![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
I have been watching both the old and the new Beauty and the Beast television shows recently. I'm not going to bore you with a straight comparison because there isn't one. Despite sharing a title and character names they're not trying to tell the same kind of story. If I mention one while discussing the other it will be to illustrate a specific point rather than to make any broad statement about the quality of either.
The 1987 tv show was a hot mess. Watching it now, seeing it from beginning to end, it's clear that it was doomed from the very beginning, despite however many emmy nominations it got and how positive the writers felt about it.
That doesn't mean it was a bad show. Its good moments weren't just good, they were phenomenal. Given that this aired on the cusp of the dark and gritty 90's, where practically every entertainment medium would pursue ugliness and call it "realism", this show unabashedly embraced pure, chivalric notions of romance, love, and the goodness people are capable of--while at the same time not shying from the evil they do. It showed how both extremes could exist even within the same person. It asked questions about what makes someone human and what makes them a monster. BatB had as much in common with Shelley's Frankenstein as much as with the 17th century tale. The most evil people were the ones who looked the most normal and put forth images of respectability, while the best and most kind-hearted ones were the outcasts, the poor, and the ones least respected--with the few exceptions being people driven to evil from the hatred they were shown. Don't see that often enough in television...or anywhere, really.
The problem was that the show had individual episodes that were great but no overall direction or focus. It didn't seem to know what it wanted to be. One episode was a procedural, the next was a soap opera, the next was a journey into fantasy with fortunetelling, mystical caves of wonder and prophetic visions--nevermind that whole empathy thing. I mean, what was that? Other than a cheap plot device to have Vincent show up and shred a guy into little pieces, that is. It's not impossible to weave these elements together into a singular narrative, but the intent and purpose of the story have to be clear and each element has to drive toward that purpose. What was the purpose, other than diddling around with the forbidden romance trope? What kind of story were they trying to tell? Other than the romance itself, there was no connecting thread...and the romance was held in stasis because the writers didn't want to jump the shark. While I get that, you can't stand still, either. In real life two people can stay for years at a certain relationship level and that's fine, but it doesn't make for a good story. Narrative plays by different rules. So we have a show floundering around, not sure what it wants to be.
The original tale is about transformation of the inhuman through love by someone pure, and there's an argument that this version subverted that having Vincent stay the same while Catherine was the one who transformed from shallow socialite to courageous helper of the less fortunate. That's more or less true, but I have some issues with it. In the first few scenes of the first episode Catherine acted like someone who was looking for something more, and just needed a catalyst to give her the courage to make a change. That change happened by the end of the first episode, with her quitting her job and joining the D.A.'s office. Second, she didn't give up a whole lot in that change. She still had the rich lifestyle - the fancy clothes, the parties, her family's love and support. It didn't seem like she really sacrificed anything.
The show's other strong characters and emotional moments mostly came from the "world below." Not in every case, but most of the time. It was much weaker when it ignored them in favor of whatever political intrigue it wanted to drag Catherine into in the world above. I dug up an interview with George R.R. Martin (yes, that GRRM) who was a writer and producer on the show. He said:
The writing staff on B&B was as good as any I ever worked with[...]but thinking that we could plan out this profound super-arc... we were never that well coordinated. We were all stubborn, strong-minded individuals with our own vision about where the show would go. Ever wonder why so much is made of the rose bush in "Snow" and "Beggar's Comet," and then nothing in a "A Time to Heal"? That's 'cause the rose-bush had been mine, all the way back to "Kingdom by the Sea." Alex had alwasy [sic] hated it, and refused to include it in his episodes. Similarly, ever notice that Diana only types on her computer in episodes that Alex & Howard either wrote or supervised? I thought that computer diary was straight out of "Doogie Howser" and had no place on our show...These in-house struggles and disagreements take place every day on every TV show ever made... and they certainly took place on B&B.[...]From first season to third, Tony wanted more cop stuff, more DA's office, more of Joe Maxwell and the Case of the Week, and less underworld.
