Same Planet, Different Worlds

[rivkat]

LaT pointed to this page, which made my jaw drop two separate times. [ETA: LaT correctly points out that the first reviewer, Neal, says a bunch of things with which I agree, and that she doesn't agree with his wacky views about the feminist agenda of the producers.]

But Neal hated the episode because it was so "feminist," in combination with "Spell," because in his reading the show argued that women's sexuality is good and fun and women are never responsible for their choices and men are evil dogs if they like sex.

Yes, "evil slut" is apparently a good thing in the show's universe -- Neal thinks that the producers want us to admire sexy Countess Lanabelle's sexual agency, despite Lana's condemnation. And he thinks we're supposed to sympathize with Shannon. (I guess he kind of has a point here, since we're told that she's right about Lex almost as often in the episode as we're told that Lana is Beautiful.) But, feminist? Of all the reasons to hate an episode of Smallville, feminism has to rank up there with "the actors aren't pretty enough." He also seems to think that women sleep with Lex just because he's rich. Yeah, keep thinking that, Neal.

But wait! There's more! Search down for Rebecca's review. (On behalf of Rebeccas everywhere ... I'm really sorry.) She loved the episode! A perfect ten! And Clark was so nice to Lex at the end, giving him another chance!

This is why we're never going to see Clark recognize his share of the responsibility for how Lex turns out. As long as a significant viewer population accepts at face value the show's statements about who's good and who's bad, the people responsible for the show will never take the position that Clark is any more responsible for what happened these past years in SV than he was for the meteor strike in the first place; Clark will feel equally guilty about both, and the audience will be supposed to understand that neither is his fault.

Comments

[aelora.livejournal.com]

He also seems to think that women sleep with Lex just because he's rich.

Well, considering the number of women I've met in my life who have floored me with their reasons for trying to get a man, I'd say he's probably 50% right. Especially with the amount of jewelry store billboards I see saying that all you need to do is give a woman diamonds and she'll sleep with you. There's a reason a LOT of men think this way, and usually those reasons have validity somewhere. As sexy as many of us think Lex is? I know just as many who don't see it. And yet, I can guarantee they would sleep with him for the money and fame. Let us not forget Victoria, Helen and Desiree...

[longtimegone]

And yet, I can guarantee they would sleep with him for the money and fame.

Man, that quote feature sucks. I expected it to italicize or something but noooooo...

Anyway, Just a world of YES. We are supposed to feel SO SORRY for poor little psycho bitch cause Lex fucked her and left her. Admittedly, that was an asshole thing for him to do, but all the little "moral lesson" in this episode told ME was that it was okay to push off the consequences of your personal responsibility for your actions.

Yes, Lex is an ass for screwing her and leaving her. However, SHE'S the one that chose to sleep with him. SHE's the one that cheated on her fiance with Lex. SHE's the one that left her fiance in the slim hope that a one night stand would turn into the grand t00by love affair of all time. SHE made those decisions and couldn't handle it. So she blamed Lex.

Whatever, man. She fucked up. He might have not been the nicest person about stuff, but he never promised her anything that we know of.

[latxcvi.livejournal.com]

Yes, Lex is an ass for screwing her and leaving her. However, SHE'S the one that chose to sleep with him. SHE's the one that cheated on her fiance with Lex. SHE's the one that left her fiance in the slim hope that a one night stand would turn into the grand t00by love affair of all time. SHE made those decisions and couldn't handle it. So she blamed Lex.

Wordy McWord. This was one of the (many, many) things about 'Bound' that absolutely set my teeth on edge. I mean, first of all, anyone who's up for having sex with a complete stranger either knows or should know that the very context of the interaction - sex with a *complete stranger* - is unlikely to come with romantic or meaningful feelings attached. If the other party absolutely makes *no promises* to the contrary, then, you're doubly on notice that you shouldn't be expecting any kind of deeper connection/committment once everyone's gotten their jollies. So that's my first point.

