Less argumentative, more thoughtful. Less debate class more 'cool thing I just learned'. I don't jump around or assume given knowledge of either the show or myself, as much.
Also I actually sound a little bit like my brother Phil in my careful analysis of the subject. But he would have advocated not giving anyone the benefit of the doubt. And presented a far more narrow framework. He would have been as detailed, but given the opposite argument. I am trying to be more respectful and less attached and emotional than he was.
There's not a lot in the different shows I watch that the social justice standard/approach of my Mennonite upbringing would change or dictate my interpretation of the show, characters and content. And I am more keyed into emotions and empathy than most people so along with those closest to me, I chalked my unique perspective and interpretation of TV shows and movies up to that, just being emotionally and sympathetically different than most people. And It wasn't my contemporary Christian, like missionary or street ministry influence of my other church that led me to the 'see things from the others point of view'. That was something I knew innately. And I have just realized this perspective is also my Mennonite influence. But while the 'social and restorative justice' part of Mennoiteism gets talked about A-lot. there is another, less well; known aspect of Mennonite philosophy: seeing things from the other persons point of view.
Being a Mennonite is sometimes a burden of knowledge not shared. Most people here won't know who I'm talking about as far as the show/characters themselves; bear with me.
There are debates among fans of the show Superman and Lois whether the character of Bizzaro was misunderstood or he was a flat out monster. Also most fans think General Anderson was a flat out dick who deserved what he got and a small number of fans believe he doesn't deserve the hate, that despite being a jerk you could see where he was coming from. When I was listening to all this my first thought was that it's scary when a religious pacifist has to explain the attitude, standards and perspective of a military officer to the general audience. Lt. General Mitchell Anderson from Superman and Lois is not a regular military asshole. He is not in it to be a jerk. He has a military mind and a strict set of standards and when he fails in those standards he is as hard on himself as he is on anyone else. After this super-powered alien that was a messed up version of Superman, -Bizzaro- killed his team he went 'off protocol' to capture him. He was ordered by his superior to find this 'pale son of a b-tch by any means necessary or you will be stripped of your duties' and that monster had killed soldiers under his command. Soldiers whose lives he was responsible for. Military minds see things in black and white and he did the best he could with what he knew. He did what he did on orders and out of a sense of duty, not in-spite of it. He was a jerk but he was a law abiding jerk compared to most others like him out there in the super-hero world. And I was raised Mennonite...a religious pacifist and I understood a military general. Then again, I was raised to approach things from as unbiased and with as unfiltered a perspective as possible. That's part of what being a Mennonite is. So my take away from this entire plot arc was 2 things. One: this guy gets maligned by the audience as being a dick and a militaristic bastard who FINALLY realized how far up his ass his head was. But he didn't know Superman was anything but Superman and he, like most characters on the show actually thought Bizzaro was a clone, a freak of nature. He had nothing telling him otherwise. And he killed Bizzaro in combat in the field. Like literally the two were fighting and he won. So on the list of things Anderson did wrong, what he did to Bizzaro should be be very low. That was actually justified.
And 2: It's even worse when you're not told how you should feel about a character. Bizzaro and Lt. General Mitchell Anderson are not clear protagonists nor established adversaries. Both of them are people our heroes meet up with and have to deal with that ultimately prove to be less naturally adversarial or arrogantly dangerous than the audience or our heroes initially believe. And in my experience we all as the audience tend to see things as they are presented to us. As we are supposed to see them. And we take the intended interpretation of a character as the correct one. Or we see any given character solely through the eyes of the protagonist or in relationship to them. Which is why Bizzaro, who Superman fights until he realizes what the man is trying to do and Lt. General Anderson who Superman holds at arms length and eventually snaps, like goes violent and almost paranoid because he is sick of this aliens secrets and what he sees as duplicity are the ones getting massively analyzed/debated and generally shredded or defended. Because Superman's own opinion of them changes...and because they are on a very short list of characters for whom we are not spoon-fed "good guy v. bad guys opinion.
Superman went from working with him to track Bizzaro down, to sheltering Bizzaro from him without any explanation. A supposed ally keeping even more secrets would not have gone over well to any military officer. Especially not one who was already sick of Superman keeping things from him. He didn't know enough to make smart decisions. And the main reason I'm not in either camp as far as why Bizzaro or Anderson was a bigger jerk is because I was raised to try to see things from the other persons point of view. Not badmouth people or characters based on first impressions or ones' own personal beliefs. Hence burden of unshared knowledge.
Personal Note: Phil was the biggest proponent I knew that the way a thing was presented was the right interpretation. Even more so than my mom. It is the one time the one thing where someone other than my mom was so concerned when I didn't have the right interpretation. Looking at things from another perspective, from a non-mainstream perspective comes naturally to me. But it was actually discouraged. My mom would at least ask what we were supposed to get out of it. And once having what people were trying to say in hand she'd give an opinion on that message. Phil was not only vehement but singular and dismissive for me to suggest alternate interpretations or at least good points people we didn't automatically agree with said or did. Then, he constantly shredded ME for always seeing things just because of the protagonist, of ONLY seeing things and characters through thier perspective and not examining all sides or the characters motivations independently. Which this entire entry stands as an argument against that accusation as much as it does the exposition it is unto itself.
No comments:
Post a Comment