![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
selenakCaught up on The Good Wife as well. And indeed Laura Hallinger, newly instated in Cary's old job, brings back something not there since last season, i.e. L & G representing a client who is in the wrong and the prosecution being in the right. (Well, there's always Mr. Bishop, of course, but the episode featuring him had Alicia all sympathetic about his fatherliness without mentioning even once what he did to his wife, and that's not what I mean.) I did like that Alicia continues to keep an eye on Laura and that once they're directly set against each other in a case the episode doesn't paint Laura as a villain but keeps the mutual respect between them. Also, cry me a river, Will, about trying to use sex to get your ex to testify for you and then be surprised when she doesn't. The Grace and Zack tales were okay. Which leaves us with Kalinda and Nick. And the later, now having focused his jealousy on Cary (sidenote: this is the second time someone "accuses" Cary of being gay, the first one being the old partner last season because Cary wanted to take Keith Richards with him on the proverbial desert island; is this becoming a theme, show?), and since Cary isn't working for the FBI, deciding to beat him into pulp. Presumably and hopefully this will end the Nick storyline (as it won't take either Cary or Kalinda long to figure it out), but what I find more interesting than writing about the actual scenes is to wonder about what I think they wanted to portray with the Kalinda/Nick relationship (and I suspect before that with Kalinda and Blake, at least fleetingly), why it didn't work, and whether it's possible to make that particular trope work.
Now, I'm leaving aside declared authorial intentions here, because they're very depressing to read about. (If you must, the interview in which the Kings declare the problem with Nick is that "You don't give James Bond a girlfriend" (James Bond being Kalinda) is here. Head. Desk.) But what I think they tried to do is portray the relationship as messed up can't live with/can't live without mutually abusive co dependency. Which, among many other things, can't work because we've seen Kalinda just fine living without Nick. Now Nick simply as the evil ex she tried to escape from and hates was the reading most reviews I've browsed expected (and weren't thrilled about, either, because they felt Kalinda didn't need a "I was abused" origin story), but then were confused about Kalinda several times initializing sex. On top of that, there's the fact Marc Warren, with several villains in his past repertoire, is a good actor, but hardly has the irresistable type of charisma, and the writing for Nick doesn't make him come across as hard-to-get-away-from-emotionally, either.
Which made me wonder: can this particular type of relationship be portrayed in a way that makes the audience see it on the one hand as toxic but on the other hand as compelling enough (both for the characters and on a Doylist level for the viewers) to understand why the characters would be in it to begin with and feel conflicted between wanting one or both characters to get the hell away from it and wanting to see more of it? Especially if it's an m/f relationship? Hm. I can think of a m & m example, because the relationship between Breaking Bad's Walter and Jesse is like that, and it's the central dynamic of the show. I can also think of an m/f example, but in cinema, not on tv*, because imo Tarantino in Kill Bill manages it with the Bride/Beatrix Kiddo and Bill. However, crucial to the success here (success in the sense there is no gap between what the audience sees and what they're told) are several factors, among them: 1.) the scenes between the Bride and Bill are actually few, and except for the big climax all in flashback. 2.) They're both professional killers. 3.) David Carradine is actually charismatic enough to pull off the idea that not only was Beatrix in love with him but that the various other highly competent killers Part I and II introduce us to used to work for him. 4) He gives her the this-is-your-true-nature speech that comes with the territory, she acknowledges it's true and kills him anyway. Because none of that negates what he did to her. That she goes through with killing him is essential (and not in a suicidal way, but in one that leaves her alive), and not just because the title of the whole thing isn't Letting Bill Live. (Among other things, it's necessary because Bill has signalled his unredeemability with his speech about Clark Kent being the expression of Superman's contempt for humanity. Just kidding.) It's about that agenda thing again, and that brings me back to Kalinda. Who, as Will notes here (and he's not the first character to do so) is distracted, and has been, more or less, through the season. She's responding, not doing. And as for goals (in regards to Nick or anything else), she doesn't appear to have any, now that her relationship to Alicia has been repeaired and her salary at L& G raised. There's no dynamic in that dynamic, so to speak. And thus it fails.
*The absence of Jossverse examples here is deliberate. Mention either of Buffy's vampire boyfriends in this context, and the most unholy shipper wars ensue. No thanks.
