Supernatural: Season 3, episodes 1-3

[meganbmoore]

If Supernatural is your happy place, or your comfort viewing, or you don’t understand why there was a huge fuss about race and gender in the show last year, then I recommend you skip this post. If the above does apply to you and you read it anyway, please keep in mind that explanations of how something isn’t racist or sexist usually only serves to make me more convinced that it is, especially when it’s implied that I’m just looking for something to be wrong. You are always more than welcome to disagree with me, just don’t expect me to agree because you tell me it isn’t something.

The thing is, I used to love Supernatural. I thought the first season was flawed, but had a lot of potential. Early season two did what I thought it should do in terms of direction and supporting cast, but then the new characters I liked were written out. (In one case, terribly, once you learn that they thought it was an “elegant” conclusion to her story.) In addition, two other characters who could have been compelling and sympathetic antagonists were made into evil stereotypes simply because they weren’t on Sam and Dean’s side. The two characters who were dropped with incomplete stories were the first two recurring female characters, and the two evil stereotypes were the first two recurring POC characters. I liked season 2 when I watched it, but started feeling uncomfortable about it shortly after. When I started to hear about season 3, I decided that I was officially breaking up with the show until it figured out how to keep non-evil vaginas around for longer than a few episodes.

However, I was offered a chance to review an ARC of In the Hunt: Unauthorized Essays on Supernatural. As it apparently covers through season three, I thought I should have actually seen all of the material covered.

The following comments are not really an analysis, just observations and comments, though it is long winded.  And probably more analytical than I originally intended for it to be. It should also be noted that my view is likely influenced by the fact that prozacparkand I watched a certain late season episode together a few months back. If you’ve seen the season-or heard a lot about season three-you can probably guess which one it is, as it was the subject of a lot of debate at the time.

In the first episode, the first time we see a woman, it’s through thin curtains as Dean’s random sex partner. Minor (relatively speaking) but sadly tone setting for me. Especially since we next see a demon brainwashing a woman into killing another woman over a pair of shoes. Then there’s the black couple. I like married people in fiction being portrayed as interesting and being able to have lives and take part in action, so I went “oooooooo” when they showed up. And then was groaning five minutes later, as I could see the writing on the wall when they refused Sam and Dean’s help. Because, naturally, the black hunters who refuse the aid of the white hunters will immediately wander into a demon bar and need to be rescued by the white hunters. And then we have the implication that Tamara didn’t try to save the man possessed by Envy, and her caving in to emotional manipulation being what lets the demons in the house. Then there’s Dean vs Lust, where we see him pretending to give in, and then repeated shots of his shoving her face into a bathtub full of holy water.

In episode two, we have the changelings. For the first half of the episode, we know something is wrong because mothers are being terrorized and driven mad by their cute little girls. While this is going on, Dean is bonding with a little boy who may or may not be his son, and who talks about “hot chick city.” The “oh, these things are SUPER SCARY” moment is when one of the mother locks what may be her daughter in the car and sends it into a lake or river (not sure which), then goes home to find the changeling there. The climax of the episode involved the boy Dean bonded with getting the other abducted children-apparently all girls- out of the basement where they were being held captive while Dean repeatedly kicked the “mother changeling” (publicly in hiding as a real estate agent who apparently made a habit of asking women if they planned to sell their houses mere day’s after their children’s fathers died) while two of the mothers cowered sobbing in the corner as their changeling children banged on locked doors to be let in so they could feed off of them. Later, the only child we see being reuinited with it’s mother is, of course, the little boy. Throughout the episode is a subplot involving the possibility that the boy Dean was bonding with could be his, the result of a one-night stand nine years earlier. At the end, we learn that the mother, Lisa, apparently made a habit of one night stands and became a new person when she became a mother. Like Dean’s fling at the beginning of the first episode, this is minor in and of itself, and I actually have no problems with the idea of parenthood changing your life for the better. I mean, ideally, that’s true. But when combined with all the bad stereotypes in those two episodes, it was like being kicked in the teeth with sexist ideas. It didn’t help that that scene also included Dean making the “I’m not the settling kind” speech, reducing her to tears, despite the fact that she spent the entire episode clearly Not Interested.

