A long overdue new Video of the Week that speaks for itself:
Thursday, August 27, 2009
Wednesday, August 26, 2009
Die Hard, James Bond, Captain Kirk and The Doctor: Versions of the Masculine "Action Star"
I'm back, after a long absence! I started writing this blog at the beginning of the summer, and left it unfinished for months as I focused on things like my thesis and Poetry Slam Nationals. But, I'm back with a nice long blog. Enjoy!
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
When I saw the recent Star Trek movie, it got me thinking about concepts of masculinity in media. It’s a subject that, as a man, naturally comes up in my mind a lot. When we think of a “guy movie” we think of explosions, fist fights, big, muscular men and lots of guns and other phallic weaponry. Yet, I’d like to propose an alternate theory to what the concept of a “guy movie,” or, alternately in television, a “guy show,” really is. I would suggest that there’s something else that appeals to male viewers in these types of movies and television shows besides sheer action.
We tend to think of these images of masculinity being projected onto men by the media, creating a stereotype of the typical “male.” I cannot, with a straight face, deny that there is some truth to that notion. What I want to suggest, though, is that there’s also an element of wish fulfillment in these shows and movies. Males in our society are often pressured into the roles of providers, leaders, father figures, etc. The concept of masculinity is often tied to a concept of leadership. Naturally, the feminist movement and other shifts in gender politics are altering these ideas, but much of that concept remains in the minds of males. With a concept of leadership comes the responsibility to be a decision maker. Therefore, I would suggest that these films and shows are a chance for males to live vicariously through characters who exemplify what men are often pressured to be: good leaders and excellent decision makers. Additionally, the main characters of these stories must not only be good leaders and decision makers, but must have the ability to adapt these skills to a number of diverse situations.
This thought first came to me when I was watching the fourth movie in the Die Hard series, the poorly titled Live Free or Die Hard:
This trailer is certainly laden with explosions, but notice Bruce Willis’s dialogue in the trailer. Much of it is about how sure he is of his actions. He acts with the utmost confidence in all of his decisions, including driving a car into a helicopter, which he speaks of with surprising nonchalance. What this trailer fails to show is one of the other main pleasures of the film, which is the adaptability of the John McClane character to an unfamiliar situation. McClane has little knowledge about the Internet or any other new technologies, hence the need for Justin Long’s character, Matt Farrell. Farrell stands in stark contrast to McClane’s confidence as he is often frightened and unconfident in his actions. His main purpose is to provide McClane with the technological information needed to defeat their enemy, Thomas Gabriel. McClane quickly assimilates this information and uses it to adapt his game plan.
Therefore, the primary element of Live Free or Die Hard that makes it a “guy movie” is not so much the action element as the ability for McClane to adapt to new situations. The film is the ultimate fish-out-of-water situation for McClane: he is quickly thrust into a crisis that he did not anticipate in a field which he is not familiar with (technology) and can just as quickly adapt to the threat. It is his superior decision making skills that give him the ability to thwart Thomas Gabriel’s plan with little time to prepare while Gabriel has, potentially, had years to plan. McClane’s masculinity is demonstrated, not merely in his muscle, but in the speed and accuracy with which he moves through the mental processes of assessment, analysis and execution of a plan when he encounters a new and unfamiliar situation.
It brings to my mind the comments made by my good friend’s cousin, who is in his early teens, regarding Martin Campbell’s 2006 James Bond reboot film, Casino Royale: “He’s not James Bond. He makes mistakes.” Daniel Craig’s James Bond in Casino Royale is a young Bond who is still learning and making reckless mistakes. While he can perform the assessment, analysis, execution process with a great deal of speed, his accuracy leaves something to be desired.
This is the chase scene from very early in Casino Royale. If you don’t wish to watch the entire thing, then at least direct your attention to the moment at approximately 4:45 in this clip. While Bond shows great confidence and quick, accurate decision making skills through most of this clip, at this point in the chase scene he hesitates. He shows a lack of confidence in the jump he is about to make, and then fails to make the jump with the same accuracy as the man he’s chasing. This is not the only time in the chase scene when he fails to land on his feet, literally or figuratively. He crashes and falls several times in the chase and, in the end, he diffuses a standoff by setting off an explosion which later creates an international uproar and negative publicity for MI6. Throughout the rest of the movie, we see Bond showing some other poor decisions, failing to read people both at the poker table and in real life, being double crossed more than once and being easily fooled by another poker player who set him up to lose approximately 10 million dollars.
