• About
  • Follow
  • Life: An Odd Analogy
  • Making Debates Suck a Wee Bit Less
  • To heck with the good ol’ days
  • Writing

Random Blather

~ Feverish ravings of a middle-aged mind

Random Blather

Tag Archives: television

Lost Girl: A Guilty Pleasure You Shouldn’t Feel Guilty About

02 Thursday Oct 2014

Posted by dougom in Fiction, News, Opinion

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

GLBT, television

imagehandler
Images courtesy of Showcase Lost Girl site

We all have guilty pleasures. Maybe you’re a hardcore leftist intellectual whose partner publishes dense books on comparative religion and you read People Magazine on the sly; maybe you’re a professor of Music specializing in Medieval religious music and you follow Miley Cyrus on Twitter and have every one of her albums; maybe your an avowed fan and proponent of the detective novel as major literature, a member of the Baker Street Irregulars, and a regular speaker on the influence of Doyle on modern detective fiction, but you have every episode of Scooby Doo on your Tivo. I dunno what yours is; I just know that people have them.

For me it’s usually some TV show or other. I can rationalize it; for example, I can make a good case that my love of Kim Possible shows my feminist leanings, my support of girl empowerment, and come up with plenty of other pseudo-intellectual nonsense, but the truth is I watch it because it’s funny and Kim kicks ass.

But I want to mention one guilty pleasure that is in some ways truly remarkable: Lost Girl.

At first blush, this is your classic guilty pleasure. Vampires! Werewolves! Succubi! Conspiracy theories and lost civilizations and lots of fight scenes! Lots of hot women in tight leather outfits! Gratuitous ow-neckline cleavage shots!  Girl-on-girl make-out sessions!

bo and lauren
See?  Told ya.

And let’s just stop there and back up a minute. Because here’s the thing:

From a perspective of how women are treated and how GLB (no trans characters that I can remember) relationships are treated, it’s one of the most level-headed shows I’ve ever seen.

The most obvious thing is who this show is about:  A woman.  And her female live-in, non-sexual best friend.  And the main character’s girlfriend.  And her main protagonists:  The leader of the “dark” folks (that’s what they call themselves)–also a woman–and her long-lost mother (yes, a woman).   (And oh, yeah; her sort-of boyfriend the werewolf.)

Seeing a pattern here?

women-lauren-bo-ksenia-solo-lost-girl-anna-silk-zoie-palmer-kenzi-HD-Wallpaper
The three main characters; what’s unusual for TV lead characters about this picture?

I haven’t even mentioned the many, many characters who are on for longer or shorter periods, like Linda Hamilton in a multi-show guest-starring role, or Rachel Skarsten as real-life valkyrie, or . . . well, you get the point.  LOTS of women, and front and center.  This show passes the Bechdel test with ease (although I’m sure there must be an episode somewhere in its five-year run that doesn’t).

And as a middle-aged guy who has always been aggravated by the way women’s roles in film and TV seem divided into two classes (ingenue, and mom), I’m absolutely thrilled that the powerful, strong, independent, sexy (it has to be said; she playing a succubus, for Pete’s sake!), tough, absolutely kick-ass woman who plays the lead is over 40 and (in real life) a mom.  A middle-aged woman who plays an independent person not mooning after some guy or is a mom?  Wow; who’d’a thunk?  And despite the “common wisdom” among Hollywood movie and TV types, it’s run for five seasons.  So put that in your sexist pipes and smoke it, you jerks!

Anna-Silk-as-Bo-in-Lost-Girl-TV-Series-2
Lead character, Bo, preparing to kick ass

And finally, I’m incredibly pleased at how unremarked the treatment of gays, lesbians, and bisexuals this show presents.  The lead character is a bisexual woman who has had men, women, and sometimes both as partners and lovers.  Various other characters are straight, gay, or lesbian, and no one makes a big point of it; it’s just part of their character.  We don’t have situations like “Will and Grace” or “Ellen” or many other shows and movies where a big deal is made of the fact that this or that character is gay or lesbian or bi and oh my god shouldn’t we get a lot of credit for being so brave?  Nope; it’s just a natural part of how the characters are portrayed.  And in my opinion, that’s what we’re driving towards, right?  Where being GLBT is so normalized and unremarkable that we don’t, well, remark on it.  (And a lesbian actress plays a lesbian character; heaven forfend!)

