Media Matrimony for Better for Worse, Part 2

Media Matrimony for Better for Worse, Part 2 January 23, 2014

In yesterday’s post, I began to explore the questions posed to me by W. David O. Taylor about why marriage is often treated in such an unseemly light in much of current TV and film.

Having addressed the divide between what is being pitched or written in Hollywood and what is being made there, a divide whose numbers alone would likely assure Taylor that more redeeming efforts of the kind he describes are being made than meet the screen, I now come to the heart of his inquiry.

Is there any reason why the complexities and tensions as well as pleasures and inherent “goods” of traditional marriage no longer capture the imaginations of producers and writers? Is it a dramatically uninteresting subject matter? Is the fact that over 50% of today’s marriages end in divorce a reason why writers cannot imagine it any other way? Is it a matter of a “trend”?

It’s hard not to hear each successive question for its rhetorical effect. My first response was to add one of my own to the list: is a generally disenchanted picture of marriage in our entertainment climate an unconscious, cultural form of collective self-amelioration, by which we come away feeling better about our own marriages in comparison?

I’m partly joking, and partly not. My most recent viewings at the big and small screen have been Wolf of Wall Street and the first season of House of Cards; both preceded the query from Taylor, but it’s hard to imagine better samples from each industry that attest to the point behind his questions: marriage often gets a pretty bad rap in Hollywood.

Sure, my wife and I have our issues, our bad days and occasional urges for hand-to-hand combat; but those people really have it rough. At least our marriage lives up to its God-given purposes and commitments; at least the love we profess is actually love, and not a misnomer for the coked-up lusts the Belforts indulge in Wolf of Wall Street, or the cold-blooded ambitions the Underwoods share in House of Cards.

(Mind you, I don’t lump House of Cards and Wolf of Wall Street in the same category; the former is first-rate drama, the latter third-rate dreck.)

So perhaps I come away from such films or shows feeling the way I do when we visit friends whose homes happen to be more trashed by their kids than ours is by our own: well, at least we’re not going home to this much of a mess.

Of course, examples of films and shows that give marriage its multi-faceted due abound, like those Taylor cites in his query. When he asks if there are “non-Christian writers performing this task,” my mind immediately went to Vince Gilligan, the creator of Breaking Bad.

Gilligan defined himself in an interview as once-Catholic-turned-agnostic, but as I wrote in a previous post that extolled the series upon its finale, no other show in recent memory has been so true to the biblical principle of you reap what you sow—despite the fact that it never once mentions God.

Another of the show’s outstanding virtues was how it tracked so faithfully the dissolution of a sympathetic marriage whose bonds are corroded bit by bit with dishonesty and mistrust.

I recently worked on the first season of The Americans for FX, a show about a pair of Soviet spies posing as happily married American suburbanites while attempting to infiltrate early Reagan-era D.C. The series hardly presents a traditional marriage with quotidian ups and downs, good and bad alike, but I believe part of the show’s success is due to its sincere meditation on marriage by way of an ironic conceit: a match made not in heaven but the Politburo leaves its impostors seventeen years later (at the start of the show) with all the baggage, attraction, hopes, and recriminations of a good old-fashioned marriage.

Perhaps a subtle but powerful analogue attends any married couple watching the show: brought together by forces much larger than our separate selves, my spouse and I on some level remain strangers to one another, but we’re in this together.

Most marriages have enough to contend with in and of themselves, apart from such additional burdens as the meth business in Breaking Bad or the Soviet intelligence agenda in The Americans. But what does it say that ordinary marriage gets some of its better close-ups in shows like these?

As for all the safe bets regularly made in TV and film that present a lamentable picture of marriage without its full spectrum of “complexities and tensions as well as pleasures and inherent ‘goods,’” as Taylor describes, let’s face it: the Apostle John had it right in his first epistle with the claim that darkness often holds us more in thrall than the light.

Having written for Boss, whose Tom and Meredith Kane make the Underwoods of House of Cards seem quite balanced in comparison, I can bridge John’s claim and Taylor’s query with a certain witness or confession: It’s simply easier to write toward the darkness than the light. In part this fact inheres necessarily in drama, whose primary engine is conflict, and only allows for redemptive stories by traversing from darkness to light.

But marital stories onscreen are just as likely to circle the drain in darkness instead.

As the poet Jack Gilbert once pointed out in a workshop, the history of fine art has had a far harder time imagining heaven than hell. Thus I wonder if the failure of imagination that Taylor wonders about has less to do with divorce rates, trends and calculations “behind (closed) studio doors” than human nature itself.

Any honest studio executive will admit he or she more often than not is in the business of guesswork behind those doors. A proposal is made in the form of a pitch or spec script; a decision ensues, and if affirmative, then, at least, an initial commitment. And then you hope for the best.

Kind of like marriage.

Bradford Winters is a screenwriter/producer in television whose work has included such series as OzKings, Boss, and The Americans. His poems have appeared in Sewanee Theological Review, Spoon River Poetry Review, and Georgetown Review, among other journals. He lives in Brooklyn with his wife and three children.

"I an confused by the use of "aural" here: "In The Gutenberg Galaxy, he explained ..."

The Gutenberg Imagination
"My friend is looking for a Pepper Smith he served in the army with, was ..."

The Love Song of Pepper Smith
"Jesus love you dear sneha abraham dear not he will with you forever amen"

Take, Eat

Browse Our Archives

Follow Us!

What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • Fr. Andrew Dickinson

    Not a writer, but as a young priest who desires to return the Church to fostering and patronizing the arts, I found your articles insightful. I will even quote you line about marriage, in reference to “The Americans” in our marriage preparation.

    Most interesting is your quote about darkness: “It’s simply easier to write toward the darkness than the light. In part this fact inheres necessarily in drama, whose primary engine is conflict, and only allows for redemptive stories by traversing from darkness to light.”

    I have been bothered by that for some time now, ever since Peter Jackson’s “Lord of the Rings” came to life. He had a great imagination for evil but was weak on portraying goodness. Vigo Mortenson was a fantastic Strider and a poor Aragorn. The scenes of victory after the fall of Sauron were over-exposed, over-sound-tracked (if that is a word), and a poor representation of what Tolkien describes.

    I agree of the need for dramatic arc- creation, fall, redemption- but wonder whether we’ve lost our capacity for imagining and portraying good. Consider the works of the masters of sacred art. There is little disappointing about their portrayals of good. And I’m not referring to 1930s devotional art. Blech.

    What will it take to rediscover that spark of the Christian imagination to attractively portray good?

    • Brad Winters

      Thanks for the thoughtful reply.

  • it is good and useful article.Thank you

  • Meredith

    Have you seen “Parks and Recreation”? Its portrayal of marriage is really positive and refreshing. The writers trashed the absurdly drawn-out romances you usually see on a long-running series, and had several characters get married quite early on–and so far those characters have continued to be interesting without cheating or getting divorced. When April and Andy had a surprise wedding in their living room, they made a powerful statement against the reigning narrative that marriage is a capstone on your accomplishments, not a foundation, and that it needs to be celebrated with an obscenely expensive wedding. And their marriage has helped them start to grow up, without destroying their quirks. Seriously, I bet this show has done more for marriage than any culture warrior’s editorial.

    • Brad Winters

      I have not seen the show, but I love this comment — and the show with it implicitly.