While I adored Jay Acovone's portrayal of Joe and I feel that Linda as Catherine seemed more relaxed in the scenes she had with him and in 'the world above' in general, if a police procedural/case of the week/Nancy Drew mysteries is what some writers wanted this show to be then there was no place for an Alice in Wonderland/Wizard of Oz/fantasy land, which the World Below was, for all that they didn't have explicit magic. It would be like if you had Olivia Benson show up in Buffy the Vampire Slayer. It doesn't work.
It was only in the third season that there was a direction and a purpose and as a result the writing is more smooth and integrated. We see characters break their molds, doing things they would never have done earlier, therefore upping the stakes and the drama. The plotlines of the worlds above and below come together, driving the pace, unlike before when the two were dissonant and slowed things down. The romance between Vincent and Catherine was the beating heart of the series and no amount of drama would replace losing that, but for all that, season 3 was solid television. As an ending to a doomed series, it worked well.
Speaking of unpopular opinions, I liked Diana. What an interesting person. Her empathy was not supernatural, just very strong for a human, making her good at her job but also keeping her from forming any real bonds with others because she got hurt so easily. She suffered when getting into the minds of those she hunted down. It would have been fantastic to see her story unfold, see the tight knit community of Below help her restore her faith in humanity. I think if there had been no Catherine for her to be endlessly compared to, Diana would have engaged fans just as well.
It deserves mention how shoddily this show treated its characters of color. I am willing to believe that it wasn't intentional, but when all of your named POCs either die or are drug addicts, and the person you set up to help them is a white privileged woman, that is a problem and it's a problem we're still seeing in television today.
Forgive me for going off on a tangent, but something GRRM said in that same interview:
"Only a cretin would trade the two-and-a-half years of B&B we produced for ten or twenty of THE INCREDIBLE HULK."
Excuse me?
Mr. Martin, I bet I can find someone who would have a bone to pick with you for that statement.
Besides, your books are a rambling incoherent mess. So your argument is invalid.
That doesn't mean it was a bad show. Its good moments weren't just good, they were phenomenal. Given that this aired on the cusp of the dark and gritty 90's, where practically every entertainment medium would pursue ugliness and call it "realism", this show unabashedly embraced pure, chivalric notions of romance, love, and the goodness people are capable of--while at the same time not shying from the evil they do. It showed how both extremes could exist even within the same person. It asked questions about what makes someone human and what makes them a monster. BatB had as much in common with Shelley's Frankenstein as much as with the 17th century tale. The most evil people were the ones who looked the most normal and put forth images of respectability, while the best and most kind-hearted ones were the outcasts, the poor, and the ones least respected--with the few exceptions being people driven to evil from the hatred they were shown. Don't see that often enough in television...or anywhere, really.
The problem was that the show had individual episodes that were great but no overall direction or focus. It didn't seem to know what it wanted to be. One episode was a procedural, the next was a soap opera, the next was a journey into fantasy with fortunetelling, mystical caves of wonder and prophetic visions--nevermind that whole empathy thing. I mean, what was that? Other than a cheap plot device to have Vincent show up and shred a guy into little pieces, that is. It's not impossible to weave these elements together into a singular narrative, but the intent and purpose of the story have to be clear and each element has to drive toward that purpose. What was the purpose, other than diddling around with the forbidden romance trope? What kind of story were they trying to tell? Other than the romance itself, there was no connecting thread...and the romance was held in stasis because the writers didn't want to jump the shark. While I get that, you can't stand still, either. In real life two people can stay for years at a certain relationship level and that's fine, but it doesn't make for a good story. Narrative plays by different rules. So we have a show floundering around, not sure what it wants to be.
The original tale is about transformation of the inhuman through love by someone pure, and there's an argument that this version subverted that having Vincent stay the same while Catherine was the one who transformed from shallow socialite to courageous helper of the less fortunate. That's more or less true, but I have some issues with it. In the first few scenes of the first episode Catherine acted like someone who was looking for something more, and just needed a catalyst to give her the courage to make a change. That change happened by the end of the first episode, with her quitting her job and joining the D.A.'s office. Second, she didn't give up a whole lot in that change. She still had the rich lifestyle - the fancy clothes, the parties, her family's love and support. It didn't seem like she really sacrificed anything.
