So I'm addicted to the tv series Lost and have been since last winter break. Critics seem to praise the show and explain its commercial success based on two related factors: 1) the writing, and 2) the characters. I don't necessarily disagree, but I wonder why--if the show's popularity stems from these two factors--the series traffics in such blatant stereotypes. Aren't these kind of broad, stereotypical depictions usually indicative of lazy writing and/or the substitution of caricatures for real characters?
First and foremost, Rose. Here is an African-American woman given almost "mammy" like traits: humble, faithful, maternal, de-sexualized, stripped of dangerous allure, and physically large. She's the only non-pregnant female character from season one not regularly shown on the beach in a bikini. She also removes herself from the island's decision-making processes. Instead, she's depicted in various servile activities, notably doing laundry.
Second, Sun. An Asian woman with expertise in alternative medicines.
Third, Sawyer and Kate. Two southern whites with working-class roots. Oh yeah, they're also the products of dysfunctional and/or violent home lives. One (Sawyer) is also a racist, and the writers of the show allow terms like "redneck" and "hick" to be used as identity markers for him.
Lastly, the most extreme caricature, the most dangerous stereotype. Sayeed. Arab man and expert in torture.
Of course, elsewhere we get traits that are less-than-original. The doctor loves golf. The rock star has a drug problem. Etc, etc, etc. Are these caricatures deliberate? Many of the conspiracy theories about the show's and the island's secrets involve the notion that the characters are reckoning with/for past sins. But does that change things?
Like I said, what interests me about these stereotypes is that they don't prevent commercial and critical praise for aspects of the show (the great writing, the interesting characters) that would seem to be nullified by the stereotypes themselves.
1 comment:
I'm with you, Bill, that Lost plays on some fairly predictable typecasting (rocker uses drugs, etc.). But I wonder if the critical and popular acclaim (re character development) might be due in part to the ongoing and unwinding richness of these seemingly simplistic types. In other words, we like Jack not because he's a golf-playing doctor (and hey, my doctor plays golf!) but because he's oscillating between his choice to incriminate his father and his sense of compassion/duty to the crash survivors, emerging in response to a mix of past and present tensions that we still don't fully understand.
I don't know; I was just thinking that one of the things that attracts me to Lost is that the characters are developing (for us) beyond these stereotypes both because of backstory and activity on the island. There's no figuring some of them because the dimension creeps, often surprisingly, beyond the typecast roles (thinking Locke, Mr. Echo, Hurley, etc.).
Post a Comment