Brothers and Girls
Mar. 17th, 2013 06:27 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
rinueI've been in the mood to watch Animal Crackers, my favorite Marx Brothers film, and as always this means the critical crowning of Duck Soup is also on my mind. If the Marx Brothers are even slightly on your radar, and you're the sort of person who watches intro banter on Turner Classics and reads DVD reviews, you know that every discussion of the Marx Brothers, however tangential, works in the observation that Duck Soup is their best movie. It's so rote at this point that nobody even makes a case for it: Duck Soup is the best Marx Brothers movie in the same way that Sylvia Plath was a better poet than Ted Hughes and The Brothers Karamazov is the best Dostoyevsky.* Fact.
Thing is, I don't particularly like Duck Soup. I don't dislike it; I think it has some great bits. But it's not in my top 3 for the Marx Brothers, and maybe not even in my top 5. And when somebody goes on and on about Duck Soup, it's a signal to me that they don't really get the Marx Brothers; Duck Soup is the movie that is most unlike all their other movies. It doesn't use musical numbers in the same way; it doesn't have a romance. It's satirical in a way the other films aren't really. The political subject is appropriately serious for people who find the Marxes too silly, but it's not a terribly sophisticated or accurate send up, even compared to what was available at the time it was released. It's also much more cynical than their other films.
I would summarize the thematic underpinning of most Marx Brothers films as the following: people get into trouble because of their own silliness, but in the end the people with good hearts are forgiven and the malicious people are exposed. As for the romance, there's almost always a union of insider and outsider, which fits with the overall immigrant shtick that's the foundation of the Groucho, Chico, and Harpo characters. Duck Soup cuts most of that out; that could be seen as maturity and trimming the fat, but I take the point of view that it's less progressive and abandons the underlying warmth that is one of their least-acknowledged (but absolutely essential) strengths. If I want nihilist comedy, I'm going to go with Brecht. And I can see that he's ridiculous and not necessarily more adult than the Marxes. (Take a shower, Berthold.)
In essence, Duck Soup is an interesting outlier. I'm glad it exists; the variation allows for situations and jokes the Marx Brothers otherwise couldn't explore, and the contrast with their other movies lets me see the more clearly. I'm perfectly happy to watch it. I especially like the courtroom scene. But when someone uses Duck Soup as his calling card, I'm immediately suspicious that they don't actually like or understand most Marx Brothers movies.
I feel the same way when I see a television critic write a defense or praise letter about Girls in which he says (these are all middle-aged white men; the industry is still pretty monocultural) that it's a great show, his favorite characters are Ray and Shoshanna, although he hates Jessa, and not only is Lena Dunham a great writer but she's much better at writing men than women.
What crap is this? I've seen it way too many times. I like Ray and Shoshanna quite a bit, but they're the easiest characters to write; they're types we've seen in literally hundreds of TV shows. Ditsy party girl with a good heart dating loveable grouch who is a little self-loathing but also totally perceptive about the world at large? TV critics, Ray is basically who you like to think you are, and is served up constantly by every scriptwriter, since most of them are also middle-aged white guy geeks. Ray is well done, but it is like a chocolate cake being well done: if you like chocolate cake, you can pretty much rely on it being on every menu, and even the less good chocolate cake is going to hit the right notes. That stuff is standard.
Meanwhile, Jessa, although she has a lot of problems and weaknesses, just like every character on the show, is a person I have known in real life but almost never on screen. She's not some badly-done femme fatale; she's the only character on the show who is actively vigilant when it comes to patriarchy, which I would say is a fucking essential viewpoint in a show about what it is to be a 20-something woman. She's sexually unashamed but frank about the consequences. She's determined to appear strong and competent even in areas where she really isn't, because she knows that she has to compensate for a societal assumption that she will be weak and incompetent even when she's not. Her choice to live outside "the system" has been incredibly personally damaging, because you can't just live outside of society. But she also can't opt in, or not for long; her story arcs have been attempts to enter or create a family life (because she's lonely), only to remember that she feels disempowered by the societal expectations of that life and rejected them for a reason.
