|
TV Guide Online
January 19, 2004
Roush Room: Ask Matt
Question:
I couldn't be more disappointed in your latest Dispatch on Alias. I have always counted on and enjoyed your support of Alias. Though I understand that we can't love everything, I really disagree with your assessment of "Full Disclosure." One of the biggest complaints (besides the horrible Lauren) this season has been that we need some answers, well, here they are. Now, let's slam them for giving them to us? My biggest fear is all this "giving up" on Alias (particularly by people like you — who have such a voice) will lead to a cancellation which I believe would be a huge mistake. Perhaps the honeymoon really is over, but why slam a show that brings so much enjoyment? There are so many other dramas that have lost a lot of their glory and you are still kind — case in point, your Dispatch on 24. I will continue to read, but I hope that you can find the good again. — J. Idell
Matt:
I could probably turn this entire column over to a discussion of this episode, given the mail it generated, but suffice it to say most people were very jazzed about what they learned about Sydney's adventures during her dark period. My own more cautious response in my Dispatch shouldn't be interpreted as a sign that I'm giving up on the show. But, for me, all of these revelations and prophecies and convoluted explanations aren't really why I watch this show. I think of these plot mechanisms in much the way that Hitchcock regarded what he called "the McGuffin," the catalyst that gets a plot going — like, say, what The 39 Steps refers to — but is really beside the point of the adventure itself. I watch Alias for the emotion, the rush, the characters, not for endless exposition that is barely credible or satisfying. (As one of my coworkers put it, Sydney's not the sort of person who can leave a mystery unsolved, so if she was going to erase her own memory, wouldn't she have found a way to remind herself after waking up that she had purposefully buried these secrets? Even writing a sentence like this makes me shudder at the prospect of taking all of this too seriously.)
My real problem and concern is that all of this reveals a potential for self-importance, of the sort that destroyed The X-Files in its latter years. Too. Much. Information. When the show becomes all about the plot, as it did in the "Full Disclosure" episode, I find my joy in the show diminishing — but far from disappearing. I just felt this episode, unlike any other hour of Alias, presented all of this information in a rather pedestrian manner. I wouldn't be much of a critic if I didn't call them as I see them. I find myself agreeing with Carrie A., who wrote in to express her "mixed feelings... Devoting a whole show to just explaining those two years — while excluding the characters we love, namely Jack and Sloane — it felt like having someone put the puzzle together right in front of you — no fun there! And while I'm glad there is a resolution to that story, I think teasing us with memories might have been a more tantalizing way to go."
Question:
Now that we have discovered Lauren to be working for the Covenant (a shocking but by no means unexpected twist), I can't help but wonder if the Alias writers have taken the easy way out. It seems to me that Vaughn is now free to resume his relationship with Sydney totally guilt free (or will be once he discovers his wife's intentions). Though I can't fault the writers for wrapping up the Vaughn/Lauren story line sooner than later (I believe the public's response has been somewhat negative), I only wish it was done in such a way that would force Vaughn to make the tough choice between two women he loves in different ways and to feel the consequences of his decision. — Stacey G.
Matt:
Somewhat negative? Lauren is probably the worst thing to ever happen to this show — character, casting, you name it — and the revelation of her villainy has once again split viewers, who I can't imagine would be satisfied no matter what the writers did with her. A viewer named Jacqueline took sharp exception with my Dispatch commentary suggesting that the writers had no choice but to either make her evil or kill her (or both). Like Stacey, she blames the writers, in this case for not developing the character sufficiently in the first place. "It would have been interesting to say the least to understand why/how a woman could marry a guy with excessive baggage such as Vaughn (not exactly a prize winner in my mind). Though I realize that the show is about Sydney Bristow, surely J.J. Abrams could have tried to compensate Lauren's deficit with a bit more airtime than he normally would give to other secondary characters. After all, he's the one who dreamt up this 'creative dead end.' " Stacey makes a good point that it would have been interesting to make Vaughn choose, without having one of the women being overtly evil. But in so many ways, there seems to be no love lost between Lauren and many Alias fans. So, the sooner this is history the better, as far as I'm concerned.
