Few of my closest acquaintances would accuse me of being an optimist. They'd laugh at the idea. And yet, there I was hoping that TLC would have stuck to the decision they so reluctantly came to to remove the Duggar clan from the air.
Instead, the broadcaster has announced it will air "specials" in the coming months focused on Jill and Jessa Duggar (not coincidentally two of the sisters Josh Duggar is on record as having abused). This is clearly part of the long game in which TLC has been engaged - first waiting a full 3 months to make sure we wouldn't just forget about the whole Josh issue, then rolling out the least desirable special of all time (to prove, you know, that they care), and finally, now welcoming a family that facilitates molestation back to the air.
And have no doubt, these new specials will also feature the horror show known as the Duggar parents (who failed to report their son's behavior after it had been pointed out to them more than once). No doubt the family as a whole will benefit financially (on the upside - less begging for money from their followers). No doubt those specials will evolve into a series.
Any right-thinking person would have to concede that these two women should not be victimized (again) for the sins of their paedophile brother; they are the least tarnished by this scandal, which is why the Duggar comeback is being packaged around them. Additionally, time heals all social media wounds. A cursory examination of articles announcing the return of the family (sans Josh) as well as the 15,000 Kids and Counting FB page, indicates that most of those outraged by the original story have since moved on to other inflammatory subjects.
Left behind is the original audience for the show: middle class white folks based in the middle of the country who tend towards evangelical Christianity i.e. not us crazy Queers on the coasts some of whom happen to produce the programming said Christians watch (unless Mamma Michelle gets us fired, that is). Those folks are thrilled to invite the Duggars back into their homes (They never understood why the liberal media elite were so hung up on the small matter of molestation - and the covering up thereof - in the first place.)
This is the audience responsible for the 19 million dollars in ad sale revenue TLC was raking in. Anyone who has ever worked for TLC knows that white middle-class folks in the middle of the country is their target demographic, and that they program accordingly. (Fun game: watch a night of TLC programming and count the number of Black and Latino people featured versus the Whites.) And let's not kid ourselves - all networks make these kinds of choices to a greater or lesser degree depending upon their audience.
That being said, programming the Duggars is pretty fucking cynical, given how damaging their way of life has proven to be.
For instance, I can't help but feel that Josh Duggar's issues (and he evidently has more than one) arise out of the environment he grew up in. How can a child come to terms with his sexuality when, on the one hand, his parents are fucking like bunnies but on the other he's getting his wrists tied together when he's caught masturbating?
Then there's whole repopulating the world with white Christians that the Quiverfull folks are largely endorsing; and let's not fool ourselves that this isn't about race - take a good look at this search on Quiverfull adherents. Notice anything?
Finally, there's that asshole Bill Gothard, the spiritual leader of the Duggars, who's a committed paedophile himself.
And this isn't just about TLC (or Discovery). Why is there such a commitment across broadcasters to, say, celebrate the wives of criminals, encourage women to get into physical fights, and implicitly provoke cops to "perform for camera" with deadly consequences?
Is it really too much to ask that broadcasters (and production companies) behave as responsible citizens in their programming choices? Are there really so few topics for programming, that we can't have programming free of right wing nutjobs and thugs? Can we really not create shows more like Little People, Big World, and cast aside the shit likes Mob Wives?
Based on what I'm seeing on the inside, this problematic shit is developed more out of laziness than a lack of viable alternatives. Both production companies and especially broadcasters would far rather copy another successful show, than develop one themselves.
Look, like most (all?) cynics I am actually plagued by idealism. I'm disgruntled with the world not because I believe it is depraved per se, but because I have a vision of how much better it could be. And reality programming, for one, could be a whole lot better if we just tried.
Wednesday, September 30, 2015
Thursday, September 24, 2015
How the Project Greenlight Diversity Debacle (Probably) Made It To Air
I have come here to confess: when I first heard about Matt Damon schooling Effie Brown on the finer points of diversity on Project Greenlight, the first thing that popped into my head was, "Well, kudos to Damon, he probably could have had them edit out that moment if he wanted."
