MovieChat Forums > Six Feet Under (2001) Discussion > So far ahead of its time

So far ahead of its time


1. David and Keith's relationship: still unparallelled in its complexity for a gay couple, and was portrayed at a time when homophobic jokes and stereotypes were rampant on TV.

2. Realistic and no-nonsense handling of an abortion.

3. The acknowledgement of poor sexual skills and entitlement among young guys (Can I Come Up Now) and sexual frustration of young women.

4. Seniors still having a romantic and/or sex life.

5. Intimate family drama that lets the characters just breathe and feel real with minimal plot (Rectify has borrowed a lot out of its book).

Anything else?

reply

I think for 6 you can just write "Brenda."

But in all seriousness, I think that one of the most impressive and underappreciated aspects of this show is the way in which it redefined the definition of feminism and created three completely different and nuanced female characters who all spoke to self-empowerment and sovereignty.

I'm of course referring to Claire, Brenda, and Ruth, although there are a host of other wonderful female characters who traveled through the show. Nevertheless, just the way in which they took the three of those characters, all at drastically different stages of their life, and allowed them to be undeniably and unabashedly themselves, was wonderful. While David and Nate were great characters, I do think that the female characters on this show were largely more interesting.

More specifically, what I love the most about each of the three women is that they all had vastly different notions of independence and empowerment, and yet they were all completely valid and legitimate. Like I said, redefining what it means to be a strong women in the modern age.

Beginning with Ruth, how many shows, especially at that point in television, were interested in exploring the sexuality and reemergence of a 50+, post-meopausal woman who no longer defines herself within the confines of her husband or children. Now of course much of Ruth's characterization was coming to terms with this independence, and moving away from those pre-established caregiver gender norms, but her character was undeniably a testament to the way in which our society forgets about this demographic and ignores it in favor of something shinier and prettier.

As for Brenda, while some may see her development as the opposite of empowering and independent, conforming to the white-picket lifestyle that she detested for so long, I don't see her path as a resignation of her sovereignty. It first should of course be noted that she was deeply unhappy and deeply unhealthy in the early potions of the series. That being said, I never viewed her decision to marry Nate and have Willa as an abandoning of her ideals, but rather her understanding that she is allowed to change her mind, she is allowed to develop and grow, that she's not tied down to the schema of the isolated manic-pixie girl who's doomed to spend her life alone.

And then of course, there's Claire, who I think exhibited the most traditional and standard of developments with regards to her development as a woman. Of course there were plenty of terrible romantic choices on her part, and a part of her early character was absolutely Claire's defining of herself through her relationships with various men, but I absolutely think she outgrew that pattern.

With all of this in mind, like I said, each character had their own varied progression and development over the course of the series, but the show never shamed them from finding their own truths and establishing themselves in whatever way they saw fit. While they may all have gone through periods of relying on their relationships for definition, it was never treated as an endgame trait as much as it was something that they were in the process of overcoming. There was never a period where we were to view Ruth's fluctuating from Nathaniel, to Hiram, to Nikolai, to Maya, as something to be praised or desired. It was (at least in my opinion) our desire for the character to move away from these sorts of dependent relationships.

In the end, Ruth moved in with Sarah as opposed to reverting (at least residentially) to her relationship with George, Claire left for New York without Ted and by herself for the first time in her life, and Brenda (although not ideally, of course) ended both pursuing a career in a field that she had rebelled against for her entire life, and serving as a mother, another aspect of her life that had seemed simply unfathomable earlier on in the series. And the key to all three of these outcomes was that they were treated with praise and pride from a storytelling perspective, treated as self-sufficiceny as opposed to loneliness or sadness.

reply

^^yes yes yes

reply

I totally agree with everything you said. The show was so real; you felt like you actually lived and grew up with these people.

One thing I'd add is the very respectful handling of ALL religions. The fact that the funeral home was non-denominational gave many people a window into beliefs that they otherwise might not have had a chance to observe. I feel that some politicians make religion a polarizing thing used to fulfill their own agendas and it shouldn't be used for that.

___________________________________
Never say never...

reply

There's also the sex addiction in a woman portrayed with Brenda.

The reason I created this topic is that SFU was my introduction to the world of prestige, artful TV. These days I keep seeing shows that do something original or risque and get praised by critics for being groundbreaking, and I keep thinking that SFU did those things first.

For, example, Rectify has borrowed the entire melancholy family drama formula from SFU and it is currently the most incredible thing on TV. In both there's the prodigal eldest son coming home, 3 kids with the youngest being very far apart in age and neglected (they even both have red hair!), the long-suffering mother, and the sister's a bit of a Brenda character. The morbid sense of humour and the existential angst is there too.

Grace and Frankie deals with two 60+ women reinventing their lives. Jane the Virgin just recently handled an abortion in the same mundane, non-moralising manner as SFU and is being praised to the skies for it. There a heap of gay couples all over TV, but none are as deep and interesting as David and Keith. Homeland has a female lead just as compleax, real and deeeply messed up as Brenda.

And yes, the feminism still feels so fresh. The dark side of the cable TV revolution has been the sexploitation of women in a very porny manner. I can't find a moment of gratutious female nudity on SFU. It also discusses female sexuality at all ages like it matters, with all the realities of birth control, abortion and the elusive female orgasm involved.


reply

Way way way over the top in your emotional melodrama. Recasting 2001 as being in the dark ages is just a bridge too far. There are reasons why our forebears regarded homosexuality as taboo. Your assignment is to put on your thinking cap and see if you can dispassionately and logically discern why they did that way.

Get the facts first - you can distort them later!

reply

Nah. They were all just haters back in those days. They didn't even invent love until 2003, when this show was on. True fact.

reply

Way way way over the top in your emotional melodrama. Recasting 2001 as being in the dark ages is just a bridge too far


What emotional melodrama? I summarised things very logically.

I meant that it was ahead of its time in the context of the TV revolution, not real life attitudes. SFU is always acknowledged by critics as one of the first shows to pave the way for prestige TV drama, along with The Sopranos. The second wave came with Breaking Bad/Mad Men. We're bathing in great TV right now, and yet there still aren't many shows which address so many touchy subjects as bluntly and honestly as SFU did.

There are reasons why our forebears regarded homosexuality as taboo. Your assignment is to put on your thinking cap and see if you can dispassionately and logically discern why they did that way.


Nice try at painting me as ignorant, but I know my history of sexuality in geographically diverse detail up to 10,000 years back. How does this have any relevance to the fact that the early 2000s still regarded homophobic humour on TV as acceptable? Check out the first 2 seasons of Arrested Development to refresh your memory.

reply