My second? That a person who cheats on their fiance with a complete and total stranger and then goes on to kill two complete innocents simply because their own unencouraged and unsupported expectations weren't met? Is not a person with any kind of real moral authority to hold forth on someone else's moral or ethical shortcomings. I think the episode wanted and expected viewers to feel sympathetic/empathetic towards Shannon. I, however, was sitting there thinking, "Honey, you screwing Lex despite *being engaged to someone else at the time* and then killing two innocent people because unlike your, you know, *fiance*, Lex didn't actually promise you the white picket fence with the 2.2 kids and a dog because you were someone he picked up for mutual, casual sex is not Lex being evil, thoughtless and unheeding of your feelings. It's you being a psychopathic dumbass."

[longtimegone]

the people responsible for the show will never take the position that Clark is any more responsible for what happened these past years in SV than he was for the meteor strike in the first place; Clark will feel equally guilty about both, and the audience will be supposed to understand that neither is his fault.

You know...

Maybe I'm not the general viewing public, but the fact that it IS Clark's fault (to an extent, I don't think it's fair to say that Lex becoming evil is SOLELY Clark's fault/responsibility) is exactly what draws so to this show.

The idea that Lex WAS once good and all the little things that led him down the path to ultimately "choose" to be evil...it all fascinates me. And when I say choose, I mean that in the loosest of ways, because Clark LIES to Lex and makes him look SILLY for being suspicious of things, when ultimately Clark IS lying and hiding (regardless of the "right" reasons he's doing it for). Lex cannot, in the end, keep his self respect and remain friends with someone who will never tell him the truth or trust him to do the right thing.

I LIKE that it's "Clark's fault".

And I thought that Clark's line of "What else are you not telling me?" was so ridiculous. I actually laughed out loud when he said it because I was thinking "Surely any thinking person would see the irony in that statement."

Gah, it's early. My thoughts are so unorganized.

[rivkat.livejournal.com]

I agree -- I would never say that Clark bears full responsibility for Lex's path -- probably not even a plurality of the guilt belongs to him; that honor is reserved for Lionel. But I think that your reading, and mine, will remain "resistant," in that I doubt the writers/producers actually think that Clark was being a total jerk in that last scene. I would love to be proved wrong in DVD commentary, though.

[goth-clark.livejournal.com]

And we're supposed to sympathize with Shannon.

Then they failed because I thought she was a crazy annoying woman who I wanted to shut up. I had no sympathy for her at all. After all she is an adult and if she can't take responsibility for her actions then who should.

[rivkat.livejournal.com]

Sure -- I think Neal's perspective on what the producers meant viewers to believe is somewhat distorted. The message he says he got -- that women are crazy clingy types who won't take responsibility for their own sexual agency -- is probably not what the producers would say their message was either, but it's closer to my reading than that they're feminazis.

[sisabet.livejournal.com]

I live on a different planet. I have to live on a different planet. Maybe I have been buried in a fannish enclave too long and I am just out of touch with the real world? Or maybe I am doing this on purpose as some sort of defensive reaction type dealio, because the sexual politics on Smallville of late have been so offensive to me that I have essentially just stopped watching and I never just stop watching. But - what I see is so different from this that I just can't... well thinking about it too hard makes me depressed.

[rivkat.livejournal.com]

Look, I'm in it for the resistant reading too, and it's plain that there is a big fanbase like you and me. Just not the biggest. The thing that I have to believe to keep on going is that viewers like Rebecca are generally younger and haven't developed the skills to go beyond what they're told by the overt text. In five years, Rebecca may be here with us.

I can only hope.

[thisisbone.livejournal.com]

It sounds to me like she is on the same level of emotional maturity as Clark, seeing things in black and white.

Clark's seventeen. At seventeen, I thought someone who drank a beer was a bad person. I can see AlMiles filtering Clark's reaction through a "typical" teenager's eyes, especially one raised with the tough moral fiber of Jonathan Kent.

But Clark's not a typical teenager. And I'm sorry, but are we supposed to think that summer in Metropolis on red kryptonite was just about knocking over ATMs? How dumb do they think we are?

Wait, don't answer that.

Pretty dumb.

[latxcvi.livejournal.com]

Clark's seventeen. At seventeen, I thought someone who drank a beer was a bad person. I can see AlMiles filtering Clark's reaction through a "typical" teenager's eyes, especially one raised with the tough moral fiber of Jonathan Kent.