See, of the Affleck/Damon entity, I've always preferred Matt Damon. Damon, for one, did not, upon being asked to extinguish a cigarette by a person in whose home they were shooting for Good Will Hunting, look the homeowner in the eye as he stubbed the cigarette out in her potted plant. (Guess who did?) Additionally, while Damon did participate in creating that execrable piece of Oscar-baity bullshit, he has since stepped back and allowed his pal Ben to take the lead in creating more unduly lauded movies, choosing instead to build an impressive acting career.
You might even say that I have a teensy, weensy lesbian crush on Matt Damon. So I weally, weally wanted to believe that Damon let the offending incident air because he believed it might generate a conversation about the racism that resides in even the most well-meaning of white people. I know. Pathetic. Sigh.
Here's how I think it more likely went down:
Firstly, while PG is a reality show and therefore somewhat untrustworthy, I am inclined to believe that the incident unfolded in real life much as it did in the episode. Trust me: you don't script (or soft script) Matt Damon to condescend to the producer of Dear White People on the issue of race. So the moment had.to.be. somewhat documentary.
That being said, I'm sure that most people in the room were unaware that anything explosive had happened. People performing "conversation" for camera often get caught up in what the next thing is they should say, and don't really listen to each other most of the time. Damon, in particular, seems oblivious to having caused offense. He has the relaxed demeanor of a person confident in the correctness of his beliefs. It's possible that even the producers shooting the scene didn't know what they'd got. Following story in the field can sometimes be like tracking hummingbird mating rituals while juggling knives on a solowheel. Effie Brown, we can assume, was less oblivious.
Whatever the case, no one is oblivious in post. Editors and post producers have two goals: find the drama and bring it. And on a show as vanilla as Project Greenlight, any conflict is going to be milked. So, if I'm working on that show, that Effie moment would go straight in. Sure, the guy's a star, but the moment happened and it is great conflict. Post producers don't tend to censor themselves around celebrities; those are the decisions we leave to executives. And those executives likely aren't going to eliminate good content unless they have to.
So, in the end, the decision probably lay with Damon and his team. I suspect they could have insisted the content be removed, if they wanted. And just to play devil's advocate, maybe it never even occurred to them to remove it. But I find it hard to believe anyone would be cool with being portrayed (even slightly) as a racist, if they had the option of removing the content. And yet they didn't. Why?
Re-enter Ben Affleck, stage right, smoking a cigarette. You have to figure that Affleck's recent Finding Your Roots saga informed Damon's team's discussions. If you recall, that scandal pre-dated Nannygate but was equally, if not more, damaging to Affleck's image. It was the kind of shit the right wing lives for: an espouser of liberal politics pressuring PBS to edit (censor) his slave owning ancestor out of a documentary program. (And let's not forget, they do kind of pretend that Greenlight is documentary).
Damon and his team had to know that if it came out that he'd had material of this nature suppressed it would be devastating. It would only take one person in the vast chain of people involved in producing the show to leak it, and Damon would wind up looking as devious as his ol' buddy Ben.
The best that Damon (and/or his people) could do, and did, is request that he be allowed to express his viewpoint in interview (which he did - unfortunately compounding the initial insult). Team Damon might also have applied pressure to get the moment watered down (although it seems to play pretty straight to this producer's eyes). Whatever the case, they clearly realized there was no stuffing that particular genie back in the bottle.
And that, I suspect, is how the moment made it to television. And, look, I'm grateful it did. We need to be reminded that while racism looks like this, sometimes it looks like this.
White people (like me) benefit from a system that is weighted in our favor. We should not be surprised, then, when we reveal ourselves to be, well, ill-schooled in just how weighted that system is. But it would probably behoove us to get an education. If this incident gets even a few people (including Damon) to start examining their privilege, I would be willing to say Project Greenlight has at least one redeeming quality.
OT (maybe?) Does it make me a bad person that I'm still totally salivating for the upcoming installment of The Bourne Identity?
