![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
butterflyIn light of recent discussions on authorial intent, I'd like to make one thing clear -- I think that, especially in the case of television, it only goes so far. Because the writer is not responsible for everything that we see. There are tons of other people involved in the process, not the least of which are the actors themselves. Russell mentions that Aidan brought a 'thoughtful' quality to Stuart that he hadn't planned for. That's the sort of the thing that happens. That's why the Jack/Sam intent of Stargate SG-1 doesn't matter all that much to me -- the actors do not have romantic chemistry. All the writing in the world can't force something that isn't there and when the writers try, I roll my eyes. Actors brings something of themselves to a role and they end up changing it because of that. That's why Michael's Daniel had to evolve over the years -- Daniel's heart comes from Michael in the series.
The writer is not God, because the writer is rarely the final word.
So, Cameron can be easily written about with only viewage of the first series. With any of the other important characters, I had to see series two first. Because while I can whitter on about how obvious it is that Stuart adores Vince, just based on the dialogue, I really do need the line deliveries in order to any sort of complex analysis. Because the words alone are not enough. Though it is obvious, just for the record.
Example:
It's only when you watch the series that you see the way Stuart looks at Vince when he calls him a 'sad bastard', with a sort of enduring affection that turns an insult into an 'I love you'.
So, at its heart, QaF is a character drama. It's about this group of people and the ways that they impact each other. The most important relationship is the one between Vince and Stuart; the series is about them and what Russell T. Davies and Vince call their 'unrequited' love.
Now, the definition of 'unrequited' is 'not returned in kind'. I've always found that 'in kind' part to be the most important. Because unrequited love is usually about one friend loving another who does love them back... but not the same way. Is Vince's love for Stuart unrequited? God, first you'd have to define Vince's love for Stuart. Honestly, in a way, all love is unrequited, because we all love in our own way.
But what Vince implies there is that he is 'in love', romantic love, with Stuart, and that Stuart is not 'in love' back. But the problem there would be trying to establish, then, what the difference is between the type of love that they each hold. In what way does Vince love Stuart that Stuart doesn't love him back? Again, serious question, because I can't see one. They both call each other up whenever anything important happens. Vince has pictures of Stuart on his fridge; Stuart leaves the birthday posters of Vince up in his loft for God knows how long. In the deleted scenes, Stuart even has a soppy conversation with Nathan about Vince ("he knew"). But Vince doesn't have as strong a self-image as Stuart -- or, more accurately, he doesn't project as strong a self-image as Stuart does.
As scripted, the not-quite 'morning after' may very well come across as 'Stuart and Vince will never fuck because Stuart won't get hard for Vince'... except, well, it doesn't, does it? The script doesn't even, really. If anything, it reads the other way 'round. Stuart agrees in series one that Vince is 'dead good-looking'. He propositions him five times in series two (beginning threesome; 'for both of us'; 'let's find out'; 'perfect threesome'; and at the very end). These are not the actions of a man who is unattracted. Why on earth would Stuart try so hard to get Vince into bed if he didn't want to sleep with him? I mean, if someone can come up with an answer, I'd love to hear it. Because Stuart keeps trying and Vince keeps turning him down. No wonder Stuart said, "Assuming you'd want me," to Vince in that hotel room -- Vince has been turning him down for ages.
One of the points that Russell makes in his commentary that I agree with is just how much Vince is like Stuart -- Stuart's just honest about it. Vince lies. A lot. He lies when he wants to get out of something and he's lying at work constantly, and stopping that is one of the big changes that he goes through in series two. And it isn't just at the end -- at Nathan's party, when Nathan asks if Stuart even bothered coming, Vince's first response is an honest "No," and then he realises what he's said and goes on one of his normal "let's not hurt anyone's feelings" lying sprees. Of course, it all started because of the party Stuart threw, and Rosalie, and coming out at work.
And I'm in such awe of the writing and acting on QaF. Russell's dialogue is witty and very realistic. The characters talk around things a lot. And they often don't talk about the most important things. And the actors... Aidan Gillen is perfection. He has so much pull as Stuart. And, as Russell remarks, Aidan's thoughtfulness gives Stuart a bit of a mysterious quality -- there's always more going on there then Stuart would ever say out loud. And Craig Kelly is just marvelous as Vince. In order for the show to really work, Vince had to be incredibly lovable. He's got so many layers -- he comes across as a 'nice guy' on first glance, but he's much more complicated than that. And Charlie Hunnam knocks my socks off, taking Nathan from a bratty and selfish fifteen-year-old to a much more likable, though still cocky, sixteen-year-old. We get to see Nathan grow up, and in only ten episodes. Very impressive.