Question:
This is most definitely not the only response you're going to get to the letter from Brian in last week's "Ask Matt" column [Jan. 12, second question], but that letter shocked me and I had to submit my two cents. Who exactly considers these shows "uncool?" I am a female college student, and my male friends think that Alias is the epitome of cool. One of the things we all like about the show is that Sydney isn't a lone strong female awash in a sea of bumbling men. She's surrounded by compelling, competent, fascinating guys: Vaughn, Jack, Dixon. Saying that Alias or any series is "too feminized" simply because the lead is a woman is silly and not a little bit sexist. I would argue, in fact, that since the departure of Francie and Irina, Alias suffers from a lack of female characters. Lauren Reed doesn't begin to fill the void left by the aforementioned women. I would like to see J.J. Abrams bring another strong female supporting character on board; maybe Isabella Rosselini's guest spot will develop into something. — Lindy
Matt:
Brian's diatribe against "feminized" action series, those where emotion coexists with action, did trigger some pretty heated responses. Here's a sampling, some edited so they don't come off like personal attacks.
Mariah wrote: "Though the balance is a bit off yet in Line of Fire, I think the involvement of the domestic world in the professional is what makes shows like these great. Alias and 24 have found success not because of great action sequences, but because they interweave intriguing characterization with compelling plots."
Kerry C., referring to the letter as "prehistoric," added that Brian's "overall argument is false. These 'feminized' shows he mentions feature strong male characters as well. The attraction that thinking women like myself have to these shows is the fact that they are not overly feminized — they are balanced. Strong women and men work together with mutual respect for each other to achieve a common goal. Victor Garber on Alias is one hell of a "manly man" and I challenge Brian to come up with evidence to the contrary. In addition, to insinuate that a TV show cannot be cool unless it is male-centric and that it is unmanly to enjoy a television show that features many strong female characters is disgusting. Brian is basically saying that he can only enjoy a television show that objectifies women as weak, stupid and slutty and personifies the '50s myth that men are really in charge.
And Patrick E. articulated that "tough doesn't have to mean butch when it comes to female action characters. Besides, neither show he mentioned are 'cop shows' in the vein of Hill Street Blues, NYPD Blue, etc. Personally, I love both Alias and Karen Sisco just the way they are. Both heroines are smart, sexy, not to be messed with, and both have strong emotional bases to keep them from feeling like hollow characters. Carla Gugino, in particular, has really outshined Jennifer Lopez's portrayal of Karen in the movie (not to mention she's become possibly the single sexiest woman on television, but I digress). And both have strong father-daughter relationships that not only contribute to the tone of the shows, but couldn't play the same if they were father-son. I think they'd lack the tenderness that makes the Sydney/Jack and Karen/Marshall 'ships so great to watch. I think Brian's problem is that he expects (or just wants) a different show than what these two are, and more power to him. There's got to be at least one reason why we have 500 channels these days."
And finally, a woman who sides with Brian. This from Shawna: "I would have to agree with Brian in your Jan. 12 column, who talked about the feminization of such characters as Sydney on Alias and Karen Sisco on the so-named show — and I am a woman! I find these characters so unbelievable that I cannot make it through 10 minutes without laughing out loud. They are too feminized to be cool. There is nothing less cool than a female character who is portrayed as 'being tough' having the obligatory 'emotional' side. These are caricatures rather than characters and I don't watch these shows simply for that reason. It is akin to the female heroine who must wander down the dark hall while we know the serial killer lurks just behind her — it's so obviously a ploy that it detracts from humanizing the character and only highlights its gimmicky plot. I agree with Brian, and as a female viewer, I too want to see more believable female characters on TV. Maybe we want to see them for different reasons, but these cardboard females such as Sydney are just too laughable to ever attract intelligent female viewers."
Obviously, I can't agree with the view that Sydney of all TV characters is "cardboard," but what an entertaining skirmish this has been.
© TV Guide Online 2004
 Back To All About Alias 2004
|
|
