💾 Archived View for gemini.susa.net › brecht_vs_superman.gmi captured on 2023-01-29 at 03:09:58. Gemini links have been rewritten to link to archived content

-=-=-=-=-=-=-

Brecht vs Superman

None of this is partularly well considered, and is just an attempt to organise disparate thoughts and irks that I had floating around.

The following are some thoughts after reading about Superman in some essays on the 1950s American TV shows by James Tomasino:

gemini://tilde.team/~tomasino/vintagetv/superman-01.gmi

From Wikipedia on Brecht, this kind of summarises what I like about the ideas of Brecht:

a play should not cause the spectator to identify emotionally with the characters or action before him or her, but should instead provoke rational self-reflection and a critical view of the action on the stage

It should be clear already that I am not well read on Brecht (or well read at all, for that matter), but the principle above resonates strongly with me. I'd go so far as to say that most of today's media is emotionally charged, and that this is used to sneak in social conditioning of the audience.

Somewhat humourously, given the title of this article, the opening paragraphs on Brecht's Wikipedia entry stated:

he was surveilled by the FBI and subpoenaed by the House Un-American Activities Committee

So, I don't recall ever having seen any of the 1950s Superman TV show, but I expect that in terms of 'things that bug me', it would be similar to, for example, Happy Days, Knight Rider, Friends, The Big Bang Theory.

Hero worship, good-guys violence, misogyny, envy, clique-delusion, racism, wealth worship, consumerism, aggression.

Often, these are implied subtexts in the dialog or setting, though as Tomasino's essays describe, the violence is sometimes central to the story.

Now, it's just a bit of entertainment, right? Yet, I'd argue that it's not just entertainment, and that entertainment is just the medium used to carry the message. Really, it's to set the precident that it's ok to be aggressive or violent if you're on the right side, that women are stupid but sweet, that the enviable lifestyle is desirable and attainable, that non 'white' people are lack honour, or intelligence, that gifts should be expensive, that you're lesser without wealth.

It does this by feeding our fantasies. Who has never fantasised about being all-powerful, or all-popular, or charming, or super-intelligent. There's always a 'relateable element' to these shows that gives us an 'in' to delude ourselves that we're part of it, and hence get us drawn in emotionally.

To be clear, I think that fantasy is fine when it's produced in our interests, or at least not to our detriment for then interests of others, it's just when it's abused that I object.

To me, that seems the dangerous part - when we're 'emotionally invested', we're left vulnerable to 'unfair trades' whereby we make concessions in order to keep our place in the fantasy. So what if he slapped her, she deserved it for being hysterical, and besides she kissed him in return and if I don't accept that, then I suffer an emotional loss - I lose my investment in fantasy.

I think we see this sort of mechanism play out with celebrity - so, if your favourite artist hits the headlines for all the wrong reasons, you try to find defense, you weigh up the crime on a moral basis, and sometimes you change your moral compass to accomodate it. This only happens because of emotional investment. Rationally, nothing has changed. Their work is as it was previously, yet it's tied to an emotional.

Similarly, closer to everyday life, flattery is often used to manipulate people because we like being flattered and so the flatterer becomes endearing. Sometimes the manipulation is just intended to give a confidence boost in a time of need, but it can also be used to extract money or sex, for example, or support for a cause.

I see in scripted TV the emotional investment and the accompanying messaging being deliberately woven together to fit an agenda, for example to imply what is 'common knowledge' or 'common sense'. I'm sure the same was done in Shakespear's day, but that doesn't make it right or beneficial to us.

Which is why I say Brecht For The Win - we need to break the delusional influence of fantasy-driven televisuals.