Since my first comparison of Scrubs and Brooklyn 99, I've fallen head over heels for the cop show. Between incredibly entertaining characters and a fuller appreciation of them as personalities for more watching, its got me hooked and I'd now put it up alongside Scrubs without hesitation.
One of the reasons I compare it so automatically to Scrubs is the high level of similarity between the main characters. Dorian and Peralta are both very immature people who have to grow up to realise their high level of potential as human beings and professionals. What's more, they share similar backgrounds in that both had inattentive dads, a failing that they seek to make up for by latching onto work mentors as father figures. I forget whether its explicitly called out as a cause of either man's immaturity but it's commonly enough linked that it doesn't have to be.
It goes further and I'm not just talking the physical similarities. The same long romantic desire for the beautiful awkward geek in the work place. A tight friendship with another guy who is very different from them.
But there is are differences. One of the easiest to identify is that Peralta is more macho. He's a cop who loves action movies and who barely reads for pleasure. His reaction to being locked into a store with robbers is that its like Die Hard but real. Dorian by contrast calls himself King of the Nerds. He drinks appletinis, loves bath products, and his lack of manliness is constantly lampooned by those around him - to his great discomfort.
What is not so obvious but more important to the two characters' personalities is that Peralta is a hell of a lot more confident. Peralta knows he's an amazing detective. Dorian needs to be told he's an amazing doctor - and he really does need it in every sense of the word. Dorian naturally looks for a lieutenant's role. When Peralta isn't lead on a case, he takes over anyway. Both Dorian and Turk, and Peralta and Boyle, at times identify as Batman and Alfred (Alfred being even more subordinate than Robin). But while Dorian identifies as Alfred even in his own daydreams, in Brooklyn 99 its Boyle who cheerfully cops to being Alfred.
That these two aspects are linked are obvious. This is not necessarily a link between masculinity and confidence - although not necessarily unlinked either - but an obvious ramification of Peralta being more comfortable with who he is. Dorian struggles with the idea that he's not as manly as he should be and thus needs more validation.
But there is a third difference that might be and that might be interesting - and that is Peralta grows up quicker, particular in terms of his love life. He's marrying his love while Dorian is only just facing up to the fact that he can't keep thinking of his mentor as a superhero and still messing up his romances. Peralta is more sure footed about knowing what he wants and going and getting it. He faces setbacks with determination - when forced to choose between his career and relationship, he unhesitatingly picks his relationship. Meanwhile, Dorian has a massively entertaining hissy fit over Cox's decision not to name him Chief of Residents and is called out by his best friend for sabotaging his relationships.
Are we meant to link these aspects? That masculinity leads to confidence leads to maturity, particularly in love? I think you've got to look at the other male characters in both shows to judge what the creators are thinking.
In the case of Scrubs, the two most masculine characters are Turk and Cox. In many ways, Turk is more like Peralta than Dorian; cocky, cool, and quick to grow up in a romantic and family sense. Cox's hyper-masculinity is at times toxic but at the same time, he spends the majority of the series' arc happy with the woman he loves. The most insecure and infantile is Ted, the hospital sadsack, who only finds love a long way into the series (and after becoming slightly less of a sadsack). The most promiscuous man is Bob "I like whores" Kelso, whose most romantic words to another woman are ended with "Thanks Ted, tell my wife I won't be home tonight". Kelso is definitely confident and, as a tattooed war veteran, macho. If he comes across as less masculine as Turk and Cox, its only a product of his advanced age.
Looking at Brooklyn 99, the most interesting case is Terry Crews. Built by the same people who did Stonehenge, Terry is a man's man in terms of physical appearance and a highly dutiful sergeant and father. However, he is also clearly a man who has numerous confidence issues in the past that, at times, resurface (including one case of stress eating that destroys his hyper-masculine image). He is the past had an active love life, but is monogamous through the run of the show.
Other characters include Holt; a confident man who dismisses a wound from taking on three armed muggers as "lightly stabbed" and who is happily married. There's also Boyle; neurotic and lacking in backbone, with a number of romantic relationships before finally (after getting pushed into it by Peralta) finding his one. Finally there's Hitchcock and Scully, the ageing and lazy detectives who have a string of mainly off-screen relationships.
There is, intentional or not, a correlation between a character being depicted in either show as conventionally masculine - physically active, like booze and sports, resilient and slightly emotionally withdrawn - and being confident, lucky in love and successful in life. It is not that characters that lack those traits are incapable of finding a long-lasting happy monogamous relationship, but it is much harder for them.
Why? Is it because these characters make more interesting romantic foils? Sheer coincidence? Or unintentional bias from the writers as to what a successful man looks like? It might even be mildly intentional bias. There's no way that the decidedly unmasculine Dorian getting to meet a range of alpha males through the ages in terms of Kelso, Cox and Turk is coincidence; there is no way that the decision to cast the two male leaders of Brooklyn 99's bull pen as a married gay man and a devoted insecure family guy is coincidence either. It might be them, in part, trying to show what they think the new model for a man should be.
Is that new model too narrow? Possibly. But it is a better model than that presented by Kelso, or the old bigoted reporter Jimmy Brogan in Brooklyn 99. And probably a more honest reflection of the world we live in than anything further reaching. It a rare man who doesn't have confidence issues when growing up in a man's world lacking conventional masculinity. They do exist though; it'd be nice to see it explored.
More than this I can't really say in an off the cuff article that may be somewhat off the mark anyway. But there's definitely something there.
No comments:
Post a Comment