![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Quick thoughts on voyeurism in Sneeze
I wrote this on the bus to work today--I have a gazillion work projects to finish and I can't stop thinking about SV! So if I don't reply to comments on this until this weekend, sorry--I probably won't be able to check lj again today.
Spoilers, obviously, for SV: Sneeze
I was thinking of the role of voyeurism and power in SV. From the very beginning of the show, Clark is described as a watcher, a voyeur into human life, symbolized by his telescope, in which he watches Lana in a way that the show initially suggests is mostly innocent, not stalkery: Clark is an outsider trying to understand human life by watching. And in a way it foreshadows the role of Superman: watching over human beings in order to save them.
Later, of course, voyeurism takes on a more sinister cast, as a series of watchers (Phelan, Nixon, Lex) put Clark's secret in danger. Cameras are a particular source of danger, since they can potentially reveal Clark (like the blur Lex sees in Rogue, or the tapes that Nixon makes of Clark's superpower. I think it's significant when Lex creates the famous Chamber of Clark Kent that there is a giant photo of Clark at the center of it; this is not simply to encourage speculation about Lex's homoerotic desire for Clark, but also to depict the dangerous power of Lex's gaze.
So I think it's very interesting that the show is now depicting Lex's gaze literally turned on Lana (even though he denies it--come on, we all know he watched that clip repeatedly! Why else was it the first one to appear?) He's trying to control his life by becoming all-seeing, which is a lovely nod to his future iconic self, in which there's nothing that goes on in Metropolis that Lex doesn't know about. I think, in a sense, he's also trying to control Lana this way: to *collect* her, like he collected Clark. What's really interesting about this is Lana's reaction: unlike Clark, when exposed to Lex's voyeurism, she doesn't flee; instead she attempts to set boundaries. (Of course, the Chamber of Clark Kent is a bit creepier than one shot of her undressing, and she doesn't have the same secrets to hide Clark does, so exposure is not as inherently dangerous to her, but still, I think most women would have left after discovering something like that.) Does Lana secretly enjoy being watched/collected? Will she stay with Lex and his (probably necessary) paranoid need to control his environment with omnipresent cameras?
And it's interesting that the connection between cameras, watching, and power was reinforced by the Oliver Queen storyline. Oliver knows about Lex's powers because his corporation had the only functioning satellite during Dark Thursday. This reinforces my conviction that Queen is being set up to deliberately parallel Lex, as I discussed in my earlier review : a billionaire interested in investigating humans with special abilities, not necessarily using ethical means to do so.
Since Queen is also a superhero in DC canon, I am excited by the potential triangulation of Clark-Lex-Oliver: Is Queen's characterization going to be closer to Lex's or Clark's? And what will each learn from him (or interactions with him) about heroism or villainy?
Spoilers, obviously, for SV: Sneeze
I was thinking of the role of voyeurism and power in SV. From the very beginning of the show, Clark is described as a watcher, a voyeur into human life, symbolized by his telescope, in which he watches Lana in a way that the show initially suggests is mostly innocent, not stalkery: Clark is an outsider trying to understand human life by watching. And in a way it foreshadows the role of Superman: watching over human beings in order to save them.
Later, of course, voyeurism takes on a more sinister cast, as a series of watchers (Phelan, Nixon, Lex) put Clark's secret in danger. Cameras are a particular source of danger, since they can potentially reveal Clark (like the blur Lex sees in Rogue, or the tapes that Nixon makes of Clark's superpower. I think it's significant when Lex creates the famous Chamber of Clark Kent that there is a giant photo of Clark at the center of it; this is not simply to encourage speculation about Lex's homoerotic desire for Clark, but also to depict the dangerous power of Lex's gaze.
So I think it's very interesting that the show is now depicting Lex's gaze literally turned on Lana (even though he denies it--come on, we all know he watched that clip repeatedly! Why else was it the first one to appear?) He's trying to control his life by becoming all-seeing, which is a lovely nod to his future iconic self, in which there's nothing that goes on in Metropolis that Lex doesn't know about. I think, in a sense, he's also trying to control Lana this way: to *collect* her, like he collected Clark. What's really interesting about this is Lana's reaction: unlike Clark, when exposed to Lex's voyeurism, she doesn't flee; instead she attempts to set boundaries. (Of course, the Chamber of Clark Kent is a bit creepier than one shot of her undressing, and she doesn't have the same secrets to hide Clark does, so exposure is not as inherently dangerous to her, but still, I think most women would have left after discovering something like that.) Does Lana secretly enjoy being watched/collected? Will she stay with Lex and his (probably necessary) paranoid need to control his environment with omnipresent cameras?
And it's interesting that the connection between cameras, watching, and power was reinforced by the Oliver Queen storyline. Oliver knows about Lex's powers because his corporation had the only functioning satellite during Dark Thursday. This reinforces my conviction that Queen is being set up to deliberately parallel Lex, as I discussed in my earlier review : a billionaire interested in investigating humans with special abilities, not necessarily using ethical means to do so.
Since Queen is also a superhero in DC canon, I am excited by the potential triangulation of Clark-Lex-Oliver: Is Queen's characterization going to be closer to Lex's or Clark's? And what will each learn from him (or interactions with him) about heroism or villainy?
no subject
no subject
What's more Lana is portrayed as enjoying this objectification: This is what really pisses me off. She is being controlled by elevating her to this blameless status of someone who is never wrong, nor ever scolded for actions that in and by others cause blame, yet these actions result in injury/ death/ voyeristic experiences/ her to be praises for her beauty etc. and all the while she remains in-active, passive.
