![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
jlhI'll start with a question, in reaction to bookshop's post of a few days ago in which she wanted a show with a lead character (not a member of an ensemble) who is gay, but the show is not about their being gay.
The question is: Can you name a broadly targeted scripted network show form the last year or two--for the Americans, let's call that ABC-CBS-NBC-FOX-CW-TNT-TBS-USA-FX-HBO-Showtime, not anything targeted like BET or Logo or even Lifetime, and in the UK, substitute accordingly--that has a lead character (not a member of an ensemble) who is anything other than a straight, white, cisgendered, ablebodied man or woman? And beyond that, can you name a show that does have as its lead a straight, white, cisgendered, ablebodied woman who isn't played by an actress who is over 40 and who has already established a career in film or television (and who, because she's over 40, doesn't have many movie roles being offered to her anymore so she's turned to TV)?
Since the problem is much, much larger than sexuality, I think we need to be aware that we need to attack on all fronts at all times, or we'll get into these ugly places where we accept that there should be, in a six-person ensemble, four or five white straight ablebodied cisgendered men, and then one or two roles for everyone else to fight over. Because that's what the kyriarchy wants us to do: fight each other for the scraps they choose to throw to us.
Which brings me to the white, straight, cisgendered, ablebodied men in the title of this post. Some of the discussion surrounding the new BBC version of Sherlock Holmes--a modern-day show called "Sherlock"--has been about disappointment in the retention of Holmes and Watson at least still being white, straight, cisgendered men. It's an entirely appropriate criticism, but I think even more on point is the idea that maybe the BBC should move beyond endless costume dramas, however color-blindly cast (more on that in a sec) and put on shows about modern Britain, with an unremarkably diverse cast that reflects the diversity of modern Britain itself. Personally, I'm not sure that those shows would cross over to the US as readily; most of what we get is the costume stuff, the sketch shows, the mysteries and the sci-fi, and that's likely because of what American public television chooses to underwrite and import. (Sherlock is a co-production with Masterpiece Theater/Mystery in the US, so it will be on a PBS station near you eventually.) I'm sure that the availability of American co-production or licensing money has something to do with what shows get made in the UK.
But in a larger sense, I think that rebooting established characters, while it can lead to some change, is not the place to look for these newly diverse casts. Part of the economics of the reboot is that it will bring in a large number of established fans of the characters, and therefore those characters can only change so much. Of course one could have done a reboot of Sherlock Holmes where Holmes is nonwhite, but then all the attention for the show would be focussed on that aspect. I'm not happy that this is something undesirable from a production standpoint, but I understand it.
What is more likely is to get new characters, with no baggage, who are nonwhite or not straight or not cisgenered or not ablebodied--for example, easier to create Jack Harkness and give him his own show, than to have Doctor Who be not-straight. That is why the casting of The Last Avatar was so disappointing, because we actually went backwards, losing the opportunity to have a movie with an all-Asian cast.
That the BBC colorblind-casts some of its costume dramas speaks less to the efficacy of colorblind casting and more to the reliance of the BBC on costume dramas in the first place. If the BBC was adapting White Teeth for television instead of Cranford we wouldn't have to make these kinds of choices.
And that leads me to an important aside: I can't help but notice that the last two fandom-drives for gay characters in reboots/new series, Merlin/Arthur in Merlin and Kirk/Spock in the Star Trek reboot, would come at the expense of an interacial relationship with a character played by an actress of African descent. Of course in ST fandom the racism toward Uhura by certain vocal K/S shippers was more overt, but the parallel isn't a great one. Is this the choice we're making, between the white gay men and the black ladies? Because I'm pretty sure the fandom as a whole is going to make the same choice every time.
I've watched the first two episodes of Sherlock and I have to say I'm sort of interested in how straight men negotiate close, intimate friendships when the rest of the world codes that as gay. I'd be more happy to explore that, of course, if all stories ever weren't about straight men and their problems, so once we have lots of stories all over the place about gay characters, I'd be happy to circle back and look at how a straight, non homophobic guy navigates the space. Until then, I'm not craving it.
bookshop's post of a few days ago in which she wanted a show with a lead character (not a member of an ensemble) who is gay, but the show is not about their being gay.The question is: Can you name a broadly targeted scripted network show form the last year or two--for the Americans, let's call that ABC-CBS-NBC-FOX-CW-TNT-TBS-USA-FX-HBO-Showtime, not anything targeted like BET or Logo or even Lifetime, and in the UK, substitute accordingly--that has a lead character (not a member of an ensemble) who is anything other than a straight, white, cisgendered, ablebodied man or woman? And beyond that, can you name a show that does have as its lead a straight, white, cisgendered, ablebodied woman who isn't played by an actress who is over 40 and who has already established a career in film or television (and who, because she's over 40, doesn't have many movie roles being offered to her anymore so she's turned to TV)?