#Damonsplaining
See, of the Affleck/Damon entity, I've always preferred Matt Damon. Damon, for one, did not, upon being asked to extinguish a cigarette by a person in whose home they were shooting for Good Will Hunting, look the homeowner in the eye as he stubbed the cigarette out in her potted plant. (Guess who did?) Additionally, while Damon did participate in creating that execrable piece of Oscar-baity bullshit, he has since stepped back and allowed his pal Ben to take the lead in creating more unduly lauded movies, choosing instead to build an impressive acting career.
You might even say that I have a teensy, weensy lesbian crush on Matt Damon. So I weally, weally wanted to believe that Damon let the offending incident air because he believed it might generate a conversation about the racism that resides in even the most well-meaning of white people. I know. Pathetic. Sigh.
Here's how I think it more likely went down:
Firstly, while PG is a reality show and therefore somewhat untrustworthy, I am inclined to believe that the incident unfolded in real life much as it did in the episode. Trust me: you don't script (or soft script) Matt Damon to condescend to the producer of Dear White People on the issue of race. So the moment had.to.be. somewhat documentary.
That being said, I'm sure that most people in the room were unaware that anything explosive had happened. People performing "conversation" for camera often get caught up in what the next thing is they should say, and don't really listen to each other most of the time. Damon, in particular, seems oblivious to having caused offense. He has the relaxed demeanor of a person confident in the correctness of his beliefs. It's possible that even the producers shooting the scene didn't know what they'd got. Following story in the field can sometimes be like tracking hummingbird mating rituals while juggling knives on a solowheel. Effie Brown, we can assume, was less oblivious.
Whatever the case, no one is oblivious in post. Editors and post producers have two goals: find the drama and bring it. And on a show as vanilla as Project Greenlight, any conflict is going to be milked. So, if I'm working on that show, that Effie moment would go straight in. Sure, the guy's a star, but the moment happened and it is great conflict. Post producers don't tend to censor themselves around celebrities; those are the decisions we leave to executives. And those executives likely aren't going to eliminate good content unless they have to.
So, in the end, the decision probably lay with Damon and his team. I suspect they could have insisted the content be removed, if they wanted. And just to play devil's advocate, maybe it never even occurred to them to remove it. But I find it hard to believe anyone would be cool with being portrayed (even slightly) as a racist, if they had the option of removing the content. And yet they didn't. Why?
Re-enter Ben Affleck, stage right, smoking a cigarette. You have to figure that Affleck's recent Finding Your Roots saga informed Damon's team's discussions. If you recall, that scandal pre-dated Nannygate but was equally, if not more, damaging to Affleck's image. It was the kind of shit the right wing lives for: an espouser of liberal politics pressuring PBS to edit (censor) his slave owning ancestor out of a documentary program. (And let's not forget, they do kind of pretend that Greenlight is documentary).
Damon and his team had to know that if it came out that he'd had material of this nature suppressed it would be devastating. It would only take one person in the vast chain of people involved in producing the show to leak it, and Damon would wind up looking as devious as his ol' buddy Ben.
The best that Damon (and/or his people) could do, and did, is request that he be allowed to express his viewpoint in interview (which he did - unfortunately compounding the initial insult). Team Damon might also have applied pressure to get the moment watered down (although it seems to play pretty straight to this producer's eyes). Whatever the case, they clearly realized there was no stuffing that particular genie back in the bottle.
And that, I suspect, is how the moment made it to television. And, look, I'm grateful it did. We need to be reminded that while racism looks like this, sometimes it looks like this.
White people (like me) benefit from a system that is weighted in our favor. We should not be surprised, then, when we reveal ourselves to be, well, ill-schooled in just how weighted that system is. But it would probably behoove us to get an education. If this incident gets even a few people (including Damon) to start examining their privilege, I would be willing to say Project Greenlight has at least one redeeming quality.
OT (maybe?) Does it make me a bad person that I'm still totally salivating for the upcoming installment of The Bourne Identity?
