moral codes & television
I have this problem with Supernatural. It's been bothering me. And in defining for myself just what the problem is, I realized it applies to a few other television shows as well. Well...one. Yep, I'm ranting about Smallville *again*. (Um, dingogrrl, if you want to skip this until after you've enjoyed the finale, I totally understand. It's not about that in particular.)
I thought that most of the last two eps of Supernatural were mostly filler, to be honest. The girl playing Meg's acting was painfully overwrought, and the boys were starting to sound like whiny little girls. But that stand-off between the three Winchester men at the end of the finale was some serious pay-off. I love how Sam sided with Dean when it came down to a question of loyalty, obviously, and not once but twice: when he had the choice to kill the demon (and his dad) or NOT kill him, because Dean wanted him to hold on to the family. JA was doing some fine acting there, but wow, is J.D. Morgan great or what? (Though seriously, is he going to have any acting jobs left by next season? Dying here, dying on Grey's Anatomy...that would suck. Heh.)
This has nothing to do with my topic, but as an interesting aside, EW does "celeb reviewers" once in awhile and they had Bruce Cambell reviewing Supernatural this week. "I'd like to remind all modern-day actors that it's okay to look at each other occasionally during a scene," he says. I hate it when people (why, Bruce, why?!) make a judgement call about something after watching one--even two--episodes. Not just because it makes them sound so smug (though I actually have seen people turn up right on the money after one exposure, which blows me away because I can never count on my first impressions when it comes to what will entertain me). Especially when it revolves around acting, because that's just not fair. Sure, there have been a few moments of excessive nostril-flaring on JP's part, but these guys have their great moments--obviously.
So this comes down to the problem I have with Supernatural and the entire foundation of the show. The bad guys are the only ones with real power on Supernatural. The Winchesters aren't "good guys," which I'm sure is part of their appeal for many. They're regular guys who got thrown into the bad-guy-killing business. They rely on religious rites and empty rituals to "consecrate" ground and make water holy and bullshit like that. The priests on SPN (is it SPN or SN?) can't stand their ground and call down the almighty protection of God to defeat demons; they have to turn tail and run for some knife which was no doubt specially prepared for demon killing mojo (and doesn't work). I think the show actually paid lipservice to this problem once (dingogrrl, what episode was that? the one with the "faith healer"?), but you know, I'm not thrilled with a show which throws around exorcism and demons and all that and wnats me to believe those things exist in the world by themselves. Their main premise is that evil--real evil, in many forms--exists, and as far as 'verse-building goes, that's okay. But there is no powerful good to oppose it? The world relies on the hapless men who are forced onto a path of revenge? Um, that's not gonna wash. I'm sorry. I need more than that. I need white hats, too, if you're going to show me black ones. The Winchesters are just a bunch of guys running head-long into danger for no real reason except that they know about evil now and they can't turn their backs (literally can't, because the evil is, in fact, out to get them). Maybe that's exactly what people like about these stories; I don't know. I just know it's not enough for me.
This leads me directly to Smallville. And I'll explain why. I have this whole love-turned-to-hate problem with Smallville. I once "took possession" of it in a fannish way, and they slowly broke the ties of my loyalty in many ways that I won't go into, which means my rage at what it's become is...well, I won't say uncontrollable, but it festers. I'm like a bitter divorcee who can't stop telling people how terrible her ex was even though he's no longer her husband. I'm sure it annoys the hell out of people. Or possibly scares them. I have a hard time letting go of a show after I've watched it for a certain amount of time. It's an issue of the amount of time and effort already invested, I guess. So once the show lets me down--and it takes awhile; I justify and deny and "give it another chance" for usually an entire season or more--I have to stick with it, often until the bitter end. I did this with Angel (and with Alias I think, though I don't think I was as passive-agressive with that one because I was never completely devoted): I ended up watching it 'til the end, but I was *relieved* when it ended and I could FINALLY stop watching it!
Note: I'm not quite so tenacious anymore, btw. I've learned my lesson and had to start giving up the good fight. It's the price of being a passionate fan faced with the logistics of reality. I haven't even watched the last 3 episodes of the season yet, and the only reason I feel bad about it is because there may be people wanting to start up some discussion about it.
Anyway, with Smallville, I really couldn't quite figure out why I hadn't been able to resign myself to yet another show failing to live up to expectations and just give up the pointless bitterness already. It's not the cheesiness of the plots or the randomness of the characters, particularly. It's not the ridiculous use of Kryptonite or caves or politics or even freaking Lana Lang. It's more than that. It's that Smallville has no moral code. Just what code to virtuous living does Clark follow? I don't know. I don't think Clark knows. I think he just does whatever "feels right" at the time, the "I'll know Right when I see it" model to good living. And you know what? That ISN'T GOOD ENOUGH for the guy who's supposed to be or represent the most powerful force for good on the planet.
