Search This Blog

Showing posts with label Gene Hunt. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Gene Hunt. Show all posts

Tuesday, December 19, 2017

Strange time to be watching Ashes to Ashes

Since I first said that I find crass, sexist, violent Gene Hunt hard to take in the age of Trump (not that Gene Hunt is Donald Trump,  though a number of people thought I was saying that), a few bazillion sexual harassment/abuse allegations against people in all sorts of positions of authority have come forward, making Ashes to Ashes even weirder to watch at this particular moment in history. To clarify: I get that I'm supposed to see the goodness underneath Hunt's offensive exterior, and that he's meant to be seen as redeemable. I get that Glenister is brilliant at playing layers. I actually do find the character's personality to be magnetic. But I'm not entirely comfortable with the notion that we ought to readily believe that what's on the outside doesn't reflect what's on the inside, and if we wouldn't want to make that argument about men now, knowing what we know about what goes on, we shouldn't make it about then, either.

Also, here's how I know we're in Alex Drake's imagination and not in 1980: the bra strap. I had my first office job in 1980. You did NOT intentionally show your bra at work.

What office attire did not look like:



What Alex Drake is wearing:


What female TV cops of the 1980s wore:



What actual working women of the 1980s wore:



I'm just partway through Ashes to Ashes season 1; quite a few people have said basically, "Just wait until the series finale, then you'll see." I am totally unspoiled (and plan to remain that way), so yes, it may be that, after I've seen it, I will swear it was all worthwhile, everything fits, and the character arc is a thing of beauty. That's not sarcasm. I really may. But even so, five seasons is a looooong time to wait.



Wednesday, November 22, 2017

Ten years on, the shine is off Gene Hunt



I just woke up to the insane, egomaniacal, racist ravings of the President of the United States and realized (among other things) exactly why it's a lot harder to see the appeal of Gene Hunt in 2017 than it might have been in 2006, or to buy into the idea of now-times being enlightened but dull, while then-times were Neanderthal but exciting.

Monday, November 20, 2017

The problematic nostalgia of Gene Hunt

Halfway through season 2 of Life on Mars, I feel ambivalent. I get the appeal. I feel the love. It draws me in, and when I finish an episode, I can't start the next one fast enough. But at the same time, Gene Hunt is making me really uncomfortable. He's unapologetically flawed, yet charismatic, visceral, elemental. He's meant to have this seductive power to entice me to compromise my modern sensibilities and give in to his charms. It bothers me.

Sure, he could just be a mental construct, Sam Tyler's imagined ghost of policemen past. (Reminder: I haven't finished watching. If this becomes clear down the road, I don't yet know, and please don't tell me.)  But on a Doylist level, that doesn't matter. Whether through conscious imitation or artistic osmosis, the Gene Hunt type has infiltrated the period cop drama: the old-school boss who uses primitive, ethically dubious, but effective tough-guy methods that get results, contrasted with a younger, more enlightened protagonist who embraces modern, intellectual methods. Fred Thursday in Endeavour, vs. the young Morse; Thomas Brackenreid in Murdoch Mysteries, vs. William Murdoch; Geordie Keating in Grantchester, vs. Sidney Chambers. Yeah, the tough guys are routinely chastened, but their hearts of gold remain undiminished.

This seems to be a narrative way of having your cake and eating it, too. We self-righteously relate to the younger man, who represents a civilized approach we see as representing our contemporary values. But we vicariously thrill to the emotional power of the older character, who seems to be more in touch with his gut instincts and who acts without overthinking. His biases, which we understand to be emblematic of his times, are reduced to quaint quirks that allow us to adopt an attitude of moral superiority. Homophobia, misogyny, and racism are too easily written off because we're meant to sense some deeper moral compass that bends toward justice. The fact that the old-school mentor is inevitably characterized as more masculine than the younger, more cerebral character is also troubling. Raw masculinity is portrayed as problematic but seductive in its strength and directness, while the methods of the new man, by comparison, come off as a bit indecisive, punctilious, compromising, and weak. Sure, the new guy tends to be right a lot, but the boss's methods work often enough to remind us to respect the supposedly practical wisdom of experience.

 (Interestingly, the dynamic looks very different when the protagonist is female, as in Miss Fisher's Murder Mysteries or Peggy Carter; you can't muster enough sympathy for a hypermasculine sexist pig if it's a woman who has to put up with him, I guess. Also interesting: In all four of the series mentioned above, the major female characters are linked to the younger, sensitive man. The wives of the older men are minor characters whose stories play out only in relation to their husbands -- not happily, but also not centrally to the main narrative. Gene Hunt's wife is never even seen at all, a too-convenient narrative elision.)

I'd love to see a show that tweaks this formula, possibly by providing more serious consequences for antediluvian attitudes. (Maybe Joan Thursday's story is that in Endeavour? But if so, I'm not convinced Fred gets it. And don't get me started on Margaret in Grantchester.)