S-Town Review: Indulging voyeurism or stoking empathy?

Note: BIG spoilers ahead. Stop reading if you haven’t listened to the podcast in its entirety and you intend to.

 

I recently finished listening to S-Town, a podcast by the creators of Serial and This American Life, and found myself with some very conflicting feelings about it. First and foremost, I think this podcast is rich, engaging, beautiful and heart-breaking. I’d be lying if I said I didn’t love it. I came into it expecting something similar to Serial, and though I loved Serial, I was happily surprised to find something totally different.

After the first two episodes, the podcast wildly veered off the Serial course, breaking the true-crime narrative and diving into something much more interesting. For anyone who was hoping for a fast-paced, edge-of-your-seat, “who done it” crime thriller, they were sorely disappointed. S-Town was at some points extremely slow, but I think for those willing to stick with it, it was worth it in the end. After the initial addicting marathon listening sessions ended though, I was left wondering why I was so intrigued by this podcast, and whether there was something sinister about my interest in it.

The podcast begins with the investigation of the cover-up of an alleged murder, led by a tipster named John B. McElmore. Soon after the story begins though, it becomes clear that the evidence of the crime is lacking and eventually we find out that the alleged murder never happened. John’s tirades about his home, “Shittown,” Alabama dominate most of the narrative. It slowly becomes clear that the crime is not the story at all. John is eccentric, brilliant, unstable, funny and depressed. His views of Shittown and the state of the world are dark and apocalyptic, but also surprisingly astute and especially relevant given the ever-widening expanse between rural and urban America. During the second episode, the host, Brian Reed, gets a call from someone in S-Town: John has committed suicide. As I listened to this episode, headphones in, at my desk at work, my breath caught in my chest. I blinked away tears, hoping no one was looking at me, and felt this incredible weight of something I couldn’t put my finger on.

In some way I felt complicit; I had sat at my desk in the comfort of my cushy upper-class suburban life, eagerly hoping to hear my worst suspicions and stereotypes about Southern, rural, backwards, Trump-loving America confirmed. I sat, listening to the mad rantings of a man who so casually talked of his own suicide, just hoping to feel engaged.  I literally thought to myself at one point “man, I hope something more interesting is going to happen.” And in the midst of my pastime, a man had killed himself. And the most disturbing part is that the narrative foray into the life and secrets of a dead-man were about to be even more captivating than I could have hoped for. Indeed the episodes that followed poked and prodded through the life of a man with many complexities. As the podcast went on, the more I learned about John B. Mclemore, his secrets, his hopes and his struggles, the more I wanted to know. My curiosity couldn’t be satiated, and no matter how many private details I learned of this man’s life, it was never enough.

When I finished the podcast and took a step back, I was all the sudden struck by how invasive it all was. This wasn’t a man who had given his consent to his private life being exposed. And it struck me that maybe that’s why I was so interested. Because it was a raw glimpse into a person that wasn’t filtered by the way the person wanted to be perceived. Certainly the tragedy and sorrow of his life had something to do with my interest in it as well.  It’s human nature to be attracted to tragedy, to stare catastrophe in the face even when the decent thing to do is to look away. There’s a reason sensationalism is sweeping through U.S. media, as I mentioned in a previous post: because that’s what we want. The more shocking, the more depraved, the better. Privacy ceases to matter, boundaries cease to exist; the only thing that matters is that we get more information. The same was true of the life of John B. McLemore. The obsession over who he was and uncovering the secrets of his life was nothing short of voyeurism. In this case I use the word voyeur to mean a “prying observer who is usually seeking the sordid or the scandalous.”

So in this scenario, was listening to and engaging in this podcast indulging one of our worst human instincts of voyeurism? I think that for most people it probably was. However, I think the motivation for starting it is transcended by the sentiment that lingers after it ends.  Undoubtedly, a large part of the audience for this podcast (and really any podcast) is the liberal upper-middle/upper class. It’s impossible to listen to this story and not notice how contrasting the world of the rural south is with your own. At various times in the podcast, listeners were confronted with characters who out of context, might be considered contemptible. Yet something about this narrative humanized them. So that by the end of the podcast, it was almost impossible to characterize any of the people in it as good or bad. They were just people: flawed, full of contradictions, and products of their environment. And out of this realization came a deep sense of empathy specifically for John, a man that you had never met, the likes of which you may never meet. There are many things to dislike about John. He is arguably racist, sexist, masochistic and bleak. Had you just encountered him or any the other people in this story in a passing way, you would probably have written them off. But when you hear their stories something changes. They morph from caricatures to real people and all the stereotypes and judgment fall away. What’s left is empathy and compassion.

