IBARW

[rivkat]

Okay, so let’s take my white liberal guilt and sense of presumptuousness as read. Here are two topics I’ve been thinking about:

First, I’ve been rewatching Life on Mars, and thinking about the intersection of basic stories and racial narratives. I learned that there were only two basic stories: A stranger comes to town, and a guy gets nailed to a tree. What These People Need Is a Honky is a variant of at least one of those. In a lot of ways, therefore, Life on Mars is “What These People Need Is a Honky with Sensitivity Training,” even when Sam Tyler is just interacting with other white folks. 2007 is a better place for many individual people of color than 1973, and Sam has the privilege of believing that it’s completely different. I don’t know that I have anywhere to go with this; just something I’ve been thinking about.

Second, I haven’t seen this cross the fandom radar, but it’s of interest to me for the related intellectual property issues: Fox is promoting The Simpsons Movie by, among other things, transforming 7-11s into Qwik-E-Marts. Even the 7-11 PR spokesperson had to admit that some Indian-American franchisees were upset by being associated with Apu. Discussion by other bloggers, some of whom are unbothered, though the “they’re all stereotypes” response made me itch to get out my antiracism bingo card. When parody becomes 7-11’s corporate policy, the “it’s just entertainment” response is even less convincing. The very entertainment value of the Simpsons makes Apu a useful heuristic for people, as shown by the reports of racist use of “thank you come again” discussed at some of the above links. Of course it’s likely that the racist response would just have been different if The Simpsons didn’t exist. But it’s worth taking humor seriously.

Comments

[schmevil.livejournal.com]

Apu is a racial stereotype but he's also a great guy and very much aware of how other Springfieldians stereotype him. I wonder if that 'makes it ok' in the eyes of Team Simpson.

[http://users.livejournal.com/_swallow/]

I don't think of the Simpsons as packing that much psychological realism.

[cjandre.livejournal.com]

I don't like the Sumpsons, and hadn't even thought about what they were doing with promotoing. I think the transformations are tasteless, and I'd be pissed if *I* were an ethnic minority of any kind owning one of these stores.

In a similar style is the cartoon "Ed, Edd, and Eddy." Have you ever seen it? It's a children's cartoon, and it is in fact the ONLY cartoon my daughter is specifically banned from watching. Why? because every one in it is a stereotype. A damaging, horrible, vile - and yet sometimes amusing - stereotype. From the white trash kids, to the immigrant kids with Indian accents, to the dorky kid whose best friend is a plank with a face drawn on it. It doesn't matter. They're all stereotypes, sure, but I don't want my daughter seeing a single one of them.

Ever.

[rivkat.livejournal.com]

Yikes, that cartoon sounds horrible. So far, our toddler has only a vague idea that TV even exists; I am daunted by the task of turning our kids into savvy media consumers.

[cjandre.livejournal.com]

If I had the TV thing to do over, I would do it differently. I'm not sure how, but differently. The Girl is pretty savvy about TV shows, but she watches way too much. In this, I am afraid I am a bad influence.

:-)

[rivkat.livejournal.com]

Yes, right now it's easy to keep my media habits a secret. But it will not always be so.

[frelling-tralk.livejournal.com]

In a lot of ways, therefore, Life on Mars is “What These People Need Is a Honky with Sensitivity Training,” even when Sam Tyler is just interacting with other white folks.

I took LOM to be more about Sam preferring the past way of doing things, or at the very least that Sam ands Gene's styles of policing come to compliment one another, rather than Sam being promoted as more correct than the 1973's style

Sam certaintly picks up a lot of Gene's way of doing things (locking suspect in a giant freezer, "I've never fitted up anyone who didn't deserve it"), and I always felt that the modern world was condemned as sterile and having repressed Sam too much. There were a lot of comments along the lines of "They all like you in Hyde?" which promoted 1973 as the better world for Sam to be in. Although of course I suppose he does come across as more enlightened when they do address race in a couple of the episodes. Sam does mention that he and his girlfriend came in for some racism with their relationship though, so did he have the privalge of believing that things in 2o07 were completely different? He seemed to acknowledge that there were still problems in 2007 that he had been exposed too

[rivkat.livejournal.com]

It's usual in the stranger/honky comes to town narratives for both sides to learn something, I think, and in S1 Sam's insistence on procedure leads them to find the proper culprit in most of the episodes. Gene's investigative techniques produce results, but those results include lots of false positives, leaving the true culprits free (or in one case, identifying a culprit where there was none). The message I got was that Sam's world had many fewer false positives and also more false negatives, as one would expect, and Sam was usually right to insist on more investigation.

It's clear that 1973 is very much a better world for Gene and the other detectives, but it's not better for everyone, as Annie's situation often shows. The fact that Sam can even be tempted by it is a function of his sex & race. And Sam did acknowledge continuing racial tensions in 2007. But being a white guy allows him to be confident that those are aberrations that can be stopped if everyone just remembers to think properly.

