I was watching a series on one of the streaming services which it seemed would be amusing, in an absurd and fantastic way, and which proved to be amusing, when something happened. Certain of the characters began to display feelings for each other, by which I mean romantic and sexual feelings. The times being what they are, the characters are gay, or are in the process of "discovering" they're gay, or bisexual, or whatever the appropriate description may be. As would be the case for me even if the characters and relationships were irretrievably straight instead of gay, my amusement and interest diminished. Now, alas, what was amusing and fantastic in the show will become secondary, no matter what effort is made to make the romance or sexuality exotic or, I suppose I must say it, inclusive; or, as I suppose I might say it more accurately, didactic in the manner of today's creators of narratives .
There must be something which makes the creators of narrative art, but especially the film and media arts, include at least one sexual relationship in the story being told. That relation comes to dominate the story if only by virtue of the fact it's displayed in one way or another on many occasions as the story plays out, regardless of context. No doubt sex is of great importance to us all and very much part of our lives, but it's as a consequence very commonplace. Now and then a sexual relationship may be uncommon, and even extraordinary, but that's the case only rarely. It strikes me that sexuality and sexual/romantic relations are therefore not subjects of great art and shouldn't be.
Think of great films. Which of them centered on a sexual/romantic relationship? Which of them involved such a relationship or relationships not in passing, noting or referencing them infrequently, but primarily? Casablanca, perhaps. Dr. Zhivago? I don't know; there was quite a bit else going on, like the Russian Revolution. I find it hard to think of anything else. Gone with the Wind? I'm not sure it's great, frankly.
Then, consider those that weren't. 2001: A Space Odyssey, Paths of Glory, Dr. Strangelove, A Clockwork Orange to give Kubrick his due. The Godfather and Godfather II; Lawrence of Arabia, Citizen Kane, The Manchurian Candidate, The French Connection, The Bridge on the River Kwai; etc., etc.
There is Psycho, however. Perhaps it's possible for great film art to be based on the depiction of a sexual obsession or sickness.
Sexual relationships and romance being exceedingly mundane for the most part, however, there's not much interesting which can be done with them. They take away from the story. How is it, then, that they're omnipresent in film and series, TV and otherwise? Is there an expectation on the part of creators and consumers that one will intrude necessarily? There shouldn't be, and I claim that good and memorable works of art don't involve them to any significant extent.
I think it takes a real effort to insert sexuality in any interesting narrative, but we see those efforts being made and their results all the time. Even when sex isn't involved the characters are given opportunities to display emotions and weaknesses. When watching an absorbing mystery or fantasy or drama, it's difficult to care whether the characters have feelings for one another which they must express together with various insecurities and attributes which it appears the writers, directors and producers think should be pointed out for reasons unrelated to what's taking place. What's taking place must, in fact, be interrupted while the characters emote. Past failures and traumas are revealed and discussed while war and murder and social conflicts rage.
Perhaps it's hoped the viewer will come to sympathize with the characters, or see themselves in them. But the self-pity and conceit indulged in on screen is just as mundane as the sex and romance. People don't watch to see and hear what they may see and hear everyday, everywhere. They wish to escape from it. I think they wish most of all not to be lectured about it.
No comments:
Post a Comment