#Damonsplaining
Monday, September 21, 2015
Project Greenlight, Matt Damon and the Myth of the Visionary Director
Fuck Matt Damon. No, seriously, fuck this dude. Because of his mansplaining (or #Damonsplaining) of diversity to a Black woman, I felt obligated to watch Project Greenlight. And I hate Project Greenlight.
Particularly because it relies on that most problematic of Archetypes, the Visionary Director (AKA Auteur).
Take the following incident from season one, episode six of the show. Writer/director Pete Jones wants to cover a scene beneath an elevated train track in an uninterrupted tracking shot. This tracking shot is his Vision for the scene. Yet, when Jones arrives on location he discovers that the train comes every ten minutes or so. Somehow the crack team of professionals hired to guide Jones through his first feature failed to check the schedule (because, Reality). Uninterrupted tracking shot plus young actors (struggling to remember/deliver dialogue) plus train every ten minutes equals disaster (i.e. conflict). You might say those seasoned professionals allowed Jones to be hoisted by his own Vision.
Indeed, the greater the hubris of the Visionary Director (hereafter referred to as the VD), the greater the possibility for conflict. It comes as no surprise, therefore, that Jason Mann has been elected season four's VD. Mann exhibits all the "Fuck-you-all, I'm the director!" the VD position requires. While other competitors tried to remain polite about the Farrelly brothers script they would be shooting, our friend Jason had no such qualms, stating that the script would need to be extensively re-written to suit his purposes. Fuck the writers, Jason's got a Vision. (He also, apparently, gets that he's supposed to be an asshole to be on the show, and has an appropriately VD-ish way of filling a director's chair).
The team that Effie Brown was supporting, Leo Kei Angelos and Kristen Brancaccio, by contrast were polite (AKA not VDs and not, therefore, viable for the show). It is worth actually parsing the words that have landed Damon in the pile of shit on which he currently sits, because they reveal more than internalized/institutionalized racism that is standard operating procedure in Hollywood. In the episode he says, "when you’re talking about diversity, you do it in the casting of the film, not the casting of the show.” The use of the word "casting" has been somewhat lost in the understandable maelstrom that has ensued. However, what Damon is saying, in so many words, is that the Angelos and Brancaccio team don't work as a cast for Project Greenlight. Not that they don't work as viable potential directors for a film.
Which isn't surprising because, as anyone who has actually spent any time in the industry can tell you, film is a collaborative fucking medium. While there may be some VDs out there, most directors fall into a spectrum somewhere between good and mediocre, and most are supported by a team of people (cinematographers, set designers, wardrobe people, editors) who are integral to delivering a strong product (and who prevent them from doing stupid shit like Jones' tracking shot). A good team not only compensates for weaknesses in the directing, but also provides a sounding board for the director. Smart directors (one might even say Visionary Directors) know this and, as a result, keep the same group of people around them from project to project.
And yet, young filmmakers coming up, whether in film school or simply by studying the industry, are force-fed the VD Myth that they are supposed to rule their productions with a singular vision. I bought into it myself when I started out, and it brought me nothing but unnecessary pressure and misery. Over time I figured out that I didn't have to have all the answers, that the work might actually be better if I empowered everyone on my crew to have and express their opinions.
Nevertheless, the Myth of the VD persists. **UPDATE: A loyal reader has also pointed out that the DGA effectively promotes the VD Myth by making co-directing credits almost impossible to obtain!** Even on Reality (that most non-VD-worthy of forms) young directors are convinced that their role is that of dictating, not trying to elicit the best from their team (resulting in predictably awful work). A prime example of what happens when a would-be VD gets their hands on a big feature is evident in Josh Trank's epic meltdown on the set of The Fantastic Four.
However, some instances of VD-ness are not as entertaining; some are lethal. Such was the case when mediocre (to poor) director Randall Miller insisted (in a moment of excessive VD) on shooting on a live train track despite having been denied permission by the railway to do so. No other rail option (and there were other, safe options) suited his Vision. One dead Camera Assistant and several injured crew members later, Miller sits in Georgia prison having plead guilty to involuntary manslaughter.