"She sacrificed marriage and a family." Not really. Catherine instead came to the conclusion that marriage and a family weren't that important if it meant not having Vincent in her life. It's a sentiment to be applauded. A woman in a romance deciding not to get married and have kids? A story with a female protagonist that doesn't plod the wellworn path toward a wedding? It's refreshing...but the flip side is that Catherine remained the same--an idealized, chaste maiden on a pedestal, beautiful, cultured and untouched by base desires. Thus, as far as her character arc is concerned, the entirety of the first two seasons is a big "So what?" Anytime she might have had some forward momentum in her development, the show would toss it out to keep the status quo.
Thus by necessity the dramatic moments and forward propulsion of the narrative came from Vincent's arc: his struggle between his instincts to kill and his desire to emulate the goodness shown him by his adopted family. It's the only arc of the show that built up well and came to a satisfying conclusion.
The show's other strong characters and emotional moments mostly came from the "world below." Not in every case, but most of the time. It was much weaker when it ignored them in favor of whatever political intrigue it wanted to drag Catherine into in the world above. I dug up an interview with George R.R. Martin (yes, that GRRM) who was a writer and producer on the show. He said:
The writing staff on B&B was as good as any I ever worked with[...]but thinking that we could plan out this profound super-arc... we were never that well coordinated. We were all stubborn, strong-minded individuals with our own vision about where the show would go. Ever wonder why so much is made of the rose bush in "Snow" and "Beggar's Comet," and then nothing in a "A Time to Heal"? That's 'cause the rose-bush had been mine, all the way back to "Kingdom by the Sea." Alex had alwasy [sic] hated it, and refused to include it in his episodes. Similarly, ever notice that Diana only types on her computer in episodes that Alex & Howard either wrote or supervised? I thought that computer diary was straight out of "Doogie Howser" and had no place on our show...These in-house struggles and disagreements take place every day on every TV show ever made... and they certainly took place on B&B.[...]From first season to third, Tony wanted more cop stuff, more DA's office, more of Joe Maxwell and the Case of the Week, and less underworld.
While I adored Jay Acovone's portrayal of Joe and I feel that Linda as Catherine seemed more relaxed in the scenes she had with him and in 'the world above' in general, if a police procedural/case of the week/Nancy Drew mysteries is what some writers wanted this show to be then there was no place for an Alice in Wonderland/Wizard of Oz/fantasy land, which the World Below was, for all that they didn't have explicit magic. It would be like if you had Olivia Benson show up in Buffy the Vampire Slayer. It doesn't work.
It was only in the third season that there was a direction and a purpose and as a result the writing is more smooth and integrated. We see characters break their molds, doing things they would never have done earlier, therefore upping the stakes and the drama. The plotlines of the worlds above and below come together, driving the pace, unlike before when the two were dissonant and slowed things down. The romance between Vincent and Catherine was the beating heart of the series and no amount of drama would replace losing that, but for all that, season 3 was solid television. As an ending to a doomed series, it worked well.
Speaking of unpopular opinions, I liked Diana. What an interesting person. Her empathy was not supernatural, just very strong for a human, making her good at her job but also keeping her from forming any real bonds with others because she got hurt so easily. She suffered when getting into the minds of those she hunted down. It would have been fantastic to see her story unfold, see the tight knit community of Below help her restore her faith in humanity. I think if there had been no Catherine for her to be endlessly compared to, Diana would have engaged fans just as well.
It deserves mention how shoddily this show treated its characters of color. I am willing to believe that it wasn't intentional, but when all of your named POCs either die or are drug addicts, and the person you set up to help them is a white privileged woman, that is a problem and it's a problem we're still seeing in television today.
Forgive me for going off on a tangent, but something GRRM said in that same interview:
"Only a cretin would trade the two-and-a-half years of B&B we produced for ten or twenty of THE INCREDIBLE HULK."
Excuse me?
Mr. Martin, I bet I can find someone who would have a bone to pick with you for that statement.
Besides, your books are a rambling incoherent mess. So your argument is invalid.