Thursday, April 15, 2004
The Lesbian Logic Trap: As Related to Television Shows
Throughout the history of film and television, lesbian characters (and lesbian lovers especially) are always doomed.It seems that throughout the history of film and television, lesbian characters (and lesbian lovers especially) are always doomed. If you’ve ever watched The Celluloid Closet, you have an idea what I mean. Lesbians always seem to end up either as villains or violently dead (often by suicide or murder) - or insane. More than likely, all of three if possible. You can trace this disturbing plot mechanism all the way back to early films like The Children’s Hour and The Fox, onto later films like The Hunger and Heavenly Creatures, and even into modern films like Boys on the Side, High Art and Monster. Yes, some of these were based on real life stories, but why the hell are mainstream films with lesbian characters almost always based on the sinister, sad and horrible instead of the beautiful and wonderful? --L.A. Vess, 365Gay.com, ”Deadly Dilemma Of Lesbians In Entertainment”
I have a dilemma. Well its not entirely mine, but I’m certain it crosses the mind of every lesbian at one time or another. “Is any type of tragedy, befalling a lesbian on television acceptable?”
The question springs from multiple concern about the portrayal of gays and lesbians in the media to is it possible to portray a happy lesbian couple. My focus is really just on television here. I state this because, I have a bias. I say, “Yes!”. Yes, there are acceptable tragedy that can befall lesbian characters on television, that should not cause the entire lesbian and gay community to get into an uproar about lesbian and gay imagery on television.
There’s a lesbian logic trap, the happend somewhere in subsequent quotings of Vito Russo’s ’The Celluloid Closet‘. In “The Celluloid Closet” Russo systemmatic documents the portrayal of gays and lesbians in the movies; and how it relates to discrimination and societal treatment of lesbians and gays. It’s a wonderfull book. But, somehow, somehwere someone started using its text and conclusions to also encompass television shows, and this creates the logic trap.
For example, let’s take the beacon of daytime television, the Soap Opera. I haven’t watched on in awhile. But I remember watching ’Young in the Restless‘, and ’General Hospital‘ almost religiously with my mother during various stages of my development. Television shows, even the sitcoms, are about drama. Situations are exaggerated, hightened, and often impropable, but they work for TV.
Let’s take one ‘hetero’ scenario as an example. General Hospital’s Luke & Laura. I can’t recall how old I was, but I remember watching Luke and Laura. I remember when the feel and love, and it was super-sized romantic like TV shows were. I remember, their break-up, and the horror of Luke raping Laura, and then the oddity but general acceptance of Luke and Laura getting back together.
The point is, even a much beloved het couple such as Luke and Laura, face heartbreak and tragedy. It’s the nature of the beast. The beast being, daily or weekly television, where an audience consistently (one hopes anyway) comes back to learn more and participate more in the lifes of the characters. A movie, even a made for TV movie differs from a television show, because they have a finite ending. Movies can have happy endings for the characters involved, because you don’t have to follow the characters through a potential 5, 10, 20 years of a shows existence.
Sure I know the arguments, how hard could it be to introduce one well-written, well-fleshed out lesbian couple who are happy, and stay happy. And while that seems an easy enough qualification for a movie, for a television series, that pretty much indicates either the couple aren’t regulars on the show, or they will exist in some otherly world sphere where their characters are treated dramatically different from those around them.
I’ll admit, its amusing to think of a show where a lesbian couple is super happy, while all the heterosexuals around them subcomb to heartbreak and tragdy. But let’s face it, it would have to be a comedy, because otherwise, there’d be no drama, if you knew that nothing could stop the happy lesbians from being happy. So you have a trap. Let’s say you, yes you. Your a writer or a producer and you want to introduce a lesbian to your show. You don’t want to be stereotypical. You want someone who the audience can grow to love. You don’t want a hot ticket item for a single week. So you work hard to introduce a character that fits the show, grows at a reasonable rate, and suffers some of the same indemenities that other show characters suffer. But now your trapped. Because, if you introduce heartbreak to the character you will be villified. If you kill one of the characters of, you will be villified. In fact, if you give the character a bad haircut, there’s a high likilhood of villification.
Many writers and producers just don’t bother, they have no desire to buck Hollywood powers that be and the lesbian community, so you get no lesbian characters. So let’s examine a few shows that have bucked either Hollywood, the lesbian community, or both to introduce us to new lesbian characters. I’ll examine briefly, ER’s Kerry Weaver, Kimberly Legaspi, and Sandy Lopez; Buffy the Vampire Slayer’s Willow Rosenberg and Tara McKay; Once and Again’s Jessie Sammler and Katie Singer; and briefly touch upon other TV Shows with lesbian characters.
