Well.
2) This was in lieu of your comment that BB lacked development of female characters. I responded that BB had a wealth of development of male characterizations. We are talking, I believe, about characters and their relative development, are we not? I wondered if in fact MM was guilty of the reverse. Perhaps you don't see that as relevant. I do now as I did then. All other things neither of us are commenting on are admittedly in support of either the characters, the actors, the plot, commercial aspects, or socio/political considerations. But we are speaking directly about characters relative to themselves and each other.
4) The ideal of criticism has never been the fact of the human critic. I'm sorry to say that criticism has not and cannot always be one with evaluation. That would ( very) broadly be as if I said societal ethics are as one with personal morals. The history of critics from Sam Johnson onward has often (not always or even predominantly; but often) shown those who wield that pen to be both contemptuous and vindictive of and toward those on the other end of that pen. Many times a critics final judgement is more a conclusion, having more to do with something or someone tipping the scales, and many critics hold long, sharp tongued grudges. If I suggested you hold any of these feelings toward BB I apologize. Yet, I don't think saying you hold a mild disdain for the shortcomings you perceive in BB egregious or too far off the mark.
I'll restate. If Potemkin further developed its female characters in a way that felt organic within the concept of the film would that make it better? More of a classic? Would it do so for any of the films I mentioned? I think not.
5) Yes all TV shows are limited in their POV's, context, modes of expression, and language. All have plot limitations, character limitations, and limits on the dynamic interactions of the characters. All these and more are due to the limitations of the medium. I've always thought one of the meanings of trope was a common or overused theme. Am I now wrong?
Perhaps I am missing the point, but the shows I mentioned, especially GH lasted 60 years, some characters evolved over the course of 40 or more of those years. So yes, it is possible for a show with many, many character, to show constant variations of the same themes (tropes) over and over again.
6) Well, often those who don't like an idea, novel, political leader, philosophy or even a TV show often tend to be critical of it. But then again, some of us are most critical of the things we love. I think, your criticisms of BB notwithstanding, you may find yourself spiraling along that same continuum(s) now and then.
2) "We are talking, I believe, about characters and their relative development, are we not?"
No. I was talking about the lack of the existence of, use of, deployment of, and development of meaningful
female characters.
"I wondered if in fact MM was guilty of the reverse."
In my judgment, it certainly isn't. The show is brilliant in its representations of numerous aspects of male-female relationships, how patriarchy operates in different ways in the home and at work, in the private sphere and public sphere, how both women and men negotiate the tensions and contradictions presented, and so on, and does so in a way that manifests conduct and the inner and outer lives of its characters in ways that are challenging, recognizable, sympathetic. You really should give it a chance.
"Yet, I don't think saying you hold a
mild disdain for the shortcomings you perceive in BB egregious or too far off the mark."
You have a different conception of critique than I do. Most so-called criticism is decidedly a form of appreciative evaluation. (See the works of Frank Kermode, Roland Barthes, EM Forster, Updike, Nabokov . . . the list is endless.) There is absolutely nothing wrong with looking at the object of art and noting how, why and where it succeeds, and how, why and where it may fall short of success. To suggest that the latter is born of contempt seems an odd reaction--one that misses much. After all, numerous members of this forum regularly comment, appreciatively
and critically, on the performances of UConn WCBB, game in , game out. I would not regard most of that criticism as contemptuous, or as anything other than an effort to sympathetically evaluate the merit of the games, the play, and the players. In any case, I reject any global suggestion that literary criticism (and its corollaries in other media) is contemptuous or vindictive. And even to the extent that it is, doesn't that merely beg the question of whether the position articulated has merit?
"I'll restate. If Potemkin further developed its female characters in a way that felt organic within the concept of the film would that make it better? More of a classic? Would it do so for any of the films I mentioned? I think not."
These are the wrong questions. Potemkin's uses of female characters
are organic to the film. It is just that some (not all) ways in which that is executed manifest the problem I reference. To ask whether making the film in a different way would make it "more of a classic" is a rather meaningless question. It's like asking whether the Mona Lisa would be "more of a classic" if Da Vinci had painted it differently. How could one possibly answer such a question? How could one ever take a meaningful position on any answer given? Moreover, why would such a question even be asked, since it effectively asks us to judge between the known and an infinitude of unknowns?
5) "I've always thought one of the meanings of trope was a common or overused theme. "
Strictly speaking, a trope is merely a figure of speech, typically involving metaphor. Other modes of expression (music, for example) may be said to give rise to and use tropes. But theme is something quite different.
6) "Well, often those who don't like an idea, novel, political leader, philosophy or even a TV show often tend to be critical of it. But then again, some of us are most critical of the things we love. I think, your criticisms of BB notwithstanding, you may find yourself spiraling along that same continuum(s) now and then."
If I don't "like" a novel, it is usually because I regard it as poorly written, poorly conceived, derivative, poorly executed, unimaginative, and so on. Would I be critical of it? Sure. But (again) it hardly follows that therefore I don't "like" anything that allows for critique. I think here is where we initially parted ways. You believed that my critique of BB means I didn't like it or was contemptuous of it or vindictive or something. I should think the more appropriate reaction would have been something like: "Huh. That's an interesting observation. Not sure I follow or completely agree. Can you explain further? Do you mean to say . . . If so, then how do you read Skylar's decision in Season 4 to . . . ? Seems to me that Walt's alienation from Skylar is shown to flow from a certain sense of powerless (maybe even a kind of metaphorical emasculation), and that the series invites us to consider how the male ego is structured in a way that often requires the expression of power and control, even if its effects are destructive. For example, there's a scene in a Season X where Walt literally shows up naked in a grocery store. One way to read this moment is . . . Perhaps in this sense, BB provides fairly interesting insights into masculine sexuality, including the way it is structured notwithstanding the relative absence of female characters. Thoughts?"
Wouldn't that be a healthier and more productive approach to engaged dialogue?
but I was in a rush. How do you feel about The Godfather?