Look at this in contrast to the new Star Trek movie. The movie tells the story of Kirk’s meteoric yet completely impossible rise from the rank of cadet to captain. Kirk, like Daniel Craig’s Bond, is a young and reckless version of a classic, iconic character. Kirk makes rash and bold decisions but, unlike Bond, he shows an inhuman ability to make the right decisions at all times. This is especially odd when he manages to see the connection between a special anomaly encountered by the Enterprise and a similar anomaly that was present in the battle that killed his father, a connection that no sane or logical person would have made.
Kirk bucks authority at almost every turn, especially the authority of the young Spock who becomes the temporary captain of the Enterprise, outranking Kirk. Kirk’s disregard for authority is rewarded instead of punished because he is usually proven to be correct in the end. Even his decision to cheat at the unwinnable test at the academy by reprogramming it is ultimately rewarded as he is rescued from possible expulsion by an impromptu mission, which Kirk becomes the hero of, earning him a commendation instead of an expulsion.
Yet, the examples I’m giving here are all of war-headed tough guys who fit into the archetype of a male action hero. Yet, I’d like to present an example of a less traditional figure of masculinity taken from British television, a pacifist action star of sorts: David Tennant’s portrayal of the Tenth Doctor on the long running series Doctor Who.
For those of you unacquainted with the series, you might benefit from a very quick rundown of the show’s plot. The “Doctor,” the titular character of the series, is an alien of a species known as the Time Lords from a planet called Gallifrey, who travels around time and space in a time machine/space ship known as a TARDIS which is disguised as a police call box (which becomes more and more conspicuous with each passing year since call boxes have disappeared from England) with a constantly rotating series of companions who are usually human. The show started out in the 1960’s and, when the original actor to play The Doctor, William Hartnell, decided to leave the series, the show’s producers didn’t want to end the series, so they wrote in a plot device in which the Doctor is capable of avoiding death by a process of “regeneration” moments before his death. This regeneration, while keeping The Doctor alive, results in a complete change in his appearance, voice and even his personality, allowing for the lead actor to be replaced whenever it is necessary to do so. Because of this, the show has lasted over three decades, albeit non-consecutively, with ten different actors playing The Doctor, and an eleventh already cast for a new season beginning in 2010.
David Tennant, the current actor to play the role, portrays what might be the most pacifist version of the character to date (although, I could be incorrect on this, as I have only ever seen the first, fourth, fifth, eighth, ninth and tenth doctors.) The character’s progression towards a pacifist has been gradual, moving from the violent war veteran Ninth Doctor who inaugurated the revamped series in 2005 to a much more non-violent version of the character by the fourth and most recent season of the new series. The Doctor is often forced to commit violent acts, falling into the classic Star Trek plot device where the hero wishes to be peaceful but a universe full of violent monsters won't let him. This includes acts such as destroying the Sontaran battleship in the two part episode “The Sontaran Stratagem”/”The Poison Sky,” or killing the last of an arachnid-like alien race in the 2007 Christmas special, “The Runaway Bride.” However, in both of these situations, he only kills his enemies to keep them from taking other lives, and, even then, he offers them an opportunity to live if they surrender first.
Yet, despite being such a staunch pacifist, David Tennant’s Tenth Doctor holds many of the same masculine qualities as Captain Kirk, James Bond or even John McClane. The Doctor’s ability to adapt to new situations is unrivaled. Due to his extremely advanced age, there is almost no alien race he is unfamiliar with, no scientific principle that baffles him, and no point in Earth history that he does not have an intimate knowledge of, often having been present or even responsible for these momentous event. He still finds himself surprised from time to time—you could make a drinking game out of the number of times he uses the phrase “It can’t be”—but he quickly and enthusiastically adapts to the surprising situation and finds a solution almost instantaneously, often with an oddly childlike sense of glee.