But Clark's not a typical teenager. And I'm sorry, but are we supposed to think that summer in Metropolis on red kryptonite was just about knocking over ATMs? How dumb do they think we are?

Wait, don't answer that.

Pretty dumb.

Basically, yeah. They think we're pretty dumb. Of course, they also probably think that Lost Summer in Metropolis doesn't really count as something *Clark* did because hey, he was on red!K the whole time. 'Clark' didn't really spend an entire summer committing felonies in the form of robbing banks and working as muscle for organized crime; that was his 'red!Clark' persona, according to AlMiles & Co. So of course Clark-proper can't at all be expected to have even the slightest notion that the world and the decisions people sometimes make while living in the world often comes in shades of grey and not just in black and white. 'Cause any of the Clark's experiences over the last three seasons that might have given him this insight - like, say, an entire summer spent living outside the bounds of lawfulness - don't really count. 'Cause they 'weren't really' Clark-as-Clark.

You are, of course, right that Clark *isn't* a typical teenager and that *already*, he's had experiences that should take his understanding of life in general beyond a level of 'everything is black and white', but I think the creative team, at this point, is conveniently ignoring all of that because it's fourth season and they've got speed things along in terms of getting the characters into their respective iconic positions. Which means that Clark, at this point, isn't going to 'grow' into the character (and here, I'm using 'character' in the sense of the internal traits and intellectual/philosophical beliefs that make a person *who they are*) he needs in order to be Superman. He's simply going to be Super because that's how the story ends.

[thisisbone.livejournal.com]

He's simply going to be Super because that's how the story ends.

Well, that sucks.

I love Smallville -- I have from the first minute I set eyes on Tom Welling. ;)

But it's like that kid you know in high school who has such potential but sleeps his way through class, forgets to get a haircut, and opts for vo tech instead of AP because it's easier. I can almost taste what Smallville could be, but it feels to me like the people on the inside are just taking the easiest route, and it BUGS ME.

I guess this is what fan fiction is for.

[latxcvi.livejournal.com]

But it's like that kid you know in high school who has such potential but sleeps his way through class, forgets to get a haircut, and opts for vo tech instead of AP because it's easier. I can almost taste what Smallville could be, but it feels to me like the people on the inside are just taking the easiest route, and it BUGS ME.

That's it *exactly*, Bone. Exactly. Seriously, if I could view the show from *just* an eye-candy perspective, I probably would be much happier about it as a whole. But I can/could *see* the potential that was there (and might still be there, although it's rapidly dwindling as the series gets closer and closer to what I really do think will be its final year), and the potential was so *tantalizing* in terms of it being a genuinely different, unique and thoughtful take on the Superman story as a story of Becoming. Like I said, though, I think the creative team is in panic because they realized that maybe their pace in showing Clark and Lex becoming was a little too slow, and we're now almost to the halfway point of the fourth season, and they need to really start showing their iconic stripes. Hence, we get Lex abruptly inheriting Lionel's Mantle of Evol and Clark is now never, ever wrong (even when he is).

[thisisbone.livejournal.com]

My take on it (AKA my personal river of denial) from almost the beginning is that this is the first Superman universe where Clark Kent has had any kind of positive relationship with Lex Luthor in his formative years, and therefore their adult interactions are forever changed.

I foresee a future for them where Superman battles Lex's evil plans while Clark continues to try to salvage the good in Lex, continues to love him.

Just like thamiris, I was able to read much of Clark's reactions in Bound as profound jealousy. The love's still there -- I can't think of anything else that would provoke such strong and specific reactions.

[sisabet.livejournal.com]

Well yes - but maybe reading into television/media is an inherent trait and not learned? I mean - when I was Rebecca's age (what I suppose to be her age) I was watching "Little House on the Prairie" but I knew at the time that Nell did not deserve all the comeuppance that she received and that Laura needed to chill out and that Pa was not always right. I think Rebecca might be smiling and nodding at the resolution bits of every episode and marking down her lesson learned. I am truly worried about Rebecca.