Now, if the first series is 'about' unrequited love, the second focuses much more on... well, on homophobia. On how hate can get to people and what it means. In series two, we see Stuart come to a boil. There's a very definite theme of violence, of guns and blood, that wasn't present in the first series.
And the complex relationships that we only scratch the surface of -- Vince and Stuart's never explained bracelets (and with the improved picture quality of dvds, I can verify that neither of them are without them for a moment -- whenever we can see their wrists, we see the bracelets), how Stuart met Romey, Hazel and Bernie and how long Phil had known Vince and why he hadn't yet met Alexander and Dane.
But, in the end, it all comes back to Stuart and Vince because the series is about them. They're the leads. Even Nathan is a secondary lead, a catalyst and a legacy. The story and the emotional yarn of the show is wound around Stuart and Vince. It's about the moment in their lives where their relationships shifts to a different, more equal and more aware level.
We can see fairly early on that Stuart depends on Vince for something as simple as finding things in his own flat. Vince, however, doesn't realise how much Stuart needs him until later. Because Stuart's huge world means nothing without someone to share it with.
Vince, on the other hand, could have stayed in his fishbowl world. Maybe he'd never have been deeply happy, maybe he would. Maybe he'd have gotten a boyfriend, maybe he would have stayed single. He'd never forget Stuart, but, in time, he'd probably have moved on. He would have survived, one way or the other.
Stuart might not have.
The writer is not God, because the writer is rarely the final word.
So, Cameron can be easily written about with only viewage of the first series. With any of the other important characters, I had to see series two first. Because while I can whitter on about how obvious it is that Stuart adores Vince, just based on the dialogue, I really do need the line deliveries in order to any sort of complex analysis. Because the words alone are not enough. Though it is obvious, just for the record.
Example:
It's only when you watch the series that you see the way Stuart looks at Vince when he calls him a 'sad bastard', with a sort of enduring affection that turns an insult into an 'I love you'.
So, at its heart, QaF is a character drama. It's about this group of people and the ways that they impact each other. The most important relationship is the one between Vince and Stuart; the series is about them and what Russell T. Davies and Vince call their 'unrequited' love.
Now, the definition of 'unrequited' is 'not returned in kind'. I've always found that 'in kind' part to be the most important. Because unrequited love is usually about one friend loving another who does love them back... but not the same way. Is Vince's love for Stuart unrequited? God, first you'd have to define Vince's love for Stuart. Honestly, in a way, all love is unrequited, because we all love in our own way.
But what Vince implies there is that he is 'in love', romantic love, with Stuart, and that Stuart is not 'in love' back. But the problem there would be trying to establish, then, what the difference is between the type of love that they each hold. In what way does Vince love Stuart that Stuart doesn't love him back? Again, serious question, because I can't see one. They both call each other up whenever anything important happens. Vince has pictures of Stuart on his fridge; Stuart leaves the birthday posters of Vince up in his loft for God knows how long. In the deleted scenes, Stuart even has a soppy conversation with Nathan about Vince ("he knew"). But Vince doesn't have as strong a self-image as Stuart -- or, more accurately, he doesn't project as strong a self-image as Stuart does.
As scripted, the not-quite 'morning after' may very well come across as 'Stuart and Vince will never fuck because Stuart won't get hard for Vince'... except, well, it doesn't, does it? The script doesn't even, really. If anything, it reads the other way 'round. Stuart agrees in series one that Vince is 'dead good-looking'. He propositions him five times in series two (beginning threesome; 'for both of us'; 'let's find out'; 'perfect threesome'; and at the very end). These are not the actions of a man who is unattracted. Why on earth would Stuart try so hard to get Vince into bed if he didn't want to sleep with him? I mean, if someone can come up with an answer, I'd love to hear it. Because Stuart keeps trying and Vince keeps turning him down. No wonder Stuart said, "Assuming you'd want me," to Vince in that hotel room -- Vince has been turning him down for ages.
One of the points that Russell makes in his commentary that I agree with is just how much Vince is like Stuart -- Stuart's just honest about it. Vince lies. A lot. He lies when he wants to get out of something and he's lying at work constantly, and stopping that is one of the big changes that he goes through in series two. And it isn't just at the end -- at Nathan's party, when Nathan asks if Stuart even bothered coming, Vince's first response is an honest "No," and then he realises what he's said and goes on one of his normal "let's not hurt anyone's feelings" lying sprees. Of course, it all started because of the party Stuart threw, and Rosalie, and coming out at work.
