"the pitt is paved with good intentions"
iām about to beat a horse thatās already long dead and cremated, but š¤·š½āāļø
in the french speaking world, we have a proverb : lāenfer est pavĆ© de bonnes intentions. there's an equivalent in english, but the literal translation would be : hell is paved with good intentions. i really like this expression cause it serves as a good reminder that wanting to do the right thing isnāt doing the right thing.
i genuinely think the pittās trying to do things right. tackling menās mental health, which, whether we like it or not, is a real issue shaped by the sexist education we grow up with. calling out the US healthcare system, which is completely eaten up by structural discrimination. showing the diversity of medical staff, putting nurses front and center, and so on.
problem is : itās not that simple, or enough.
and before we go any further, i need to say it : i used to be that girl who believed there was a whole process behind it, who wanted to think the show i loved actually meant what it put on screen, that it was building toward a real message. plottwist : it wasnāt. not about everything. so i took a couple minutes, and i questioned myself and my relationship to the show. which is what iād recommend doing š«¶
letās go back. yeah, sure, on screen presence isnāt nothing, it's proof weāre making progress and that weāre not only showing white men as doctors anymore. but weāve been doing that for over 20 years now, actually. and if thatās a first step, a good one, one we shouldnāt dismiss, we still need to get to the next step, which means representing people AND treating them properly. that they have a genuine narrative purpose.
and the pitt, in big 2026, with its writers, its public statements, its supposed political intent, completely missed that step. and we canāt keep saying "well, it was the era, at least they tried". yes, they did other things well, but when it comes to how they handled the central characters who arenāt robby or at the very least whiteā¦ thatās a whole different story.
and itās especially frustrating because they banked on the diversity of their cast. they played the "look, weāre progressive" card, but when you brag about being progressive, you also have to be ready to receive criticism, advice, and feedback. which is absolutely not the case for the showrunners, nor for a good part of the fandom who think theyāre immune to being questioned simply because theyāre already "progressive" or woke. obviously, i'm talking about issues of sexism and racism in the writing, not the medical procedures.
unfortunately, the only thing we got in response is : "toxic fandom ; youāre thinking in black and white ; you donāt understand the complexity of the characters".
is that what you want to reflect ? and iām especially talking to the people who claim to be political, leftist, woke, queer, yuri smut writers, whatever. you want to be those blogs that supposedly stand for minorities, yet put more effort into defending the white guy in a position of authority than into listening to the legitimate, justified complaints of the people actually affected, the people who deal with racism and sexism every single day ? not to mention that many of these people are also in the medical field, confronted with men like robby on a daily basis.
when i talk about a man like robby, Iām talking about a man who, without meaning to, still displays sexist and biased behavior even if he theoretically believes he has no issue with women or any other minorities around him. and in the end, robby isnāt the one to blame. itās the showrunners. yes, that includes noah wyle, whether you like it or not.
the fact that robby is the MC isnāt even a valid excuse. shows like bojack horseman, house m.d., or the bear also center on mentally struggling male protagonists, and yet they still manage to heavily criticize their behavior and address the impact it has on the people around them, people who are not obligated to just accept the abuse because "heās not doing well". thatās the issue with the pitt : itās the final product, the message the show ultimately delivers.
iāve already explained here, michael robinavitch is never actually confronted with the consequences of his behavior, and the show never tells us he should be. everything in the narrative, the scenes, the framing, the dialogue, leans toward robby. they question his emotional management, not his behavior. the show simply didnāt choose to address this in any meaningful or complete way.
and it becomes a problem when heās consistently sharp, condescending, with characters like mohan and alāHashimi, when he refuses to listen to people like dana and mcKay, yet listens to duke and abbot without hesitation. these are patterns you canāt ignore anymore.
the other patterns are heather collins never coming back, then gloria, kiara, now samira, soon javadi, and the uncertainty around alāhashimiās presence. the most blatant case is obviously samira, who had genuinely compelling narrative arcs in progress, both on her own and in relation to robby, and the production chose to erase her from S2 and then not renew her for S3, even though nothing required breaking their soācalled sacred realism for her to stay.
meanwhile, whoās left ? whitaker, whose only "progression" is being a bit more confident. mckay, who has NO arc besides delivering the seasonās moral lessons. mel, who was honestly even more out of touch than samira and never gets called out for it, and langdon. iām told heās one of the few whose narrative arc actually goes somewhere. yes, but how come heās the only one ? maybe thereāre systemic reasons behind all thisā¦ but who knows. not saying these characters should be removed, iām just pointing out how strange the situation is.
the pitt genuinely wants to do the progressive thing. but it clearly failed on that front. and being vocal about it isnāt "not understanding the show" or "performing our own views on mental health" (with the implication that we supposedly want robby to kill himself). itās a reminder that yes, addressing mental health is important, but you donāt get to do it while reproducing other oppressive, clichĆ©, or discriminatory patterns. itās not a matter of "narrative choices they had to make", itās not a documentary. they couldāve chosen to address these issues. they didnāt.
a truly excellent show that claims to be politically engaged would've woven all of this together. an excellent show would've taken the time to do real intersectional work. an excellent show made by people who actually want to be progressive would've listened to criticism and questioned itself.
is that the case here ? no. instead, the show, just like part of the fandom, hides behind its politically engaged discourse. it's hides behind its good intentions to deny that it might be doing something problematic, or that it might be delivering its message not in a good way.
when I talk about doing it a good way, i'm not saying robby should be antagonized or portrayed as a monster. iām talking about letting the character actually question himself, examine his biases, without using his condition as a shield every time someone criticizes how heās written. iām talking about not framing him as the only one who cares or understands that women arenāt treated the same way. iām talking about not making every major turning point of the season revolve exclusively around men speaking with men.
there were really some missed arcs this season because of aaaaall that. iād already made post about it with a focus on al-hashimi character. itās honestly just sad, because we know how much potential the show has, what itās capable of, and unfortunately S2 just proved we should never let our guard down, no matter whatās said in interviews, the facts are the facts. noah wyle and sepideh moafi, or supriya ganesh, or isa briones or shabana azeez donāt hate each other ? sure, and ? that changes absolutely nothing about the criticisms of this seasonās writing. it doesnāt erase the producersā comments about the characters, about the women, or that, in the boysā club that is the entertainment industry, women still have to watch what they say.
the pitt and its producers can have all the good intentions in the world, they can genuinely want to advocate for health workers, theyāre doing it from the perspective they have : that of gen x white men. and it shows in the final product and in the showrunnersā reactions..
one last thing : the "donāt watch if you donāt like it" is so unbelievably shallow itās almost shocking. if we couldnāt criticize media, especially ones that claim to be socially engaged, weād never make any progress in terms of representation or narrative treatment. no ideological shift, no chance of ever feeling genuinely represented.
what it really shows is that the people who keep repeating that on loop have absolutely no willingness to question themselves.
here was my 2 cent on the matter š