With all the divisiveness in the world today, I think that creating this kind of empathy is an admirable pursuit. In this case, the ends justify the means. Though what first draws people to these kinds of stories is voyeurism, if the ever-elusive empathy is the result, maybe the motive for listening in the first place doesn’t matter.

-S

My Thoughts on the Gilmore Girls Revival

Major Gilmore Girls spoilers ahead. Stop reading if you haven’t finished the revival. But the spoiler is going to be right below this line so you are probably already screwed.

 

RORY IS PREGNANT! And my immediate reaction was “Is this a joke?” Then I saw the credits running. Nope, not a joke. I know everyone took this ending in their own way, but for me it was bitterly disappointing. Here are a couple of my main issues with this ending:

  1. The circle of life is bullshit. This isn’t the Lion King. We don’t need a Disney-type neatly wrapped up plot where the end meets the beginning. First, I think this is very over-simplistic and lacks imagination. And second, I think it is depressingly fatalistic. Rory is bound to turn into her mother who is bound to turn into her mother. But why? Rory is in many ways the exact opposite of her mother and it seems to discount the nuances of her character. Don’t get me wrong, I love Lorelai and it’s not always a bad thing to turn into your mother (I should be so lucky), but this storyline diminishes the power of choice. Not to mention the fact that it’s not just Rory turning into her mother by getting pregnant, but now we are supposed to view Logan as Christopher and Jess as Luke. All of the characters start to mesh into each other, leaving little room for individuality. In the end, they’ve all just become depressing clichés. Seven seasons worth of character development and distinction down the drain.
  2. Rory’s entire life is defined by men. Yeah, I’m putting my feminist boots on (I know that’s not a thing, but I just made it a thing). Now, I know that part of the ending suggests that her life is not determined by men because there is the implication that she will raise her child on her own just as her mother did. Fine, woohoo independence. But every life choice she makes up until this point is either instigated by or inspired by the men in her life. Even her greatest accomplishment, writing her book, was suggested by Jess. Before the revival came out, Alexis Bledel basically said “Hey everyone stop trying to guess who Rory will end up with. She has more important things going on. Like a career and a life.” Obviously I’m paraphrasing here, but it was suggested that it is frivolous to talk about Rory in terms of “Team Dean,” “Team Jess,” and “Team Logan.” And yet, that’s almost all the revival was about. Sure, we saw some career struggle, but for the most part we didn’t hear about her career over the 10 years in between the last episode and the revival. We didn’t really see her succeeding in writing or in a stable job. All we saw was her floundering and barely keeping her head above water while obsessing over Logan. Maybe that was the point because it was setting up the end where she gets her book together and is going to raise this kid on her own, but I think it doesn’t do much for female empowerment.
  3. The characters really haven’t gone anywhere. For the most part, it seems like no time at all has passed since the last episode of the official series. There has been speculation that this is because Sherman-Palladino didn’t write the 7th season and so wanted this to be her final say of how it should end. But the impression it gives off is that all the characters are pretty stagnant. Lorelai to some degree realizes this with her Wild-inspired hiking trip. But that trip ends with her not even hiking, staring at a hill and then deciding to marry Luke. And we all knew she should marry Luke 10 years ago. Maybe we were supposed to feel like this was a giant step for her, but it really didn’t feel very climactic. I appreciate that in real life change is often subtle. Big steps are often made out of a lot of small steps, but I can’t even see where the small steps are going for the Gilmore Girls. Again maybe that is the point. But I’m not satisfied.

End rant. I know I am taking this way too seriously considering it is just a tv show, but some shows kind of become intertwined with your life. Especially for shows like Gilmore Girls, Friends, Sex and the City and other long-life series, you kind of grow up with them and the trajectory of the characters can sometimes mirror the trajectory of your own life. You relate to them and take some comfort in the story, seeing yourself reflected in many of the characters and your life reflected in many of the events. The biggest source of the disappointment for me I think in Gilmore Girls is that now the ultimate lesson of the show is life comes full circle. Whereas before, for me at least, the main lessons of the show were the strength of the bond between mother and daughter and the power that women have to take control of their lives. And now we are left with this ending that basically suggests we are powerless in the face of destiny and incapable of forging our own paths.

-S