I don't think we have big disagreements here; it's a matter of emphasis.

[cryptoxin.livejournal.com]

I think LoM supports a reading that the "enlightened" 21st c. detective brings not only skills & ethics to investigation, but isn't blinded by 1973-era prejudices and can therefore see people of color more clearly in ways that make him a better detective. Though I'd have to rewatch the episode where Sam meets the mother of his modern-day girlfriend.

I kept wondering how much of the pleasure of the show was about the "safe" display of 1973 prejudices and attitudes that have been discarded or rejected today -- the presence of Sam's character neutralized the threat of this stuff to the viewer while allowing a certain indulgence.

And I'm still not sure how to read the ending and Sam's choice of 1973 over present-day as anything but a nostalgic rejection of modern, multicultural, technocratic anomie (and indirectly, choosing the white girlfriend over Maya?) -- much as I'd like an alternative. When Sam finally comes home, he turns around and opts to exist in Gene Hunt's world.

[rivkat.livejournal.com]

Yes, on all counts. Even more than usual, the protagonist had to be a white man so that he could function and even enjoy 1973; a white woman DCI would have gone mad, Joanna Russ-style, and I shudder to imagine what would have happened to Maya. There are good narrative reasons to move the spinoff into the 80s, but it's also the only way to have a female protagonist -- and I imagine there will be a fair amount of explicit gender politics, in which Gene won't be the worst offender.

And I agree with you on Sam's choice, though I didn't feel it was wrong for him.

[frelling-tralk.livejournal.com]

Oh I definitely agree on Sam only came to find the 1973 world appealing because he was a white male. And with situations like his pushing Annie forward, or being uncomfortable with casual racist comments, there was a tendency to show Sam as the one who was more enlightened in that respect. But he was just as often punished for his superior attitude. In the second episode he is insisting he is better than all of this and Gene dismisses it with "Says you" and shoves Sam's face in the blood. I think we were supposed to symphasize with Sam there, but not necessarily see his viewpoint as automatically the correct one/there to educate the rest of the cast. A lot of episodes saw the show encourage us to root for Gene more IMO, and for Sam to bend a little

I kept wondering how much of the pleasure of the show was about the "safe" display of 1973 prejudices and attitudes that have been discarded or rejected today -- the presence of Sam's character neutralized the threat of this stuff to the viewer while allowing a certain indulgence.

I think certain attitudes from the past were validated perhaps, but not prejudices themselves. According to one interview I read with the writers, they were worried about bringing up race too much in the first season, and accurately reflecting the prejudice of the times through their regular cast. They tried to skirt around it, and it wasn't until season 2 where they felt comfortable enough to have the regulars make the sort of bigoted comments that people did back then.

I think for a lot of people, the appeal of the show definitely was with the old way of doing things, and the cops who could backhand kids without getting any trouble for it etc. Gene is an example of the kind of cop that my parents generation seem to get very nostalgic for. But I don't get the sense that they were trying to cruise by on nostalgia for all of it. Annie for example, generally was a lot smarter than she was usually given credit for, so it wasn't a case of wasn't it better when it was all boys together/no plonks allowed, so much as we we were supposed to feel satisfied at Annie's deserved promotion. Or when Gene makes the comment on women and guns, and she makes a smart remark back, we were supposed to cheer for Annie there *g* And the episode with prejudice shown towards the black policemen wasn't shown in a flattering light either. More in a cringeworthy/it wasn't always better kind of way IMO.

I guess I took my cue from Sam in that I did often feel encouraged to cheer at the violence, Gene getting things done, and feel nostalgia in that respect, but I was watching from between my fingers when the cop first comes into the room (and now of course I can't remember his name duh), and we see so much prejudice lurking there. Ditto with the treatment of Annie at times, I never felt the show was presenting that nostalgically


and indirectly, choosing the white girlfriend over Maya?)

It was Maya that ended things with Sam though, there was no choice there. Sam actually spend an episode struggling with her decision, and needing some form of closure.

[cryptoxin.livejournal.com]

These are all great points. I agree that the show was quite a bit more complicated than I portrayed it in my comment above. For me as a viewer, I experienced a certain ambivalence or oscillation between a contemporary point of view critical of the past, and a more conservative nostalgia for the good old days. I found the tension between the two really challenging and stimulating. At the same time, I think the show leaves itself open to a viewing that solely engages through the pleasures of conservative nostalgia. And I'm not sure I can call that a flaw so much as an inevitable risk -- I don't know how they could have gotten to the tension I appreciated without inviting a reading focused on conservative nostalgia and invoking those pleasures. It would be a much weaker and less challenging show to me if it solely took a critical stance.

It was Maya that ended things with Sam though, there was no choice there. Sam actually spend an episode struggling with her decision, and needing some form of closure.

