Rescue Me, for sure is a very interesting sitcom. On the superficial level, there is a team of fantastic writers, cameramen (some of the shots and angles taken were brilliant) and actors. In all honesty, for most of the show, I felt as if it were a mini movie, because the quality of the show was very high quality in all respects.
However...I did not appreciate how almost every time a woman was shown on screen (with maybe two exceptions) the firefighters were making crude remarks, glances or gestures. For instance, when the squad was responding to....I believe the urine incident, the fire truck passed by a woman walking on the crosswalk. She might have been dressed provocatively, but it seemed like a normal set of clothes to me. One of the members did an action like winking at the woman, and then in response the woman winked sexily back (or made some other gesture). Yet in those five seconds, it made the woman seem like she was just there for eye candy in that entire scene. The firefighter (Lou, I think) essentially catcalled, and the woman responded back in a positive way (indicating that she was interested in his advances). Does this happen every time in real life? I would hope not. Personally, if I was whistled or catcalled or whatnot, I would flip the offenders of at the very least (and I have on numerous occassions).
Getting back on topic though, it seemed obvious that the men were putting up the shield of a stereotypical male. As someone else mentioned, they act macho, insensitive, and threw any kind of emotion or want of help/encouragement out the window immediately. However, it was also clear that each man was reacting to that lack of emotional support in his own way: one took to drinking (not Tommy, but the one who was drinking in a flask instead of going into the burning building), the other writing poetry (*gasp*), and Tommy with his visions, drinking, and obsession with his wife and so on. Thus, to see who would "crack" first and begin to publically "act like a woman and talk about his feelings" would be interesting. For instance, although Tommy did open up to the therapist, he merely listed off his experiences as if to say "this is what I've been through, but I'm still dealing with it, get off my back." I also thought he did that in the opening scene when addressing the new additions in front of the WTC site. He was using his experiences, his pain and his loss of friends/family to try to become the exception, the one who is supposed to be left alone because they have been through too much (while also trying to earn him a higher status in society). Also, I think the fact that while Tommy was talking to the therapist, the fact that his team was listening in on the door was not just to use any material gleaned for later humiliation, but also because that was a small, unintentional gesture of support. The rest of the men look up to Tommy in some way, so I think if he had fully opened up, some of them would have at least followed up and truly poured out their feelings and thoughts as well.
As for the 9/11 blog...I found it interesting that many (if not all) of the posters featured were from NY state. I myself am not from New York, (Southeastern Connecticut), but I am close enough to have still felt the pain and confusion that went along with the attacks. However, I recall reading in a newspaper several years ago that in the rest of the country, other Americans did not feel as violated or angry or even sad. New York City, although a major city in this country, is still a blip on the map. For someone in rural Wisconsin, or Juneau, Alaska, it would not seem as significant as to any of us who lived much closer to the WTC site. Of course, I am using blanket statements and places, and it was certain that many were affected, since there was a rise in people nationwide who entered into the military and National Guard after 9/11...but when Pearl Harbor was bombed, didn't the same thing happen? The Hawaiians and mostly anyone with an affiliation or relative who lived there was affected, but not everyone in the country would have cared. I know of people who had similar sentiments when Hurricaine Katrina hit--that it was the resident's fault, the area is so poor that nothing could have been done, blah blah blah. When the D.C. gas station snipers were wreaking havoc in 2003 and 2004, my 8th grade class still decided to make the traditional class trip to D.C. for a week, and no safety measures of what to do when someone starts shooting at you was ever mentioned. Only the basic "have a buddy and call for help" was ever mentioned.
I suppose when I am supposed to sum up my thoughts here and stop going on tangents, I would say that it is kind of understandable that not everyone would have the "oh my God that's horrible" mentality that we were supposed to have on 9/11. I can understand the insensitive comments made, especially because at the time we (as a public) had no idea what had caused the four planes to crash (funny the one that crashed in Pennsylvania is always forgotten, isn't it?). However, it is interesting that of the comments listed on the page, many are from New York. And how many are actually from the city? That is what I would like to know...
No comments:
Post a Comment