My high school had its first,
glorious 3-day weekend since Labor Day this weekend. I celebrated with my
favorite introvert activity: Netflix. I watched The West Wing this summer, much to the enjoyment of a few of my
classmates (see their blogs here and here), and now I’m watching Scandal, a more recent political
thriller. The show is the only show on television to place an African-American
woman in the leading role, the fabulous Kerry Washington.
Washington’s casting and consecutive success in the role
of Olivia Pope, Washington DC’s communication ‘fixer,’ and secret mistress of
President Fitzgerald Grant, has led to both criticism and praise. Like
mentioned above, she’s the only African-American star on TV and is the first
African American female star on TV since Teresa Graves in 1974.
1974?!?
America went 38 years without an African-American woman
heading up her own TV show in primetime. In the words of Seth and Amy,
Really!?! When you take into account all the long-running TV shows, but also
the many that tank after a season or two, that’s a lot of TV and that speaks
volumes about race and gender within our country. It’s something female actresses
shouldn’t stand for.
That fact alone ensured that Washington created a buzz
when the show started, and Scandal has continued to make waves with the topics
that it covers: from mocking the constant political drama of Washington (see
the multiple sex scandals Pope has to deal with, ranging from a Governor’s
cheating wife to allegations of two Supreme Court Justice nominees and even
President Grant himself, three times) to predicting a PRISM-like scandal with a
government program called ‘Thorngate.’ From dealing with problems like these,
it’s received acclaim, but there’s also been some heavy criticism.
Most of the criticism, unsurprisingly, centers on Pope’s
relationship with the President. There’s the race side, which led to an awkward
Season 2 Sally Hemings reference, and also the gender card. Pope, for the
majority of the show, is cool, calm and collected and acts the part of one of
the most powerful women in Washington. However, when it comes to ‘Fitz,’ she’s
a mess – always making bad decisions and getting herself and her friends into
trouble.
Why? Why do smart
women on TV always have a male Achilles’ heel? It’s been seen repeatedly,
whenever there are strong female roles on TV. There’s even a test, re: the Bechdaltest, to prove just how male-centric women on TV are made to be. You’d be surprised
by how many famous shows and movies fail. I hate to throw around the word patriarchy,
but this is exactly what even seemingly-feminist shows like Scandal are propagating.
I understand the star-crossed, meant-to-be-but-can’t lovers’ plotline, but does
Pope really have to make so many mistakes to extend the plotline?
What
I loved about The West Wing was that it was political and didn’t let
relationship get in the way of that beauty. CJ Cregg, the show’s leading lady,
flirted with a reporter for all seven seasons, but the relationship didn’t
blossom until the very end when writers were tying up all lose ends. It allowed
Cregg to do her job, the same job as Pope had – White House Communications
Director – and come into her own as a successful woman. If Pope had been able
to do the same, I can only wonder where the character would be now.
Even amidst my criticism, I’d highly recommend my readers
to watch Scandal, on ABC Thursday
nights. Pope, for all her flaws, is still an incredible character and
Washington does her justice.
Cia♀,
Charlie
As much as I'd like to say I have sympathy for the plight of fictional female characters that almost always seem to need a male counterpart to exist in the realm of TV drama, I probably have more sympathy for the writers of these shows, who are largely just playing to what the public likes to watch. TV is one of the most classic cases of the adage, "if it ain't broke don't fix it." It's been proven time and again that these stereotypical plotlines are so common because they sell, effectively self-propagating the problem: TV shows feature strong female characters with a male Achilles heel, these shows gain notoriety, people watch them, creators of these shows realize the buzz they're getting, so they right more. Lather, rinse, and repeat. Instead of getting mad at the writers of these shows, I'd say the public has more control over the shows' existence than they realize. Don't like it? Don't watch it. Once this stereotype proves to no longer be a money-maker, eventually writers will have to try something new, which might finally result in shows that empower independent female characters the way you're looking for. Until then, the system will sustain itself.
ReplyDeleteI think you raise a correct point Jack. However, I do think there should be some burden on the writers to provide us with an innovative alternative - while I am opposed to the 'male Achilles heel' tenancy that you mention, if there's nothing else on TV I'm probably going to watch it out of a sheet desire to relax. I think if writers and producers come up with a female-dominated but not romantically/male-dominated show, then the responsibility would fall on the public to watch and support the show and maybe make the switch away from Scandal-esque shows, but until then I don't think much will change. America loves it's vegging out in front of the TV too much to change unless provided something else to do/watch.
DeleteHey Charlie!
ReplyDeleteI would have to disagree with part of your blog. I understand that it is frustrating when you see a woman lose her rationality when it comes to a man in the media. However, I do find that to be true of certain situations. Romantic love is often a cause for both men and women to react in an irrational manner, because strong feelings are involved. Women are also prone to react more emotionally because of the difference in hormones between the male and female brain. Men and women are equal, but I can't help but notice behavioral differences in both. I don't think it's derogatory to either gender. On the contrary, I think it's what makes us interesting in our differences. Either way, I think you did an excellent job on your blog and bring up some excellent points!
Thanks for you for you compliment Alice! I would also have to disagree with part of you comment. Why do women behave irrationally when it comes to love? Actually - it's a topic I'm planning on exploring in a later blog post, but I'll share a little bit of my opinion now. It's because that's how the media has taught us. We watch these rom-coms and TV shows and see these women go a little 'crazy' and think that that is how we are supposed to act, because we rarely find an alternative. We think we need a man to be successful, and we think the only way to get them is to take drastic measures - cue every 'nerdy girl goes to a salon and comes out pretty' transformation montage ever. There are many, many loving relationship that occur with both parties acting in a dignified manner, and that should be the norm in the media when today, it's not. You're not wrong that strong feelings are involved, and of course everyone has a right to be a little emotional at times, but I think we're setting up some incorrect and potentially harmful standards for ourselves through the portrayal of relationships in the media.
Deletehttp://25.media.tumblr.com/89944fce551445e6993ff6df7f851286/tumblr_moutzrvIH81qzgfwqo2_500.png
ReplyDeleteCJ Cregg, getting her priorities straight. :)