SV as dual narrative...
Reading the dissertation I linked to in my earlier post has given me an inspiration. You know how we often complained in the past about the way SV showed us one thing, but told us another? And I have often wondered why. Now I have an idea about this. Tell me what you think.
I'm going to define Smallville as a Dual Narrative. That is, there are two main stories in SV. One is the story we see on the screen, the actual actions of the characters, which we are SHOWN. The other story is the one we are TOLD. We are told this second story by various means, such as speeches by the characters, the lighting and soundscape, the cinematography and so on. In most movies and TV shows, those two narratives are in line with each other. The music and lighting support the story. With SV, however, there is a dislocation.
Before I discuss this further, I want to tell you about a book I've been reading lately. It's called 'In the Garden of Beasts' by Erik Larson, and is a non-fiction book about the American Ambassador to Germany in the 1930s, just before World War II.
The Ambassador's name was William E. Dodd. He had a daughter named Martha. When they first moved to Berlin, Martha, who was only in her early twenties, was quite taken by the young German people, and not all that sympathetic to the Jews. She didn't think the situation was that serious, and she thought the young men marching about in uniform were rather attractive. Then one day, she and some friends were out in the countryside, and she began to be alarmed by all the constant and increasingly aggressive marching. One evening, she came across a horrific scene in a small town. A young 'Aryan' woman had insisted on becoming engaged to a Jewish man, and refused to break it off. A huge crowd attacked her, shaved her head, tore her clothes off, and beat her. Then they carried her through the streets while people mocked her and threw rocks and so on.
If we were to see this scene in a video, we'd be sickened and horrified. Martha was, but she still insisted, in her innocence, that this was an isolated incident, until it became obvious it was not. She then became a spy fighting the Nazis, and working for the communists.
However, imagine this scene as filmed by a Nazi. The narrative we are shown doesn't change, but the music mocks the poor young woman. The lighting and so on show the crowds as virtuous, and the woman as a evil traitor to her race. We hear onlookers commenting that she is a Jew-lover who deserves this treatment. Suppose someone was raised as a Nazi. Would they be able to analyze this video in any other way?
So, let's apply this to a show like Smallville. We've been told the story of Superman and Lex Luthor all our lives. Superman is good. Lex Luthor is evil. We watch SV. Clark gets the heroic music, the bright primary colours and lighting, the praise from his friends and so on. Lex gets the dark colours, the dark lighting, the dark music, the constant accusations. And so, we are primed to see everything Clark does as good and necessary, or at least, as understandable because he's young and inexperienced, and we wait for him to grow up and become Superman. Meanwhile, we analyze everything Lex does as incipient evil.
Now, clearly some people developed their analytic skills enough to see through all this. Others didn't.
My last point for now, is a possible explanation of why the producers did this. As you may know, I've often asked this very question, over and over. I've also often thought it was all deliberate, as a way to brainwash young people into believing the narrative they are TOLD. It's a way to prime people to believe that narrative so that propaganda can be more easily forced upon them.
Why do it this way with Lex Luthor? I mean, it would have been so easy to show him from the first as plotting against Clark, truly being evil and so on. They could have shown him betraying Clark, instead of Clark betraying him. But then they wouldn't have had the satisfaction of tricking people into swallowing a lie.
More on this subject and the Dissertation tomorrow.
ETA: I realize that little, if anything, that I've said here is new, but I think the way I've identified the issue is useful. Giving something a name gives you power over it, in a way. :-)
I'm going to define Smallville as a Dual Narrative. That is, there are two main stories in SV. One is the story we see on the screen, the actual actions of the characters, which we are SHOWN. The other story is the one we are TOLD. We are told this second story by various means, such as speeches by the characters, the lighting and soundscape, the cinematography and so on. In most movies and TV shows, those two narratives are in line with each other. The music and lighting support the story. With SV, however, there is a dislocation.
Before I discuss this further, I want to tell you about a book I've been reading lately. It's called 'In the Garden of Beasts' by Erik Larson, and is a non-fiction book about the American Ambassador to Germany in the 1930s, just before World War II.
The Ambassador's name was William E. Dodd. He had a daughter named Martha. When they first moved to Berlin, Martha, who was only in her early twenties, was quite taken by the young German people, and not all that sympathetic to the Jews. She didn't think the situation was that serious, and she thought the young men marching about in uniform were rather attractive. Then one day, she and some friends were out in the countryside, and she began to be alarmed by all the constant and increasingly aggressive marching. One evening, she came across a horrific scene in a small town. A young 'Aryan' woman had insisted on becoming engaged to a Jewish man, and refused to break it off. A huge crowd attacked her, shaved her head, tore her clothes off, and beat her. Then they carried her through the streets while people mocked her and threw rocks and so on.
If we were to see this scene in a video, we'd be sickened and horrified. Martha was, but she still insisted, in her innocence, that this was an isolated incident, until it became obvious it was not. She then became a spy fighting the Nazis, and working for the communists.
However, imagine this scene as filmed by a Nazi. The narrative we are shown doesn't change, but the music mocks the poor young woman. The lighting and so on show the crowds as virtuous, and the woman as a evil traitor to her race. We hear onlookers commenting that she is a Jew-lover who deserves this treatment. Suppose someone was raised as a Nazi. Would they be able to analyze this video in any other way?
So, let's apply this to a show like Smallville. We've been told the story of Superman and Lex Luthor all our lives. Superman is good. Lex Luthor is evil. We watch SV. Clark gets the heroic music, the bright primary colours and lighting, the praise from his friends and so on. Lex gets the dark colours, the dark lighting, the dark music, the constant accusations. And so, we are primed to see everything Clark does as good and necessary, or at least, as understandable because he's young and inexperienced, and we wait for him to grow up and become Superman. Meanwhile, we analyze everything Lex does as incipient evil.
Now, clearly some people developed their analytic skills enough to see through all this. Others didn't.
My last point for now, is a possible explanation of why the producers did this. As you may know, I've often asked this very question, over and over. I've also often thought it was all deliberate, as a way to brainwash young people into believing the narrative they are TOLD. It's a way to prime people to believe that narrative so that propaganda can be more easily forced upon them.
Why do it this way with Lex Luthor? I mean, it would have been so easy to show him from the first as plotting against Clark, truly being evil and so on. They could have shown him betraying Clark, instead of Clark betraying him. But then they wouldn't have had the satisfaction of tricking people into swallowing a lie.
More on this subject and the Dissertation tomorrow.
ETA: I realize that little, if anything, that I've said here is new, but I think the way I've identified the issue is useful. Giving something a name gives you power over it, in a way. :-)