One big issue with tv shows is that unlike with books, the message is incomplete. So they might temporarily put out the opposite message of what they will be saying in the end. Or not. Which is the issue. We don't know. What does your tv Utopia look like in regards to this issue? How do we combine accountability with artistic integrity and freedom? What framing should there be? What would it look like for Once Upon a Time?
Oo-kay. Forstarters, thereâs a world of difference between message being incomplete (whichcan indicate less than adequate narrative development, to put it mildly) or if itis left to interpretation (which can vary between being clever, thoughtprovokingâeven subversive) so I guess we can approach appraisal of OUaTfrom radically different anglesâdepending on our individual assessment of that starting point? So, I assume youalready know ours. It just cannot not start from the need to rationalizetheir âoriginsâ into the continuity, and it beingâthe accolades (or criticism,depending who you ask) they got for Lost. Because as we know, they have been praisedfor itâfor all those explorations of that notion of multiplicity(alternative timeline/versions, etc) so we must take into account thepossibility of that affecting theirarrogance to start withâand that we have (possibly? probably? maybe?) giventhem undeserved âheadstartâ so they took themselves too seriouslyâand approachedtheir new project (and their attitude/response to audience feedback, or lack thereof) in suchway? Also, more importantlyâthat they have naturally attracted the âintelligentâ followingfor it to begin with (because participatory culture surpasses basic passiveconsumerism, offers enriched dynamic, more lifelike experienceâall thatjazz) thus âburdeningâ themselves with a significantly more demanding audience, anditâaffecting a more resounding feeling of our general discontent now?
Eitherway, that could explain the game of one-upmanship, of them striving to (andaround S3 starting to fail miserably, IMO) to stay two steps ahead of the audience.Hence the tactics of opposite message of what they will probably be saying in the end that you mentionâso yes of course, false clues, red herrings, logicalfallacies or any other devices that lead audiences towards misleadingconclusions. Because itâs really hard to know anything in the middle? Andwhich now reminds me, I remember reading when someone was talking about Lost (perhapsJenkins, I think I also talked about it here, or somewhereâbut just canât go around diggingfor references, the archives became overwhelming, soâI just might repeatmyself, for which I apologise in advance :) and them trying to account for the things they invented in earlierseasons without too much thought of what they actually might mean and/or wherethey might lead (which sounds WAY too familiar now?) Dickens was mentioned. As in, how his works are nowseen as really well-structured novels because we read them in a bounded form,but in factâhe sometimes radically rewrote his âvisionâ (which, retconning?) ofthe characters. So if the middle point is supposedly the most âproductiveâ space(because universally, fans also generate alternative versions of the narrativeas they theorize about whatâs going on, versions which are very generative,very rich and interestingâlike say, what you have been doing?) and while theyare exploring all the alternatives (which alas, usually manifest as randomness/retconningin their writing, these days?) shouldnât it be, wellâthe most productive part?Instead of this⌠disastrous mash of pacing/contrivance, riddled with alarminglyhorrible messagesâbasically a pile of stinking heterosexist, racist, misogynistand homophobic shite? And all after that beginning that was so staggeringlypromisingâand/or dangerously misleading?
Which brings me to, yes, fundamentallyâthe media industry (broadly defined) and the TV entertainmentindustry in particular, need to be far more accountable when it comes to themessage they create, both in the content itself, and the ways in which it is distributed.But if we try to combine accountability and artistic integrity and freedomâwecannot but question what IS Brothers Dimâs primary drive here? Free expression,pursuit of a vision, consistent and brilliant narrative (the âmodernâre-envisioning of fairytales, subverting the old dogmatic tropes and all that)or are they driven purely by commerce, designed to build a brand that will multiplyrevenue streams or drive eyes toward a central moneymaking mothership? Because thatâs the crux of the problem here.
And sinceyou asked, yesâmy personal TV Utopia is of course all about the former. I do believe infree expression and I do believe that the showrunners have the right to createwhatever content they wantâno creative limits or boundaries whatsoever. Hell,at one point I did believe that theory, that they were actually giving us twoparallel narratives, an obvious/direct one for the casual/superficialviewership (showing the cautionary tale of whatâs not supposed to bea well-accepted normative) and the âhiddenâ and yet obvious multi-layered onethat challenged the hegemonyâand developed that âsubversiveâmodern fairtytale about two mothers sharing a son, sense of understanding, acceptanceand ultimately, love. But as a rule, the issue becomes problematic when the show is airedâhow itâs distributed and to which audiences. Because while the industry shouldbe far more vigilant, oftentimes they arenâtâbecause they go for pandering, asit is what (they think) sells. So inevitably the question arises,where does the âvisionâ start being altered, twisted and is eventuallycompletely forgoneâin favour of a product served/tailored by market target (whose age was drastically reduced in S4 with Frozen, in this case)audience? Inthe end leaving it to us, the more demanding crowdsâtobelieve that weâve either been misled (they tried, tested, enticed, and wellâqueerbaitingâs all we got left with?) or it was where they wereheading, butâthey got yanked back by the PTB? And now basically giving way tothe biggest disagreement we might have here now: have we given WAY too much depthand meaning to this product than it really deserves (or was originally meant tohave, anyway) and thus credit to its authors, or are they (or well, were theyâbefore PTBs trimmed theirwings) really intrepid and brave show runners with a brilliant vision?
You can guess what we here believe. Because sixyears later, the result is schizophrenic to say the least. For instance,sureâHood might be a âpropâ for Regina but it looks like they keep hiring the idiot back (andthe story goes on and on and on?) and sure, Hook might just be a commentary oneverything that is screwed up about fairytale sexist dogma⌠but again, theyâredragging it all way past the point of logic, no? So as a result we have here now is anintense, even toxic part of the audience (online fandom) while a whole other partof it is just as immersed in the storyâbut the story they think is being toldis far less subversive and actually far more dangerous. And the real problem has been the marketing of that kindof storyâthe story that tells you that Hook is your dream lad, 50 Shades of Rapecultureis the best romance ever written, and lesbians are mean and angry people whoshould just go away. Because bottom line: to go there by sacrificing your twostrongest female characters when the context youâre writing stories withinâneithernecessitates nor justifies the undermining (or defiling) of these âstrong womenâ, and⌠well. Onetruth is being told at the expense of the other?
Sooo⌠purelytextual analysis whilst ignoring all other factors including basic marketing issuesjust isnât how television works. Because them writing all the negative and harmfulthings is something they SHOULDas showrunners be accounted for, and on a much larger scale. And they should, you know, either justify it or face the consequences far more seriousthan just dwindling ratings of the product theyâre now having difficulties tosell. While in the meantime, the âmixedâ result of their struggle to balance and pander (they know it canât be about just Hook, but nothing they wrote about him made people as disgusted as Reginaâs stomach-churning shagging scene didâwhich was a crime against those of us who wantedto see that shirt unbuttoned for any bloody reasonâwhat we canât stop reiterating) leaves the ultimatequestion, not related to ships/shipping/endgames but rather aboutcharacter journeysâif we as large chunk of theaudience cannot âenjoy the rideâ (some of the stuff they wrote was/isdecidedly vile, even more than their collective treatment of an incrediblypersistent/masochistic fanbase that still have hope for Reginaand Emma, who despite whatâs been shoved down our throatsâstillare the core of this show) then someone please tell meâŚ
What ISthe point? Because I seem to be⌠missing it.