So, quite honestly, fuck this whole VD Myth. For real.
Frankly, by already teaming up in their endeavors, Leo Kei Angelos and Kristen Brancaccio (the eliminated Project Greenlight directing team) are already winners. Between them they bring the kind of diverse viewpoints that inherently makes for stronger work. And in bypassing the whole debased VD Myth in agreeing to share the directing role, they indicate an acceptance of collaboration that will bring the best out of their production team. In that regard, they are (combined) a Director who is much more likely to succeed than your average, know-nothing VD.
Particularly because it relies on that most problematic of Archetypes, the Visionary Director (AKA Auteur).
Take the following incident from season one, episode six of the show. Writer/director Pete Jones wants to cover a scene beneath an elevated train track in an uninterrupted tracking shot. This tracking shot is his Vision for the scene. Yet, when Jones arrives on location he discovers that the train comes every ten minutes or so. Somehow the crack team of professionals hired to guide Jones through his first feature failed to check the schedule (because, Reality). Uninterrupted tracking shot plus young actors (struggling to remember/deliver dialogue) plus train every ten minutes equals disaster (i.e. conflict). You might say those seasoned professionals allowed Jones to be hoisted by his own Vision.
Indeed, the greater the hubris of the Visionary Director (hereafter referred to as the VD), the greater the possibility for conflict. It comes as no surprise, therefore, that Jason Mann has been elected season four's VD. Mann exhibits all the "Fuck-you-all, I'm the director!" the VD position requires. While other competitors tried to remain polite about the Farrelly brothers script they would be shooting, our friend Jason had no such qualms, stating that the script would need to be extensively re-written to suit his purposes. Fuck the writers, Jason's got a Vision. (He also, apparently, gets that he's supposed to be an asshole to be on the show, and has an appropriately VD-ish way of filling a director's chair).
The team that Effie Brown was supporting, Leo Kei Angelos and Kristen Brancaccio, by contrast were polite (AKA not VDs and not, therefore, viable for the show). It is worth actually parsing the words that have landed Damon in the pile of shit on which he currently sits, because they reveal more than internalized/institutionalized racism that is standard operating procedure in Hollywood. In the episode he says, "when you’re talking about diversity, you do it in the casting of the film, not the casting of the show.” The use of the word "casting" has been somewhat lost in the understandable maelstrom that has ensued. However, what Damon is saying, in so many words, is that the Angelos and Brancaccio team don't work as a cast for Project Greenlight. Not that they don't work as viable potential directors for a film.
Which isn't surprising because, as anyone who has actually spent any time in the industry can tell you, film is a collaborative fucking medium. While there may be some VDs out there, most directors fall into a spectrum somewhere between good and mediocre, and most are supported by a team of people (cinematographers, set designers, wardrobe people, editors) who are integral to delivering a strong product (and who prevent them from doing stupid shit like Jones' tracking shot). A good team not only compensates for weaknesses in the directing, but also provides a sounding board for the director. Smart directors (one might even say Visionary Directors) know this and, as a result, keep the same group of people around them from project to project.
And yet, young filmmakers coming up, whether in film school or simply by studying the industry, are force-fed the VD Myth that they are supposed to rule their productions with a singular vision. I bought into it myself when I started out, and it brought me nothing but unnecessary pressure and misery. Over time I figured out that I didn't have to have all the answers, that the work might actually be better if I empowered everyone on my crew to have and express their opinions.
Nevertheless, the Myth of the VD persists. **UPDATE: A loyal reader has also pointed out that the DGA effectively promotes the VD Myth by making co-directing credits almost impossible to obtain!** Even on Reality (that most non-VD-worthy of forms) young directors are convinced that their role is that of dictating, not trying to elicit the best from their team (resulting in predictably awful work). A prime example of what happens when a would-be VD gets their hands on a big feature is evident in Josh Trank's epic meltdown on the set of The Fantastic Four.