You see, I am a Superman fan. As much as SV has done to break my Superman lovin' heart, I *am* a Superman fan, because Superman is much bigger than Smallville's version of Clark Kent. I have, in fact, been reminded of that numerous times (thanks to those of you who have bothered to do that; I do realize he's a fictional character *g*), but it has a hard time sinking in, because, for awhile, I let SV represent that guy to me: that character, that symbol (yes, they insist he isn't actually "Superman" yet, but they do rely on the Superman mythos and they do purport to represent his formulative years, so it's not like they fought very hard to escape the association). And it's not that they have dirtied down Superman, or subjected him to teenage hormones, or Lana Lang, or any of that. They took Superman, stuck him in real life (or as close as we get on television, and obviously I'm an avid television viewer, so I'm well-versed at wanking TV RL to fit my world), and made him--insignificant. He *is* no better than anybody else. He doesn't live a better life. He doesn't have a harder time making the right decision. He doesn't spend his time musing over the moral consequences of his actions or *his effect on other people*. He doesn't worry about the freedom to choose right and wrong. He doesn't HAVE an ABSOLUTE MORAL CODE. And I think that's *fundamental* to being a big damn superhero with enormous power, enourmous responsibility, and the right to fly around freely with it. Because they wanted him to live a daily life, because they wanted him to be a "normal" teenage boy who would appeal to the average public school teenager (yes, that's a dig and I don't care), they reduced Superman to man. He isn't super. He isn't even Clark Kent (because I believe the true character Clark Kent would be a good person who tried to help the world without being Superman, and that's because he was *taught* what it means to help the world; he was taught how to live a good day-to-day life; he was taught how to make good decisions and that was BY HIS PARENTS). Clark Kent isn't a character you are just born to be. Unless the means to develop and sustain virtue and goodness were taught to him at some point (I reject the archaic backstory that says he was an orphan and somehow came by the knowledge or the inate nature that allowed him to be All Good, All the Time; yes, I do feel as a Superman fan it's my right to pick and choose which things make him My Superman, the one that makes sense and means something to *my* life), he simply cannot possibly be the Superman I consider to be Superman. Thus Smallville's Superman cannot ever be the real Superman. He cannot be what I think Superman stands for.
I realize this all seems rather silly. Fictional characters, etc. Moral codes are something I think about a lot (especially this semester due to my course in Formal Logic & Critical Thinking, heh). I make no apologies for that, because personally I think people *should* think about moral codes and virtues and all that stuff pretty darn often. And I think television falls down on the job of showing how people's choices relate to morality and how we're not all just floating around in a moral vacuum all the time (or anyway, television rarely shows there's any alternative). The symbols (okay, characters, but see, just as I've learned my writing is concept-driven, so are my characters based around symbols) which offer a pure portrayal of morality, whether they be the "white hats" like Superman [is supposed to be] or somebody like Malcolm Reynolds, who pretends to be "rudderless" but actually relies on a battered but well-rooted code of practical behavior dictated by a code of morality (of which he is painfully aware and unable to discard, likely due to entrenched lessons from his child/youthhood and even despite the crisis of faith which lead him to abandon the foundational beliefs for said morals), are VERY important to me. I tend to be very protective of these guys. Of what they represent. That's partially because they're so rare. Basing decisions based on something other than consequentialism (i.e. 24) or what seems best at the time (pretty much any WB show, Grey's Anatomy, etc) is rare on television. Heck, rare in life (at least American life, heh, and I'll just limit myself to speaking for that).
Boy, my sentences are getting messy. I'm trying to say something here, and I'm not sure I'm getting it across. *yawns* Oy, I'm tired. I'm going to post and hope this made some sort of sense, even if it has no conclusion. To sum up: Smallville hijacked my damn symbol of Goodness and Right and I DON'T have to just accept it, after all. (You can't stand for Truth, Justice, the American Way, etc, if you don't even know what they *mean*. They're just empty words.) I'm sick of shows that don't bother to address Morality, or Goodness, or whether there is or isn't an Absolute Right at *all*, especially when they're shows based around a concept that simply must take a position on them (I don't sweat it with Grey's Anatomy, for instance, because I watch it for the amusement factor). I also tend to prefer shows that do step up to that level (a good example being Battlestar Galactica; and many others with certain limiting factors, like BtVS--as interesting it was that the obstacle to the Buffy/Spike relationship was an issue of his *soul*, for instance, they were never quite clear on just what the concept of a "soul" *was*--or even Veronica Mars: see link below.)