[rivkat.livejournal.com]

On the other hand, I was a very uncritical reader/viewer for a long time. I loved Wonder Woman and didn't notice the sexism, Knight Rider likewise. I didn't get the problematic sexual (and regular governmental) politics in Anne McCaffrey's Pern series. I thought Jacqueline Lichtenberg and Jean Lorrah were the best. writers. ever.

If there's hope for me, we can't give up on this other Rebecca.

[sisabet.livejournal.com]

See, and I always saw sexism - it just didn't bother me. Which is a terrible thing to say - but I actually am an incredibly uncritical viewer even now. I mean, I'll recognize offensive things, but it doesn't really offend. That is one of the reasons I am so shocked at the "feminist message" response here of Spell and Bound - because if it was strong enough to turn off me with my extremely high tolerance, it has to be so very blatant and inexcusable, that the rest of the world not seeing it puzzles me.

[harriet-spy.livejournal.com]

I think that reviewer is not actually sexist; rather, he's just a little naive. Like centuries of critics before him, he's blinded by the glamour of the madonna in the work of art and doesn't see the whore lurking in the shadows. He sees the emphasis on the purity and victimhood of the women and doesn't quite understood how disempowering that is. Let him take Women's Studies 101 and he'd catch on, I think.

[rivkat.livejournal.com]

You have more faith in the essential goodness of his human nature than I do.

Boy, that scares me.

[harriet-spy.livejournal.com]

Well, I've read several of his reviews. He doesn't strike me as a dyed-in-the-wool misogynist type. He seems to me much closer to the standard well-meaning fellow who hasn't been exposed to more complex ideas of gender-role analysis and maybe isn't in a position to reach them on his own.

Let's face it, a person simply looking at the show's overt discourse about Lana the All-Powerful and All-Good could easily get confused. ;)

[rivkat.livejournal.com]

You've got a good point. LaT says something below about his issues interacting with the portrayal of Lana, blinding him to the way other women are treated, but there's still an internal contradiction -- Lana's sexual agency is generally not treated as good and wonderful compared to the male dogs who lust after her. With the possible exception this season of her scenes with Jason, her expressions of desire are all the result of mental distortion. So even looking at Lana as the Woman in the show, it's hard for me to see where his reading comes from. He seems to think that Spell's witches are supposed to be Chloe and Lana and Lois, but that seems to me against the explicit instructions of the script.

[ariss-tenoh.livejournal.com]

*laughs* This is just too funny. Though I'm afraid to think that a large section of the female viewers share Rebecca's opinion. It's ironic that we're supposed to believe that everything Clark does is right simply because he's going to be Superman or because he's doing it for "the right reasons" *rolls her eyes*

Frankly I hated the blatant messages about sex, women, and consensual sex in this episode. The show may be set in Kansas but surely not ALL of its viewers live there. I for one don't even live on the North American continent.

[vylit.livejournal.com]

I'm as irritated as I am because I love Clark. I think he can act like an ass, but I care about him almost as much as I do Lex. I've had moments where I've wanted to slap both characters over the head, but I continue to love them. But this season I've found myself not nearly as sympathetic as I usually am to Clark, and I don't like the direction that they're taking him. It's like the producers are thinking that since we know Lex goes bad and will do terrible things that any and all shitty behavior he has to deal with now is somehow justified by future events, and that's bullshit.

At this point, Lex doesn't have a reason to be good. Hell, no believes he even can be despite everything he's sacrficed to help these people. While I don't think it's fair to blame Clark for the way Lex turns out, I can't say I'm going to cry a river of tears for him when Lex does go bad. No one but Lex is responsible for his actions, but they (Clark, Kents, Lionel) certainly didn't make it any easier, and at least as a "bad" guy Lex will know where he stands with people.

[latxcvi.livejournal.com]

I feel the need to clarify that I didn't point to Neal Bailey's review because I agree with his apparent reading that the show is too feminist. I pointed to it because I agree with his points on (a) how the sex-negativity of the show is ass backwards when they're not above using the lure of nudity and sexual naughtiness to increase ratings; (b) that the sex-negativity of the show is quite silly and ass backwards all on its own; (c) how completely whack-ass it is that Clark takes Lionel's protestations of Being Good Now at face value and worse, despite everything Lionel's done in the *last few months*, blithely trusts him while simultaneously being apparently unwilling/unable to view Lex with anything other than suspicion, distrust and barely concealed disdain/contempt; (d) the utter ridiculousness of the notion that we're supposed to think a woman who *cheated on her fiance with a complete stranger* has any kind of actual moral authority to comment on said stranger or, really, anyone else; and, finally (e) that the whole notion that because Lex regularly has casual, anonymous (as anonymous as he can be, being Lex Luthor and all) sex it means he's really just evil and rotten to the core is retarded. Those are all also points Bailey made in the review, and they're all points I (and apparently several other people, too) do happen to agree with.