Take this famous clip from the show’s 2008 Christmas Special “Voyage of the Damned.” In this clip, he just accidentally crashed on a luxury cruise spaceship aptly called The Titanic, and figured out quite quickly that the ship had been sabotaged and was about to be struck by a series of comets while its shields were down. The only reason he failed to stop the collision was due to a series of security guards and robots physically restraining him from warning the passengers and resetting the shields. Yet, even in the wake of this disaster, he spends little time panicking. He quickly asseses the situation, formulates a plan, and takes a leadership role amongst the survivors:
Despite being a man who detests violence and refuses to carry a weapon—instead only carrying a tool called a "sonic screwdriver" that allows him to open doors and fiddle with electronic machinery—his decision making skills and confident swagger make him a classic action star. Thus, we see how big muscles, guns and explosions aren’t the most important ingredient in creating masculine oriented media (although, admittedly, these things are not completely absent from any of the media we’ve looked at).
Whether this is a positive or negative trait of these movies would be the subject of another blog. My purpose here is mainly analysis, not judgement. I could also write a whole separate blog about how this same formula is used to empower women by creating similar female action stars like Buffy in Buffy the Vampire Slayer or The Bride in Kill Bill. However, where these female characters often show their strength by combining their leadership and decision making skills in battle with other important responsibilities in their lives, their male action counterparts allow male fans to fulfill one main role vicariously through them: the role of an unfaltering leader.
Tuesday, May 26, 2009
"Who died and made you..." by Victor Infante
Normally I post my own writing on this blog. However, after the announcement of a possible Buffy the Vampire Slayer reboot movie, I found that I couldn't really think of anything to say that my friend Victor Infante didn't say in a recent entry in his own personal blog. So, with permission from the original author, I bring you the following from the editor-in-chief of the online literary magazine The November 3rd Club, copy editor for the Worcester Telegram, author of City of Insomnia, which is available from Write Bloody Press, and a man of many other accolades, Victor Infante:
I'm pretty sure I've never seen word of a movie get such a sudden and sharp denunciation from its potential audience as the proposed reboot of Buffy the Vampire Slayer1. Really. It's been staggering2. The news was originally broken by The Hollywood Reporter, who also reported that:
The new "Buffy" film, however, would have no connection to the TV series, nor would it use popular supporting characters like Angel, Willow, Xander or Spike. Vertigo and Kuzui are looking to restart the story line without trampling on the beloved existing universe created by [Joss] Whedon, putting the parties in a similar situation faced by Paramount, J.J. Abrams and his crew when relaunching "Star Trek."3
Which, really, it's not the same situation at all. Buffy has been off the air for less than a decade, and still does a brisk business in DVDs and has an ostensibly canonical continuation in comics. Star Trek was a dying franchise of which the principle image in most young viewers minds was either an aging, overweight William Shatner at his hammiest, or worse, the barely interesting TV show Enterprise. It was time to start again. And that time will come for Buffy, too, but this probably isn't it. Or at least, this is probably not the way to do it.
There's two hard realities butting heads here -- one legal and financial, and the other cultural. On the legal side, the movie rights to Buffy are owned by original director Fran Rabel Kuzui along with her husband Ka. According to Newsarama, "Kuzui and Kuzui Enterprises has held on to the rights since Kuzui, 'discovered the "Buffy” script from then-unknown Whedon. She developed the script while her husband put together the financing to make the 1992 movie, which was released by Fox.'"4
Characters such as as Willow, Giles, Angel and Spike are all owned by Fox, and it's unlikely Fox would release them. And while Whedon still retains some ownership over the franchise, it likely only extends to royalties, not to actual control. Once the movie rights were sold, that's all she wrote. So if they want to make the movie in the face of an outraged and noisy fandom, that's their prerogative.
However, one thing's become clear to me in this process, though: Buffy's an iconic character, and as such, eventually will pass out of Joss' hands. Probably even while he's still alive, although doubtfully while he's still interested. The character has embedded itself in the cultural matrix, and her story will get retold umpteen million different ways. That's how it goes for the icons. But the key to the success of Buffy's next iteration will be the identification of the fundamental elements of the story.
