the land of S

[xparrot]

Firstly, there was Supernatural 2x20 breaking our hearts. Oh, Dean. You're a pathetic alcoholic prom-date-stealing asshole in your dream world, but that's okay, because your mom is alive and your brother is happy. Also, it's saying something for this show that though Dean has been my favorite from the beginning, I was twitching from the lack of Sammy. It's both or nothing, with these boys...

And when everyone is advancing on Dean at the end, Jessica stands alone, while Dean's random girlfriend is just behind Sammy - Dean met Jessica only once but she's still that important to him, because she's that important to Sam. ...Even if that meant, darn it, he was hugging her instead of Sam. You are playing with us, show. This hug we're all on tenterhooks for better be worth it.



Then, Smallville 6x20, which should have come with a surgeon general's warning, because everyone was smokin'. Literally, in some cases. Lex in particular. Wowza. (I cannot stand the smell of cigarettes. Fortunately, on TV, I don't have to smell them. And anything that gets MR's hands near MR's mouth is a force of good in the name of the sexy.) And Clark in glasses is fantastic and gorgeous. And Lana is evil! And Lex is wearing a hat! And is with Lois! (yays for Lexis, and for Lois period! Have missed her!) (And then Lex is...dead. Oh, Lex. Even in random dream sequences you're still a pathetic loser who gets out-eviled by everyone around you. Sigh. In my mind, naturally, noir!Lex&Clark are running a sting operation together and Lex's death was faked...)

The non-noir portions weren't nearly as fun, mainly because Lana didn't actually get shot by Clark and die. Pity, that. gnine is also frothing at the about-face of Chloe saying that Lex couldn't have hurt Lana because he luuuurves her, when in "Progeny" two episodes before she was agreeing when Clark said Lex would throw Lana to the wolves. Not to mention the discrepancy about Lana's terrible "loveless marriage" in which apparently even Chloe believes that Lex does love her, so the love is only lacking on Lana's part. Dear Show, I am so baffled. I thought we're supposed to hate Lex for playing evil baby-faking mindgames. So why are you making us feel sorry for him for being in love with a woman who is plotting against him, for the love of another man? Whose side are we supposed to be on? Throw us a bone, please! --Konfused in Kansas

Has anyone noticed that Lionel's evilosity is inversely proportional to the length of his hair? His mane was remarkably tame here, when he's supposedly going good (I am confused as to how Lionel could possibly be seen as 'good' by any definition, but that's a matter to be taken up with the spoilers). In 4th season, he gets his head shaved and goes totally good for a time, then as it grows back, so does the darkness in his heart. So what does this say about Lex, hmm?

Comments

[xparrot.livejournal.com]

I think in a way we are the only ones to not get the memo. At least on other posts I've seen about the show, a lot of people come at it from a "regular TV viewer's" perspective. That is, the stars are pretty, the action is cool, and they don't really care about in-depth analysis. They're content to have Lex cast as bad guy by music/lighting/etc and the good guys conversely cast as good and they don't consider the moral dilemmas, because the show never raises them openly and thus gives no impetus to think about them. Unless you're obsessed like us, seeking order where there's none!

The exception to this are the Lex anti-apologists, who do intense and in-depth readings of the show, but still come out with Lex as the villain. They're working with an expanded set of rules - many of them are comic book fans, so they got the same memo that every char in the show apparently has: they know Lex Luthor is a villain, and understand how his manipulative villainy works. So from the very beginning, they've been watching the show focused on every possibly evil thing Lex does, and have put together a different but still valid intepretation...

A good show wouldn't be giving so much disparate data that either intepretation (Lex as victim or Lex as villain) is viable - or if it did, it would do it deliberately, raising the question with the audience through the mouthpiece of one of the chars, in effect asking the audience to choose sides. (The new Battlestar Galactica is all about shades of gray, constantly making you reconsider who is the hero.) SV is just...I dunno. I think they tell whatever story they feel like telling at the time, dropping chars into slots without any thought to whether they're suited for those slots from past development...

But I totally agree, that murky uncaring attitude of the writers is what makes SV so frustrating and yet so inspiring. I've always thought that the best series for fanning aren't the best shows, but the shows with the most potential that is going unrealized...

You've just described me to a T...

[greenlady2.livejournal.com]

"Unless you're obsessed like us, seeking order where there's none!" :-)))

I tend to analyze the sociological and psychological implications of the commercials I watch.

"...the Lex anti-apologists...still come out with Lex as the villain...focused on every possibly evil thing Lex does...."