[rivkat.livejournal.com]

Absolutely -- I'm sorry if I imputed his beliefs to you & I'll edit the post accordingly. I agree with those points too. We're clearly watching the same show (same planet), but it's the idea that the producers pulled this shit because they're blinded by feminism that amazes me (different worlds).

[latxcvi.livejournal.com]

I definitely think that there are personal issues Bailey's bringing to the table when he goes off on his rants about the show's sexual politics *and* that those issues get further compounded/confused/clouded by his absolute hatred of how Lana, as a character, gets treated from a meta-textual perspective (everyone must love her, there are rarely ever any negative consequences for it when she behaves badly, we're constantly told how good and sweet and nice she is even when she behaves in ways that are anything but, etc.). What I think Bailey is missing, probably, is that how the show deals, meta-textually, with Lana is very specific *to* Lana; it's a function of both the character and her portrayer being clear and special favorites of Al Gough. But Bailey makes, I think, the erroneous assumption that such thinking applies across the board to how the show deals with women, and while I certainly think there's much SV's creative team has to answer for in terms of its treatment of gender roles/gender politics, I agree that 'having a feminist slant' is most emphatically *not* one of those things.

[rivkat.livejournal.com]

Your analysis of what's going on with him makes a lot of sense. As Sarah T said, he's angry at being told about the madonna and not noticing that he's also being told about a lot of whores.

[jfc013.livejournal.com]

Meanwhile, Neal lost me when he'd never heard of Zalman King... ;)

[rivkat.livejournal.com]

To be fair, Chloe mispronounced the first name, leaving me to puzzle for a bit. I thought she said Solomon too, until I figured out that it had to be Zalman. (Nice topical DD icon, too!)

[jfc013.livejournal.com]

My closed-captioning got it right, so I didn't notice the trouble she had pronouncing it.

And I've REALLY gotta see some more Red Shoe Diaries! ;)

[logovo.livejournal.com]

Umm, his logic is not our earth logic?
*G*
I can sort of see where he is coming from, but only by making an effort.

[carcassi.livejournal.com]

I think I understand a little about where Rebecca is coming from, if not Neal.

I think Neal's "feminism" arguments must stem from some deep-seated bitterness, b/c I saw nothing in "Bound" that would support his views. On the contrary, according to "Bound," all women are either saints (Lana, of course, and Martha) or whores (pretty much everyone else except Chloe, who nevertheless had some very interesting moments).

And yet, I didn't think that was the focus of the episode. I saw Lex's sexual escapades as a way of shining the light on Lex and his self-destructive tendencies, not on the women around him. This was about Lex and his nonstop battle with his own darker self. And I found that part of the episode fascinating. (Admittedly, it was obscured by the awkwardly-written whodunnit plotline, but still.)

I saw Clark trying his best to understand that struggle and help his friend. I don't think his hesitation to help had anything to do with Lex's sexual adventures. (Which, incidentally, would have been difficult, if not impossible, to hide over the course of a year in a place like Smallville.) He seemed more taken aback by another proof that Lex was lying to him. (Besides being jealous, of course!) For me, it all came together in the loft scene where, for the first time this season, both Clark and Lex were (almost) totally honest with each other.

So if Rebecca liked this eppie b/c of the Clark/Lex interaction (I haven't read her review), then I understand her reasons. I know this story could have been told much more effectively if the "murder mystery" hadn't been so lame, and if Lana's B plot hadn't interrupted the story's flow, but it did show, IMO, the core of Lex and Clark's relationship, which is built on the hope of trust and honesty---but sadly, not the expectation of receiving either one.

