
One of the shows I watch fairly regularly is
"Bones". Although not one of my top ten, it's not a bad show, and it gives me my weekly David Boreanaz fix, so there you go! But a while ago, I saw an episode that made me reflect on television and beauty.
Temperance Brennan (Emily Deschanel) is a forensic anthropologist who has been contracted by the F.B. I., in the person of Seeley Booth (Boreanaz), to assist in solving crimes involving various unidentified corpses, some in better condition than others. They are assisted by Brennan's staff at the university; Angela, Brennan's best friend and a bit of a party girl, Hodgkins, a bug-loving scientist and Zack, a wunderkind with little or no ability to connect with the opposite sex. They are overseen by Dr, Daniel Goodman, who is the scientist in charge of the whole facility. Much is made of these various characters' inability to function in the "real" world, as represented by Booth and to a certain extent: Angela. They are serious scientists with odd obsessions and limited social skills.
Hey, I never said it was a particularly original show. But bear with me.
The episode "The Woman at the Airport" centered around body parts of a young woman found near L.A. International Airport. A large part of the episode was devoted to examining the difference between L.A. and Washington, D.C. (where the show primarily takes place). It had all the usual cliches; palm trees, sun, driving jokes, the usual lame "Gosh, Los Angeles is like another world" stuff. Although it was fun seeing Boreanaz driving a convertible in the sunlight. *grin*
However, the hook of this episode is that the victim is almost impossible to identify because of the extensive plastic surgery she has had. Which leads to a rant by Brennan about the absurdity of peoples' fascination with beauty and mutilations they are willing to undergo in order to meet society's expectations. Her scientist sensibility is offended by this woman's need to destroy her face because of those pressures.
A valid and interesting point, entirely undercut by the presence of a uniformly beautiful group of actors. The two leads are absolutely gorgeous people, and the supporting characters, while given slightly nerdy outfits, accessories and personalities are also quite pretty. Pretty people, in a university science lab, ranting about beauty and expectations and mutilations. Talk about undercutting your message.
I understand that television believes that we are only interested in watching shows with pretty people. The misfits and geeks are portrayed by people like Alyson Hannigan and others made up to look "different". But essentially, they are pretty.
Why do televison producers continue to think that we are only interested in beauty? Recently, there have been news stories talking about the unlikely popularity of Edgar from
24. Why unlikely? Because Edgar is a fat, computer geek who loved his mother. And when you go search for cast lists of the show,either on the Fox site or on IMDB, the actor isn't even listed as one of the main characters. Hey, we can't promote this guy...he's a slob. (Finally found the character, under Profiles. Still no information on the actor.) But viewers love Edgar, because, SURPRISE! we can relate to him. You don't have to be fat or geeky to appreciate that we work with normal people every single day who aren't Hollywood beautiful. And we know that they are just as important in keeping things running as the pretty ones are, or more so.
It seems that more and more, producers are choosing to cast pretty people in the roles where beauty is not only completely unnecessary to the character, it actually does a bit of a disservice to it.
I, for one, would like to see more real people on television. Some of the most talented actors out there are not size 0 and don't have piercing blue eyes. Next time Hollywood wants to cast a forensic scientist or a medical intern or a law assistant, let's try casting one of those actors. It will make your messages about beauty more believable.