This is a longish meta-shaped review. Of a chaotic emo variety. I just need to get all those thoughts out because I haven't really been up to any fandom discussions lately. Somehow fandom discussions aren't as much fun as they used to be. Possibly because I'm a headcase
(
Read more... )
The writers wanted to take Elena (and Bonnie, for that matter: hypnosis is clearly the “sire bond” of Bonnie's arc) to interesting places, wanted to do darker stuff with her narrative, but censorship (inner censorship? network censorship? I'd pay good money to know that tbh) put a halt on that. Let's be real, many of the things Elena did this season wouldn't be palatable for certain (big!) groups of viewers if the blow wasn't softened by the sire bond. Same goes for Bonnie and hypnosis. I think the writers were right to fear that casual viewers would stop watching the show if the heroines went dark out of their own volition. I wish the writers had had more courage about it, I wish they had had taken the risk. I think it's valid to criticize them for it, but I think it's also important to talk about why the fuck this kind of storytelling is still a risk.
And consider this in light of Don Draper, Walter White, and other male characters who can still be the protagonists and have utterly dark narratives and yet. We need only look at how Joseph Morgan has to keep reminding the fans that he's THE VILLAIN.
Of course women can't be dark, even if they have good reason. If ever once they were Good Girls, then ever shall they remain no matter the provocation. No deviating from the standard allowed, unless it's outside their control. If the show were willing to be as brave as Mad Men or AMC, only with the women characters, then the sire-bond would be decimated by the finale. How about that for a twist? Thinking on it now, I guess Bonnie's being influenced by Shane's hypnotism makes Elena's sire bond seem even more real, I guess. Of course, Stefan also got an ~excuse to be bad only Season 4 seems to be revisiting this through Elena's story too. So it's partly that this is a teenage vampire show as opposed to bravely written no-holds-barred adult dramas like Breaking Bad or Deadwood. But then, the fantasy elements represent these human behaviors of descending into darkness writ large on a metaphysical level. The genius of fantasy lies in not using the metaphysics as an excuse for the character's behavior so much as the character's own inclinations blown up to mammoth proportions. For instance, Buffy's lashing out and her abusive relationship with Spike because she came back ~wrong in Season 6 -- that's an example of tearing back that comforting veil of "the spell made me do it." So on that theme of self-delusion, I wonder how long sire-bonds and Silas prophecies can hold up. Everything seems to keep getting stripped away, so why not the characters excuses? Then there'll be no sanctuary for them.
Aaaaaaaaaand I love everything you say about Ian's acting, plus about Bonnie (OH BONNIE)
Reply
I agree with your point, but I don't think there are no morally-ambiguous female protagonists. Women obviously can be ambiguous or evil when it's not their story, but there are examples of women being deeply flawed and having less-than-stellar-morality storylines on television, right now (and that's even disregarding soaps, which have a long history of that). It's true we don't have a female Dexter, but we do have a female House (albeit more likable one, i.e. Nurse Jackie) and Scandal is one example of a female protagonist who does evil things while being likable and (only) intermittently good - and of the audience rushing to excuse her. Admittedly, they rush to excuse the male character much more eagerly, but still, the direction is there.
(I'm not saying you were making the opposite point, it's just that you mention the shows which do the thing with male protagonists [which is more acceptable, easier to pull off, easier to excuse] but luckily there are counterexamples as well.)
Reply
Leave a comment