So what are the fundamental elements of the Buffy story? Well, Buffy Summers, obviously. "One girl in all the world with the strength and skill to fight the vampires, blah, blah, blah." But while the movie was first, it's clear that the TV show is the ruling canon, and the characters introduced there have become part of the meta story. At this point, a Buffy without Willow and Giles is a bit like Superman without Lois Lane or Jimmy Olson, and even Smallville made use of Lex Luthor when it started up, along with Superman characters Lana Lang and Pete Ross. The fan reaction is one thing, but stories -- big stories, anyway, and Buffy's earned its place as a big story -- they work a certain way. And oddly, that way has little to do with faithful retelling, and secondary characters ... they have their place in a mythos.
It's like this: there's a certain power in stories that get retold and reinterpreted. Take Batman for example. The Batman in the comics now (err ... before he died) is not the Batman Bob Kane created, nor the one Frank Miller reinvigorated, nor is he the one in the cartoons or the one Christian Bale plays in the movies. But they're all faithful renditions of the story, even if the details are different: You have the boy who watches his wealthy parents get murdered in Gotham City who returns to fight criminals. You have the Batmobile, you have Jim Gordon and his faithful butler Alfred. In most, you have Robin. Some of these details were added along the way, but once they're locked into the mythos, they're there to stay. I'd argue that Giles, Willow & Xander, Angel and Sunnydale itself have locked themselves into that mythos.
So what happens if the new movie goes a completely different direction, and jettisons the existing mythos? Well, then you have a situation like, say, the Halle Barre Catwoman movie, which had nothing to do with the spirit of the mythos save its name. The reaction to the misstep becomes visceral, because some stories have a weight of their own, and not honoring that shows. For what it's worth, I think J.J. Abrams outdid himself with the new Star Trek, and that you could completely see how Christopher Pine and Zachary Quinto could grow into the more familiar older Kirk and Spock. The spirit was there. Is it too much to suspect already that Buffy's spirit is lacking in the proposed movie? It's way too soon to say that, but there's a bad feeling in my gut about it.
Tuesday, May 19, 2009
Video of the Week - Jon Stewart vs. Poetry
| The Daily Show With Jon Stewart | M - Th 11p / 10c | |||
| Old Man Stewart Shakes His Fist at White House Poetry Jams | ||||
| ||||
This week’s video of the week comes a little late, but with a longer commentary than usual.
The point of this blog is to talk about my thoughts about the media, not to talk about my life as a slam poet. I have many other forums to discuss that aspect of my life. However, when these two interests intersect, I find it necessary to discuss it here.
This video from The Daily Show with John Stewart created quite a stir within the slam community. While ours is not the first community to be lampooned by Stewart, nor will it be the last, I thought this would be a good chance to discuss the role of a comedian and what can and cannot be deemed an attack from someone like Jon Stewart.
The reactions from poets to this segment ranged from moral outrage to George Watsky’s limerick entitled “Jon Stewart could light my cat on fire, and he would still be My Hero”:
A New York comedian’s mercy
goes only as far as his slurs– he
takes poetry down
but that’s easy to clown
(like the fact that he grew up in Jersey)1
Part of the outrage, undoubtedly, came from the fact that the slam community tends to fall into The Daily Show’s target demographic. Slam poets generally run the gambit from moderate democrats to die-hard socialists with almost no conservative voices in the community. Many poets are, therefore, fans of The Daily Show’s left-leaning political satire. Thus, when Jon Stewart decided to spoof the slam community, many saw it as a sort of betrayal.
Yet, where in the video is Stewart actually attacking the slam community? One moment could be where he claims that “not every first is something to necessarily celebrate,” referring to this being the first White House Poetry “Jam.” Another would be immediately after his montage of the poets’ actual performances where he mocks an admittedly silly sounding line from a poem regarding Alexander Hamilton.
Poetry Slam Incorporated’s president, Scott Woods, argued in a recent column of his that Jon Stewart’s supposed attack on our community would be justified if these poets were representative of the community as a whole:
Jon Stewart makes a comment suggesting that, now that we have black president, poets can stop doing that “jam” thing we do. It is a statement borne out of ignorance of what modern poetry has to offer, but it is a common ignorance…an ignorance poetry does not counter often enough in the public eye, even when given every opportunity to do so.2
Woods is arguing that, if our community is being mocked, we only have ourselves to blame by not putting our best foot forward when given public exposure.