In addition, she is portrayed ... smug, it could be said, so smug that she accepts and expects controlling/ voyerism as her due. (Again, she is portrayed this way.) She is also seen using her object status to gain favor from people whose favors she needs/ wants, somehow passively again. Favors just fall in her lap: trips to Paris, dead ex-bfs, coffee shops. It's all related to her being an object, rather than a person, in SV verse.
In short, I agree with you.
no subject
I know that a lot of people have warmed up to Lexana and all but I still see a lot of the same dynamic in that I think that in many ways Lex hooked up with her for reasons other than romantic love: to piss off Clark, to show Lionel that he was wrong, to prove to his dead mother that he could have most of the good stuff w/o the bad. This is my trophy, I win. Dysfunctionality can be interesting but . . .
As for leaving, she has usually ran to Clark when things went bad with Whitney, Jason, Adam, etc. W/o an escape route, it would actually require her to leave on her own which is something we really haven't seen her do. (Even leaving Nell required Chloe to strangely open her house to her and Lana's motivation at the time had a great deal to do with rediscovering her father and Clark.)
I think it's more a matter that she hates the downside of being under the gaze of others yet can't imagine that she's NOT the center of being viewed. The question is if she has to choose between being "collected" or being utterly "alone" (or at least w/o a boyfriend/father figure), which would she choose.
no subject
I just don't know how this dead end can be turned around. Lana would need to literally become someone else, possessed for good, for Lexana or anything even remotely related to Lana to work at all.
Lana is a plot device that got out of hand. They should have made her third tier/ gone years ago.
(I love your analysis, I lurk the TwoP SV Boards.)
no subject
no subject
I think part of the problem stems from who AlMiles is using as inspiration: Helen of Troy. A character like Helen of Troy works in the context of myth but 21st century drama, not so much.
I remember a while back in Deadwood, Trixie tells Sol that while her situation may be violent and not the greatest, it's familiar and that's what pulls her to it. While I'm not saying Lana's a hooker like Trixie, I do think that she has gotten used to men/boy's desire for her being mixed with a great huge helping of dysfunction. Clark spies on her and lies to her, Lex spies on her, Bugboy spied on her, Van and a freak joke about her having a stalker network. There's violence involved, etc. It's the only real spin I can put on it that makes psychological sense.
no subject
>to depict the dangerous power of Lex's gaze.
ooh, yes. i can't help thinking of all those gazes at clark the first year, which were erotic and possessive, but also hawk-like and observant.
one tiny problem with the show that's maybe peculiar to me is this: i find lana so unattractive that i can't understand anyone wanting to watch her take her clothes off. she's so boring to me in every way. oh well, apparently all the guys on the show can't take their eyes off her. *g*
no subject
no subject
no subject
This is the same as how TPTB always equated Clark's friendship with Lex as equal in power to his feelings for Lana.
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
Does Lana secretly enjoy being watched/collected? Will she stay with Lex and his (probably necessary) paranoid need to control his environment with omnipresent cameras?
Very interesting questions. Especially since we've seen her fight to be 'behind the camera' as the viewer not the viewed before--in that brief sojourn to Paris. But I do wonder whether part of Lana enjoys being objectified, or at least if she still thinks she can strike some balance--draw some lines but also have intimacy with someone. I found it really interesting that the ep explored the distancing between Lex and Lana--it makes me wonder about HIM and wonder if he's deliberately keeping her at a distance still--he's more comfortable with viewing her from afar than true intimacy?
Queen is being set up to deliberately parallel Lex
Oh, yeah, for SURE! I love that!!
Is Queen's characterization going to be closer to Lex's or Clark's? And what will each learn from him (or interactions with him) about heroism or villainy?
Yes, I will be very very interested to see that. For me, this was the episode that explored the Lexian aspects of Oliver. I suspect we will have an episode that explores the Clarkian side (total guess). I can't wait. *bounces*
no subject
That's a really good point. We've never actually seen Lex in a relationship in which he wasn't (a) under some sort of external compulsion (Desiree) or (b) pursuing some sort of hidden agenda (Victoria, Helen). Maybe this is actually a sign that he cares for Lana: he's uncomfortable getting really close to her, because it would actually require letting her in in a way he hasn't ever done before?
Of course, there's also a slashy reading of his distance from Lana!
Yeah, I am so excited about the possibilities of Queen's character. I'm not as excited about the actor himself as you were in your review (I mean, he's fine as an actor--he doesn't do a lot for me personally), but what he means both for canon and fanon development is making me happy.
no subject
Maybe this is actually a sign that he cares for Lana: he's uncomfortable getting really close to her, because it would actually require letting her in in a way he hasn't ever done before?
Yes fear and desire are linked I think--they often are in the SV universe. I'm going to watch the boundary setting and breaking in that relationship with great interest!
Oh, that's interesting--you like the character not the actor so much. Fair enough. I think he does very well in this type of universe/show, with the sort of lines he's given. On the 'Thirst' commentary (which I still mean to write about at some stage), Al&Miles talk about how important it is to play against the camp in order to pull it off--and this actor seems to already know how to do that. It's so true of SV--and MR in particular--it's played so straight, so seriously, that the camp works rather than becomes an embarrassment.
no subject
no subject