Narrative Fidelity on Thursday Night Shows

It is Thursday night, just the time for unrealistic romance! I watch Bones and Grey’s Anatomy. While I generally like these programs, one major element annoys the crap out of me. The relationships between Booth and Bones and Derrick and Meredith don’t ring true to me. Guys like that wouldn’t be crazy about those women.

On Bones, agent Seeley Booth (David Boreanaz) and forensic science expert Dr. Temperance “Bones” Brennan (Emily Deschanel) work together to solve murders. He is fun guy who wears funky socks and is a caring divorced dad to his son. Booth does have a serious side as an ex-military quintessential cop, who has a knack for reading people who get gets emotional about the cases and has empathy and sympathy for people. Bones is the exact opposite; she is cold and is more comfortable dealing with skeletal remains. She views sex, love and romance like it is only like it is a biological function.

There is a little playful piece of their interactions that are cute and there is sexual tension, although I find it lacks fidelity. People say that opposites attract, but seriously? It doesn’t work because their chemistry is forced. Watch season 5 of Angel and David Boreanaz has much hotter chemistry with James Marsters—maybe nothing seems good to me when I am use to Spike and Angel chemistry.

Grey’s Anatomy has been pushing the Derrick “McDreamy” Shepherd (Patrick Dempsey)/ Meredith Grey (Ellen Pompeo) thing since the first episode. There is that push/pull thing, but it has gotten old. They are educated doctors and they have the emotional maturity of toddlers, although that might be the point—that doctors are imperfect ego maniacs, but it is still obnoxious.

The couple is together they break up. They get together and his wife shows up. When they get close to marriage, he swings a golf club at the wedding ring. A guy like McDreamy wouldn’t put up with a self involved whiney bitch like Meredith, he could have any woman, but he can’t get enough of her and her morose attitude is rubbing off on him. Anyway McSteamy is much hotter, since he acts like a man and not a whipped little boy!

I haven’t watched the episodes tonight—I hope these relationships won’t bother me too much.

It’s About Power: Dollhouse Follows a Whedon Tradition

The new series Dollhouse is off to a slow start. Many have complained that this really isn’t the Joss Whedon quality we are accustomed to. I wasn’t hot about the first episode, but with each week the show is getting progressively more interesting. Press reports and reviews are hinting that the March 20 (written by Whedon) and other near future episodes are awesome and shouldn’t be missed. If you weren’t watching the show before, now is the time to start.

The program’s protagonist is Echo, who works as and Active (also called a Doll). An Active is a person that can have their personalities wiped and can be imprinted with a new persona and skill set. These Dolls can be hostage negotiators, backup singing bodyguards, master thieves or blind cult members. People come to the Dollhouse if they have a problem and the Active is given the personality and skills to complete some objective. The Actives have voluntarily chosen this lot in life, although there is an element of slavery here, it has a more pronounced prostitution vibe. Echo and the other Dolls are slowly becoming self-aware and start to inch their way out of this mandated conformity.

Dollhouse works on many levels, on the surface you can view the program as procedural—Echo is needed for X, therefore she is programmed for Y to solve X and wackiness ensues. But when you examine it at a more critical angle, you find that it is a story of domination and a powerful institution that can turn you into anything they want you to be.

Other works of Whedon are stories that are often framed from a critical theory perspective. Critical theory is the study of oppressive practices that need to be changed. The examination of power in many forms is just one theme that is evident throughout the Whedonverse.

Many scholars and critics see Buffy the Vampire Slayer as a feminist narrative, as a young woman is underestimated by society and many patriarchal institutions (school, government, military, Watcher’s Council) and yet she is full of inner strength and physical power. Buffy doesn’t fit within these established structures and some of the show’s drama comes from this tension. Although on the surface, she fits the hegemonic notion of what a girl should be (attractive, thin, enjoys shopping and cute boys), Buffy is much more than what is expected. She is not a perfect feminist icon and that is part of what makes her story so compelling.

On Angel, the misuse of legal and corporate power is shown through the institution of Wolfram and Hart. In seasons 1 through 4, Angel fights against the employees and actions of this evil law firm. We learn that Wolfram and Hart is an organization that doesn’t care about people or justice, since they are too busy working on gaining more power. The 5th and final season of Angel, we see him working inside Wolfram and Hart. We see through this storyline that power is seductive and even those with the best intentions can be corrupted through corporations. This is illustrated in surface and metaphorical ways. Characters in the narrative mention that Angel has become a corporate puppet through his role at Wolfram and Hart, later in the season he literally becomes a puppet, with a felt body and a tear away nose. The character of Fred is also a victim to the corporation, as she is hollowed out and becomes a “shell” of the person she once was as she is transformed into the demon, Illyria. The Angel series finale is about battling a big bad institutionally based power structure, even though chances of winning are small. The goal isn’t to win; it is to show the powerful that heroes don’t back down-- they fight.