And I'm in such awe of the writing and acting on QaF. Russell's dialogue is witty and very realistic. The characters talk around things a lot. And they often don't talk about the most important things. And the actors... Aidan Gillen is perfection. He has so much pull as Stuart. And, as Russell remarks, Aidan's thoughtfulness gives Stuart a bit of a mysterious quality -- there's always more going on there then Stuart would ever say out loud. And Craig Kelly is just marvelous as Vince. In order for the show to really work, Vince had to be incredibly lovable. He's got so many layers -- he comes across as a 'nice guy' on first glance, but he's much more complicated than that. And Charlie Hunnam knocks my socks off, taking Nathan from a bratty and selfish fifteen-year-old to a much more likable, though still cocky, sixteen-year-old. We get to see Nathan grow up, and in only ten episodes. Very impressive.
Now, if the first series is 'about' unrequited love, the second focuses much more on... well, on homophobia. On how hate can get to people and what it means. In series two, we see Stuart come to a boil. There's a very definite theme of violence, of guns and blood, that wasn't present in the first series.
And the complex relationships that we only scratch the surface of -- Vince and Stuart's never explained bracelets (and with the improved picture quality of dvds, I can verify that neither of them are without them for a moment -- whenever we can see their wrists, we see the bracelets), how Stuart met Romey, Hazel and Bernie and how long Phil had known Vince and why he hadn't yet met Alexander and Dane.
But, in the end, it all comes back to Stuart and Vince because the series is about them. They're the leads. Even Nathan is a secondary lead, a catalyst and a legacy. The story and the emotional yarn of the show is wound around Stuart and Vince. It's about the moment in their lives where their relationships shifts to a different, more equal and more aware level.
We can see fairly early on that Stuart depends on Vince for something as simple as finding things in his own flat. Vince, however, doesn't realise how much Stuart needs him until later. Because Stuart's huge world means nothing without someone to share it with.
Vince, on the other hand, could have stayed in his fishbowl world. Maybe he'd never have been deeply happy, maybe he would. Maybe he'd have gotten a boyfriend, maybe he would have stayed single. He'd never forget Stuart, but, in time, he'd probably have moved on. He would have survived, one way or the other.
Stuart might not have.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Date: 2005-02-22 02:08 pm (UTC)I've been approaching the Joss commentary kerfuffle from my English lit background, arguing more from a lit crit perspective. But perhaps your point that television drama is a corporate effort is even more important, particularly since it makes perfect sense that a different medium would require its own form of analysis. Television is much more participatory than literature -- not just from a fandom perspective, but from a production one. Michael Shanks is a perfect example of how the actors affect the canon we get on screen -- if he hadn't had appendicitis, if he hadn't decided to leave in S5, and then later return in S7, if he hadn't brought an indefinable spark to the show, we would not have the same Daniel Jackson we have now eight seasons later.
(no subject)
Date: 2005-02-22 05:34 pm (UTC)Yeah, I think that lit crit is all very well, but even apart from the participatory aspect, television is intensely visual in a way that books can't be without also being instensly boring. You get mounds of detail in a single flash of a screen, so all that description is just there and you can get on with plot and character. It's such a different format. It's also different from theater, which was created to change with each production -- everyone can have their own idea of what how a character would say a line (Taming of the Shrew -- did he break her, is she running her own game, or is she playing along with him?) and because there's no definitive version, everyone can be right. With television, we get a definitive line reading and it's meant to last -- with dvd, even more so. Television and movies really are their own area and they deserve to be treated as such.
Michael Shanks is a perfect example of how the actors affect the canon we get on screen -- if he hadn't had appendicitis, if he hadn't decided to leave in S5, and then later return in S7, if he hadn't brought an indefinable spark to the show, we would not have the same Daniel Jackson we have now eight seasons later.
Absolutely. Michael Shanks is the person responsible for making Daniel's character move and change throughout the series. He's the one supplying the arc, albeit not entirely on purpose.
And take Jack -- RDA is the one who insisted that Jack's character wouldn't take to Jonas quickly. It's RDA's desire to spend time with his family that led to Jack being promoted.
The chemistry between the two actors has driven so much, as well. Unlike theater, television is a medium where people tend not to understand when you want to switch out a tired actor for a fresh one. Hell, take the way people are upset about actors playing multiple roles. Part of that is because people get used to that actor's take on the character and on that actor's chemistry with other characters. Even for bit characters, fans notice if the actor changes (I think the only character they ever did that with was Charlie, and since that was in a drugged-out dream it's understandable -- oh, and Chaka, but there they have the make-up thing going for them).
(no subject)
Date: 2005-02-24 04:48 pm (UTC)Heh. I will admit to being one of those fans who get a bit huffy if a favourite character suddenly gets a new actor. Even though I really enjoyed the kid actor for Charlie in "The Devil You Know", I still imagine the blonde kid from "Cold Lazarus" whenever I think of Charlie. (Also all of Jack's photos are of the "Cold Lazarus" Charlie.)