One last thing: musesfool linked to a rather nice essay about moral codes in Veronica Mars vs. Buffy the Vampire Slayer here. Interesting read.
I thought that most of the last two eps of Supernatural were mostly filler, to be honest. The girl playing Meg's acting was painfully overwrought, and the boys were starting to sound like whiny little girls. But that stand-off between the three Winchester men at the end of the finale was some serious pay-off. I love how Sam sided with Dean when it came down to a question of loyalty, obviously, and not once but twice: when he had the choice to kill the demon (and his dad) or NOT kill him, because Dean wanted him to hold on to the family. JA was doing some fine acting there, but wow, is J.D. Morgan great or what? (Though seriously, is he going to have any acting jobs left by next season? Dying here, dying on Grey's Anatomy...that would suck. Heh.)
This has nothing to do with my topic, but as an interesting aside, EW does "celeb reviewers" once in awhile and they had Bruce Cambell reviewing Supernatural this week. "I'd like to remind all modern-day actors that it's okay to look at each other occasionally during a scene," he says. I hate it when people (why, Bruce, why?!) make a judgement call about something after watching one--even two--episodes. Not just because it makes them sound so smug (though I actually have seen people turn up right on the money after one exposure, which blows me away because I can never count on my first impressions when it comes to what will entertain me). Especially when it revolves around acting, because that's just not fair. Sure, there have been a few moments of excessive nostril-flaring on JP's part, but these guys have their great moments--obviously.
So this comes down to the problem I have with Supernatural and the entire foundation of the show. The bad guys are the only ones with real power on Supernatural. The Winchesters aren't "good guys," which I'm sure is part of their appeal for many. They're regular guys who got thrown into the bad-guy-killing business. They rely on religious rites and empty rituals to "consecrate" ground and make water holy and bullshit like that. The priests on SPN (is it SPN or SN?) can't stand their ground and call down the almighty protection of God to defeat demons; they have to turn tail and run for some knife which was no doubt specially prepared for demon killing mojo (and doesn't work). I think the show actually paid lipservice to this problem once (dingogrrl, what episode was that? the one with the "faith healer"?), but you know, I'm not thrilled with a show which throws around exorcism and demons and all that and wnats me to believe those things exist in the world by themselves. Their main premise is that evil--real evil, in many forms--exists, and as far as 'verse-building goes, that's okay. But there is no powerful good to oppose it? The world relies on the hapless men who are forced onto a path of revenge? Um, that's not gonna wash. I'm sorry. I need more than that. I need white hats, too, if you're going to show me black ones. The Winchesters are just a bunch of guys running head-long into danger for no real reason except that they know about evil now and they can't turn their backs (literally can't, because the evil is, in fact, out to get them). Maybe that's exactly what people like about these stories; I don't know. I just know it's not enough for me.
This leads me directly to Smallville. And I'll explain why. I have this whole love-turned-to-hate problem with Smallville. I once "took possession" of it in a fannish way, and they slowly broke the ties of my loyalty in many ways that I won't go into, which means my rage at what it's become is...well, I won't say uncontrollable, but it festers. I'm like a bitter divorcee who can't stop telling people how terrible her ex was even though he's no longer her husband. I'm sure it annoys the hell out of people. Or possibly scares them. I have a hard time letting go of a show after I've watched it for a certain amount of time. It's an issue of the amount of time and effort already invested, I guess. So once the show lets me down--and it takes awhile; I justify and deny and "give it another chance" for usually an entire season or more--I have to stick with it, often until the bitter end. I did this with Angel (and with Alias I think, though I don't think I was as passive-agressive with that one because I was never completely devoted): I ended up watching it 'til the end, but I was *relieved* when it ended and I could FINALLY stop watching it!
Note: I'm not quite so tenacious anymore, btw. I've learned my lesson and had to start giving up the good fight. It's the price of being a passionate fan faced with the logistics of reality. I haven't even watched the last 3 episodes of the season yet, and the only reason I feel bad about it is because there may be people wanting to start up some discussion about it.
Anyway, with Smallville, I really couldn't quite figure out why I hadn't been able to resign myself to yet another show failing to live up to expectations and just give up the pointless bitterness already. It's not the cheesiness of the plots or the randomness of the characters, particularly. It's not the ridiculous use of Kryptonite or caves or politics or even freaking Lana Lang. It's more than that. It's that Smallville has no moral code. Just what code to virtuous living does Clark follow? I don't know. I don't think Clark knows. I think he just does whatever "feels right" at the time, the "I'll know Right when I see it" model to good living. And you know what? That ISN'T GOOD ENOUGH for the guy who's supposed to be or represent the most powerful force for good on the planet.