However, some instances of VD-ness are not as entertaining; some are lethal. Such was the case when mediocre (to poor) director Randall Miller insisted (in a moment of excessive VD) on shooting on a live train track despite having been denied permission by the railway to do so. No other rail option (and there were other, safe options) suited his Vision. One dead Camera Assistant and several injured crew members later, Miller sits in Georgia prison having plead guilty to involuntary manslaughter.
So, quite honestly, fuck this whole VD Myth. For real.
Frankly, by already teaming up in their endeavors, Leo Kei Angelos and Kristen Brancaccio (the eliminated Project Greenlight directing team) are already winners. Between them they bring the kind of diverse viewpoints that inherently makes for stronger work. And in bypassing the whole debased VD Myth in agreeing to share the directing role, they indicate an acceptance of collaboration that will bring the best out of their production team. In that regard, they are (combined) a Director who is much more likely to succeed than your average, know-nothing VD.
Tuesday, September 8, 2015
The Ladies at Court
I have never been much of a Reality television fan, and less so since I became a Reality producer. For me, watching Reality is like being at work, all I see are the holes in the story, the poor coverage, and the glaring (or blaring) frankenbites (pieces of interviews that are combined to make the interviewee say something they most emphatically did not say).
The closest I have come to watching Reality is by watching tennis. During the late nineties/early aughts I was a passionate fan of the Williams sisters partly because their play was just so mind-bogglingly awesome, and partly because, having been the odd person out in the country club tennis set, I had a (very small) inkling of the (evidently racist and classist) bullshit they were enduring.
So, in honor of Serena and Venus' quarter-final meet up at the Open, here is the character breakdown for the Docusoap that was the women's tennis circuit in the aughts.
I call it: The Ladies at Court.
Characters (note: I'm not gonna give too much back story on the sisters, because I assume we all know the Compton Courts and dad coaching bit by heart now):
Venus Williams:
ARCHETYPE: The Older Sister
Character Arc: Started strong at 16, struggled with the idea of beating her sister, and later with injuries.
The oldest of the Williams sisters and (in my humble opinion) the one with the most finesse in the early aughts. She won her first Grand Slam in 2000 at Wimbledon and gave one of the cutest winning dances on record. After multiple Grand Slam wins, injuries began to plague her in the later aughts - causing her to lose more, frequently to her sister. In my opinion Venus struggles/d against Serena because she still sees S as her little sis, and her face makes like this when she beats her. Also has a fashion line (always a plus for any Reality character).
Serena Williams:
ARCHETYPE: The Champion
Character Arc: From zero to world domination.
The best women's tennis player of all time (her sister comes a close second, stats be damned). Has had to put up with a lot of (barely concealed racist) shit including being booed at Charleston's Indian Wells tournament after beating her sister, who withdrew from a match citing injuries (they have long been dogged by claims their matches are fixed by their father). Is obsessed with winning, even against her soft-hearted sis (her face makes like this, in contrast). The only criticism I have of Serena is... Brett Ratner, REALLY?? Now this is much better.
Justine Henin:
ARCHETYPE: The Asshole
Character Arc: Struggled with her serve early on. Later on struggled to just - you know - tell the truth.
A plucky Belgian player with an stunning single-handed backhand that was the envy of McEnroe (no slouch when it came to backhands himself). Henin's backstory includes her mother (and biggest supporter) dying when Justine was just 12. She came up playing Kim Clijsters (another Belgian) who was slated to be her nemesis. However, due to her own dumbass behavior (which included asking Serena to pause during a serve at the 2003 French Open and then denying that she'd made such a request when the Umpire called the service out) Serena became her true nemesis; which was really unfortunate for her, because you never, ever, want Serena to want to beat you more than she already does. Addressing the press after the match in question, Henin defended herself by saying that given Serena's power, it was fair play. She has since come around on that.
Kim Clijsters:
ARCHETYPE: The Sweetheart
Character Arc: Chose to become a mother in the middle of her career, but came back to win Grand Slams.
