You guys, you guys. I’m, like, getting a little excited. Like, more than a little excited. Like legit, totally excited. “Rizzoli & Isles” is back in eight weeks, y’all. Now that “Lost Girl” is done for the season I’ve got to have another show to obsess about. (No, “Glee” doesn’t count – Tumblr has all the obsessing about that show covered for me). And I’m anxious to have another show back on TV built around one of my favorite things in the world – strong and undeniable chemistry between two female leads.
Helping to stoke my excitement is the return of copious on-set tweets from as Angie Harmon and Sasha Alexander. Because, I mean, just look at them. They’re so goddamned cute. Even when bloodied or experiencing bad hair days, something about their personalities just shines through. I can’t wait to chronicle all their TGTGT again come June 5. Because the girls can’t help it, they just can’t keep their hands off of each other.
Now, I know some folks scoff at my joy over the subtext on “Rizzoli & Isles.” Shouldn’t we be demanding more real same-sex relationships on TV? Why glorify relationships that don’t even exist? Isn’t this a little, you know, desperate? Well my answers are as such: yes, why not and hell no. It’s fun, that’s what it is. Should we always demand more real, rich and regular same-sex characters and relationships on TV? Yes, yes, a million times yes. But in the absence of that and even in the presence of that, why not also revel in subtext when the situation allows? In fact, it’s part of the grand tradition of queer culture. We carve out our own stories when the world refuses to tell them. We read cues, we notice signs, we speak in code.
So, yes, I am excited for Det. Sexy McBadass and Dr. Smartypants to return to my TV. And you’d better believe I’m ready to subtext them up to my fullest. Because it’s fun. Bring on the gayest non-gay show on television. Bring on the gayzzoli. The lesbians are waiting.
p.s. I know, I know – her politics. But, goddamn, look how hot she looks holding this big, shiny gun.
17 comments:
"Should we always demand more real, rich and regular same-sex characters and relationships on TV? Yes, yes, a million times yes. But in the absence of that and even in the presence of that, why not also revel in subtext when the situation allows? In fact, it’s part of the grand tradition of queer culture. We carve out our own stories when the world refuses to tell them. We read cues, we notice signs, we speak in code."
It is your intelligent commentary and equal parts sassiness, like this quote above, that have me return to your blog every day, Snarker!
I LOVE reading subtext where there is subtext to be inferred! It IS a tradition of queer culture, and I love it... Heck, if not for subtleties, then how would we find each other?
I just started watching some of the re-runs of Rizzoli & Isles. I love the doctor character (hot). She has genuine affection for that bull in a china shop detective (there is not much reason to, but to each his own I guess). Anyway, this is a really fun show. And Dot's subtext is hillarious, and that's before I even started watching. lol
If only she wasn't doing the duck face face in that last photo...
I always love your reviews...beyond brilliant and so hilarious that I have actually laughed out loud while reading some of them.
And I look forward to your subtext reviews for Season 3, but from TNT's press releases to the media, I think you'll have your work cut out for you ;-) With the rift between Jane and Maura taking center stage during at least 1/3 of the season, the building list of guest stars being added every day and almost every press release so far being sure to mention the male love interests returning for both woman in Season 3 (especially Maura's recurring love interest through out the season who will appear in multiple episode (Guess this one is NOT going back to Africa), I think we'll all have a hard time finding the girls alone together having a conversation - much less anything that could even remotely be preceived as subtext (God I miss Season 1).
With that having been said, I do hope I'll be proved wrong (although I will NOT be holding my breath, LOL!) and I hope that you'll be working your magic and have more subtexty moments to write about then you have time for! Either way I will be looking forward to your posts! :-)
"Should we always demand more real, rich and regular same-sex characters and relationships on TV? Yes, yes, a million times yes. But in the absence of that and even in the presence of that, why not also revel in subtext when the situation allows? In fact, it’s part of the grand tradition of queer culture. We carve out our own stories when the world refuses to tell them. We read cues, we notice signs, we speak in code."
Beautifully put.
Hey Dorothy, you do know that season 2 of Lost Girl starts next monday on Syfy? They're just rolling with season 2 right away.
