where real life meets fandom

[mirageofmae]

I'm taking an anthropology of global media class and it's completely altering how I watch television! And my religion & film class a few years ago totally changed how I watch movies too. It's cool and also annoying. No longer is it just mindless entertainment, now it's depictions of gender, race and class. Modern discourse about issues like homosexuality, gender identification, politics, and fears about security. Craziness.

I'm watching Bones now and wondering why they sometimes make their two stars act like incredibly stereotypical depictions of gender.



Boothe occasionally plays the alpha-male (but oh such a gentleman), uber-straight (read: homophobic), middle-class (not low, not upper), street-smart (as opposed to high educated), good Catholic boy, macho male to the hilt. But it's almost like they have to write it in because the character on his own doesn't quite conform. I feel like the writing sometimes forces this characteristic whereas the character could go on his own direction and actually be a much more interesting person. Boothe is normally such a cool guy and then they introduce these ridiculous characteristics and I get totally turned off.

Brennan on the other hand is a little more confused. She's the cold, asocial scientist, comfortable with her sexuality to the point of intimidating other men. She doesn't have any of the usual female characters. She can kick ass but is hopeless in relationships. It's like they've castrated her as a female, taking away any easily recognizable compassion, gentleness, or warmth. You have to look deeper to remember she's a woman. Is this the face of a modern powerful woman? Someone who is clueless about living people?

There's a scene in season two where Brennan is dating a guy and she's interested in a more intimate relationship and doesn't know how to give him the signal. Angela suggests she let the guy make the first move, implying that she should be a girlie-girl and let the male be dominant. This made me very uncomfortable with all the implications, that Brennan by herself was somehow deficient in this relationship with this regular guy. In the end, Brennan takes the reigns and it's all okay, but it was an interesting story arc.

Comments

[somedaybitch.livejournal.com]

i would counter to anthropologists that sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.

[mirageofmae.livejournal.com]

i'm sure i've been at school too long

the cheeseman really was just a cheeseman.

i still think it makes for interesting food for thought.

[somedaybitch.livejournal.com]

it does, certainly, but what concerns me about classes like that is the propensity to a lack of balance. stories are written by people, and shows that seem to perpetuate stereotypes aren't nefarious, so to speak, but rather just poorly written - in that they don't seem to strive for balanced and interesting character development. it's lazy writing. it's too easy to paint sweeping generalizations of racism, or gender bias, or misogyny or whatever, instead of "holy crap, that writing's bad."

[mirageofmae.livejournal.com]

Ohh, wow, I guess my post wasn't very clear, I was pointing to the rather poor writing of Seeley Boothe as his poor characterization. I feel like sometimes the writers forget they have interesting characters and resort to the kind of stereotypical tropes of gender for lack of more creative solutions. Have a somewhat controversial topic to scandalize our audience? Who's going to tell us it's scandalous, why Boothe of course, the guy we can always turn to to give us the kind of reaction "normal" people would have to counter Brennan's uber tolerance of almost everything approaching deviant.

Perpetuating stereotypes is only nefarious (in my opinion, and it goes for lazy writing for that matter) when they affect how we treat real people based on our observations in the only medium anyone seems to communicate in anymore.

I get what you mean about sweeping generalizations. Freud was criminal about it. It's too easy to look at something very closely and decide it must be like that everywhere else too. Then again, look at soap operas across the world. The sameness across countries, cultures, languages is a little astounding.

[somedaybitch.livejournal.com]

Perpetuating stereotypes is only nefarious (in my opinion, and it goes for lazy writing for that matter) when they affect how we treat real people based on our observations in the only medium anyone seems to communicate in anymore.


what people do with what they consume is their sole responsibility. having said that, yes, i agree that depending on who's watching what, it can have a social impact...but i still don't buy anything but lazy writing.

a more interesting question, imho, is writers who intentionally beat you over the head with their belief systems....lousy Doctor Who chick writer i'm lookin' at you. i personally see it as infinitely more damaging.

tell a compelling story, don't tell me what to think. if you want to begin a public dialogue and use a mass media form to do it, then focus first on crafting a brilliant story. if you succeed, people will consider your underlying intentions if they choose to, not because you shouted from the mountain tops I'M RIGHT!! THINK LIKE ME!!!

[mirageofmae.livejournal.com]

what people do with what they consume is their sole responsibility. having said that, yes, i agree that depending on who's watching what, it can have a social impact..

I totally agree that people's actions are their own responsibility. I don't agree when people point to television as if it's the sole responsibility for anything.

However, I do think it informs our thinking and the way we interact with each other and our communities, and in that sense, it has the power to make an impact on society. It's not the only influence, it might not even be the biggest, but I do think it's there. This is why I enjoy studying it. As a society we're surrounded by more images than any other society ever and I'm curious to see if we can explore how this makes us different, how we're the same, how we're changing as a group.

And in terms of making sweeping generalizations, I understand why it happens. When teaching something, there's a tendency to oversimplify for the sake of expedient learning. I think too many people (teachers and students alike) who take the oversimplification for a fact they're supposed to memorize, instead of what it actually is, a method of bettering how we think or view the world.

a more interesting question, imho, is writers who intentionally beat you over the head with their belief systems...

I just think it's funny that when it's done poorly, it's so much less convincing than if they'd done it with more grace. For me, that kind of communication makes for a great conversation, because it's so obvious, you can talk to a lot of people about it.

And I haven't seen the episode you're referring to, so I can't speak to that, but I don't see that type of writing as any more or less damaging than a story told better or a message sent more subtly because it's still completely up to the individual to realize the difference between "this is right and absolutely the right way of thinking" and "this is someone's opinion and something I have the liberty to disagree with."