fbpx

Archive for People

Now about the Ladies….

February 4, 2014 People, Writing Comments Off on Now about the Ladies….

I hear a lot of flack online about strong female or minority leads, in particular, most of the postings seem to be about how this IP or that IP should have had a female, or a lead with darker skin (or why DIDN’T it have this kind of lead when it COULD HAVE).

But I don’t hear much about the current examples of these kinds of characters.  Maybe because it turns into cherry-picking (a show might have one good example, but fail dramatically in other areas).  Maybe it’s just a genre thing (it seems to happen more in genre shows than “mainstream”), but when I review the TV shows I am watching right now, I am seeing some remarkable things.  The kinds of things that ought be thrown out as counter examples.  The kinds of things that, in my personal opinion, ought to be shown as examples of what brings in the money every time someone brings up the line that “strong women don’t sell” or “but our target audience isn’t Latino”.

Sleepy Hollow:

Lets take Sleepy Hollow as a recent example.  We have a hit genre show.  A show that, by all accounts should have failed out of the starting gate because “Zombie Washington” is just too far out there.

This show started with only one white lead in it.  Our entire core cast, the female lead (who has become the focus of the story at this point) and the two primary supporting characters are all black (I can’t speak to the actor’s personal ethnicities, I’m trying to speak to the the characters they portray).  Drill down to the next rank and we have the two unrequited love interests, one of whom presents as Latino/Hispanic the other of whom presents as Chinese.  We have John Noble who has become a regular now (and apparently the new Big Bad) to tip the balance back again, but that is a recent development and I’d argue you can’t really call him a “lead” just yet.

Is it perfect?  No, but it is probably the most mixed-race/gender cast for a show that I have ever seen in primetime.  And it is working.  It is working REALLY WELL for the moment.

White Collar:

Yes, heavily whitewashed, no arguments there, but DIANA.  1. A strong, competent female.  2. Openly lesbian AND working for the FBI 3. Single mother AND 4. NOT WHITE.  All of these things come into play for her character without them turning into “Hi we’re so progressive” showcase pieces for a single episode and then dropping them.  She is an awesome, complete character, not just a token “insert minority of choice here”.  Is her character’s life as hard as it would probably be IRL?  No, but if you’re going to call the show on that bit, you can turn that lens on *every* character and show that to be the case.

Elementary:

I’ll be honest, I’m an old-school Sherlock Holmes fan, and I wasn’t AT ALL down with the idea of a female Watson. Then I watched through the first season.  What they’ve done with Joan Watson is fascinating because they have created a strong, female character, but managed to keep some of the foibles many women face, rather than making her a man in a dress.  She was previously a surgeon, but outside of things that require her medical expertise, she shows clear signs of “impostor syndrome” which is a reveal that we don’t see as much when someone is trying to paint a woman as “strong”.

 

 

 

 

 

Credulity counts

October 31, 2013 People Comments Off on Credulity counts

We humans are a credulous bunch, by and large. I suspect anyone with a bent for cultural anthropology, or sociological evolution might be able to wax poetic on how this is a reflection of our altruistic tendencies. someone who prefers to view the world from under the brim of a tinfoil hat might have a few things to say about the spawn rate of suckers and fools.

What I find fascinating though is the way in which we counter our own natural tendencies. For those who are aware, who maybe have been a little too credulous in the past, there are different ways to tackle the issue of Those Who Take Advantage.

The actual thread that brought this topic to mind was regarding the numerous recent Fukushima disaster. Let me point out, there is no doubt that what has happened, and continues to happen, to the reactors at Fukushima is, by any measure of the definition, a disaster. The ongoing condition of the reactors is most likely deteriorating, and the true breadth and depth of damage may never be discovered to anyone’s satisfaction.

This particular thread was inhabited by a handful of thoughtful people who, when presented with a set of dubious, unfounded claims regarding the West Coast of the USA being bombarded by alarming levels of radiation, set about determining the veracity of the sources and the claims.

Everyone in the thread seemed to have their own method for determining veracity. Some relied on personal knowledge of the field, having worked with radiation and/or radioactive materials or radiation cleanup efforts in one capacity or another.

Others picked and poked at the content of the articles presented, deconstructing and exploring the quoted sources, cross referencing the limited data presented and finding reputable sources that verified or debunked thee articles claims.

Still others dug into the relationships of the websites and presented data, discovering the interrelationship between the sites and other “for profit” entities with a publicized agenda and known questionable practices.

I don’t think we had a single person rely on Snopes.com (which is a good place to start for many common internet rumors, but still can benefit from a cross-reference).

The point being that most everyone had a solution. They all had a method by which they could find an answer regarding the veracity of this information by themselves.

So why, if this cross-section of individuals can serve as an example, do these dodgy sites and articles continue to stick around? Or even if they don’t actively seek out representation, why do so many people persist in sending them out to friends and family, or post them on various social media sites as if the content they are espousing is reliable? Laziness? Boredom? A moderately successful form of trolling (try sending one of these sites as a recommendation to any of the brighter minds on the internet and you will see just how effective a lure it can be).

It occurs to me that part of the problem may be the dissemination of the solution. Sites like Snopes are an easy catch-all for many types of debunkery, and serve as a great central point, but the same issue remains, how lazy are those who are passing along the information (even as I type this, in fact, a friend of the family has just emailed me another choice bit of political fear-mongering, which is 98% incorrect information) A bit of quality time with Google, just entering in the name and number of the bill that this email is foaming at the mouth about would reveal the depth and breadth of the misinformation. And yet, the person who forwarded it to me, someone who is reasonable and rational under other circumstances, has sent it merrily along without so much as a double-check.

So why do we trust these things? Why is there this inherent, ongoing trust that if someone put a little time and effort into constructing something, it must be true? We have the skills, but not the will to put them into practice. It makes me carefully consider how many other “trusted” sources out there need another careful look-see, just to be sure they haven’t been falsely perpetuated by the same inherent inaction.

« Older Entries   Recent Entries »