The Belgian daughter of a soccer player and a gymnast (Belgium must have had a rocking tennis scene when she and Justine came up), Clijsters first came to notice when she almost beat Jennifer Capriati at the 2001 French Open. The epic match went to three sets with Capriati finally prevailing 12 games to 10. Clijsters is best known for being athletic and roundly beloved by other players (in an often bitchy locker room). She also gave great gossip after dating noted asshat Lleyton Hewitt, and dumping him a week before their marriage. Clijsters was also the beneficiary of a 2009 US Open semi final win against Serena, after Serena was disqualified for threatening to shove a ball down a linesperson's throat. (She pretty much lost it after a bullshit foot fault call. While such behavior is not to be rewarded, it should be noted that Serena and Venus seldom, if ever, challenge calls; something inculcated in them by Richard Williams, who correctly perceived that it would not go down well if they behaved like the rest of the brats out there). To her credit Clijsters failed to pile on Serena afterwards.
Amelie Mauresmo:
ARCHETYPE: The Choker
Character Arc: It's all in the name.
An easy going and out lesbian player with a glorious backhand, Mauresmo was called "half a man" by Martina Hingis, (one of the most mathematically adroit players of all time, yet sadly, unapologetically bigoted). Lindsay Davenport, in turn, compared playing Mauresmo to "playing a guy." Davenport later apologized (Hingis, true to form, did not). Mauresmo struggled to make traction during the aughts due to the dominance of the Williams sisters, and, when they failed to prevail, Henin. In 2006, when she finally had Henin on the ropes at the Australian Open, Mauresmo won by default after Henin claimed a stomach ailment (whether the ailment was real or merely one conjured up by the idea of losing, Henin was roundly criticized for her behavior. When Mauresmo later won Wimbledon fair and square against Henin later that same year, apparently the press box broke out in applause. Since retiring she has been coaching Andy Murray, which makes me like him (I previously had not, for no real reason).
Maria Sharapova:
ARCHETYPE: The Princess
Character arc: Started strong but has never been as good as she wanted to be (and as I would have like her to be).
Is often viewed as overrated because of her looks, but is a powerful and passionate player (if not the sharpest tool in the shed). Would probably have done a lot better in a less competitive environment, but was doomed to play and largely lose to Venus, Serena, Henin and Clijsters. Still, she did bring us this and this. And she did date Novak Djokovic, which resulted in this.
It remains to be seen whether or not a new crop of Ladies can compete in terms of pure drama, the way The Ladies at Court did in the aughts. It also remains to be seen whether or not I will ever be as captivated by another set of tennis characters.
In the meantime, can't wait for the sisters' matchup today. This time, for once, I think I'll be pulling for Serena. She deserves her Slam already.
The closest I have come to watching Reality is by watching tennis. During the late nineties/early aughts I was a passionate fan of the Williams sisters partly because their play was just so mind-bogglingly awesome, and partly because, having been the odd person out in the country club tennis set, I had a (very small) inkling of the (evidently racist and classist) bullshit they were enduring.
So, in honor of Serena and Venus' quarter-final meet up at the Open, here is the character breakdown for the Docusoap that was the women's tennis circuit in the aughts.
I call it: The Ladies at Court.
Characters (note: I'm not gonna give too much back story on the sisters, because I assume we all know the Compton Courts and dad coaching bit by heart now):
Venus Williams:
ARCHETYPE: The Older Sister
Character Arc: Started strong at 16, struggled with the idea of beating her sister, and later with injuries.
The oldest of the Williams sisters and (in my humble opinion) the one with the most finesse in the early aughts. She won her first Grand Slam in 2000 at Wimbledon and gave one of the cutest winning dances on record. After multiple Grand Slam wins, injuries began to plague her in the later aughts - causing her to lose more, frequently to her sister. In my opinion Venus struggles/d against Serena because she still sees S as her little sis, and her face makes like this when she beats her. Also has a fashion line (always a plus for any Reality character).
Serena Williams:
ARCHETYPE: The Champion
Character Arc: From zero to world domination.