What this comes down to is simply this: the line in the poem was unintentionally funny. Had I been sitting in the back of a poetry reading with one of my friends, I probably would have made some of the same comments that Jon Stewart did.
So, putting those moments aside, what is Stewart really making fun of in this segment? He mocks the media’s discussions about the difference between a “Poetry Slam” and a “Poetry Jam” (the latter being a phrase that is virtually unused in the slam community). He makes jokes about Obama trying too hard to be hip with the cultural events he puts on in the White House. None of these things are really direct attacks on the slam community as a whole.
Furthermore, he mocks himself by naming the segment “Old Man Stewart Shakes His Fist at White House Poetry Jams.” This suggests that this is less than a serious attack, and more of a gentle mockery. Some poets, however, disagree with this. In an online discussion on the Facebook profile of Chicago poet Robbie Q. Telfer, Telfer responded to my argument about Stewart’s own self-deprecation in the piece by saying:
well, i say it's racist and elitist knowing the history of what slam has brought to disenfranchised voices, but also knowing that the daily show writers either don't have access to that history or they don't care. mocking the voice of hip-hop poetry replicates and can encourage the same gate-keeping of language slam poets have been fighting since the beginning of the movement.
i think comedians can get away with racism and elitism for the reasons you give, trevor, but it's still there. and when i talk about "jon stewart" i mean the character, not the actual dude.3
I find this especially interesting that this is coming from a poet who is known for his comedic work. I hope that Robbie Q. will forgive me for saying this, I don’t mean to pigeon-hole him and ignore any of his non-comedic work, but some of his most well known works are comedic. Yet, he brushes off the self-deprecating element of this segment, which is the part that undercuts everything else Stewart is saying. Poetry, in this context, is being presented as something that is “hip,” while Stewart is mocking himself for being “unhip” in doing so. Stewart is, in a way, complimenting the community. As for the “gate-keeping of language that slam poets have been fighting,” I think Scott Woods’s previous comment speaks to that very well.
Stewart’s job as a comedian is to find humor in the news and point it out. Often times, in doing so, he points out the faults of our government and our society. However, as Jon Stewart has made very clear on several occasions, for all his political commentary, his first role on the show is as a comedian. Sometimes, the best comedy comes from finding small, niche groups doing unusual things and poking fun at them. While the “Poetry Jam” that was held at the White House was a big step forward for our community, there were also elements that were particularly funny, such as the clips that Stewart played. Must the slam community take itself so seriously that it can’t take a joke when one is thrown at it? Do you think that, when Conan O’Brien filmed the famous segment for his show where he mocked an old-timey baseball league in Long Island that the league boycotted his show afterwards, or did they understand that what they do probably looks funny to outsiders?
Remember, funny is funny, and a comedian has to find material somewhere. If he doesn’t find it in one community, he’ll find it in another, and we can’t all take it personally when it’s leveled at our community and then laugh when its aimed at someone else’s. The lesson here is simply to not take yourself too seriously, a lesson that Jon Stewart tries to remember with his own career, as evidenced by his famous quote on Crossfire: “The show that leads into me is puppets making crank phone calls."4
Saturday, May 9, 2009
Video of the Week - Scrubs Finale
SPOILER ALERT: These are the final moments of the Scrubs Finale. Watch at your own risk.
Since I dedicated an entire article to the Scrubs finale, I thought I'd dedicate the Video of the Week to it as well. Rather than my usual Video of the Week selections which offer commentary on the media, I thought I'd go for sentimentality this week and show you a real tear jerker. If you've been a fan of the show like I have, this is sure to break your heart. Enjoy.
Since I dedicated an entire article to the Scrubs finale, I thought I'd dedicate the Video of the Week to it as well. Rather than my usual Video of the Week selections which offer commentary on the media, I thought I'd go for sentimentality this week and show you a real tear jerker. If you've been a fan of the show like I have, this is sure to break your heart. Enjoy.
Bill Lawrence, ABC, and The Fans: Who Really "Owns" Scrubs?
