But, as you all know, I'm far too long winded to stop there. I would argue that the men who now control daytime more than ever did run it into the ground with their ideas, their agendas, and their incompetence. I do not for one instance think it was intentional. I think it was true and utter ignorance of the form, the audience, and the cultural implications of their "changes" . If soap operas still were highly profitable, as they'd been in the past, they'd be here and thriving. I think they are dying as they are no longer highly profitable, so they're going. Yet I do not for one moment believe they were being destroyed on purpose. Don't give these guys that much credit. They aren't that smart.
So, let's start with their ideas. Soap operas were created for women and, for the most part, by women. Now, I won't argue the fact that many of those women in the original days had some antiquated notions. Irna Phillips and Agnes Nixon, to some degree, were pioneers in the field. Yet they were products of their time. I wouldn't call them feminists, but I can see if someone wants to argue that they could be designated as such. At any rate, this form is about women and for women. Granted, it's expanded and added gay men to the audience pool, but that's not a large segment. Looking at numbers, it's quite small. Yet the focus of the programs since the 1990's has shifted almost completely to men. And that is the problem. Not only are they now produced by men and focus on the men, but they also are shot from a male perspective- and THAT is the real issue.
Now some argue that this is the problem of some specific shows. Yes, I'll agree that some are worse offenders than others. However, they all suffer from this to some extent- even the few written by women, such as Y&R. I think Victor and Jack are the focus on Y&R, followed by Nick and (ugh) Adam, and looking at how Nikki and Sharon tend to turn into meek little kittens for their men is proof of that. Nick is adorable but thoroughly repugnant in his sexual politics. And what they've done to Phyllis is unconscionable!!!
Having men be the center is the major problem, in my opinion. In the previous entry about Blair, I mentioned the ideological notions of women who represented anti-social tendencies to be "punished". That goes without saying. If the women do not cater the needs of men and the patriarchal order, the genre will definitely punish them. Yet that's only the beginning.
Those ideological notions are so deeply steeped in our culture that in order to subvert them, there has to be an actual intent to do so. If one does not even recognize they exist, as many do not as they simply don't think about it, they continue on. These notions are perpetuated by our current oral culture, mostly being the mass media and soap opera is one of the prevalent forms. In other words, unless someone says to themselves, "Hey, these stories are sexist and promoting bad things" nothing will change. And it hasn't. Soap operas, from the beginning, were the one area where this ideology was subverted, but that does not happen any longer.
Centering stories on men who are abusive, men with whom we are continually told to sympathize, men who are criminals and amoral, does go against the form. Now, these men can be used to promote positive ideas about sexual and gender politics, I would argue, when their attempts to victimize are thwarted and they are punished. But they must be thwarted by women, not other men. This can reinforce the notion that there is always a struggle between men and women for power and that, in the end, the right side will win- meaning women are shown to be victorious on their own and thus powerful in their own right. But when those men are NOT made to pay, the process goes astray and confirms patriarchal notions that soap operas have continuously rejected. When these men are caught by other men, it simply passes the buck, so to speak, to the other guy being in control. And women are left wringing their hands, batting their eyes, and saying "My hero". That's not a soap opera.
Sonny and Jason are two of the worst offenders. GH focusing on two career criminals without making them suffer the consequences of their actions in any real way is the problem. Having their lives be the focus of the program is a shift that, in my opinion, ultimately sank the form. They are not about women. They are about men. And women are watching this show. They can't relate to these characters or their ideas. They are, in the vernacular, Thugs!!! Now if they were made to pay and suffer and seek to understand and make amends, that's one thing. Yet I have yet to see them do that for more than a moment. They seem to thrive and not be particularly uncomfortable in their own skin. (See Todd Manning) They have no sense of self-loathing or remorse. They are, well, Thugs.
Soap operas aren't about Thugs. They're about women who help or punish Thugs. Soap operas are about women who give birth to Thugs and try to understand how to make it all right. And soap operas are about the women who love the Thugs much to their own chagrin. In sum, soap operas are about women dealing with men, Thugs or otherwise, and coming to terms with themselves- as women- not playthings of men.
When Todd Manning did appalling things to women, he was made to pay. He was punished and ostracized and shunned by those for whom he cared. He internalized the punishment and wore it on his face- in the form of a scar- as a reminder of his crimes. He was admonished by women continuously. By Nora, by Marty, by Viki, by Tea, by Luna, and even by his beloved Starr and Blair. He was rarely punished effectively by men, being the police, and when he was finally incarcerated for a long period and lost everything, it was by a woman- his mother. As ridiculous and plot driven as that stupid story was, it does fit the concept that women are in control of him, not vice versa. And they will be the ones to ultimately make him pay.
