I think the one that really turned me off historical kdrama/saeguks was Sungkyunkwan Scandal, which was gifted with marvelous dialogue, an excellent main cast, the best soundtrack and cinematography I've seen in a twice-weekly drama in like forever... and actually posited what seemed to be a fascinating question: In a society where women are completely discounted, what options are there for a brilliant, talented woman? The first six or seven episodes may not have been intentionally highlighting the male privilege -- at least, any meta was quite low-key -- but it was there, and the woman struggling against the system was squarely the sympathetic character.
Unfortunately, as javabeans (over at dramabeans) pointed out, the eventual answer provided by the show was: "Well, actually, the only option a brilliant talented woman has in a male-run society is... none at all. Unless she continues to cross-dress for the rest of her life."
It was a total and complete cop-out, but it was also a major awakening to watching kdramas much more critically. Because I've seen cop-outs in television shows, but never on such a massive scale as to take the entire premise and gut it. The ending was a complete betrayal of every viewer, to the point it almost felt like a major 'fuck you!' from the scriptwriters.
But then again... that's also much of the problem with historicals. We can push women into the background, doing nothing, because that's how it was. The pretense of historicity is used to reinforce present-day conservatism, because really, it's the same message -- women shouldn't be seen, or heard -- but dressed up in fancy clothes and paraded around like it's tradition.
Actually, what makes me gnash my teeth the most is the historical dramas that take women who did have massive socio-cultural power -- like the shamans, and the shaman-empresses especially -- and render them nothing more than pretty temple-dressing who scatter flowers when the King stops by for a visit. If the shamans aren't replaced entirely with male figures, which isn't just ahistorical, it's a complete negation of the history.
(I tend to watch kdramas on basis of recs, but I get my recs from dramabeans, which does extensive recaps and year-end roundups. That's how I found some of the kdramas really worth watching, and even a few I might never considered otherwise.)
no subject
Date: 19 Feb 2011 08:40 pm (UTC)Unfortunately, as javabeans (over at dramabeans) pointed out, the eventual answer provided by the show was: "Well, actually, the only option a brilliant talented woman has in a male-run society is... none at all. Unless she continues to cross-dress for the rest of her life."
It was a total and complete cop-out, but it was also a major awakening to watching kdramas much more critically. Because I've seen cop-outs in television shows, but never on such a massive scale as to take the entire premise and gut it. The ending was a complete betrayal of every viewer, to the point it almost felt like a major 'fuck you!' from the scriptwriters.
But then again... that's also much of the problem with historicals. We can push women into the background, doing nothing, because that's how it was. The pretense of historicity is used to reinforce present-day conservatism, because really, it's the same message -- women shouldn't be seen, or heard -- but dressed up in fancy clothes and paraded around like it's tradition.
Actually, what makes me gnash my teeth the most is the historical dramas that take women who did have massive socio-cultural power -- like the shamans, and the shaman-empresses especially -- and render them nothing more than pretty temple-dressing who scatter flowers when the King stops by for a visit. If the shamans aren't replaced entirely with male figures, which isn't just ahistorical, it's a complete negation of the history.
(I tend to watch kdramas on basis of recs, but I get my recs from dramabeans, which does extensive recaps and year-end roundups. That's how I found some of the kdramas really worth watching, and even a few I might never considered otherwise.)