![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
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.
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.
Tags:
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
From:
no subject
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."