She's the character facing the most profound existential crisis. But if you're a thirtysomething white TV critic, you can make that existential crisis invisible or unrealistic even if it's presented as carefully as any other storyline, and even if a quick look at a lot of the women you went to college with would remind you a lot of them went through the same crisis (although mostly in a less heightened way, since television plots are heightened and compressed for dramatic expedience). You can go ahead and say "I love this show; it's so different for the ways it's the same as all the other shows" and not realize what you're saying. You can assume that what your audience needs to know is that you really like the character who is like you, but you can say it with authority; you can say Ray is the best character. After all, it's what all the other people just like you are saying, all the other people who get paid to make these pronouncements. Must be right.
I've spent a lot of time in a lot of fanfic communities. We're very able to elevate and celebrate minor characters. We're able to read or create plotlines and meanings that are not what the author intended. I think that's great; I think an audience owns a text as much as a writer does (which is not to say more than a writer does), and part of the strength of fiction is the way it allows us to have cultural conversations and explore our own empathy. In order to make moral judgments, we have to imagine what-ifs: if I don't like what this character did here, what would I rather she have done? If I don't like what this character did here, what background would make it acceptable?
But in fanfic communities, we know we're talking about ourselves. We know when we say "oh obviously these characters are secretly a couple; just look at them" that actually, no, they're not secretly a couple, and it's obvious they're not. We get that we're playing along, that we're subverting.
Critics sometimes don't. Critics sometimes say things like "the best part about Girls is the male characters" and think it's flat-out true, rather than reflective of their personal identification as male. Which is a problem when they're being asked to evaluate shows that aren't about middle-aged white males. Which makes them culpable in the continuing fictional dominance of middle-aged white males.
* As you might guess from context, I prefer Ted Hughes and Crime and Punishment.
Thing is, I don't particularly like Duck Soup. I don't dislike it; I think it has some great bits. But it's not in my top 3 for the Marx Brothers, and maybe not even in my top 5. And when somebody goes on and on about Duck Soup, it's a signal to me that they don't really get the Marx Brothers; Duck Soup is the movie that is most unlike all their other movies. It doesn't use musical numbers in the same way; it doesn't have a romance. It's satirical in a way the other films aren't really. The political subject is appropriately serious for people who find the Marxes too silly, but it's not a terribly sophisticated or accurate send up, even compared to what was available at the time it was released. It's also much more cynical than their other films.
I would summarize the thematic underpinning of most Marx Brothers films as the following: people get into trouble because of their own silliness, but in the end the people with good hearts are forgiven and the malicious people are exposed. As for the romance, there's almost always a union of insider and outsider, which fits with the overall immigrant shtick that's the foundation of the Groucho, Chico, and Harpo characters. Duck Soup cuts most of that out; that could be seen as maturity and trimming the fat, but I take the point of view that it's less progressive and abandons the underlying warmth that is one of their least-acknowledged (but absolutely essential) strengths. If I want nihilist comedy, I'm going to go with Brecht. And I can see that he's ridiculous and not necessarily more adult than the Marxes. (Take a shower, Berthold.)
In essence, Duck Soup is an interesting outlier. I'm glad it exists; the variation allows for situations and jokes the Marx Brothers otherwise couldn't explore, and the contrast with their other movies lets me see the more clearly. I'm perfectly happy to watch it. I especially like the courtroom scene. But when someone uses Duck Soup as his calling card, I'm immediately suspicious that they don't actually like or understand most Marx Brothers movies.
I feel the same way when I see a television critic write a defense or praise letter about Girls in which he says (these are all middle-aged white men; the industry is still pretty monocultural) that it's a great show, his favorite characters are Ray and Shoshanna, although he hates Jessa, and not only is Lena Dunham a great writer but she's much better at writing men than women.