This week, we saw the possible series finale for one of my favorite sitcoms, Scrubs. Scrubs has always been one of the more unique shows in the television landscape, both in terms of content and production. Scrubs was one of the only shows on television that, for the majority of its run, aired on a different network than the one that produced it, being produced by ABC’s Touchstone Television but airing on NBC.1 This, of course, changed in the last season, when the show was dropped by NBC and was picked up by ABC. After the WGA Strike foiled their plans to wrap up the narrative in Season 7, ABC gave them a chance to end the series on their own terms in an 8th season. The show was also unique in that it was in constant danger of being cancelled for much of its run2, yet still managed to pull off 168 episodes over the course of 8 years on the air.
The show was narratively unique as well. It played with the traditional formula of the will-they/won’t-they love story between two lead characters, J.D. and Elliot, in a way that bucked television convention. Instead of making it the central focus of the show to the point where it grates on the audience, the two were brought together for a few episodes at a time in the early seasons, and the romantic plot was then ignored for entire seasons until they were finally brought back together, not in the final episode, but early in the final season. The two male lead characters had a strong relationship that, in a running joke on the show, bordered on the romantic in a way that few series before it had the courage to attempt. It lacked the typical “television amnesia” that is especially prevalent in sitcoms, where characters ignore the events of past episodes. Instead, Scrubs built off past events, often turning one-liner jokes into running gags or even recurring characters like Hooch or Leonard, the hook-handed security guard. Small plot points came back around seasons later, such as the conspiracy between Carla and the Janitor to secretly replace J.D. and Turk’s dead stuffed dog that Carla had accidentally misplaced. Frequent viewership was rewarded with in-jokes from past episodes, especially in the Season 5 episode “My Déjà Vu, My Déjà Vu,” which consisted almost entirely of jokes from past episodes, and even recycled a b-story from a past episode almost verbatim. Yet, the true strength of the show was in its ability to mix the off-the-wall comedy with serious, dramatic moments. At times this formula faltered, particularly when the comedy stretched the show beyond the limits of reality and then attempted to come back down to earth for a serious emotional moment. Still, there were several moments in the show where the elements of comedy and drama came together in a powerful way.
The show’s biggest flaw, however, was the tendency for the voice-over narration to wrap up the episodes’ disparate plotlines in loose metaphors or themes that awkwardly tied them together, leading to a forced and overly sentimental ending of each episode. This formula was parodied several times, particularly in a moment of post-modern reflexivity in the 7th season episode, “My Waste of Time”:
J.D.: Oh I’m just doing this thing where I use a slice of wisdom from someone else’s life to solve a problem in my own life.
Jordan: It seems coincidental.
J.D. And yet I do it almost every week.3
Despite this flaw, the little-show-that-could developed a cult following that is coming out in full force as ABC decides the fate of the show for the 2009-2010 television season, despite the fact that the show’s creator Bill Lawrence, and stars Zach Braff and Judy Reyes have announced they will not return for a 9th season if there is one.4 Without Lawrence, the creative force behind the show, Reyes, whose character on the show is married to another prominent character on the show, or Braff, the star and narrator of the show, many fans feel that a 9th season of the show would, inevitably, “jump the shark,” and are arguing, often vehemently, that the show should not return for a 9th season without its full cast. Both ABC and Bill Lawrence remain indifferent to fan complaints and still talk about a “50/50” chance of the show returning with new characters for next season.5 Since ABC owns the rights to the show, and Lawrence created the show, it would seem that they have the full authority to make such decisions about the show’s continuation. Yet, do the fans have the right to voice complaints? Do they, in a sense, have a certain sense of ownership of the show and the characters that allow them to have a say in the decision?
A certain logic in television states that since the shows, especially those aired on broadcast networks, are provided free of charge, the creators owe nothing to the audience. They have provided a free service and it is ungrateful to criticize the quality or content of that free service. In a recent interview, Bill Lawrence laughed off a suggestion made by a fan that, if the show were to continue without the original characters, it should no longer be called Scrubs:
I think one of the weirdest comments I got, Will, was somebody on the message board who, when I said, “It’s gonna be like anew [sic] show,” said, “Well, then don’t call it ‘Scrubs’!” I’m, like, “What does it matter to you?” (Laughs) “So, like, you’re okay with it if it’s not called ‘Scrubs’ but, like, ‘Doctors’?” “Yeah!” Well, that’s just idiotic.6
His comment that such a suggestion is “idiotic” seems odd considering that he made the same suggestion at a speech at his alma mater, William and Mary, suggesting that, if the show were to go on without Zach Braff, it would be a completely different show, and possibly need a different title.7 However, the comment I find most interesting in this quote from Lawrence is the part where he says: “What does it matter to you?” In his condescending tone he seems to forget the power that the viewer has over the fate of a television show, a power that the creators and even the networks lack: if the audience doesn’t watch the show, then the show will die.
