@WaldenII

3 years ago

I think there was more complexity here, in this dramatization about scorned love, than is usually expressed in today's popular critique of male power and patriarchy. In terms of our current debates, we are generally expected to instantly decide who is the "aggressor" and who is the "victim" in such reductive ways. There is no thinking, just performance. Yet both Pam and Henry exhibit extreme versions of predatory and vulnerable traits. (Might this be what subconsciously attracted them to each other?) This performance is framed in a way that challenges our expectations without being too preachy or reductive. I appreciate that. My favorite part of this performance was the character Pam's statement that her raw and animal desires toward Henry were oppositional to the ways she expected to be honored in public. (She wanted exclusivity before even really knowing the subject of her desire--she fell in love with an idea of him, not the real man.) This compartmentalization is never ultimately challenged by her feminist viewpoint, which ultimately leads to her feeling debased and shamed. In the light of day, she was forced to embrace the complications of a man she put on a pedestal but ultimately could not respect. That is a pretty real (and rather common) experience for infatuated love, though dramatically portrayed here. What responsibility does Henry have in this situation? Should he have rejected Pam because he knew better? And would this have mitigated Pam's idealized reception of him, which was ultimately based on her own desire to be "seen" by someone she loved and respected? Finally, it is interesting to me that Henry's character thrives so much on an intellectual engagement with the world, but here he is nearly stunted by an intellectual construct (feminism) that demands he remain quiet to listen to and honor the woman's perspective. (Manny's character serves as the vocal representation of this expectation, which is ultimately thwarted here.) Yet we have so much to gain from hearing Henry's voice, his testimony. It was the only moment in the series I can remember where he tells us when he was truly vulnerable--and he got burned for it. (It's also structurally interesting that Manny continually goads him to be more open, when the subtext of the series places them as competitors for Pam's affection. There is probably a broader web of relationships in how men and women align with feminist ideals...) Again, so much to say! I felt uncomfortable knowing what is expected of a 'good man', but seeing the conversation can only progress when we leave these expectations behind. The radical expression of trust, love and caring that is shown in the forum of group therapy is challenging to digest. If only we could have more of this in life outside of a group therapy session. We need this kind of forum to move our public discourse ahead in a way that is healing of such situations.

17 |