactly? Censor them? Chide others for enjoying them? What does this accomplish? How does making people aware of the number of violent acts against women in a tv series help anything?

Supernatural is a very violent tv series. Men, women, kids are killed on it. It's horror. But so was Angel, Buffy (god, have you counted the number of violent acts on that one?), Firefly (apparently if the series continued, we would have seen an arc about Innara being raped), BSG (at least three rapes on that one), Xenia, Hercules, Smallville, Lost, Heroes, Moonlight, Blood Ties, Dresden, Forever Knight, Criminal Minds, Numbers, CSI, the nightly news, daytime soap operas, Life, the list goes on.

I think the violence in these shows is a realistic depiction and reflection of the violence in our world. Granted most of us are lucky not to see it or deal with it. Thank god. But it does exist. And the desire to hurt others exists inside each of us. TV, Films, Books, and art are in a way a means of dealing with that urge without actually hurting anyone. A cathartic release of that violent energy inside each of us. I admit that I get cathartic thrill when Buffy kicks that demon into submission or slays the vampire.

People argue that the violence depicted on films, tv, and books inspires people to do it. I disagree. I think the violence was there prior, I think what is depicted is a reflection of what we are feeling and we play it out in a safe way - to see what would happen if we did so and to be very glad we didn't actually do that.

It's funny - I read an article in a mag recently about the strew of violent films that have come out. Each more violent than the next. Eastern Promises (one of the most violent films of recent years) 3:10 to Yuma, the Assaination of Jesse James, The Kingdom, No Country for Old Men, Michael Clayton, etc. They said that this was a reflection of what was going on in our country - the anger, the frustration, the sense of powerlessness. The feeling of being victims. Watching people going to war and dying. Unforeseen terrorist attacks. A government we don't trust and fear. The violence erupting onscreen is a symptom of that.

Art that offends is sometimes, in my view, the most interesting. Because as deevlish put it so well above - the point of art is to get a reaction.
Granted there are extremes - I have no interest, for example, on seeing any of the "torture" porn films - that is more than I can tolerate. But the makers of those films did make a good point - we are only showing you what is going on, what you fear - the extreme version of it sure, but it is there all the same.

[embers-log.livejournal.com]

Oh I agree with you: that if people are concerned about violence against women then they should do something pro-active about it, and not just complain about some of the instances of it on TV (because invariably they pick on some shows but not others).

There are shows that I find too violent/negative to watch, but interestingly they are NOT the horror/Sci-fi action shows. I cannot tolerate 'Law & Order: SVU' because they spend 45 minutes of each show depicting in graphic detail violence against women and children, and then they spend 10 minutes at the end arresting the bad guy (it seems to me that that arouses more prurient interest than seeing a vampire beheaded).

[shadowkat67.livejournal.com]

Exactly.

I wish people would be more pro-active than re-active about this. Not that I'm much better - I keep hunting ways to help and admit it is not easy. Several years back when I lived in KC (it was oddly easier to do this in KC than NYC) - I volunteered for battered women's shelter and for a group that aided women in obtaining "orders of protection" against their abusers. Haven't been able to do much in NYC unfortunately, outside of send letters via the internet and ACLU to congress on assorted human rights issues - which is at least something.

Really agree with you on the procedurals - which I find far more violent and far more disturbing than the supernatural/horror/sci-fi tv shows. CSI - spends a lot of time depicting in graphic detail how a woman has been raped and murdered or kept hostage. As does the Law & Orders. Criminal Minds is amongst the worst in this arena - it's basically about serial killers and spends a lot of time showing us what the serial killer does - again in graphic detail (that was one of the reasons Mandy Pantikan left the series - he found it exploitive with little to no value.). Without A Trace - the victim will sometimes survive and we don't always see everything that happens. The Closer - we seldom see what happens to the victim - the concentration is on the detectives solving it.
Cold Case - does go through what happened to the person and again in graphic detail.

I used to whine about Supernatural - until I actually sat down and gave it a chance. I realized once I did what they were doing and that the show wasn't as misogynistic or violent as a lot of other shows I'd watched. I can't for example watch 24 any more. The torture scenes began to get to me. Nor can I watch most of the procedurals without cringing. The violence feels more real in those shows, more exploitive and more graphic for some reason than it does in the fantasy shows. Not sure why.

[embers-log.livejournal.com]

I never could watch '24'.
I always preferred old fashioned detective novels, where they open w/a murder (so that was out of the way right off the bat) and you spent your time just thinking about clues with the detective, who was not a coroner and wasn't looking at the corpse for his clues.... Preferably ones like Lord Peter Wimsey who were charming and funny and kept his hands clean.

Now days they try to get us to feel like we are really there at the autopsy, which isn't really any place where I'm dying to be (except on 'Heroes' because the Cheerleader's autopsy was really very funny). I think I just prefer the fantasy, I like my fiction to be fictional.... I can't stand 'true crime', or anything that is trying to be terribly realistic.

[shadowkat67.livejournal.com]

I watched 24 intermittently. The only season I think I stuck with all the way through was the third one - with Tony and his wife, and Paul Blackthorn as the villian.

When the procedurals started - I sort of liked them - with Prime Suspect, Murder One, Law and Order, Homicide: Life on the Streets, the Profiler, and in book form - Patricia Cornwall's Kay Scarpetta series. The problem was like any hot new trend - the networks went overboard and soon all I saw were procedurals. And...here's the thing the hyper-real wasn't that real to me after a while - CSI is eye-rollingly wrong at times. Forensic pathologists do not, I repeat, do not interview, interrogate, or arrest suspects. That's what cops and homicide detectives do. The pathologists just assist them. Bones - is laughingly off at times - because there is no way in hell that a pathologist would be allowed to go interview a suspect. She stays in the lab. She might get to do some leg-work but nothing like what that show depicts.

Prime Suspect, Murder One, Hill Street Blues, Homicide Life on the Streets and Law & Order were actually fairly realistic and did stretch the boundaries of belief. You could not in those shows convict someone based on a fingerprint impression from a wall or a hair fiber. CSI makes me laugh - whenever they do fingerprinting - I know for a fact that you can't get a fingerprint off most of the surfaces they manage to.

At least with fantasy or science fiction - the suspension of disbelief is more or less up front, you know what the lies are and just want them to be consistent in their universe. In procedurals - the universe is ours and if you know anything about criminal procedures or forensic pathology, you'll find what appears on screen to be funny. Criminal Minds - sigh, it makes the Profiler look like Shakespeare and I wasn't that in to the Profiler.

I do miss the old style mysteries - Moonlighting, Remington Steele, Scarecrow and Mrs King, Murder She Wrote - even though I admittedly got bored of them after awhile too. The problem is the networks discover a tv format that works then go crazy copying it - the publishing industry does the same thing with books - to the point that it loses it's uniqueness and allure and finally goes out of fashion once the next trend takes off.

Also agree on "true crime" - I liked it for a while, when I was much younger, but the older I get the less I tend to like the true crime stories - they feel less interesting and more exploitive and make me cringe. Again it might be another symptom of market saturation or overdose - the true crime trend started in the 70's with Helter Skelter and Patty Hearst and went into hyperdrive in the 90's with the OJ Simpson fiasco and all its off-shoots. It's not doing as well now. People have finally begun to lose interest or maybe with the War in Iraq and the constant reports of terrorism - people just want to escape from all of that when they watch movies or books or tv shows.