The series Firefly and the movie Serenity also share this critical theory theme. The Alliance is the most oppressive power in the ‘verse. There was a war and the Browncoats fought against the Alliance, the characters of Mal and Zoe were soldiers fighting for independence. The Browncoats are seen as outsiders and are subjected by the powerful Alliance and are forced out into outer planets or the margins of society. The character of River was used as a subject by unethical Alliance doctors and scientists to mold her into the ultimate weapon; this was all done without her consent. In the movie Serenity, they find out how Reevers (cannibalistic and animalistic people) were created. The people on the planet Miranda were given a drug to make them peaceful, compliant and non-aggressive. This made most of the population super lazy and they eventually just died because they gave up. A tiny segment of the population had the opposite effect to the medication and turned into the ultra violent Reevers. The Alliance denies all knowledge of this and worked hard to cover it up.

One thematic undercurrent of Dr. Horrible’s Sing a Long Blog is making societal changes. All of the main characters strive to make changes in the world, through computer mediated communication (Dr. Horrible/ Billy’s Blog), community activism (Penny’s work with the homeless) and arrogant heroism (Captain Hammer’s good deeds). Dr. Horrible talks a lot about unequal power structures. In one of his first blog post he makes these goals for social change known, “it’s not about making money. It’s about taking money. Destroying the status quo, because the status is not quo. The world is a mess and I just need to rule it.” He also has a distain for the corporate system. In the first act he sings, “all that matters, taking matters into your own hands. Soon I’ll control everything my wish is your command.” He calls Captain Hammer a “corporate tool” as he represents conformity, militarism and traditional forms of masculinity. In a conversation with Penny, Billy tells her about his worldview, “I’m talking about an overhaul of the system. Putting the power in different hands.”

In Dollhouse, the corporate machine molds the Actives into personas that have a functional purpose. The first 5 episode shows a world where everything and anything is for sale. The clients of the Dollhouse pay for their services and the more life threatening the task, the more they can charge for it. Ethics and morals are out the window where people are products, the ultimate sign of corporate greed and human comodification. In the real world, it seems like overly capitalist corporate interests are not the least bit humanistic and the Dollhouse echoes this philosophy. Many of the employees at the Dollhouse have no problem with this as they view the Actives not as people, but as tools to accomplish a task. Laurence Dominic is worried that Adelle DeWitt, the manager of the Dollhouse, likes Echo. That is that some part of her acknowledges Echo’s humanity and that is dangerous. Other characters like Boyd Langton, Echo’s handler/mentor has true affectation for her and desperately cares for her well being.

The concept of Dollhouse can be used to play out some existential dilemmas through a television narrative. Dollhouse brings up some thought provoking ideas about what makes a person a person and shows a dystopian universe where people are transformed into human robots. In the Doll’s non-working states, they are childlike and docile and they can never assert any agency or uniqueness. Anything that is unseemly or problematic is taken out as a measure of control. People are dehumanized when freedom of choice and thought are taken away and shows that even in the harshest dictatorships the soul or strength of the human condition can prevail as the Dolls have shown glimpses of individuality even with this level of repression. The mysterious Alpha, a rouge Active, went into a murderous rage (I think we’ll find more about this on Friday’s episode), but others are showing other signs of defiance (Victor’s feelings towards Sierra and Echo’s unpredictableness during missions).

Even though I haven’t been wowed yet, Dollhouse is an interesting concept that can bring up lots of thought provoking scenarios. I’m waiting to see how this season evolves, before I decide if it is worthy of the Whedon cannon.

TV vs. Movies

I’m going to see the X-Files: I Want to Believe tomorrow, because the people I want to see it with can’t go today. Before I see the movie, I’m going to have a rant about TV vs. Movies.

I liked the 1998 X-Files movie, but it was not as good as the series. It is an example of an excellent television series is better than the movie version. The average movie is like 90 to 120 minutes long, but on TV a show like the X-Files had 202 episodes x 45 minutes each that is about 9090ish minutes of narrative. How could 100 minutes ever compare to 9000 minutes?

This is true when also looking at the 1992, Buffy movie and the 1997-2003 television series. The series opened us up to dozens of great characters (other than Buffy) that you care about (Spike, Angel, Xander, Willow, Giles, Cordelia, Oz, Wesley, Faith, Dawn, Tara and so on).

Also look at Firefly and Serenity. While I enjoyed Serenity the movie, I missed the little moments and character interaction in Firefly the television series.

I did read some recent reviews for the new X-Files movie; some critics said that the movie was like an “extended television episode” and not full length feature quality. This attitude makes television an inferior form of entertainment. This is only true if, you have a hard-on for blockbuster special effects and don’t care about narrative or characters. Another reason you might find this true is if you are a “cinema snob” like a film critic type. You also may not be watching the best shows on the air or the greatest DVD season collections.