The best women's tennis player of all time (her sister comes a close second, stats be damned). Has had to put up with a lot of (barely concealed racist) shit including being booed at Charleston's Indian Wells tournament after beating her sister, who withdrew from a match citing injuries (they have long been dogged by claims their matches are fixed by their father). Is obsessed with winning, even against her soft-hearted sis (her face makes like this, in contrast). The only criticism I have of Serena is... Brett Ratner, REALLY?? Now this is much better.
Justine Henin:
ARCHETYPE: The Asshole
Character Arc: Struggled with her serve early on. Later on struggled to just - you know - tell the truth.
A plucky Belgian player with an stunning single-handed backhand that was the envy of McEnroe (no slouch when it came to backhands himself). Henin's backstory includes her mother (and biggest supporter) dying when Justine was just 12. She came up playing Kim Clijsters (another Belgian) who was slated to be her nemesis. However, due to her own dumbass behavior (which included asking Serena to pause during a serve at the 2003 French Open and then denying that she'd made such a request when the Umpire called the service out) Serena became her true nemesis; which was really unfortunate for her, because you never, ever, want Serena to want to beat you more than she already does. Addressing the press after the match in question, Henin defended herself by saying that given Serena's power, it was fair play. She has since come around on that.
Kim Clijsters:
ARCHETYPE: The Sweetheart
Character Arc: Chose to become a mother in the middle of her career, but came back to win Grand Slams.
The Belgian daughter of a soccer player and a gymnast (Belgium must have had a rocking tennis scene when she and Justine came up), Clijsters first came to notice when she almost beat Jennifer Capriati at the 2001 French Open. The epic match went to three sets with Capriati finally prevailing 12 games to 10. Clijsters is best known for being athletic and roundly beloved by other players (in an often bitchy locker room). She also gave great gossip after dating noted asshat Lleyton Hewitt, and dumping him a week before their marriage. Clijsters was also the beneficiary of a 2009 US Open semi final win against Serena, after Serena was disqualified for threatening to shove a ball down a linesperson's throat. (She pretty much lost it after a bullshit foot fault call. While such behavior is not to be rewarded, it should be noted that Serena and Venus seldom, if ever, challenge calls; something inculcated in them by Richard Williams, who correctly perceived that it would not go down well if they behaved like the rest of the brats out there). To her credit Clijsters failed to pile on Serena afterwards.
Amelie Mauresmo:
ARCHETYPE: The Choker
Character Arc: It's all in the name.
An easy going and out lesbian player with a glorious backhand, Mauresmo was called "half a man" by Martina Hingis, (one of the most mathematically adroit players of all time, yet sadly, unapologetically bigoted). Lindsay Davenport, in turn, compared playing Mauresmo to "playing a guy." Davenport later apologized (Hingis, true to form, did not). Mauresmo struggled to make traction during the aughts due to the dominance of the Williams sisters, and, when they failed to prevail, Henin. In 2006, when she finally had Henin on the ropes at the Australian Open, Mauresmo won by default after Henin claimed a stomach ailment (whether the ailment was real or merely one conjured up by the idea of losing, Henin was roundly criticized for her behavior. When Mauresmo later won Wimbledon fair and square against Henin later that same year, apparently the press box broke out in applause. Since retiring she has been coaching Andy Murray, which makes me like him (I previously had not, for no real reason).
Maria Sharapova:
ARCHETYPE: The Princess
Character arc: Started strong but has never been as good as she wanted to be (and as I would have like her to be).
Is often viewed as overrated because of her looks, but is a powerful and passionate player (if not the sharpest tool in the shed). Would probably have done a lot better in a less competitive environment, but was doomed to play and largely lose to Venus, Serena, Henin and Clijsters. Still, she did bring us this and this. And she did date Novak Djokovic, which resulted in this.
It remains to be seen whether or not a new crop of Ladies can compete in terms of pure drama, the way The Ladies at Court did in the aughts. It also remains to be seen whether or not I will ever be as captivated by another set of tennis characters.
In the meantime, can't wait for the sisters' matchup today. This time, for once, I think I'll be pulling for Serena. She deserves her Slam already.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)