#tv commentary

Re-watching Prodigal Son right alongside shows like The Bear highlights a deeply frustrating, repetitive dynamic in modern media: the way shows treat connections between traumatized white male leads and the women of color in their lives.

Look at the structural parallels between Malcolm & Dani (Brightwell) and Carmy & Syd (Sydcarmy):

The White Male Lead: Deeply traumatized, dealing with severe mental health struggles, family baggage, and high anxiety (Malcolm’s serial killer dad vs. Carmy’s family dysfunction and grief).

The WOC as the Emotional Anchor: Dani and Syd are the ones who do the heavy lifting. They offer actual safety, mutual respect, intense eye contact, and grounded vulnerability. They are the people these men can genuinely be themselves with without performance.

The White "Peace" Love Interest: Eve in Prodigal Son and Claire in The Bear. Generic, introduced specifically to be the designated "healer", the soft, domestic force that is supposed to pull these men out of their tortured minds and give them peace.

What makes this pattern so infuriating isn't just the writing; it’s the selective double standard in how intimacy is coded:

The Selective "Platonic" Shield: Whenever a WOC shares intense, undeniable chemistry and deep emotional reliance with a male lead, the narrative, and a chunk of the fandom, instantly pivots to "Why can't men and women just be friends? Their platonic bond is so refreshing!" But the second a white female character enters the frame, even with a fraction of that depth, it’s immediately framed as "endgame" romance.

Emotional Labor Without Narrative Reward: Women of color are constantly written as the emotional backbones of these men's lives. They absorb the trauma, help them regulate, and foster their growth, only to watch the narrative hand the romantic payoff to a white love interest who hasn't built half the foundational trust.

It’s a not so subtle form of racial bias in media framing. It dictates that women of color are useful for labor, support, and grounded realism, but white women are reserved for softness, desirability, and romantic resolution.

The body language, the quiet moments, and the actual text of these relationships speak for themselves, and it's long past time to acknowledge why the "just good friends" defense only ever gets applied to one specific demographic. I'll expand more on this after my rewatch, because I also have to reflect on why almost all my ships are white man x WOC 😭😭

Nick was the first Grimm she ever saw, and Adalind’s was the first woge he ever saw

Adalind was ordered to kill Nick’s Aunt Marie (1x01)

Nick had to protect her during a murder investigation (1x03)

Adalind was ordered to date and use Nick’s friend and partner Hank’s life as leverage for one of the Keys →

Adalind was forced to consume Nick’s blood—in a physically intimate way (1x17) →

She put his girlfriend in a magical coma (1x22)

Nick’s mother, Kelly, “killed” Adalind’s mother in a fight (really, Catherine just lost that fight) (2x02)

Adalind was protected by and slightly bonded with—unbeknown to both at the time—Nick’s mother

Kelly’s time with Adalind and her daughter, Diana, triggered her last memory with young Nick 

Kelly, still unaware of their history, brought Adalind and Diana to Nick’s house (3x17) ->

“Maybe it’s not a coincidence that you brought Adalind and her baby back here to Nick. [...] Carl Jung, synchronicity [the ep’s title]. When two or more events aren’t necessarily causally related but are connected through meaning.” (Juliette)

Kelly let Diana keep her locket with young Nick’s picture (3x18) 

Nick’s mom temporarily raised Adalind’s daughter

Nick and Adalind each depowered the other/took each other’s supernatural identity away, temporarily (1x17, 3x22) ->

and both for sympathetic reasons related to the other—Nick, to save Hank from Adalind’s spell; Adalind, to get her daughter back from the Royals, who Nick and the others let her believe Diana was with

Adalind was able to do so because of having Nick’s blood in her system from when he did so

Okay, I need to scream about this for a second.

I’ve been binging OG Law & Order and… wow. Everyone hypes SVU (and sure, it’s famous), but honestly? The original is where the real magic is—especially seasons 5–9. The cases are sharp, the cast lineups are insane, and Sam Waterston as Jack McCoy?? A powerhouse. Love love love.

Why OG Works Better

What makes OG stand out is how case-driven it is. Every episode feels like two shows in one—half detective work, half courtroom drama. Tight storytelling, no filler. SVU, for all its popularity, often sidelines the cases to focus on Olivia’s personal arcs. OG sprinkles just enough personal stuff in between, so you crave the next glimpse without it overwhelming the story.

And the ensemble cast? Unmatched. Briscoe, Logan, Rey, Schiff, Claire, McCoy—each brought a generational balance. No one was overshadowed, they all played off each other, which made the show feel bigger than just “one star character.”

McCoy + Claire + Schiff = Peak

Speaking of balance, I’ll never forgive the choice to kill Claire. That trio was gold:

Schiff as the weary-but-wise authority figure,

Claire as the challenger and grounding presence,

McCoy as the courtroom firebrand.

Together, they pulled out dimensions in each other. Claire especially drew out Jack’s bratty, chaotic sides in ways that humanized him. Later ADAs often just looked up to McCoy instead of pushing back, which flattened the dynamic.

Behind the scenes, Jill Hennessy wanted out, but instead of recasting Claire, Dick Wolf decided killing her would “give McCoy more depth.” 🙄 But honestly? Wouldn’t it have been deeper to show him finally trying (after two failed marriages) to figure out work-life balance? That’s growth. Instead, they locked him into the “lone courtroom warrior” box.