You see, I am a Superman fan. As much as SV has done to break my Superman lovin' heart, I *am* a Superman fan, because Superman is much bigger than Smallville's version of Clark Kent. I have, in fact, been reminded of that numerous times (thanks to those of you who have bothered to do that; I do realize he's a fictional character *g*), but it has a hard time sinking in, because, for awhile, I let SV represent that guy to me: that character, that symbol (yes, they insist he isn't actually "Superman" yet, but they do rely on the Superman mythos and they do purport to represent his formulative years, so it's not like they fought very hard to escape the association). And it's not that they have dirtied down Superman, or subjected him to teenage hormones, or Lana Lang, or any of that. They took Superman, stuck him in real life (or as close as we get on television, and obviously I'm an avid television viewer, so I'm well-versed at wanking TV RL to fit my world), and made him--insignificant. He *is* no better than anybody else. He doesn't live a better life. He doesn't have a harder time making the right decision. He doesn't spend his time musing over the moral consequences of his actions or *his effect on other people*. He doesn't worry about the freedom to choose right and wrong. He doesn't HAVE an ABSOLUTE MORAL CODE. And I think that's *fundamental* to being a big damn superhero with enormous power, enourmous responsibility, and the right to fly around freely with it. Because they wanted him to live a daily life, because they wanted him to be a "normal" teenage boy who would appeal to the average public school teenager (yes, that's a dig and I don't care), they reduced Superman to man. He isn't super. He isn't even Clark Kent (because I believe the true character Clark Kent would be a good person who tried to help the world without being Superman, and that's because he was *taught* what it means to help the world; he was taught how to live a good day-to-day life; he was taught how to make good decisions and that was BY HIS PARENTS). Clark Kent isn't a character you are just born to be. Unless the means to develop and sustain virtue and goodness were taught to him at some point (I reject the archaic backstory that says he was an orphan and somehow came by the knowledge or the inate nature that allowed him to be All Good, All the Time; yes, I do feel as a Superman fan it's my right to pick and choose which things make him My Superman, the one that makes sense and means something to *my* life), he simply cannot possibly be the Superman I consider to be Superman. Thus Smallville's Superman cannot ever be the real Superman. He cannot be what I think Superman stands for.
I realize this all seems rather silly. Fictional characters, etc. Moral codes are something I think about a lot (especially this semester due to my course in Formal Logic & Critical Thinking, heh). I make no apologies for that, because personally I think people *should* think about moral codes and virtues and all that stuff pretty darn often. And I think television falls down on the job of showing how people's choices relate to morality and how we're not all just floating around in a moral vacuum all the time (or anyway, television rarely shows there's any alternative). The symbols (okay, characters, but see, just as I've learned my writing is concept-driven, so are my characters based around symbols) which offer a pure portrayal of morality, whether they be the "white hats" like Superman [is supposed to be] or somebody like Malcolm Reynolds, who pretends to be "rudderless" but actually relies on a battered but well-rooted code of practical behavior dictated by a code of morality (of which he is painfully aware and unable to discard, likely due to entrenched lessons from his child/youthhood and even despite the crisis of faith which lead him to abandon the foundational beliefs for said morals), are VERY important to me. I tend to be very protective of these guys. Of what they represent. That's partially because they're so rare. Basing decisions based on something other than consequentialism (i.e. 24) or what seems best at the time (pretty much any WB show, Grey's Anatomy, etc) is rare on television. Heck, rare in life (at least American life, heh, and I'll just limit myself to speaking for that).
Boy, my sentences are getting messy. I'm trying to say something here, and I'm not sure I'm getting it across. *yawns* Oy, I'm tired. I'm going to post and hope this made some sort of sense, even if it has no conclusion. To sum up: Smallville hijacked my damn symbol of Goodness and Right and I DON'T have to just accept it, after all. (You can't stand for Truth, Justice, the American Way, etc, if you don't even know what they *mean*. They're just empty words.) I'm sick of shows that don't bother to address Morality, or Goodness, or whether there is or isn't an Absolute Right at *all*, especially when they're shows based around a concept that simply must take a position on them (I don't sweat it with Grey's Anatomy, for instance, because I watch it for the amusement factor). I also tend to prefer shows that do step up to that level (a good example being Battlestar Galactica; and many others with certain limiting factors, like BtVS--as interesting it was that the obstacle to the Buffy/Spike relationship was an issue of his *soul*, for instance, they were never quite clear on just what the concept of a "soul" *was*--or even Veronica Mars: see link below.)
One last thing: musesfool linked to a rather nice essay about moral codes in Veronica Mars vs. Buffy the Vampire Slayer here. Interesting read.