TV

In the new Death on the Nile (adapted from Agatha Christie’s book), they made a number of changes to ensure the work was better appreciated by a modern audience. This included changing certain motives and secrets for characters (having a former kleptomaniac instead have a secret lover, for example) and adding a romantic subplot for the main character.
Regardless of whether one thinks these changes work or not, I wanted to open up a discussion on why we feel the need to modernize old stories (even bringing some into the modern day rather than keeping them set in the past), and if these efforts help our understanding of these stories.
After all, movies tend to be made for a wide audience. There is a risk that many viewers won’t understand what certain decisions or plot elements imply, because they don’t have a knowledge of the time period it was originally created in. Changes are made to ‘translate’ the work for modern audiences. But on the other hand, it can easily go too far and attempts to modernize can remove beloved parts of the original work.

True crime is a quintessentially American genre of television, literature, and more recently, podcasts. The fascination with the dark, disturbing, grotesque, and downright deranged have been entrenched in American media since Truman Capote’s In Cold Blood captivated audiences in the 1960s. While true crime has its benefits: revisiting cold cases and even identifying murderers, rapists, and other such criminals, where is the line between seeking justice and becoming a voyeur in a victim’s tragedy? Can there be an ethical consumption of true crime when it has been transformed into casual brunch conversation and a quirky pastime? What does the growing popularity of murder podcasts (notably mainly hosted by 30-something white women) say about American culture?

With the success of the Disney limited series Moon Knight, it has no doubt thrown Egyptian mythology into the spotlight. But despite all the amazing visual effects, and the dazzling scenery and action scenes, how accurate is the portrayal of Khonshu and Ammit? Does marvel stick close to Egyptian mythology, and portray the gods as accurately as possible, or have they adapted the mythologies to suit a certain audience? Just like the other myths and legends of the Ancient World, Egyptian mythology can be quite complicated, and even through the passage of time, the gods themselves can be adapted through mythology to suit new purposes. The MCU is no stranger to portraying gods, as we have seen Thor, Loki, and various other gods from the Norse mythologies. So how close is Marvel’s portrayal of the Egyptian gods, and how have they managed to stick to the ancient script?

Analyze the ways in HBO series succession follows a traditional tragedy structure in both the Ancient Greek sense and Shakespearean sense. A tragedy is a play based on human suffering, primarily concerning tragic events that befall the main character. The intention of tragedy, as understood by Aristotle, is to provoke catharsis in its audience. Catharsis is a release of emotions that comes with seeing others undergo painful or unfortunate circumstances. It is the pleasure of intense emotion with the relief of not undergoing the suffering oneself. Both Greek and Shakespearean tragedies tend to focus on the downfall of a protagonist who holds a high position in society. In the case of Succession, the main character, Kendall Roy, is the son of the CEO and founder of the largest multi-media conglomerate in the world. The plot itself is reminiscent of King Lear, as Logan Roy ages and must consider which of his three children is fit to take over his immensely successful business as he ages (though whether or not he is actually willing to give up his position of power is uncertain). Kendall’s dreams of taking over the company are continuously derailed, no matter how hard he tries he is denied this one desire that he believes to be his birthright. Are there other aspects of Shakespearean tragedy that present themselves in the show? For example, there is considerable comic relief throughout the whole show, a feature not present in Greek tragedies. Is it more like one than the other? In what ways does it differ from these archetypes, and what significance do these divergences carry? Many consider it to be a comedy, how does the entwining of genres contribute to the complexity of the show, and the message it sends to its viewers? How does it merge traditional media with the problems and techniques of modernity?

Alex Russo in Disney Channel’s hit TV show, "Wizards of Waverly Place" (2007-2012), is well loved for her constant antics: pranking her brothers, breaking rules, being lazy and selfish but ultimately having a heart of gold. Why is it that audiences adore "rule breaker" characters? Is it because they can do and get away with things that the rest of us in reality cannot so we live vicariously through them? Or is it because to be good all the time is boring? What other films and TV series star rebel protagonists and why are their immoral actions so appealing to viewers?

It seems as though, a lot of the time, the audience’s perception of a character in a story is colored less by things the character has actually said or done, and more by how another character (who is usually a main character or simply more popular) views them. For instance, in the original British Office, Tim, a salesman, spends most of his time bullying his fellow salesman, Gareth. However, because Tim is more popular and gets more screen time, audiences just assume that he is the "nice" one and Gareth "deserves" to be mistreated when there’s no real evidence of this. The same series also includes a corporate higher-up named Neil, who is made out to be "mean" simply because he doesn’t get along with David, the main face of the show. What are some other examples of this phenomenon from TV, or media in general? Are there any characters who seem to be especially unfairly judged? Do they (or the people judging them) share any particular traits in common?

In no way is the female warrior a new archetype, but what is new is the increasing mainstream TV portrayals of faceted versions of such characters. With the changes occurring in the representation of women in TV we are seeing a great up take of new presentations of women in what have been predominantly male roles/positions.
An examination of this progression and the emergence of new perspectives on the female warrior would be a timely discussion.

Some examples you ask?
Take ‘Wynonna Earp’ first. Westerns have traditionally focused on masculine frontier storytelling where women have two roles (chorus girl or wife – to put it politely) that are fundamentally centred on the men in the story. Wynonna is an alcoholic, damaged and has so much emotional baggage it fills the show. She is flawed, she is all the western cliches and she is still the biggest "bad ass" on the show.
Consider ‘Star Trek: Discovery’ next. ST has actually been fairly forward with the presentation of women in roles of power and has often represented them in new and relevant versions…until the most recent films, when they were regressed back to wearing short dresses, go-go boots and being vulnerable. Michael (with a very traditionally masculine name) exemplifies the characteristics of a warrior, to the degree that the first season is framed by her act of violence.
‘Motherland: Fort Salem’ is literally a show about warrior witches. They are training and learning to be warriors. This is a show that fulfills many of the traditional tropes in masculine representations of war/combat style archetypes. Many of the subplots within the show follow traditional subplot paths of such genres, including characterisations of particular stereotypes such as the recruit, the cocky fighter, the drill sergeant, and so on.

There are so many more that could be discussed and explored. It is interesting to see the changes to these representations that are able to balance traditional “feminine” characteristics of the characters with traditional representations of masculine warrior traits in a manner the begins to normalise a greater diversity in gender representations.

Tina Fey’s character in the sitcom 30 Rock is an at times uncomfortable portrayal of an archetype that many people identify with: white, female, and straight, as well as smart, witty, and awkward. How do we understand Liz Lemon’s self-presentation in the show, as well as how the characters around her interact with her? Does her character have implications for the people who see part of themselves in her? What is Liz Lemon’s legacy? Specifically, I’m interested in how Liz Lemon deals with issues of privilege, especially in terms of the racial humor the show occasionally incorporates, as well as her interactions with her boss Jack and the power dynamic and competition between them.