Yet no such punishment happens on GH or even Y&R. That's the problem. It's all about the almighty men and their power. The only struggle is between men and men only. And, frankly, it's not interesting to the audience. I don't care to see Victor hem and haw about being a manipulative douchebag who everyone still loves. I don't care that he was an orphan. I want him to pay!! He's an ass and I see no redeeming qualities about him at all. Don't get me started on Adam...well, I can't help it.
I think Adam is one of the most repulsive characters ever brought on to daytime and is indicative of the systemic problem the form faces. And, remember, I'm a Todd Manning fan!!! I think the actor, Michael Muhney, is very good and the issue here is NOT the portrayal but the character. I think Muhney does a wonderful job making me hate Adam's guts. The idea that he tortured Ashley while she was pregnant when she was the only one to show him kindness and sympathy makes me sick. I can't get past that, as I've been given no reason to get past it. With Todd, he is treated like dirt, incarcerated, wounded, and thoroughly miserable. When Powell forced him to look at who he had become, it resonated with him and made an impact on his soul. He felt what it was like to be the victim.
With Adam, it's all plot point and surface misery. His deeds never seem to be truly internalized. Being dumped by Sharon- don't get me started on Sharon- and losing his sight briefly are silly plot points. I didn't see him struggle and be tormented. He's smug and "sad". Good, I'm glad he's sad. He should be!!He's an asshole with no redeeming qualities, like his father but even worse. I didn't see a woman blinding him- only himself. Truly pathetic. At least Luna put the scar on Todd's face, a reminder that he would forever be a rapist. Hell, Adam even got his sight back. And let's not talk about Adam's foray into homosexuality to get a lawyer to represent him. I'll leave that alone.
These shows are also shown through the male perspective. In film studies, there's a concept called the "male gaze". This means that the camera is seen as being male and shows the perspective that men have, as it was traditionally a male director and cinematographer. Therefore, the shots were from the perspective of the "male gaze". It shows you what men would see. For example, in love scenes shot by heterosexual men, you see the female reaction as that's what a heterosexual man would see- thus the camera shoots the male perspective.
Soap operas subverted that notion. Men were shown as sex objects as they tended to show the "female gaze". In love scenes, we saw the male reaction. Men were objectified. We saw naked men whenever possible. We saw men in shirts that were painted on to show their bulging chests. We saw older women with attractive younger men. Yet, that's changed. Now, we see some scantily clad women, yes, but we also see sex more than romance. That is a decidedly male perspective. Women prefer touching moments as opposed to thrusting and moaning. Many women tend not like to see three men in towels in a sauna. See Ford Brothers ala Carlivati. The homoerotic subtext is rampant yet I don't think there's anything wrong to playing to that segment of the audience. But the scenes that are made for the heterosexual women usually play from the male perspective, as well. Again, it's being out of touch with the audience and not asking, "Hey, what do women like to see?" It's just assuming they know. And they don't.
Here's an example of something recent that worked beautifully. Rarely have I seen such a positive reaction to a non-sexual scene as I did with this touching moment:
It was one of the most romantic and alluring scenes of soap opera I'd seen in years. It was written by a woman. It was directed by a woman. And it was played by two soap actors who can always deliver and know what this genre is about. It's about intimacy and fear and pain and longing and, more than anything, love. It's all this form needs- and almost never gets.
The scene is showing Blair's perspective. It's what she sees. She's in control of the situation. Todd is the one who needs her and is reaching out to have her save him. She relents, as she loves him despite her knowing better. It's objectifying Howarth to some extent, as he's half naked, but it's not about sex. It's about intimacy. When Blair takes off his shirt, it's to help him, yet his longing for her is apparent, so it's alluring but not lurid. As the camera pulls back at the end to show them together, her hand in his as she comforts him, the music is sweet and romantic and sad. Now, that's how it should work. No thrusting, no panting, not even a kiss...but pure romance and love. That's soap opera at it's finest and what we almost never got in recent years.
Look, I'm not saying there's anything wrong with some good old fashioned, hot sex. There's nothing wrong with a few men in Speedos- although I'd rather not see it, yet I'm not denying it to those who would. I'm not saying there's anything wrong with some bad boys being bad. We all love the bad guys. It's about the perspective. And the women. It's all about the women, Stupid!!
It's one thing to have anti-heroes and bad boys. It's another to have a show built around patriarchy and misogyny. That's what they've become- a form for women that really might hate women at worst and doesn't understand them at best. The shows now- specifically Y&R and GH- say that women are weak and men are strong. The ones that have been cancelled say the opposite. DOOL rides somewhere in the middle. Funny, the shows that sunk the form remain- for the moment- even with dismal ratings. Maybe because men made that decision!
No comments:
Post a Comment