ER Kerry Weaver & Kim Legaspi
A disclaimer of sorts, I’ve never been a fan of ER. I prefer my Television to be more of an escape. I’ve found ER to be more like flipping through CNN, the Operation Channel, and some random evening drama. Its equal part headline topics, blood and gore, and then some relationship tossed in for good measure. That said, I did start downloading the episodes when they introduced the wonderfully talented Elizabeth Mitchell. I knew she was suppose to be part of a lesbian storyline, but I’ve been a fan of Mitchell’s since 1998’s Gia.
So in the ER world, Mitchell’s Dr. Kim Legaspi is this confident psych doc, who knocks resident ER Chief, Dr. Kerry Weaver for an emotional loop. Kerry Weaver is played by the impressive Laura Innes. The Kim and Kerry relationship was fascinating to watch. Laura Innes and Elizabeth Mitchell had a real chemistry between them, and while the building of the relationship was handled across multiple episodes, with little glimpses here and there (this is the way ER seems to handle all relationships and personal storylines). The Kim and Kerry relationship was great to watch, but then fell to a one-two combination punch of homophobia. This was okay, because, it seemed that the writerss were going to make an effort to get the characters back together. Then they didn’t.
Sure contract and timing issues intervened, and next with have Kerry with Sandy Lopez, played by Lisa Vidal. I didn’t pay much attention, but this relationship seemed much more Soap Opera-ish in various summaries. Sandy outs Kerry. Sandy and Kerry break-up. They get back together. They break-up. Kerry gets pregnant (deliberately). Kerry loses her baby. Sandy refuses to have a baby with Kerry. Next Sandy’s pregnant, and now Sandy’s dead. Que subsequent issues related to gay marriage and adoption (I’m sure).
While many did get involved in the Kerry/Sandy relationship. I can’t say, that I am one of them, so therefore can’t really defend it. What I can say from my observer viewpoint is that ER started off with good intentions (and a good relationship) and lost both. Really, while others may lament that Sandy’s dead, I’m left wondering how she survived so long. ER’s committed to portraying the lesbian relationship and characters seemed to wane with the loss of Elizabeth Mitchell. So “Lesbian Television Treatment 101”? Yes!
Buffy the Vampire Slayer Willow Rosenberg & Tara McKay
In the Buffy Universe (Buffyverse), as built by Joss Whedon, you have an alternative relaity so meticulously created that even the consumer participate in its “reality”. Take for instance, the death of Jenny Calendar (aka Ms. Calendar, Jenna Calendash of the ---- Gypsy Clan). Ms Calendar was beloved. She was smart, sassy, technology savvy, flirted with Rupert, challenged Buffy, and inspired Willow-crush. She died. In real world (ours), she died violently. Her neck broken by the Angelus, the monsterous demon who inhabited Buffy’s lover Angel’s skin. But what can we say of a reality that calls to its fans to be shocked, upset, and tramatized by the “lack of violence” in her death.
I remember. For weeks after it happen, it was all I could think of. Ms. Calendar’s death had mentally scarred me. Yet, for all reason, it shouldn’t have. It wasn’t a skinning, a beheading, or a blood-sucking. There was no ‘real’ fight, at least not by Buffy standards. But in someways it remains the most viscious death, I’ve seen portrayed on television.
Joss Whedon has created a world so complete with everyday violence of extraordinary purpose; a world where the show’s key characters, their friends, and collegues struggle, fight, stab in the heart, toss into sunlight, set on fire, and behead those who would kill them. In this world, if Ms. Calendar’s death was by violent struggle, or much blood-sucking it would have been expected, and somewhat welcomed to the alternative. The alternative, was a cold slap of reality, she was chased, she was captured, her neck was snapped, and she crumbled to the ground like a misused ragdoll. It was cold, it was clean, and it lacked the violence and passion that we had grown to expect from the show, making it ultimately one of the most violent moments of the show.
Compare this then, with the death of Tara Mckay, Willow’s witchy, lesbian lover played enchantingly by Amber Benson. Joss introduced Tara with little fanfare. We first see her at a on-campus Wicca meeting that Willow attends, where we learn pretty much that she is painfully shy. Slowly, Willow and Tara’s path cross, and before you realize what’s happening, Tara’s stating to Willow, that Willow is special. Willow scoffs, “I’m nothing special” and Tara, in a moment of understated boldness, that holds us captured, says “No, you are.”
It was one of those moments. The moments that capture us, that fascinate us. You know, like the first time you fall in love. It was breathtaking in its simplicity, and the sudden expell form the collective Buffyverse, created a firestorm. Whedon and the various Buffy writers, then managed to develop an achingly beautiful relationship between the two women. Willow and Tara. They had their arguments, but they had their love, and it was a struggle, but it was working. They were happy. Someone had to die.