Now yes, this show definitely falls into the “guilty pleasure” category in many ways.  Being Canadian, it can show more nudity than US programs, and it takes this as far as it can–lots of beautiful women and men in very revealing clothing.  (Oh yes; men too.  You should see the scene where Bo, the main character, visits her mother’s house and is served–and offered “services” by–her mother’s shirtless, tight-leather-pants-wearing, hunky Chippendale’s male “thralls”.)  Lots of cleavage and tight leather pants and sex scenes.  Not to mention plenty of fighting with swords and knives and fists, claws and cross-bows, you name it.  Our Heroine has a trunk filled with weapons.

thralls
Beefcake on the hoof

So yes, “Lost Girl” is a guilty pleasure on one level, but on another, it’s quite a remarkable show.  If you at all like science fiction, fantasy, or strong, powerful, interesting lead characters, gender equality, and positively-presented (without a lot of self-congratulation) GLB characters and relationships, you might enjoy it, too.

Enough with the “Bromance” Giggling; Guys Can Have Friends Too

25 Friday Oct 2013

Posted by dougom in Opinion

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

baker street babes, film, GLBT, literature, sherlock holmes, starsky & hutch, television

Sherlock season 3 gallery photo -- exclusive EW.com image
No, these two guys don’t have to be suffering from suppressed gay longing; sorry!
(Image courtesy of Entertainment Weekly)

I’m a Sherlock Holmes fan.  I say this not because this is a post about Sherlock Holmes, or the various new takes on Holmes (Robert Downey, Jr.; Johnny Miller; Benedict Cummerbatch), or a celebration of A.C. Doyle’s birthday, or anything like that.  It’s because there’s a common narrative thread that seems to run through people’s interpretations of men when they are either close–like in “buddy movies”–or actually live together, and in many ways the Holmes/Watson pairing is the Ur-example of this.  (The true Ur-example is the legend of Gilgamesh and Enkido, but how many people know that?  Other than people who remember the Star Trek: The Next Generation episode “Darmok”?)

But Homes&Watson are hardly the only example of this in fiction, of course.  We also have Kirk&Spock, and Harry&Ron, and Starsky&Hutch, and those two guys in “Miami Vice”, and on and on.  It’s a very common trope.

But there’s something that quite bugs me about how these partnerships are treated.  Let me give you an example:  I was listening to one of my favorite podcasts, The Baker Street Babes, a group of women who talk about All Things Sherlock.  I like this podcast quite a bit, even if it turns into a girly giggle-fest too often for my tastes.  But hey, I’m not the target audience, so I’m good with that.  What I have difficulty with is the damn-near constant, incessant, laugh-behind-our-hands attitude that these women often display towards the relationship between Holmes and Watson.  The subtext of this is clear:  Holmes and Watson really have unresolved homosexual feelings for each other and jeez, why don’t they just act on it?

And here’s the thing, and I’m sorry to break it to the Babes:  Men have male friends.  Sometimes close male friends.  Sometimes very close male friends for whom they would lay in front of traffic, but for whom they don’t have any romantic feelings.  So get over yourselves.

In my case, I have a (very) few male friends for whom I would do almost anything.  I have lived with some of these men, in some cases for years.  We have dated women (or men), lived our individual lives, and built up a bond of close friendship that is non-sexual.  Point being, men can have close male friends that they don’t want to jump in bed with.

(I will state that folks like Robert Downey, Jr. don’t make this any better by deliberately feeding into this “suppressed homosexual longing” thing.)

Yes, gang:  Men can be friends, close, close friends, with other men, without sex being involved.  Shocker!

Now turn this the other way:  If you have a TV show, or a literary series, or a movies series, where there is a pair of women who are close friends, who even live with each other, would it be appropriate to point and giggle and make snarky comments about “suppressed lesbian longings”?  Would we pooh-pooh people who said, “No, actually; Julie and Julia are just good friends–it’s nothing to do with sex”, and then giggle and make fun and suggest that believing–gasp!–women can have female friends without wanting to screw them makes you naive?  How would that go over?  (Hint:  Not well.)

So look:  I know it’s fun and cute and clever to point out that Paul Michael Glaser sure had tight pants and oooh giggle giggle I bet David Soul just wanted to jump his bones, or to write Ron/Harry shipping fanfic, or whatever, but the fact remains:  Men can be close friends with other men without suppressed homosexuality being a part of it.  Deal with it.

Do the Math, Creative People!

24 Monday Jun 2013

Posted by dougom in Opinion

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

books, fiction, film, movies, television

hogwartsplates
Hogwarts dining hall: This look like 1000 kids to you, or closer to, oh, say, 300?
(Photo courtesy of BeyondHogwarts.com)

Reading and watching fiction always takes a certain amount of willing suspension of disbelief.  You have to believe (temporarily, to a certain extent) powered armor can work and alien/human hybrid clones can be created and controlled through wifi to watch “Avatar” without getting irritated; that Humbert Humbert can obsess over a barely-nubile girl; that Benedick and Claudio can swallow the transparent BS of Hero having a previously unremarked twin sister; etc.  Great or small, you have to go along with a certain amount of nonsense, scientific hand-waving, plot holes, and other problems to enjoy your fiction.  That’s the contract you make with the author/playwright/screenwriter.