One caveat before I give my reasons for television’s superiority, I’m talking about television that fits in the quality television paradigm. View the Wikipedia page for Quality Television for a brief explanation on what that is. I see it as a program that has narrative complexity, which is thought provoking and explores characters and relationships in interesting ways.

Here are five main reasons why storytelling in television is better than movies.

1. Television can show better character development over time. Watching a character develop over the course of an hour doesn’t have the same payoff as slowly watching a character develop over the course of 5 seasons. One of my favorite examples of this is Wesley on Buffy and Angel. He started out as an ineffective, stuffy, prissy replacement Watcher to Buffy and Faith. When he made the transition to Angel the series, he became competent, heroic, dark and sexy.
   
   
   
2. The serialized nature of television can tell many different interconnected stories. Television creators can develop stories that unfold in 40 minutes or 4 years. TV isn’t a slave to a beginning, middle and end format, episodes do have that element, but things can keep you guessing and wondering, one of the best examples of this is LOST.
   
   
   
3. A good television show can play with genre on an episode by episode basis. The series can be a comedy, drama, teen movie, romance, horror, sci-fi, musical depending on the individual episode or scene. It doesn’t have just one vibe.
   
   
   
4. With the enormous about of television channels, programs can be narrowcasted to fit a niche audience. TV shows can be smarter, because the next channel over can broadcast to the not so smart people. Movies are created to please the international masses.
   
   
   
5. Quality shows can deal with diverse issues and themes. Movies are limited to one main theme. TV shows can comment on a variety of issues in a timely manner. I love how South Park (not quality in everyone’s book) can turn around fast enough to be in sync with current events.
   
   

Of course once in a while a movie comes out that is glorious and transcendent, for example the Lord of the Rings Trilogy blew me away; some things are better on a larger than life screen. But honestly, most of today’s movies are throw-away popcorn entertainment. I’m not compelled to go to the movies very often, because not much influences me to sit in a dark room with a lot of annoying people. I figure I can wait 8 months and watch the damn thing on HBO.


Read more about this:

Gordon, D. (2007, February 27). Why TV Is Better Than The Movies. Newsweek , p. 52.

Mittell, J. (2006). Narrative Complexity in Contemporary American Television. Velvet Light Trap: A Critical Journal of Film & Television , 29-40.

Newman, M. Z. (2006). From Beats to Arcs: Toward a Poetics of Television Narrative. Velvet Light Trap: A Critical Journal of Film & Television , 16-28.

Waiting in the Wings: Deleted Ballet

As I was getting ready for work this morning, the Angel episode, Waiting in the Wings was on TV. This inspired me to watch the deleted scene from this show. It is where Wesley imagines Fred in the ballet. The funny part is when he joins her.

I just have to share it.

Slayage, Power, Gender Issues. . . .

One of the reasons I started this blog was to “have a chat about TV.” I guess it is going to start out as a monologue, until I get people to start reading it. Last month I attended the Slayage Conference in Arkadelphia Arkansas. This academic conference was about the television programs created by Joss Whedon (Buffy the Vampire Slayer, Angel & Firefly). It was there that I got inspired to start writing about television and popular culture, instead of internalizing all of my thoughts. This blog will also help me curb the desire to have the occasional face-to-face discussion with someone that doesn’t care about the homoerotic subtext in Smallville.

Why I haven’t added to the blog, until recently is that I had an online class that kept me busy writing a lot and I didn’t have the energy to have any additional computer time. The course was titled, Communication and Power. It was a very interesting course and I will use some of that critical theory I learned to add to the discussion here.

Below is an excerpt from a post I made for my online class. It kind of thing fits within my whole, talking about television theme of this blog. The topic of the discussion board post is images of women in the media.

This academic conference was about the television programs Buffy, Angel & Firefly. Many presentations I attended focused on the staging of gender in those TV series. Papers topics included: Girlie Feminism, Violence and the Slayer, the Limitations of Buffy’s Feminism, Hegemony and the Performance of Gender, Buffy & Nancy Drew—Development of Strong Female Role Models in Adolescent Literature, Consumer and Domestic Stereotypes in Buffy, the Damaged Man in Angel, and Gazing at Male Vampires—Bodies as Spectacle.

Here is what I think when using that show as a lens to view media images of women. Power is a huge theme within the Buffy series. Although the Buffy character does fit the little, cute, blonde image that popularized in the media that stereotype is subverted. The character does have extreme physical power and yet she works on keeping her outside appearance girlish and sexualized. Buffy can be strong and yet have power in various aspects of her life. Although that issue is one tiny aspect of the program there are many more issues surrounding gender roles of men and woman on Buffy and its spin-off series Angel. What makes the show especially interesting is that it doesn’t give simple, “afterschool special” life lessons—but forces the audience to think about issues of gender and power in revealing ways. This show creates a dialogue about gender and other societal issues. If you never have seen the show, I suggest you watch it.