Tara died, unexpectly and unexpicably by shooting. It was “accidental”, Warren, a human, would-be criminal mastermind, in a bout of frustration decides to just shoot Buffy and be done with (something that had never occured to the myriad daily demons attempting to off the slayer). He comes into the backyard shooting wildly, catching Buffy in the side of her chest, and a stray bullet hits Tara while her in Willow were having a sweet moment. Blood splatters from Tara onto Willow, and tragedy insues.
This had nothing to do with the laws of Cellioud Closet, or “Lesbian Television Treatment 101”, this had to do with the world that was created for us. This Buffyworld, where none of the main characters (the Scobby Gang) can be happy for too long. A world where partners, friends, and family die, while they struggle on to save the world. Willow has always enjoyed some of the longest relationships on the show. In part, because its very clear, that Joss Whedon loves Willow. What else besides love could make the shy, geeky, intelligent, and overlooked, badly dressed high school red-head nerd, one of the most attractive characters on the show.
While Xander’s barely escaping being eaten alive or axed to death by the women he falls in lust with; Buffy suffers from tragic love to tragic boredom with her small slate of lovers; and Giles lover’s broken body is left with roses on his bed; Willow got Oz— a sweet werewolf who loved her dearly. Oz became a part of the Scobbies, and was loved and thought of, even by those of us, who perferred Willow with Tara. After Oz, Willow got Tara, another sweetie, who loved her and recognized her as a shining beacon of good. Let’s face it, Willow got the cream of the crop of lovers and relationship on the show. So in accordance with the shows logic, some tragedy was slated to befall her.
The question is “Should that tragedy be circumvented, just because it falls into the lesbian in cellioud trap?” I say not. Tara’s death was tramatic. Especially so for Willow, who managed to lose her carefully created control, and allowed us to see into the depths of her darkside. Depths that were only hinted at priorly. So “Lesbian Television Treatment 101”? No.
Tara’s death was both like and unlike other characters of major and minor importance to Buffy the Vampire Slayer. It provided dramatic circumstances to created a substanciated change in a major character to promote a new storyline. Was the new storyline any good, is of course debatable? I for one enjoyed evil Willow. She was wickedly funny, and powerful as hell. Besides, you’ve got to love a girl that tells Buffy she needs her ass kicked.
So wicked/evil Willow was introduced, but she was temporary. We are returned our Willow--slightly shaken, but with enough remenants to remind us of her innocence. But on top of that, we are also given, later in the series, Willow the White. Willow the White is like Gandor the White, a witch so in tuned to good magic, that the wisdom of old has touched her and turned her angelic (temporarily, of course). So Joss managed to maintain a major character, central to the show, Buffy the Vampire, who is well fleshed out, both catalyst and reactant to the shows plots, who is well loved, and is a lesbian. The death of her first lesbian lover, didn’t sideline this character. The character became more central to the show, and even entered in subsequent lesbian relationships.
Once & Again Jessie Sammler & Katie Singer
Okay, has there ever been a sweeter high school first love relationship displayed on television. Once & Again managed to make some firsts--multiple lesbian kisses in a single episode, and a distinct focus on the positive aspects of a burgeoning lesbian relationship. Katie Singer is a popular girl in her high school, and she’s an out lesbian. No she’s not out singing, “We’re Here, We’re Queer, Get Use to It!” She’s JUST Katie, and Katie is beautiful, popular, highly sought after, friendly, and into girls.
So on Once and Again with have Katie Singer fall for Jessie Sammler, and Jessie Sammler slow return her feelings, after much confusion regarding whether or not she thought their friendship was just super intense, or something more. Thank god for the something more, because the scenes with Jessie and Katie starting to explore the boundaries of their relationship with looks, handholding, and kisses, steal more than a few episodes.
Unfortunately, Once and Again meant it’s TV demise before the relationship between the two could be fully explored, but from what we did get, we do know that both characters were well though out, well fleshed out, and growing--which is essential in a television show, stagnant characters are boring and deserve to be dismissed. Oops, I almost forgot. Katie Singer was played by the talented Mischa Barton who can now be viewed on the OC; and Jessie Sammler was played by the equally talent Evan Rachel Wood, who is making her mark in independent films such as Thirteen with Holly Hunter.
Footnotes
Other Details
Categories: Personal •Society •Television •
Viewed: 639
Comments: 0
Permalink: http://www.wide-eyed.org/main/article/lesbian_logic_trap/
Comments
-
Sorry, no comments right now; but you could be the first.