Thanks for pointing that out -- I didn't remember that at all, and even now have only a hazy recollection, which maybe supports my argument for selective viewing practices!

The biggest unresolved question for me is why Sam ultimately chose 1973. I'm okay with the show leaving that an open question, and I can see various ways of answering it. But it felt like they also stacked the deck by their portrayal of modern-day Manchester as cold, sterile, passionless, bloodless, colorless. And in my mind (which may not at all reflect the creators' intentions), I connect that kind of portrayal with a certain argument -- linked to conservative nostalgia -- that if we eliminate all differences and distinctions of race & gender, we'll end up in a very boring and stultifying world.

Now of course I'm not trusting my memory, and wonder if I'm projecting things onto the show that wouldn't be borne out if I rewatched it!

[rivkat.livejournal.com]

As you say, one of the show's strengths was its openness to interpretation. I found modern Manchester much more appealing, even with (or perhaps because of) its grey rigidity, which means, I think, that I didn't fully identify with Sam. I was willing to see it as a personal choice in large part because all that greyness comes after his two seasons in 1973, where he has built a life that constantly pressures him to accept it as reality and as wonderful. Having made that wrenching adjustment once, I'm not surprised that he doesn't want to switch again. It's one thing to betray your time, but to betray it and then go back and willingly stay smacks of an unformed character.

[frelling-tralk.livejournal.com]

Yep, Maya's voice comes through as her saying goodbye to Sam, which makes him extra emo over the current 1973 case. And then in the end he realises it's time to let go, so he er says goodbye to her fetus *g*


The biggest unresolved question for me is why Sam ultimately chose 1973...it felt like they also stacked the deck by their portrayal of modern-day Manchester as cold, sterile, passionless, bloodless, colorless. And in my mind (which may not at all reflect the creators' intentions), I connect that kind of portrayal with a certain argument -- linked to conservative nostalgia -- that if we eliminate all differences and distinctions of race & gender, we'll end up in a very boring and stultifying world.

I guess I took the final message as the modern day world just wasn't a good place for Sam himself. It brought out all of his most irritating personality traits, to be tightly buttened up and detached, unable to form an emotional connection, and I think he needed the side of him that 1973 brought out. I know that originally the ending was going to be along the lines of Sam bringing Gene's tactics into the modern day world, but still actually staying in 2006. But perhaps by that point the writers had become too attached to the 1973 characters, and the bonds that had formed, so they couldn't ultimately envision a satisfying ending with Sam choosing to walk away from Gene, Annie, and the rest?

Modern Manchester's portrayal in LOM did seem to be a bit of an attack on "being PC" though, and playing by the rules. Sam is shown to need to escape from that, into a past where characters do all let their feelings out, and Gene will say what he likes, and insult whom he likes. Sam may do the token frowning over Gene's various homophobic comments in their final scene together, but he still ultimately chooses that world as an escape for himself..

[wearemany.livejournal.com]

ooh, thanks for these links, particularly the simpsons ones. though actually i'm here to comment on this:

I learned that there were only two basic stories: A stranger comes to town, and a guy gets nailed to a tree. because now i am fascinated. i learned the same, or half of the same. mine was, "there are only two stories: a stranger comes to town, and a man goes on a journey."

[rivkat.livejournal.com]

Your version is nicer than mine, and has an interesting inversion: who gets to adopt the perspective of normality, the town or the journeying man? The thing about the "honky" version is that it doesn't matter who's moving -- the white POV character always gets to be normal and learn strange (but attractive) ways.

[chase820.livejournal.com]

Well, Apu is a successful small businessman, a snazzy dresser and a great dancer, with a doctorate in computer science, a beautiful wife and a loving family.

All things considered, he comes off better than Homer.

[rivkat.livejournal.com]

And he sells questionable food and has an affair with the Slushie (or whatever it is) lady -- but of course he has admirable qualities, especially compared to Homer, along with mockable ones. It's a structural problem; because he's the representative of Asian Indian immigrants in the main cast, he bears all the weight himself. Homer gets to share with Mr. Burns, the guys at the bar, the guy who's in love with Mr. Burns, the principal, etc.

[chase820.livejournal.com]

Too bad the producers never gave his (cousin? brother?) Sanjay more of a part. Might have spread the weight around a little, at least. ;D

In all seriousness, I take your point. TV still defaults white (or in this case yellow), and even as varied a cast as The Simpsons does fall into stereotypes. But at least everybody comes off badly at times, just like everybody has redeeming qualities.

I'm surprised the gay community hasn't made more of Smithers, with his Malibu Stacy collection, and Selma, with her pro-golfer girlfriend. The portraits are affectionate, but still pretty cliched.

[chase820.livejournal.com]

Sorry, I meant Patty and her pro-golfer girlfriend. Damn that twin thing.