[rivkat.livejournal.com]

Well, from what I can tell from reading and my own very passionate reaction, opinions seem pretty hard and fast on this episode. But I would argue that the plot was a terrible way to shine the light on Lex and his self-destructive tendencies. He's self-destructive because he sleeps with one woman a month and doesn't pursue relationships with any of them? As a sign of deep depression, I buy it -- though of course not everyone who sleeps around is depressed. But it wasn't presented as a sign of self-destructiveness. It was presented by everyone, including Lex by the second half of the episode, as Lex being bad because he was using these women -- other-destructiveness. It was presented as if Shannon was perfectly justified in being furious at Lex for -- as far as we can tell -- having consensual sex with her and not wanting anything more, when he didn't even know enough about her to know that she had a fiance. In fact, it was not even suggested by anyone, except indirectly Lex at the end, that sleeping around might have been doing Lex any damage -- it was all about him hurting women. Lex's "darker self" can't be that he doesn't do second dates. That's not a darker side, that's a five o'clock shadow. And treating him like a pariah is preposterous.

We all come to the show with predispositions. Given mine, I didn't see Clark trying for a single second to understand Lex's struggle and help his friend. Saying "That's a start" when Lex confesses what a bad guy he feels like isn't understanding, it isn't hopeful, it's nothing but cruel. And I do think the show, and Clark, was specifically condemning Lex's sexual adventures. Especially considering the emphasis the show has put on Clark and Lana's (preposterous) virginity, Lex's behavior is cast as evil just because he has casual sex. Clark specifically says that he's upset that Lex would do that "to those women," which does sound a lot like condemning the sex. Moreover, as I've said before, while I understand why Clark thinks Lex lied to him, I don't think Lex did lie -- and since Clark never asks, "Why did you lie to me?" he misses his chance to have Lex explain that he meant "after, we both pretend that the night never happened" rather than "I never have sex with strangers."

The reason the loft scene hurt me so much, despite being -- as you say -- such a big moment, was that it ended, again, with Lex begging to be forgiven and Clark looking grim. Clark hasn't said he believes in Lex once this season; every time he says that he wants to believe, it's coupled with a "but ..." Lex was being honest, but I didn't see Clark giving back anything emotionally.

I absolutely agree with you about the core of Lex and Clark's relationship. It's just that I feel like the core has been allowed to rot, and due to the show's writing/producing choices, Clark is getting away with acting like a jerk and Lex is being blamed for the deterioration of the relationship. I would just like Clark to acknowledge, for a little while, that his judgmentalism has played its part in Lex's decline -- I know I can't hope that Clark will actually be a good friend to Lex at this point.

[carcassi.livejournal.com]

As always, it's interesting to know your thoughts, Rivka.

I do think the show, and Clark, was specifically condemning Lex's sexual adventures. Especially considering the emphasis the show has put on Clark and Lana's (preposterous) virginity, Lex's behavior is cast as evil just because he has casual sex.

I agree Lex was shown as the guilty party. I'm not sure the show ever clearly spelled out the reason. I know the Kents, Clark and Chloe were all shocked by Lex's behavior, and for no really good reason, but was that really what Lex was concerned with in the last scene? It seemed to me that he was frightened about what was happening to *him*.

And yes, Clark in that scene was far too self-righteous. I guess it's a sign of how badly this show has mishandled its core relationship that I saw that scene as a big improvement over recent events.

At this point, I think SV is a classic case of a story in which the characters have overtaken the plot. TPTB started out with a stock hero and a stock villain, and when they fleshed out those two characters, they discovered that neither one fit the molds for which they were designed. Ever since, TPTB have been trying to re-tool those characters by twisting and turning them, however improbably, into the roles that these characters are "supposed" to represent.

And the result? You get the ridiculous "virginity" of Clark and Lana, and the improbable "evil" of Lex.

At this point, I'd like to take TPTB at their word when they said, 'way back in Season 1, that SV had nothing to do with comics canon. I'd like to see them make a truly bold move to re-create the characters of Clark and Lex into something more than the traditional "hero" and "villain." As shown on SV, Lex is far more human than Clark, and far more sympathetic. If the show ignores that, it's throwing away the best thing it's got.