Prompts for Week 3: Screening and Readings
February 6th, 2008 by Bob
Below are some questions you might write about in relation to Nurse Betty and/or the week’s readings. Feel free to respond to any of them here, or to raise other questions / share other perceptions about the film and articles.
- As I suggested in class on Tuesday, Nurse Betty has some similarities to Love and Death on Long Island: both seem to address the phenomenon of fandom, yet both do unexpected (and problematic) things with the idea of attachment and immersion in media texts and characters. Where do you see the two films “agreeing” and “disagreeing” in their conception of fandom? To what degree do these portrayals ring true for you, and where do they break down?
- Betty’s quest is triggered by trauma, suggesting that her “mission” is about escape into fantasy as much as in pursuit of a new life. What is the film saying about the psychology of fandom? Is Betty’s journey ultimately a positive and healthy one?
- Gender is very much on the table in Nurse Betty, as are — to a lesser degree — race and class. Where do you see the film addressing difference and identity, and when/where does it choose not to address them?
- What light do the Radway and Seiter articles shed on Nurse Betty? How closely do the readers of romance novels studied by Radway and the soap opera audiences studied by Seiter et al match up with what the film presents? What might account for the differences?
Posted in Prompts, Screenings | 5 Comments »
So, one of the things I found problematic about Nurse Betty was the way it portrayed the results of fandom when men are fans versus the results of fandom when women are fans. Female fans, the movie implies, can escape, like Betty, or fail to do so, like the bartender and Betty’s friend from Kansas. At the very least, their circumstances aren’t worsened — it seems fandom, at an equilibrium, is an acceptable thing for women to do and can even be a means to an end, bettering one’s circumstances. However, fandom is not allowed to men: Charlie, who becomes a fan of Betty, and Westley, who becomes a fan of the show, and George, who’s quite clearly a fan of himself, all end badly in their ways (although George less than the others, clearly — his fandom is himself rather than something else with a fandom attitude centering on himself, like Giles). It’s especially important to me that, in very real ways, Charlie and Westley’s fandoms lead directly to their deaths. Why is fandom such a disastrous thing for men in Nurse Betty?
hmm… I noticed this disastrous outcome for Charlie and Wesley and found it very problematic as well. So I’m going to venture out on a limb and provide one convoluted theory as to why their fan practices lead to their dramatic deaths: they are black and male, which can be viewed by some (I don’t know who exactly though) as a double threat to the status quo.
First though, a quick look at the other possible male fans. I think it’s interesting that you classify George as a “fan” of himself, and even though I didn’t read him as such I’ll definitely go along with it. But to me, it doesn’t end badly for him at all. George gets a little embarrassed on the set, but gets his initial goal of keeping his job and working with Betty. And what about Roy, is he a fan? From what I remember, I’d have to say no, but it is clear that he watches “A Reason for Love” and yet nothing bad happens to him. On the contrary, he uses his sleuth-like journalist skills to connect the show to Betty’s disappearance, kind of saves the day and bags the hot Latin lady. George’s and Roy’s fate vary greatly from the (seemingly inevitable) deaths of Charlie and Wesley.
Overall, I’m suggesting that their race weighs heavily in the demise of our hit men. But first, one part of their end may be based on the idea that they are betraying their masculine identities by enjoying/romanticizing(?) something that is feminine/intended for female consumption. Their first mistake is to step outside of the social standards of male consumption practices.
From there, they have to be punished for numerous deviations from what is socially acceptable: their non-masculine fan-ish obsessions/consumptions, their obviously barbaric acts (after all this is Hollywood and there must be some justice served against all evil doers), and (sorry to play the race card) their blackness.
Specifically, the black issue stuck out to me when I recalled the problematic history surrounding the black male gaze. (I can’t cite anything specific here at the moment, but I hope we can agree that this country has historically-based issues with the “threatening” power associated with an active black (male) gaze.) First, Wesley (and Charlie in a way) are being punished for attempting to enjoy something that wasn’t originally made for them. A white, working-class woman from the middle of America isn’t supposed to be the object of affection of an aging, urban black man. It isn’t culturally normal/acceptable. It’s also not normal for black men – and even for black women (notice how Seiter et al don’t have any minorities in their study) – to watch and enjoy soap operas. Soaps aren’t made for the black gaze, but they are intended for white housewives, which Charlie and Wesley clearly are not.
So in the end, even though I don’t have a clear answer for your final question, Ariel, I think it’s important to recognize that fandom is fatal only for Charlie and Wesley who are not only male but also racially different from the rest of the cast and are eliminated because of it. I guess my next question would be: what’s the point? Was this the intended reading, if so why and what kind of commentary is the film providing on the black male gaze? And more importantly… to me at least… if my reading is completely off base from the intended meaning, does it make it okay that the black characters are portrayed so negatively? Hmm… just curious.
I noticed immediately in the movie that right after the death of Betty’s husband, when she is being questioned in the police station, the interviewer came out and told the sheriff that she was in a state of shock–in an alternate reality. He explicitly stated that she was not well and that her actions were a coping mechanism for the trauma. This (a) suggests that fandom is a result of mental instability and (b) that people who have trouble coping with their own lives try to live out other lives vicariously through fandom. This is kind of paralleled in the “get a life” chapter of Textual Poachers. All in all it is creating this broken, hopeless (helpless?) view of fans and their lifestyles, problems and personalities.
I also found the gender differences in approach to fandom in this movie interesting and agree with Loretta in that it certainly seems to be constructed around social expecations, but had not considered the racial implications the movie may have been making as well.
Perhaps the failure of the men in their fandom suggests the power of social constructs both within and outside of fandoms? Isn’t it all social commentary in the end?
Rachel, I agree with you that Nurse Betty does portray fans according to the stereotype as people who are in need of escaping their own lives. But, I think that doing so is almost necessary in any movie that addresses fandom. Take a movie such as Clerks. It was written and directed by Kevin Smith who is not shy about his own personal fandoms, leading me to believe that he was not setting out to insult fans. However, the two main characters debate such fannish issues like whether or not the union workers on the Death Star in Star Wars were innocent bystanders while working as store clerks, which is a less than desirable job. Also, in Clerks 2, there is a new character, who is a fan of the “nerdier” Lord of the Rings trilogy rather than the Star Wars movies, that assumes the socially awkward, desexualized stereotypes.
I think that these stereotypes almost have to be included when addressing fandoms, because if they were not to be present than the messages concerning fandom could be ignored. I remember in a Psych class that I took that people ignore readings that go against their beliefs and use readings that endorse their beliefs to strengthen their ideas. Assuming this to be true, it may be impossible to create any media that conveys a positive image of fandom to a mainstream, non-fan audience.
(Just wanted to say I really liked Loretta’s analysis.)