This is Still Killing Me

My recent post about the AMC TV show "The Killing" has clearly displayed that I am at odds with many of my fellows when it comes to my feelings about the show. I was ready to put that aside until my Twitter buddy Kenn posted this piece today.

Reading this article, which questions the premise of Clark Kent's employment, reminds me of the arguments surrounding The Killing. Obviously, the point of the Superman story is lost if one questions too deeply--it's for fun, surprises, thrills and entertainment because it is, well, just a story. But as I was reading this article, which is obviously tongue-in-cheek, it occurred to me that we hold so many bits of entertainment up to the mirror of reality these days--it's how we're taught to consume things, we measure them against our understanding of truth and validity.

I wonder if the idea of Superman would have ever taken off (pardon the pun) if it was hatched today? Perhaps something so implausible would be dismissed out of hand for something more real. In fact, as you look at the recent takes on Batman you can see a lot of the magic as been removed in favor of what appears to be a more gritty reality. I get that re-interpretation as it is a reflection of contemporary expectations. However, I fear something is lost in translation and media consumers are missing out on a lot of the fun that the earlier versions provided.

Some will argue that Superman was a comic book, so all bets are off. Well, I would note that Superman was also a TV show (several, in fact) and a series of movies. So it wasn't just a comic book. I would even go so far as to suggest the popular understanding of the Superman story is shaped more by the TV shows and movie interpretations.

To reiterate, I am not a huge fan of The Killing. I like it and will continue to watch it, but it's no Six Feet Under or The Wire. Heck, it's not even Rubicon. But there just seems to be something wrong when we evaluate an artifact based on what we think it should be rather than examine it for what it is, taking it on its own terms.

Said another way, I like allow the storyteller the room to tell their story. But if you don't give them some leash and go with them for a while, you will never get the payoff that is intended. 

For instance, Field of Dreams is one of my favorite movies. The denouement still makes me shiver. And I feel this way even though I remain appalled that they allowed Ray Liota to swing the bat right handed!!!! Argh -- Joe Jackson hit LEFT HANDED. How could they do this? Seeing that was like a fork in my eye. But I suspended my disbelief and was glad I did because I still get chills when I hear James Earl Jones' "People will come, Ray" monologue. I would never be irked that a movie that starts off about a struggling family farm veered so suddenly into fantasy about long dead ballplayers reappearing from a corn field and that somehow saves the farm. It's ridiculous, but its entertainment, a nostalgic story about magic, totally implausible, yet completely enjoyable. So powerful that I have seen the film at least five times and have even visited that farm to see the diamond in the middle of a corn field. The factual problems of the film, while very real, don't detract from my enjoyment and appreciation because I went with the premise and enjoyed the payoff.