The Arts in New York City

[Article]

When I watch a television show or a movie, something that I tend to notice are the races of the characters, and more importantly, whether their role is affected by stereotypes associated with their race. Even in a world that many often refer to as “post-racial” (a description I would very much argue against), there is a woeful lack of representation for historically marginalized groups, such as racial minorities and gender and sexual minorities. In many TV shows, the main cast is primarily, if not exclusively, white/heterosexual/cisgender (which means the opposite of transgender, i.e, they are comfortable with the gender they were born as). Some will include one or two racial minorities, or perhaps a gay person, and even if it’s not written that way, you still get the impression that those few characters are there so the show can claim to be diverse–a.k.a. tokenism. Personally, I think that tokenism might be worse than not including any minority characters at all, since what tokenism does is reduce a character to their physical traits, making them “the black character” or “the gay character”, rather than letting them be defined by their words, actions, personality, and experiences, which are all the things that truly make a person who they are.

It’s refreshing, then, to see casts of TV shows include more actors of diverse ethnicities in their casts, especially their main casts. The article that I linked above focuses in particular on Maggie Q, star of CW’s series Nikita, a show about a reluctant assassin, and Lucy Liu, co-star of CBS’ Elementary, a modern spin on the Sherlock Holmes books. Both actresses are Asian-American and both are central characters in their shows.

According to the NYT article, both characters are “noncartoonish, reasonably complex, multidimensional.” I don’t know much about Nikita, but the New York Times has this to say: “A lot of effort has gone into humanizing Nikita, and making her a sisterly or even maternal figure for the younger assassin Alex (Lyndsy Fonseca), and the emphasis on violent action has decreased over the show’s run.” This is significant for Maggie Q’s role as a woman as well, as oftentimes in literature and film, a “strong female character” is not allowed to express anything typically considered feminine. She’s not allowed to be maternal, or show weakness, or cry–she must be full-on, 100% warrior queen, all of the time. This is hardly an improvement on the weeping, helpless damsel in distress, as both archetypes pigeonhole women into only being that archetype, without letting them be human.

In Elementary, Lucy Liu plays Joan Watson, a gender-bent John Watson, a role traditionally occupied by white actors. Once again, her portrayal of this character is significant since she is not only Asian-American, but also a woman. I know that on Tumblr, a blogging website I go on often, there was a lot of enthusiastic support for Lucy Liu taking on this role, but also some backlash from people who seemed to think that John Watson should only be played by white men. However small that backlash was compared to the support, it only highlights the need for more women in leading roles, especially women who are not strictly Caucasian.
Elementary, in my opinion, has done a good job avoiding stereotypes and including a diverse cast–one supporting character is a transgender woman, and two others are black men. These characters are all well-written, and their characterization does not depend on their gender or race. Sexism is also smacked down in at least one instance, with Joan openly and clearly criticizing Sherlock for implying that Joan’s irritation is due to her hormones.

However, the show does have some “formulaic elements.” Joan, for example, is socially awkward and high-achieving; these two traits are not bad, but they do echo the “Asian nerd” stereotype often seen in media. Nikita, who is ruthless, lethal, and capable of violence “while wearing tight, microscopic outfits,” alludes to the dragon lady or ninja killer images that are also common portrayals of Asian women in entertainment.

Overall, though, their characters are still complex and well-rounded, and serve a more important purpose than simply being “the Asian/girl character,” which is a trend that will hopefully continue to grow.

For many children, teenagers, and even adults, this weekend will be all about The Hunger Game’s second movie, Catching Fire.  The immensely popular book series, authored by Suzanne Collins, is releasing its second movie of the three-book series.

The Hunger Games tell the story of post-apocalyptic North America.  The authoritarian state of Panem throws an annual competition of survival, and Katniss Everdeen, the heroine of the story, is elected to compete in this savage form of entertainment.  Katniss stole the hearts of hundreds of millions of people worldwide, so the obvious next step was for a major Hollywood production company was (Lionsgate) to buy the movie rights.

This article in the New York Times, written by Manohla Dargis, gives a fascinating look into why The Hunger Games  has become so successful.  The reasons for the success of the series are twofold: First, Katniss is a very unique character that appeals to a universal audience because of her wit, skill, and “underdog” vibe.  Second, and perhaps more importantly, the series combines elements of pop culture history that are very popular.  Greek myths, the television hit show “Survivor”, and many sports movies in which the underdog succeeds are all woven into the fabric of the story.

I thought this was a very interesting way to look at not only the series, but the entertainment we have in today’s day in age.  Is the best way to come up with the most successful forms of art just to draw on previous successes and see what’s popular?  Maybe it’s coincidental that The Hunger Games resembles so many popular themes that have been influential in pop culture.

I personally hope and believe that while the series may share common traits with other movies or television shows, the author did not intend to incorporate those external features and bring them into her work.

The other thing that this article got me thinking about was the whole book to movie concept in Hollywood.  I feel that nine times out of ten, the book is “better” than the movie.  What I mean by better is that the characters are more developed, obviously no important scenes are edited out, and the attention to detail is far superior.

While we did not see a movie of any of the texts we have covered throughout the semester, I did find that the productions we attended, while certainly entertaining, were not as engrossing as the books.  My main illustration would be from The Nose.  what an absurdly funny and bizarre story that was!  I thought to give that story any type of physical boundaries would be selling the creativity and imagination of the author (Gogol for those who forgot) short.

I would love to hear your opinions on the topics brought up from this article.  Do you think that artists are simply drawing from the past, creating their own new pieces, or a combination of the two?  How do you feel about the book to big screen phenomena that has become so mainstream?  Finally, should certain writing be left untouched, or is the physical production of a piece always a good idea?

Works Cited

Dargis, Manohla. The New York Times . “Striking Where Myth Meets Moment”. 21 November 2013. WEB. 21 November 2013.