And I was thrown by the new actress for Cassandra, Colleen Rennison, in "Rite of Passage" -- especially when I was so fond of Younger!Cassie (Katie Stuart, who also played Kitty Pryde in X-Men 2).
(no subject)
Date: 2005-02-25 06:09 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2005-02-22 02:17 pm (UTC)another theme of QAFUK which you sort of touched on with nathan is growing up. i loved that aspect of the show, how the characters mature. stuart turns 30, produces a son (alfie) and an heir (nathan). vince learns to stop hiding and go after what he wants. god i miss that show :(
(no subject)
Date: 2005-02-22 05:19 pm (UTC)And yeah, I love the growing up aspect and that, in the end, 'growing up' doens't mean giving up the things that make them passionate. Because it doesn't ever have to.
(no subject)
Date: 2005-02-22 06:13 pm (UTC)I still do appreciate QAF US for giving me more story, and it became addictive in its own right. But it took a while for me to make the adjustment from the UK version to the US version without comparing them to QAF US' detriment.
(no subject)
Date: 2005-02-22 10:39 pm (UTC)This actually prompted me to write up a post about the differences in shows, if you're interested in how I see it.
The UK version is much more dense and it's also much... more humorous, I think. It's really hilarious, while also being very emotional and sexy.
(no subject)
Date: 2005-02-22 10:59 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2005-02-22 11:49 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2005-02-22 06:26 pm (UTC)I appreciate your thought-provoking analysis of a series that I love to bits.
When I saw QAFUK for the first time, I was struck by how much courage Stuart had to be himself, and how that part of Vince needed bolstering. TO me, that is what Vince needed from Stuart all along. It wasn't just the love he had for him or the satisfaction he got from being Stuart's sidekick/supportive friend/enabler/follower.
I also adored how complex Aiden made Stuart, and I was amazed at how lovable Craig made Vince, even though he's a liar and a closet case. (Much as I like Hal Sparks as Michael on the U.S. show, he wasn't nearly as good at making the audience root for Michael as Craig was in personifying Vince.)
(no subject)
Date: 2005-02-22 10:44 pm (UTC)Exactly -- and that really comes out in the second series, where we see Vince make that leap to being honest with himself.
I also adored how complex Aiden made Stuart.
Stuart really is a complicated character, and so much of it lies in Aidan's delivery and in his eyes. The man has incredibly expressive eyes.
I was amazed at how lovable Craig made Vince, even though he's a liar and a closet case. (Much as I like Hal Sparks as Michael on the U.S. show, he wasn't nearly as good at making the audience root for Michael as Craig was in personifying Vince.)
It really is incredible. You completely buy into the 'nice guy' image of Vince the first time around. It's only on rewatch that I noticed what a liar he can be. Glory. And he's not even a very good liar -- he's just very earnest that you want to believe him even though you can tell that he's lying. Very impressive. Whereas, I'm not sure that we see that casual lying in Michael -- it just looks like he's scared, which is fair enough, considering his position.
Here via metafandom
Date: 2005-02-23 03:44 pm (UTC)I'd love to read that.
I'm a long-standing fan of the series, but since it pre-dates my introduction to online fandom I've neither thought about it very deeply nor sought out any fan discussion or analysis. However, I think I want to now, since you make some really, really interesting points here.
At the time, my appreciation for it came mostly from Davies' writing (he was the first TV writer I was ever really aware of, since he'd been responsible for my most favourite children's television series ever), which I think is why I preferred the UK version to the few episodes of the US version I've seen (so far, I think, only the first season of that has been shown in the UK). You've mentioned his sense of humour but I also loved the strength of his female characters - I adored Donna and Hazel especially.
Uh, anyway, I don't think I have anything constructive to add to your marvelous analysis so I'll just trail off unsatisfactorily like I normally do. :)
Re: Here via metafandom
Date: 2005-02-23 09:02 pm (UTC)I'm a long-standing fan of the series, but since it pre-dates my introduction to online fandom I've neither thought about it very deeply nor sought out any fan discussion or analysis. However, I think I want to now, since you make some really, really interesting points here.
My interest was jumpstarted by seeing a QaFUK vid (and then I rushed out to order the dvd set and I've already watched it more than once).
At the time, my appreciation for it came mostly from Davies' writing (he was the first TV writer I was ever really aware of, since he'd been responsible for my most favourite children's television series ever), which I think is why I preferred the UK version to the few episodes of the US version I've seen (so far, I think, only the first season of that has been shown in the UK). You've mentioned his sense of humour but I also loved the strength of his female characters - I adored Donna and Hazel especially.
He's a wonderful writer. And you're very right about his grasp of strong female characters. He didn't just have great lines for the central, gay male characters, but also for the women. Humor and also a great deal of warmth.