Today's TV Tirade
A few years back I wrote about the TV show "Jack and Bobby," and how no abortion on a TV show can go unpunished. In summation: Most of the time, to avoid any kind controversy, if a character doesn't want a baby, and is pregnant, the writers will introduce a very convenient miscarriage. As I mentioned in that post, this happens in movies too--and is one reason I didn't think the movie Citizen Ruth was that great; it didn't have the courage of its convictions--but I tend to notice it more on TV.
A few months ago, on "Grey's Anatomy," the character of Cristina Yang got pregnant. She's married, and in a good position to have a kid, but she has never wanted kids, and didn't want this one. Her husband, Owen, knowing that his wife doesn't want to be a mother--and a kid should not grow up with a mother that never wanted him--agreed that terminating the pregnancy was best, and even went with her to the procedure.
That, as the saying goes, seemed to be that. There were several episodes after in which things were back to normal, they were doing fine, and it seemed to be non-issue.
Of course, this couldn't last forever. Two episodes ago, during a fight, her husband admits that he is not fine with the abortion, and bellows at her that she "killed" their baby.
And in the previews for this coming week's episode, it looks like Yang might get hit by a car, or someone might get hurt while trying to save her from getting hit by a car, or maybe she'll get hit by a car, and magically find out she's pregnant again, and this time keep the baby.
No abortion can go unpunished.
It's sad that I was more surprised by the show's few episodes where it all seemed to be a non-issue than I am by this latest development, because it's just so pathetically typical. I hope this wasn't the way creator Shonda Rhimes wanted it to go, and she was somehow influenced to add this new drama, but she's a TV writer. She probably knows how stories like that "have" to be handled on television...
In a completely different, but still very annoying vein, what the hell is up with "Alcatraz"? Every week we see one of the prisoners who disappeared back in 1963 reappearing in 2012 San Francisco, and we have yet to witness any of these prisoners having any kind of problem navigating modern life, or, indeed, acting very surprised by anything they witness.
I really hope I've just missed an important plot element, (which could very well be the case; my attention tends to drift when watching the show), and they've explained that, perhaps, all these guys have actually been wandering around for years, and thus we just haven't been privy to their moments of acclimation, or some other plausible explanation for their nonchalance.
But if that's not the case, and they haven't explained this at all, and don't intend to, well, I don't think I can keep watching. I don't know why, but this aspect of the show just really, really irks me. I think you have to earn that kind of preposterousness. You can't just throw it at an audience right out the gate!
As a final note, here's a link to blog post I wrote in 2004, about "Lost," that mentions a certain island in the San Francisco Bay.
In case you didn't know, "Alcatraz" comes from some of the creators of "Lost"...
So, yes, basically I am saying I am responsible for the existence of "Alcatraz." OBVS.
Labels: Other Dramas