What crap is this? I've seen it way too many times. I like Ray and Shoshanna quite a bit, but they're the easiest characters to write; they're types we've seen in literally hundreds of TV shows. Ditsy party girl with a good heart dating loveable grouch who is a little self-loathing but also totally perceptive about the world at large? TV critics, Ray is basically who you like to think you are, and is served up constantly by every scriptwriter, since most of them are also middle-aged white guy geeks. Ray is well done, but it is like a chocolate cake being well done: if you like chocolate cake, you can pretty much rely on it being on every menu, and even the less good chocolate cake is going to hit the right notes. That stuff is standard.
Meanwhile, Jessa, although she has a lot of problems and weaknesses, just like every character on the show, is a person I have known in real life but almost never on screen. She's not some badly-done femme fatale; she's the only character on the show who is actively vigilant when it comes to patriarchy, which I would say is a fucking essential viewpoint in a show about what it is to be a 20-something woman. She's sexually unashamed but frank about the consequences. She's determined to appear strong and competent even in areas where she really isn't, because she knows that she has to compensate for a societal assumption that she will be weak and incompetent even when she's not. Her choice to live outside "the system" has been incredibly personally damaging, because you can't just live outside of society. But she also can't opt in, or not for long; her story arcs have been attempts to enter or create a family life (because she's lonely), only to remember that she feels disempowered by the societal expectations of that life and rejected them for a reason.
She's the character facing the most profound existential crisis. But if you're a thirtysomething white TV critic, you can make that existential crisis invisible or unrealistic even if it's presented as carefully as any other storyline, and even if a quick look at a lot of the women you went to college with would remind you a lot of them went through the same crisis (although mostly in a less heightened way, since television plots are heightened and compressed for dramatic expedience). You can go ahead and say "I love this show; it's so different for the ways it's the same as all the other shows" and not realize what you're saying. You can assume that what your audience needs to know is that you really like the character who is like you, but you can say it with authority; you can say Ray is the best character. After all, it's what all the other people just like you are saying, all the other people who get paid to make these pronouncements. Must be right.
I've spent a lot of time in a lot of fanfic communities. We're very able to elevate and celebrate minor characters. We're able to read or create plotlines and meanings that are not what the author intended. I think that's great; I think an audience owns a text as much as a writer does (which is not to say more than a writer does), and part of the strength of fiction is the way it allows us to have cultural conversations and explore our own empathy. In order to make moral judgments, we have to imagine what-ifs: if I don't like what this character did here, what would I rather she have done? If I don't like what this character did here, what background would make it acceptable?
But in fanfic communities, we know we're talking about ourselves. We know when we say "oh obviously these characters are secretly a couple; just look at them" that actually, no, they're not secretly a couple, and it's obvious they're not. We get that we're playing along, that we're subverting.
Critics sometimes don't. Critics sometimes say things like "the best part about Girls is the male characters" and think it's flat-out true, rather than reflective of their personal identification as male. Which is a problem when they're being asked to evaluate shows that aren't about middle-aged white males. Which makes them culpable in the continuing fictional dominance of middle-aged white males.
* As you might guess from context, I prefer Ted Hughes and Crime and Punishment.
(no subject)
Date: 2013-03-19 01:46 am (UTC)Also very interested as I've only made it mostly through the first episode, and I really only was interested in Jessa, and I feared I'd never really see her much.
(no subject)
Date: 2013-03-19 05:09 am (UTC)I honestly have no idea how much you will or won't like Girls, but I do think it's an excellent series with very good comedy, very good drama, and some of the best acting I've ever seen on television.
(no subject)
Date: 2013-03-19 01:51 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2013-03-19 05:14 am (UTC)like emma
Date: 2013-03-19 11:29 pm (UTC)Re: like emma
Date: 2013-03-19 11:31 pm (UTC)