Episode three was less problematic for me. I think largely because it didn’t bother to have any female but Bela around for more than two seconds, and Bela as mostly running circles around the boys. Though a lot of that was undermined by the show apparently thinking it’s cute to have Dean recommend Sam use a cursed rabbit’s foot to get laid, because the foot makes him lucky enough that apparently no girl would resist him. On the other had, we have the return of Gordon, the hunter who is made overwhelmingly evil because anyone opposing the brothers must be evil. Gordon convinces another hunter to go after Sam and Dean. This hunter’s evilness is centered around his believing in God. As I can’t remember whether or not Gordon is religious, this is either the first religious hunter, or the second. Not that either option is prettier.

The thing that makes it so bad is that, clearly, the show could do better. Admittedly, pretty much anything could do better on various fronts with a little effort, but the potential in Supernatural is always glaringly obvious. Many of the one off female characters are perfectly competent and react as sensibly as one can to the happenings in the show. Ellen was an awesome example of an adult woman and mother of an adult child who is badass as both a mother and a hunter. Jo was a perfect example of a child raised in both the most protected and most dangerous way possible, who desperately wanted to stand on her own feet. They were written out because they “didn’t fit,” comments at the time essentially stating that it was because they were positive female characters who were more than decorations. So instead we get two sexy evil girls. One is a bitchy demon with secrets and her own motives for helping Sam. The other is a thief who steals a cursed object and shoots Sam. Based on approximately ten minutes of airtime each, I’d say both Bela and Ruby have a lot of potential, and yet they’re deliberately taking the antagonistic route with both. And I’m spoiled to the fate of both. We can’t have positive female characters, and we can’t have antagonistic but interesting ones, and they can’t be antagonistic but also positive.

Then there’s the black characters. Tamara and Isaac (or even just Tamara after Isaac dies) could have been allies, or an example of a different kind of hunting team. Instead they were an example of why it’s bad not to listen to Sam and Dean. I’d say that maybe she’ll be back and get more development, but I doubt it. Jo’s story ends with her being assaulted by her demon possessed friend and getting the brushoff by her crush, knowing perfectly well that both will forget all about her five minutes later. Ellen’s story ends with her entire life apparently having gone down in flames, and her relationship with her daughter unknown. Given the show’s track record, I’m sure they think being forced to kill her demon possessed husband and be left an emotional wreck is a good conclusion to her story. Then there Gordon and Hedrickson/Henderson (the FBI agent hunting the brothers, wikipedia doesn’t list him as a recurring character, and I can’t remember which it is.) Gordon is a hunter with a legitimate reason to believe Sam is bad news and needs to be stopped. Hendrickson/Henderson has a perfectly legitimate reason to believe that they’re dangerous serial killers. Portraying these characters in a positive light should be easy. Just look at what Sarah Connor Chronicles does with Ellison. Here’s the thing: Sam and Dean are career criminals. They leave a trail of bodies behind them. Sam was (unwillingly) part of a demon plot to destroy the world. Yes, we know that they aren’t evil, that they’re saving the world, that the trail of bodies is made of demons and people they were trying to save, but there’s no reason for anyone else to think that. In this situation, a sympathetic antagonist, and antagonist trying to do the right thing, would not only be easy to pull off, but also result in interesting conflict. Instead, anyone opposed to the brothers is evil. That? Is horribly lazy writing.

Was it always this bad on these front, or are there just no more excuses I can make in hopes that it’ll get better?

I likely won’t post much more on the season, unless there are specific episodes I feel like ranting about, or noting for when I read the book.

And now to read and bit and fix dinner while I decide whether to watch Foyle’s War or Dark Knight, as Netflix was amazingly random in what DVDs it sent (Foyle’s War was around #70, and Dark Knight somewhere around #100.)