Which is just plain awesome.
Oh and everything Erica said was awesome.
I wish I could share your enthusiasm, but Janet Tamaro seems to want to do everything but focus on Rizzoli & Isles. S1 was a revelation of the charm and chemistry between them, even if the show as a whole was of dubious quality. Because of it we were among its staunchest and most vocal supporters, enough to get it a second season. In S2, JT & Co, conscious of the glaring subtext on the one hand tried to make deliberated 'fun' with it and on the other RAN from it by practically never letting the two of them just hang out unchaperoned and playing up supporting characters and stunty ass guest stars, thereby diluting exactly the charm/chemistry that is the only thing this show ever got right. There is no character development or continuity, sometimes the show outright contradicts itself, it does those things so poorly. And when JT tried to 'throw us a bone' I pretty much ended up feeling insulted. That whole thing of them pretending to be a couple to rid themselves of Giovanni? Insulting, because the joke was that it was ridiculous that they should be a couple. Sorry, Dorothy, I can't agree to get excited about this show anymore. The premise of two strong, independent women isn't good enough when the woman in charge is just one of the boys. I hate that JT is going for the whole "Jane undercover as a prostitute" thing. It really is just an excuse to put Harmon in less clothes than Jane would wear on her own and is just so incredibly lazy AND sexist.
Spot on as always DS. Spot on.
Plot shmot. Characterisation? Who gives a feck? (hmm some of them up there & the sad obsessives on TLC.)
Just look at the pretty. Oh my the pretty...And if you don't like it the off button is always an option ladies...
Back to the pretty *swoon*
The post above mine is spot on. Seriously, who cares about the plot? The only ones that care about that are a few obsessives here and TLC.
Harmon and Alexander are gorgeous and scorching hot together. Their chemistry is like no other that I have ever seen on tv. Give me the pretty and just let me swoon.
Love Love Love this show! The subtext, the characters, Angie and Sasha's chemistry! Hell I'm even starting to like Frankie - I've no idea why but he drove me mental in the beginning! We're just finishing Season 2 over here in Ireland. Cannot wait for Season 3. Thanks for the great article :)
man, you know it is a good blog day when an awesome blog post has such awesome comments that it makes you want to QUOTE THE COMMENT!
@Erika
thanks for THIS:
"if not for subtleties, then how would we find each other?"
exactly, yes.
I find it sad that so many are so willing to settle for so little. Speaks to the paucity of our representation I suppose, but shit makes a lousy diet.
Fair enough. The spoilers sound terrible but I'll be tuning in for season three because the leads are hot and I like the rest of the cast (and the recaps, of course!).
But what gets me about Rizzoli and Isles is that it's basically in the grand tradition of procedurals for the two leads to eventually hook up. Jane and Maura getting together would fit perfectly within the genre. The only reason it won't ever happen? They're both women. Why waste the chemistry? Most showrunners would kill for it. Even though it's 2012, I guess we're still stuck with what passed for progressive back when Xena was on.
60/40
I adore you, Lady Snarker, I truly do. And I want to take a moment to genuinely thank you for what you do. It's not an easy task, day after day. Brava, my dear!
There will always be a special place in my heart (and elsewhere) for R&I. The first season was pure magic without question. Last season was anything but. This season remains to be seen.
Am I excited? No. Am I curious? Yes. It will be interesting to see if Tamaro and crew will continue to dig the massive crater even deeper or somehow find a way to fashion a rope ladder out of human hair and their own stupidity.
That being said, I mostly agree with your post. Subtext is fun when the chemistry is there to be played with -- eye sex anyone? But for those of us who had to speak in code in the 90's and before, I believe we'd prefer to speak in plain English in 2012.
I agree with anonymous posters 2:03 pm and 8:19 pm a little bit more. Y'all win; )
I get the gender politics. I don't get what is hot about a republican, or anyone, with a gun.
"I don't get what is hot about a republican, or anyone, with a gun."
Then you're just blind!
OK - where can I get me one of those t-shirts?!
Post a Comment