i think you have a really good point that writers often have to go to history/ metaphor/ myth to examine a character who comes from a different viewpoint.
one sort of example in a contemporary show. . . I just started watching the new 24, which is a politically problematic show in a lot of ways; and I have no idea of the creator's political views or agenda, though I generally assume they're at least more liberal than the characters they're writing. But it doesn't have an agenda the way the West Wing clearly does. I imagine 24 is a show with viewers all over the political spectrum (as is TWW, for that matter, but all of the GOP'ers I know who watch it do so while strenuously bitching over the agenda). Anyway, the current season, without giving anything significant away, involves bad things happening to the secretary of defense. . .he's played by William Devane, and even looks a little like Rumsfeld. now, the show's creators have to know that a good portion of the audience is going to be pre-disposed to hate a Rumsfeld-esque character (and plenty to love him as well, of course, but definitely taking a risk with such a divisive figure). So I was basically expecting this character to be sinister, weasely, etc. -- but so far he's come off as immensely likable, tough-minded, brave, etc. . .all in a real way, not like an action hero. Now, this is sort of a limited example because of the situations the character has been in so far; and I expect that we're going to discover that this guy has DONE BAD THINGS. But I think it's going to be more dramatically compelling when we find this out, because he's been set up as a believable, admirable, and often heroic person. . .so in short, I'm very interested to see where the series takes him (much more interested than in the Kiefer Sutherland action-figure hero).
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
branchandroot
we're all Louises?
Date: 2005-01-22 06:33 pm (UTC)i think you have a really good point that writers often have to go to history/ metaphor/ myth to examine a character who comes from a different viewpoint.
one sort of example in a contemporary show. . . I just started watching the new 24, which is a politically problematic show in a lot of ways; and I have no idea of the creator's political views or agenda, though I generally assume they're at least more liberal than the characters they're writing. But it doesn't have an agenda the way the West Wing clearly does. I imagine 24 is a show with viewers all over the political spectrum (as is TWW, for that matter, but all of the GOP'ers I know who watch it do so while strenuously bitching over the agenda). Anyway, the current season, without giving anything significant away, involves bad things happening to the secretary of defense. . .he's played by William Devane, and even looks a little like Rumsfeld. now, the show's creators have to know that a good portion of the audience is going to be pre-disposed to hate a Rumsfeld-esque character (and plenty to love him as well, of course, but definitely taking a risk with such a divisive figure). So I was basically expecting this character to be sinister, weasely, etc. -- but so far he's come off as immensely likable, tough-minded, brave, etc. . .all in a real way, not like an action hero. Now, this is sort of a limited example because of the situations the character has been in so far; and I expect that we're going to discover that this guy has DONE BAD THINGS. But I think it's going to be more dramatically compelling when we find this out, because he's been set up as a believable, admirable, and often heroic person. . .so in short, I'm very interested to see where the series takes him (much more interested than in the Kiefer Sutherland action-figure hero).