Based on the comic book canon, this interpretation is correct. But SV has mangled comic book canon at every turn. And what the anti-Lex crowd also fails to notice, is what we've been ranting about -- the things the Good Guys have been doing. They keep missing that, or making excuses for it.

"A good show wouldn't be giving so much disparate data (Re:Lex)...or if it did, it would do it deliberately...in effect asking the audience to choose sides."

Exactly, exactly. Take 'Buffy the Vampire Slayer'. It had its comic book aspects, but was much more intelligent than SV. It raised so many issues about good and evil, and shades of gray. They have college level courses in the show already, and a whole library of books is available. I somehow doubt they'll be doing that over SV. And if SV were just a comic book sort of show, I wouldn't care. But it has aspirations to be more, that's the thing. It pretends to be more, but isn't. Wasted potential, yes.

Re: You've just described me to a T...

[xparrot.livejournal.com]

I tend to analyze the sociological and psychological implications of the commercials I watch.

Hee! I entirely understand the impulse - I will psychoanalyze comic cartoon chars, given half a chance.

Actually many of the anti-apologists are very pro-Lex - they just like to see him as the villain. And I very much enjoy villains myself, but as you said, SV has messed with comic canon so much that I can't quite enjoy SV's Lex as the bad guy. Not when he's so personally miserable being evil!

Yeah, if SV was just trying to be a comic book (or a soap opera), that would be fine. But sometimes it seems like it's trying to go beyond that - like going to such lengths to establish Lex as a human being, only to forget that now that they're actually making him the villain. (I find it terribly ironic that the cartoon Justice League is more mature and consistent in its themes and storytelling than SV...!)

Re: You've just described me to a T...

[greenlady2.livejournal.com]

Lex is miserable being evil. Which is interesting, because most evil people wouldn't characterize themselves as evil. They see themselves as being in the right. So, if Lex is miserable, it seems to me he sees what he's doing as wrong. So, why is he doing these things? Because he feels he must? And that brings us back to the possible interpretation that he thinks he's saving the world against an Evil Alien Invasion.:-)))

In which case he isn't truly evil. So, we win! :-)))

[lukita.livejournal.com]

the Lex anti-apologists, who do intense and in-depth readings of the show, but still come out with Lex as the villain [...] many of them are comic book fans, so they got the same memo that every char in the show apparently has

*Laughs* I think those guys are going "Doesn't these Lex-apologists chicks get the memo that Lex Luthor is a villain?"

Yes, yes we got the memo, it was one of the things that got me to watch Smallville in the first place. The biggest problem I have with this memo is that SV seems to be using it as a crutch for bad writing. They indulge in their Lana fanscination while the plot suffers from shakey characterizations and dropped storylines. The Spiderman movies doesn't have this problem and they have to get the story across in two hours, so why should SV?

[greenlady2.livejournal.com]

"...I think those guys are going "Doesn't these Lex-apologists chicks get the memo that Lex Luthor is a villain?"

Hee. Yeah, I got that memo. In fact, I probably got it long before most of the current anti-Lex crowd were born. I read comic books when I was a little girl, and Superman was my favourite character, and I knew all about Lex Luthor being his Nemesis.

Then SV came along, and Lex Luthor isn't supposed to be a villain at the beginning. Okay. So, I watch the pilot, and I see a young guy, early 20s, not doing anything evil, struggling against his abusive father, trying to get by with lots of money and no love. And Clark Kent befriends him. Lex sees the possibility of a better life for himself, with a good friend at his side (leaving aside all Slashy aspects here, difficult as this may be).

But at the same time, I saw characters like Jonathan Kent, who are supposed to be good, acting like bigots, trying to get Clark to drop his friendship with Lex. Pete Ross hates him because Lionel bought the creamed corn factory from his family -- when Lex was a little kid. Lex Luthor hadn't done anything to hurt Pete, but Pete hates him.

And yes, their bigotry doesn't justify Lex's future 'evil'. But even less does Lex's future evil justify their bigotry. But I can see that's where the show is going. I can see Clark bowing to the wisdom of his bigotted friends, and saying that yes, he shouldn't have tried to be friends with Lex in the first place. And I don't like that way of thinking.

I don't like the concept of someone being doomed to evil. I don't like the concept that people are justified in being bigotted against you because of your family name. It's still bigotry, even if it isn't racial. So, I think it's worse than merely bad writing. It's bad ethics, or bad philosophy.

SV tried to show how someone could turn to evil, but if they're saying that the other characters on SV had a hand in this, they're not doing much to make that clear to the characters themselves. Did Pete Ross ever learn that his bigotry was wrong, I wonder?