Different people are thrown out of this state by different things, obviously.  There are some people who simply can’t watch science fiction at all, for example.  I can understand that.  For me, where I often trip up is on simple arithmetic.

For me, the most blatant example is the Harry Potter books.  J.K. Rowling, when asked, has stated that Hogwarts has “around 1000” students.

Hogwash.  Do the math, Jo!  It ain’t hard!

Each entering class is sorted into 4 houses.  Gryffindor in Harry’s year has 5 boys, 5 girls.  10 total students, then.  If the other houses are similar, that’s a class size of 40.  7 years at Hogwarts, 7×40, is 280 students.  Not 1000.  Not even close.  Rowling isn’t even close, because she didn’t do the math.

Think I’m being unfair to Rowling?  At Hogwarts, incoming students take Potions, Herbology, Defence Against the Dark Arts, Transfiguration, Charms, and Care of Magical Creatures.  It is clear that all these subjects only have a single teacher; you constantly read of Snape being frustrated at not being made “the Defence Against the Dark Arts professor”.  “The”.  i.e., one and only.  And if you have 7 years of students, and only one Defence Against the Dark Arts teacher, he or she can’t teach more than about 280 students, anyway.  Each class contains two Houses, which means about 20 students.  If you taught 7 times a day–which from the books it is clear they don’t–that’s only 140 students per day.  Even if you alternate them–Gryffindor & Slytherin on Monday and Wednesday, Hufflepuff and Ravenclaw on Tuesday and Thursday–you still can’t get anywhere near 1000 students, not with only a single teacher each for Potions, Herbology, and whatnot.  Mathematically impossible.

Hell, it’s probably not even as high as 280, since some kids bail after their fifth year.  Rowling didn’t do her math.

(By the way, I’ve read a number of Harry Potter readers’ defenses of Rowling’s count, and they all boil down to, “Well, she must have planned it out, so I’m sure she’s right, right?”  They’re not doing the math, either!)

Or take “The Hunger Games”.  I don’t have the book in front of me, but in the movie they take a train that is stated to go “200 miles an hour!  And we’ll be there in only 2 days!”  Seriously?  The only way a train going 200 miles an hour can take two days to arrive at The Capital from Appalachia (where District 12 is) would be if The Capital is in Sydney, and someone had dug a tunnel under the Pacific Ocean to get there.  200mph x 48 hours is 9800 miles.  From Miami Beach to Seattle–the longest straight-line distance in the continental U.S.–is only a smidge over 3100 miles; you can make that in less than 16 hours at 200mph.  Two days?  Someone didn’t do their math!

This is how I personally get tossed out of my warm zone of suspended disbelief; these simple, easily-corrected math errors made by people who were either too lazy or simply didn’t care to do simple arithmetic.  I know these are artists we’re talking about here, but jeez, this is multiplication.  I’m not talking about calculus or algebra or even long-friggin’-division here; just simple multiplication.  I know Creative Folks don’t enjoy math–if they did, they’d probably be engineers or something–but c’mon!  Balancing your checkbook is harder than this!

Anyway, that’s my excuse for staring at the page or screen and saying, “Oh, COME ON!”  What’s yours?

Subscribe

  • Entries (RSS)
  • Comments (RSS)

Archives

  • February 2023
  • January 2023
  • October 2022
  • April 2022
  • February 2022
  • January 2022
  • December 2021
  • November 2021
  • September 2021
  • April 2021
  • January 2021
  • July 2020
  • May 2020
  • April 2020
  • March 2020
  • October 2019
  • November 2018
  • October 2018
  • May 2018
  • April 2017
  • September 2016
  • April 2016
  • March 2016
  • December 2015
  • November 2015
  • July 2015
  • May 2015
  • April 2015
  • March 2015
  • February 2015
  • January 2015
  • December 2014
  • November 2014
  • October 2014
  • September 2014
  • August 2014
  • June 2014
  • May 2014
  • April 2014
  • March 2014
  • February 2014
  • December 2013
  • November 2013
  • October 2013
  • September 2013
  • August 2013
  • July 2013
  • June 2013
  • May 2013
  • June 2008
  • April 2008
  • March 2008
  • February 2008
  • January 2008
  • December 2007
  • November 2007
  • October 2007
  • September 2007
  • August 2007
  • July 2007
  • June 2007

Categories

  • Fiction
  • News
  • Opinion
  • Uncategorized

Meta

  • Register
  • Log in

Blog at WordPress.com.

  • Follow Following
    • Random Blather
    • Join 85 other followers
    • Already have a WordPress.com account? Log in now.
    • Random Blather
    • Customize
    • Follow Following
    • Sign up
    • Log in
    • Report this content
    • View site in Reader
    • Manage subscriptions
    • Collapse this bar
 

Loading Comments...