Now, I'm leaving aside declared authorial intentions here, because they're very depressing to read about. (If you must, the interview in which the Kings declare the problem with Nick is that "You don't give James Bond a girlfriend" (James Bond being Kalinda) is here. Head. Desk.) But what I think they tried to do is portray the relationship as messed up can't live with/can't live without mutually abusive co dependency. Which, among many other things, can't work because we've seen Kalinda just fine living without Nick. Now Nick simply as the evil ex she tried to escape from and hates was the reading most reviews I've browsed expected (and weren't thrilled about, either, because they felt Kalinda didn't need a "I was abused" origin story), but then were confused about Kalinda several times initializing sex. On top of that, there's the fact Marc Warren, with several villains in his past repertoire, is a good actor, but hardly has the irresistable type of charisma, and the writing for Nick doesn't make him come across as hard-to-get-away-from-emotionally, either.
Which made me wonder: can this particular type of relationship be portrayed in a way that makes the audience see it on the one hand as toxic but on the other hand as compelling enough (both for the characters and on a Doylist level for the viewers) to understand why the characters would be in it to begin with and feel conflicted between wanting one or both characters to get the hell away from it and wanting to see more of it? Especially if it's an m/f relationship? Hm. I can think of a m & m example, because the relationship between Breaking Bad's Walter and Jesse is like that, and it's the central dynamic of the show. I can also think of an m/f example, but in cinema, not on tv*, because imo Tarantino in Kill Bill manages it with the Bride/Beatrix Kiddo and Bill. However, crucial to the success here (success in the sense there is no gap between what the audience sees and what they're told) are several factors, among them: 1.) the scenes between the Bride and Bill are actually few, and except for the big climax all in flashback. 2.) They're both professional killers. 3.) David Carradine is actually charismatic enough to pull off the idea that not only was Beatrix in love with him but that the various other highly competent killers Part I and II introduce us to used to work for him. 4) He gives her the this-is-your-true-nature speech that comes with the territory, she acknowledges it's true and kills him anyway. Because none of that negates what he did to her. That she goes through with killing him is essential (and not in a suicidal way, but in one that leaves her alive), and not just because the title of the whole thing isn't Letting Bill Live. (Among other things, it's necessary because Bill has signalled his unredeemability with his speech about Clark Kent being the expression of Superman's contempt for humanity. Just kidding.) It's about that agenda thing again, and that brings me back to Kalinda. Who, as Will notes here (and he's not the first character to do so) is distracted, and has been, more or less, through the season. She's responding, not doing. And as for goals (in regards to Nick or anything else), she doesn't appear to have any, now that her relationship to Alicia has been repeaired and her salary at L& G raised. There's no dynamic in that dynamic, so to speak. And thus it fails.
*The absence of Jossverse examples here is deliberate. Mention either of Buffy's vampire boyfriends in this context, and the most unholy shipper wars ensue. No thanks.
no subject
Date: 2012-11-25 08:17 am (UTC)I agree about Kill Bill, but in that case both characters were powerful and it happened in something of a fantasy setting, whereas this is a very different imbalance. And seriously, Kalinda could have easily got him deported.
no subject
Date: 2012-11-25 12:51 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2012-11-25 10:37 am (UTC)Given Tarantino's background and personality, that might well have been the intended takeaway. Like how revealing the argument in Buffy between Warren, Jonathan and Andrew about who was the best Bond is, if you're aware of the canon and fandom attitudes to it.
no subject
Date: 2012-11-25 12:49 pm (UTC)(I myself am of course forever imprinted by having watched Lois & Clark in my early 20s where he sums it up as "Superman is what I can do, Clark is who I am". Also I feel Sandman backs this up by letting, in The Wake, the dreamselves of Superman and Batman respectively be Clark and Batman (not Bruce). :)
no subject
Date: 2012-12-03 06:05 pm (UTC)Re trope - it's one of those I really want to see well done for once, you know, but it just never is. I kind of want to believe it's not inherently sexist, but evidence is stacking up to the contrary. I think what mostly fails is that theres rarely enough attention paid to both characters, and you can't really believe these two people need each other. Nick just isn't fully formed enough or interesting enough a character for me to be able to have any sympathy for his 'love' for Kalinda beyond a power trip. You need a bit of vulnerability to the character for that, but that's uncool, and he has to be cool, so we're in a catch 22. (and as you say, we know Kalinda does just fine without him. It's with him around that she seems off - not just distracted (which is reasonable) but less vital, less herself.)
no subject
Date: 2012-12-03 06:10 pm (UTC)