Television audiences have always taken fierce possession over the characters in the shows they watch. Many scholars have discussed (almost to death) the phenomenon of housewives in the late-60’s writing homoerotic fan-fiction stories about Star Trek’s Captain Kirk and Mr. Spock in an attempt to feminize two otherwise staunchly masculine characters. The phenomenon of fan-fiction has been examined in-depth by many media theorists, mainly because it is one of the primary ways in which fans of a show become active rather than passive recipients of media. One of the best resources on this subject, which I highly recommend, is Henry Jenkins’s book Convergence Culture, which deals not only with fan fiction, but also with other ways in which fans take control over the media they consume, such as the Survivor spoilers who go to great lengths to uncover the secrets of the show before it airs, or the amateur film makers who make Star Wars tribute films on shoe-string budgets.8 Media companies have gone to great lengths to try to shut down these active consumers, yet, ironically, it is the dedication to these movies and television shows that the media makers have intentionally tried to cultivate which has led to these legally ambiguous acts of fan tribute. The creators of these shows and movies have created their own monsters.
It is much the same in the case with Scrubs. While Scrubs is not the source of a great deal of fan-fiction (although, virtually every TV show or movie generates some fan-fiction these days), it has developed a strong and dedicated cult following. The fact that they make references back to past episodes that offer a pay-off for long-time viewers is a sign that the creators and producers not only expect but encourage fans to become an active audience, seeking out all the episodes of the show to understand how all 8 seasons fit together as a cohesive narrative. They expect and want the audience to become attached to the characters, otherwise the tear-jerker ending of the show’s 8th season finale (which, I admit, got me a little teared up myself) would have had no purpose.
Viewers have an investment in these characters that the creators have intentionally tried to create. Viewers also have a certain ownership over the characters because, as we have already seen, it is only through the audience’s continued viewership that the characters are allowed to survive. All the combined dedication of Bill Lawrence, ABC and NBC would have had no effect in keeping the show on the air if the viewers did not continue to tune in. Thus, it could be said that the fans are not being “idiotic” when they claim their right to weigh in on the future of the show and its characters; they helped to create both in the first place.
Thus, Lawrence’s question of “What does it matter to you?” seems rather silly. It matters to the dedicated fan base because Lawrence and the rest of the creative team behind Scrubs wanted it to matter to them. Therefore, if the audience declares that they don’t want to see the show continue on without its main characters for fear that it will tarnish the legacy of their show, moving it into the territory of AfterM*A*S*H or the post-Ron Howard seasons of Happy Days, then they certainly deserve to be heard. After all, if the show does return for a 9th season, the fans’ opinions will be heard loud and clear once the ratings come back on a revamped, J.D.-less version of Scrubs. This is not to suggest that the fans have more of an ownership over the show and its characters than either ABC or Bill Lawrence. It is just to suggest that the fans have more of an ownership over the show than either of its legal owners have given them credit for.
Saturday, May 2, 2009
Video of the Week - When Pigs Fly
| The Daily Show With Jon Stewart | M - Th 11p / 10c | |||
| Snoutbreak '09 - The Last 100 Days | ||||
| ||||
So, I've been a little behind with the posts here lately at Church of the Sonic Death Monkey due to finals. Oh, the lovely life of a graduate student. I will be updating here again soon, but for now, I'll leave you with my favorite video of the past week: The Daily Show's report from April 27th (my birthday) on the media coverage of the newest hyped up pandemic: Swine Flu. It was, of course, only a matter of time before I had a video on this site from The Daily Show, and it probably won't be the last time you see here. Few people out there do as fine of a job of skewering the media as Jon Stewart. In times of ridiculous panic, someone has to play the role of Socrates in society.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)