Since the problem is much, much larger than sexuality, I think we need to be aware that we need to attack on all fronts at all times, or we'll get into these ugly places where we accept that there should be, in a six-person ensemble, four or five white straight ablebodied cisgendered men, and then one or two roles for everyone else to fight over. Because that's what the kyriarchy wants us to do: fight each other for the scraps they choose to throw to us.
Which brings me to the white, straight, cisgendered, ablebodied men in the title of this post. Some of the discussion surrounding the new BBC version of Sherlock Holmes--a modern-day show called "Sherlock"--has been about disappointment in the retention of Holmes and Watson at least still being white, straight, cisgendered men. It's an entirely appropriate criticism, but I think even more on point is the idea that maybe the BBC should move beyond endless costume dramas, however color-blindly cast (more on that in a sec) and put on shows about modern Britain, with an unremarkably diverse cast that reflects the diversity of modern Britain itself. Personally, I'm not sure that those shows would cross over to the US as readily; most of what we get is the costume stuff, the sketch shows, the mysteries and the sci-fi, and that's likely because of what American public television chooses to underwrite and import. (Sherlock is a co-production with Masterpiece Theater/Mystery in the US, so it will be on a PBS station near you eventually.) I'm sure that the availability of American co-production or licensing money has something to do with what shows get made in the UK.
But in a larger sense, I think that rebooting established characters, while it can lead to some change, is not the place to look for these newly diverse casts. Part of the economics of the reboot is that it will bring in a large number of established fans of the characters, and therefore those characters can only change so much. Of course one could have done a reboot of Sherlock Holmes where Holmes is nonwhite, but then all the attention for the show would be focussed on that aspect. I'm not happy that this is something undesirable from a production standpoint, but I understand it.
What is more likely is to get new characters, with no baggage, who are nonwhite or not straight or not cisgenered or not ablebodied--for example, easier to create Jack Harkness and give him his own show, than to have Doctor Who be not-straight. That is why the casting of The Last Avatar was so disappointing, because we actually went backwards, losing the opportunity to have a movie with an all-Asian cast.
That the BBC colorblind-casts some of its costume dramas speaks less to the efficacy of colorblind casting and more to the reliance of the BBC on costume dramas in the first place. If the BBC was adapting White Teeth for television instead of Cranford we wouldn't have to make these kinds of choices.
And that leads me to an important aside: I can't help but notice that the last two fandom-drives for gay characters in reboots/new series, Merlin/Arthur in Merlin and Kirk/Spock in the Star Trek reboot, would come at the expense of an interacial relationship with a character played by an actress of African descent. Of course in ST fandom the racism toward Uhura by certain vocal K/S shippers was more overt, but the parallel isn't a great one. Is this the choice we're making, between the white gay men and the black ladies? Because I'm pretty sure the fandom as a whole is going to make the same choice every time.
I've watched the first two episodes of Sherlock and I have to say I'm sort of interested in how straight men negotiate close, intimate friendships when the rest of the world codes that as gay. I'd be more happy to explore that, of course, if all stories ever weren't about straight men and their problems, so once we have lots of stories all over the place about gay characters, I'd be happy to circle back and look at how a straight, non homophobic guy navigates the space. Until then, I'm not craving it.
no subject
Date: 2010-08-05 05:11 pm (UTC)I'm still not really sure how I feel about the show in general, but, with this second episode, I found myself thinking a lot about how fandom sort of hates women. Sarah seemed really cool, but I'm assuming that no one in fandom is going to like her. And in this case, the inevitable slash fandom for the show isn't even based on lots of subtext--it's based on the assumption that there should be subtext.
I don't know what I'm really trying to say, except that, yes, we need queer main characters. We also need awesome female characters. We shouldn't have to choose.
no subject
Date: 2010-08-05 06:12 pm (UTC)That said: I liked Sarah a lot. I liked how she was badass when they were in that first bit of trouble, but really scared at the end. And I think in that way ... I don't know, I mean, I'm not a huge Watson/Mary shipper, but Mary is an interesting character in the books (and in the movie, fwiw) and Watson does genuinely love her.
Moffat, I think, says a lot of stupid shit, and is one of the many posterboys for "creators shouldn't talk to the media" because creators are rarely articulate about what they're trying to do. Positing that Holmes is somewhere on the asexual spectrum, and as the show does, saying outright that he's a highly functioning sociopath doesn't feel to me to be that far from canon. Holmes is a deeply strange guy. And sometimes I'm like, aww, Holmes and Watson, and sometimes I'm like, you know, Watson could do better, and find someone who would actually be affectionate toward him. So I'm often on the fence, as a reader of the books. I honestly think that Moffat is doing something more interesting than what he said he was doing, and it's unfortunate that it will get lost.
no subject
Date: 2010-08-05 10:00 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-08-06 12:25 pm (UTC)