Ack! This is turning into another long rant. :-)))

[lukita.livejournal.com]

Well I don't like bigotry either, but I understand it (sorta). There's a grandchild (I think he's at least fifty now) who was yelled at when he was a kid because his grandpa was a traitor, and there are two families who won't marry into each other's families because they fought on opposite sides of a war oh... a thousand years ago. So I understand what SV was doing with the scary Luthor name, it's just a very Asian way of thinking.

Except SV is using this bigotry as launching pad for Lex is doomed to evil campaign. It's horrible writing. I'll understand one or two characters being bigots because SV actually put a lot of emphases on the big bad Luthor name, but it doesn't justify everyone doing it. It's lazy writing, letting the audience fills in the blank because they already know so and so is going to happen. It also doesn't explain some other things, like the fact that these characters are wrong, but the audience wouldn't question it because then the audience would be wrong. SV is getting away with it because everyone knows Lex Luthor is evil. This is getting psychological...

Oh course as bigots goes, Jonathan doesn't seems to think Clark might not fall far from the tree either, especially with all the shit Red!Clark gets up to, but that's another rant entirely.

[xparrot.livejournal.com]

In SV, Lex's biggest problem seems to be that every single person except for him has read the comic books. They know the ending already and so don't bother to play along with his 'good guy act'...

Actually one of the major problems with SV is that breakdown of the fourth wall; many of the chars seem to watch the show. Often what they do makes a degree of sense to the audience because of what we know of a situation, but makes less sense for the chars themselves. Such as now, Chloe and Clark's distrustful attitude toward Lexana would make more sense if they knew about the faux-baby. Or back in "Mortal", Clark violently jumps to the conclusion that Lex is behind everything with little evidence; the audience has more reason to be suspicious, but Clark shouldn't be. Very sloppy writing indeed.

[lukita.livejournal.com]

I'm still boggling about the fake!baby, shouldn't the first person to actually see the baby be our favourite stalker? Isn't he at least a little curious about Lana's baby? Especially when she's marrying Lex because of it.

"Hey Lana, you're not actually preggers, don't marry Lex."

Angst solved.

[greenlady2.livejournal.com]

"Except SV is using this bigotry as launching pad for Lex is doomed to evil campaign. It's horrible writing."

Yes, yes, yes. That's what I was trying to say, in my own roundabout way. :-)))

Here's an analysis I came up with, for what SV seems to be saying with the whole Lex situation. This is just my own take on the matter, and I may well be wrong, but...

There are some people in the world who are born to be Evil, and they can't escape their Destiny. Even though they have good impulses as well, their Evil impulses will inevitably take over. They don't want this to happen, but it will. Good people know an Evil person when they see him/her, and warning signals go off. But maybe some truly innocent person, an Alien perhaps, might not know how to decipher the Evil Human Signals and need to be warned. Whatever a Good Person does, is good. Whatever an Evil Person does is Evil. Even if they do the same things.

I find this to be a frighteningly dangerous philosophy. It reminds me of certain religious beliefs about people who are destined to go to Heaven or Hell no matter what they do in life, and so one is justified in hating him or her, in advance.

I really don't know if the SV writers intended to say things like this. Probably not. Most people wouldn't analyze the show this way, either. They'd just say, 'Oh, Lex is Evil. Get over it.' But it justifies the belief that Good People can do no wrong. Like '24'. Jack Bauer can torture people, and it doesn't make him evil because he's good.

And thanks for bringing up the Red Clark matter. If Lex is to blame for what his father did, why shouldn't Clark be to blame for what his family or his entire race did to Earth. By sending Clark to Earth, Jor-El caused a great deal of damage. Where does all this end?

[lukita.livejournal.com]

Yes! Analyzing SV is scary business.

truly innocent person, an Alien perhaps, might not know how to decipher the Evil Human Signals and need to be warned

But then I have to say to the innocent alien. Dood, you've been living with humans for how long? Please don't tell me everything you believe in about humanity changes because you found out you're not one.

certain religious beliefs about people who are destined to go to Heaven or Hell no matter what they do in life

Oh I remember reading about that in... Grade 7, I think, we did religions studies then since there's no way you'll get me to read a religious book otherwise. The first thing that popped into my mind was, "I thought the whole heaven and hell thing in the afterlife is a form of group control".

Jack Bauer can torture people, and it doesn't make him evil because he's good Yesh, scary.

Red Clark matter

Oh I think I can rant all day about that one. As cool as seing Clark goes bad, at the end of the day, Clark himself admits that's what he wants to do, the red!K just lets him not care about the consequences. And I don't think I can say this enough, Jor-el is a manipulator even after he's dead, no one can be more evil than that.