The Lone Wolf Problem

And that’s kind of Wolf’s whole philosophy across the franchises, right? To be the top of your game, you have to be alone. McCoy. Olivia. Stabler. They get written into that “lone wolf genius” corner. But what if the braver choice was showing that you can be brilliant and still have connection, still have balance? That would’ve been far richer.

Later Seasons… Meh

By the time I hit season 18 with Cutter and Rubirosa… I’m bored. They’re polished and good-looking, but flat. No spark, no tension. It’s so noticeable after the electric eras with Briscoe, Logan, Rey, Schiff, Claire, and early McCoy. The later ADAs felt more like mentees orbiting Jack than equals who could challenge him.

My ADA/DA Era Ranking (aka fight me in the notes):

McCoy + Claire Kincaid + Schiff — Peak. Balance. Sparks. Chaos. Brilliance.

McCoy + Jamie Ross + Schiff — Jamie had bite and perspective. She was principled but still knew how to push back.

McCoy + Abbie Carmichael + Schiff — Abbie’s fire and sharp edges made her the perfect counterweight to Jack.

Stone + Robinette + Schiff — The blueprint. Pure, case-first storytelling.

McCoy + Alexandra Borgia + Branch — Short-lived but promising. She had heart and grit before Wolf undercut her by fridging her.

McCoy + Serena Southerlyn + Branch — Serena was intelligent, but came across as high-handed and privileged, often missing real-world grounding.

McCoy + Cutter + Rubirosa — Polished, but flat and forgettable.

(This is a spoiler-free commentary, but it does discuss the dynamics of the characters in general.)

I read the books back in the day, and of course, saw the original movie. Despite a laundry list of big changes, the series still feels extremely true to the books because it captures the spirit. It gets the characters and their fucked-up dynamics right. It doesn't shy away from them being melodramatic monsters. It keeps to the rules established in the source material. The show also makes sure to preserve key moments and key scenes, but always with a twist.

Since they did that, they were free to shift things in time, amp up and adapt certain dynamics, and change the race of characters in a way that deepens the story and complicates already extremely complicated power dynamics.

The original movie stuck more closely to the era and the appearance of the characters as described by Anne Rice, but I don't think the story loses anything by changing those two elements. In fact, it gives it modern relevance and room for political and social commentary.

I have never ascribed to the idea that an adaptation has to be slavishly accurate to the source material to be a good adaptation. It just has to be smart enough to identify what to keep and what can change. An adaptation adapts. Honestly, I find it boring when I see exactly what was in a book up on screen with no surprises. Where's the fun in that?

The difference between a good adaptation and a bad one is not how accurate it is to the source material, but how well the adaptation respects what made the story compelling to begin with.

What's important here?

Lestat is dramatic and powerful and a monster who is deeply charismatic, but also manipulative.

Louis is overdramatic and self-hating, but oddly drawn to Lestat.

Claudia is fierce, but bitter about her eternal childhood.

Their relationship is deeply toxic but with true affection. They are monsters, but monsters capable of intense love and devotion - to the point where it has the power to destroy them.

THAT is at the core of this story. THAT is what they keep intact. This frees up all sorts of avenues for play around a few key plot beats.

This room for play also gives opportunities to expand on thinner characters or rewrite them entirely. It's been a long time since I read the books, but I don't recall Daniel standing out as more than a framing device, especially in earlier books. But in the show, he's one of the best parts. Not only does he take a much more active role in the story, he delivers some of the most hilarious and cutting lines of the entire series. If the show had stuck closely to the source material, we wouldn't have this Daniel.

It was also smart of them to make Claudia a few years older. The eternal child element is preserved, but the layer of arrested teenaged hormones and womanhood that will never blossom adds an extra layer of angst and sadness. She is stuck forever in a state of rebellion, never allowed to settle and come into her own.

Having her be a young Black woman also deepens her attachment to Louis, visually, socially and symbolically. They are different from Lestat and they understand each other in a way he never can. She's still very much the Claudia from the book but with layers added to deepen her character and add new, fresh dynamics and complications.

It's also delightful to see the show take the homoeroticism that was subtextual in the early books with Louis and Lestat (and in the original film) and making it unapologetically text. Anne Rice's Vampire Chronicles have always been incredibly queer and subversive, but it's amazing to see that side of it fully embraced and stated plainly with no ambiguity or qualifiers or hints. It's queer and that queerness is woven into the fabric of the entire narrative. Louis and Lestat are the toxic beating heart of the Vampire Chronicles.

It's also important because we need messy, dark, fucked-up queer narratives. Sweet, coming-of-age stories and romances are of course, important - especially for younger queer people. But us older queer folk not only want to see ourselves in multiple genres, we want permission to see imperfect, messy, and yes, even evil characters. It's a way of reclaiming the monstrous queer that was villainized for so long and making it our own. We want to find something beautiful in the dark.

If we all thought about it, we could probably think of dozens of examples where a show or movie went far off-script from the source material and was still an excellent adaptation.

Interview With the Vampire is just the most recent and one of the best examples of a stellar adaptation that respects the source material but also builds and expands on it.

I look forward to seeing how they surprise me next season.

Belgian beauty ✨