OK. If Picasso's painting is a good example of this "neutral camera", I think neutral camera is a bit of a misnomer. The painting is highly critical of the Americans, by portraying through art the horror of what they're doing. The camera may be neutral, but the work of art is not. However, in the case of Supernatural, I think the camera is neutral and the work is too. Picasso is performing a specific criticism of americans. SPN is not performing any kind of criticism of Dean (except occasionally that he's a bit uncouth and/or nobly suicidal.)
Actually, I think you'll find Picasso is criticising the American military-industrial complex rather than Americans as a people, but point taken. So if Dean's sexism were shown in a more harsh light, perhaps with more attention to how unpleasant it is to be on the recieving end of it, it wouldn't be so bad? I can agree with that, but your initial criticism focused on whether he was condemned or praised after the act, not on the way the act itself is portrayed. I felt that was simplistic.
Additionally, shows that are called "gritty" or "realistic" can get away with this kind of criticism - often it's the raison d'etre of that kind of show. SPN is not a realistic show: it's not realistic about relationships, portrayal of women, portrayal of men....
Maybe not for you, but what is and isn't realistic is something on which there isn't much consensus, particularly when it comes to gender relations. Some people (on both sides of the feminist/non-feminist divide) feel that it's realistic to show women as innately more nurturing and less violent, other people don't.
It's like a sitcom portraying yet another gorgeous woman ending up with yet another average or downright unattractive man. Yup, that kind of thing can and does happen in real life regularly, but portraying it doesn't help to criticise it: it helps to perpetuate it.
You say that like you think a gorgeous woman getting together with an unattractive man is a bad thing.
I agree and think that that can be very fine work (but tricky work, too, especially if you're putting it in the mouths of your heroes.) However, I don't think it's work that SPN is doing.
It can be, but unfortunately for every film/book/play/whatever that does unflinchingly portray sexism (or anything else unpleasant, for that matter) in an attempt to confront it and shatter complacency, there's multiple that actually glorify and glamourise the unpleasantness, and tack on a bit of token tut-tutting at the end to look conscientious. Admittedly it may be that the line between glamourisation and neutral depiction isn't as clear to others as it seems to me, or might lie somewhere different to where I see it.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Disclaimer: I've never watched SPN
Date: 2008-05-18 10:36 pm (UTC)Actually, I think you'll find Picasso is criticising the American military-industrial complex rather than Americans as a people, but point taken. So if Dean's sexism were shown in a more harsh light, perhaps with more attention to how unpleasant it is to be on the recieving end of it, it wouldn't be so bad? I can agree with that, but your initial criticism focused on whether he was condemned or praised after the act, not on the way the act itself is portrayed. I felt that was simplistic.
Additionally, shows that are called "gritty" or "realistic" can get away with this kind of criticism - often it's the raison d'etre of that kind of show. SPN is not a realistic show: it's not realistic about relationships, portrayal of women, portrayal of men....
Maybe not for you, but what is and isn't realistic is something on which there isn't much consensus, particularly when it comes to gender relations. Some people (on both sides of the feminist/non-feminist divide) feel that it's realistic to show women as innately more nurturing and less violent, other people don't.
It's like a sitcom portraying yet another gorgeous woman ending up with yet another average or downright unattractive man. Yup, that kind of thing can and does happen in real life regularly, but portraying it doesn't help to criticise it: it helps to perpetuate it.
You say that like you think a gorgeous woman getting together with an unattractive man is a bad thing.
I agree and think that that can be very fine work (but tricky work, too, especially if you're putting it in the mouths of your heroes.) However, I don't think it's work that SPN is doing.
It can be, but unfortunately for every film/book/play/whatever that does unflinchingly portray sexism (or anything else unpleasant, for that matter) in an attempt to confront it and shatter complacency, there's multiple that actually glorify and glamourise the unpleasantness, and tack on a bit of token tut-tutting at the end to look conscientious. Admittedly it may be that the line between glamourisation and neutral depiction isn't as clear to others as it seems to me, or might lie somewhere different to where I see it.