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

[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.