Conference turris::womannotes-v1

    See the *Anti* Moonlighting note in the conference, UCOUNT::TV.
    (Sorry,  I don't know the note number!)
    
    Sheila
    

    I was concerned about the "you know you want it" attitude.  I was
    glad when (Dave?) said he wouldn't "force himself" on Maddie, but
    I did not like the way it was said ("you're not worth it").  I noticed
    that when they finally kissed, the woman started it, but only by
    an instant.
    
    Overall, I enjoyed it, but would have much preferred to have it
    done another way.
    
                     Carol

    I would like to know why he had to break the furniture before he
    could do what we all knew he would do.   B-O-R-I-N-G.

    Gee.  I thought it was GREAT!  I had tears in my eyes when
    they actually let down the barriers and followed their hearts!
    
    Sure they were both playing a "game".  Don't we all?  He was
    the strong silent man, afraid to show his feelings.  And she
    was the reluctant female, waiting for the man to make the first
    move. Granted, it was a bit exagerated....maybe I just related
    to the fear, the hesitation, that they both felt, towards making
    the first move, being the first to reveal true feelings and fear
    of rejection.  Am I the only one out here who's ever felt that
    way???
    
    But-Love conquers all ;-) and I smiled when they both followed
    their hearts and embraced .....my imagination took over when the
    commercial came on, and I assure you, what we didn't see was
    *wonderful* !!!!
    
    

    Why would anyone watch anything other than PBS?  My TV is hardwired
    to channels 2, 11, 44.  
    
    
    
    /Jo-Ann

    Channel 38, too.  Some good movies.  I guess that includes ch 68:
    better movies but worse reception.
    
    While we're talking about sexist shows, did anyone see the NBC preview
    of "Roomies"?  An ex-Marine (40-ish? years old) is roomed with a
    "boy-genius" of 14 or 16.  This boy is very shy around women/girls,
    and the older man shows him how to start a conversation with a woman.
    
    He drops something next to a woman on a bus, tries a conversation
    with her, she says "buzz off."  He persists, and she "softens up."
    He returns to the boy-genius who is awestruck by the mastery with
    which this woman was handled, and says, "well you see, sometimes
    when a woman says 'no' she doesn't really *mean* it."
    
    <Barf.  Gag me.  See righteous indignation at the perpetualtion
    of harmful myths, etc, etc.>
    
    Lee

    I liked "Moonlighting" when I first saw it, but not as a revelation
    of relationships between real people. It was funny and charming,
    and I loved the "meta-comments" they would make to the audience.
    
    All that wore off rather quickly, though, and I found the show less
    entertaining when it began to push towards a romance between the
    leads. I haven't seen any episodes this year (aside from "Taming
    of the Shrew", which was funny), and from the sound of things I
    haven't missed much.
    
    However - if you'd like to see a very nice television series about
    an adult romance, with people who are a bit more like "just plain
    folks", try "A Fine Romance." [Apologies to those outside the New
    Hampshire viewing area - as far as I know it's only been shown on
    Ch. 11 from Durham.] I reviewed it briefly in UCOUNT::TV, but I
    think it deserves a mention in this conference as well.
    
    It's a comedy, bitter-sweet at times, about a middle-aged man and woman
    who are drawn to each other but are having a *lot* of trouble forming a
    close relationship. They lived together for a while, then split up over
    a crisis - the woman's sister had a child, the woman was overcome with
    "biological clock" syndrome, the man didn't want to have a child.
    Months passed, she returned, and they are - *very* tentatively -
    getting back together. (No decision about a child as yet, but the
    man has a couple of employees who are devoted family men, and he's
    been looking a wee bit envious of late.)

    What I like about the series is that these are decent people, rather
    dull, used to doing things their own way and sometimes quite prickly
    about it. They're also lonely, and have found a good match in each
    other, but are having to work very hard at being close. 
    
    I appreciate the fact that the relationships are adult ones, with
    sex being a part of it but not the main focus (as contrasted with
    "Moonlighting", which seems to concentrate solely on
    nudge-nudge-wink-wink). These people have jobs, bills to pay,
    relationships with the folks at work, with relatives, and with each
    other; and they muddle through all of it as best they can.

    Alas, the series is almost over. I hope it will be shown again (I
    missed the early episodes). At any rate, if you get a chance, tune
    in. If you'll forgive the expression, I think it beats the pants
    off of "Moonlighting"...

    -b

    First, let me excuse myself by saying I watched Moonlighting
    for the first time last night.  I will never watch it again.
    Why did I watch it in the first place?

    I was actually impressed when Maddie was talking about making
    choices for the structure of her life, and not a choice
    between two men.  She made a great point about how control of
    this decision was taken away from her by the actions of the two guys.
    Then ...

    << FLAME ON >>

    The last scene(s), those between Maddie and what's_his_name
    made me so angry.  The only thing he said that I agree with
    is that sometimes there is a strong attraction between two
    people that both realize without saying it.

    1) Strong attractions are no comparison to an acknowledged,
    honest, committed relationship.  If he can't admit to what
    he wants out of the relationship; they (anybody) can't have
    more than some intense sex.

    2) Intense sex is OK by me, but not sufficient when I'm trying
    to understand/build a relationship.  I think is what Maddie
    wanted.  Talk about a match made in Taiwan (or should we say
    Detroit these days?)

    3) Lack of communication -- she was trying to tell him what
    her decision really meant.  He wasn't listening; he wanted
    to go to bed.

    4) *** The worst -- His violence to her apartment. Talk
    about a repudiation of all the things she was trying to tell
    him were important to her.  He had to destroy/mess up her
    things so he could have the sexual encounter on his level.


    Summary -- Dave(?) got everything on his terms.  Maddie
    gave into a passionate sexual encounter.  I know anger
    or conflict can produce those feelings, but that is something
    to question too.  Why didn't she feel so ignored (I mean
    for the person she really was) that it would have felt
    like an assualt to her to be intimate with this person.

Pretty good movie a few nights ago though starring Linda Lavin as the first
woman working on a car engine assembly line.

I figure that they'll wake up the next morning and discover it was all
a dream.  Then, when they get together, they'll both say "you know,
I had the wierdest dream last night."

What I liked most about the sex scenes was their adherence to the pre-I
Am Curious Yellow tradition of moaning and groaning, but the sheet never
slips down that last crucial millimeter.  Of course, I'm just a cynic
from way back.

Martin.

    
    
    
    
    
    
                For New Depths, see VIKING::FLG:[WASSER]SCUBA
    
    
    
    
    
    
    

    I didn't watch it, will though.  The guy in the cubicle next to
    me taped it for his wife.
    
    All I can say is that if Bruce Willis is in the neighborhood, anywhere
    near me, I'm going to get him and let him.....
    
    He just really pumps my blood.
    
    Sorry Mark Harmon, I've found someone new.

    He's nothing special.

	Re: .5

>    Why would anyone watch anything other than PBS?  My TV is hardwired
>    to channels 2, 11, 44.  
    
        Jo-Ann, 

        Sometimes I'm tired and would like to watch something that doesn't
        make me think.  I also enjoy some of the shows on commercial
        television (for example I enjoyed Moonlighting during its first
        season). 

        Now let me tell you about valuing differences.  When I hear
        comments like the one you made, I feel like someone is trying to
        tell me that their tastes are somehow better than mine.  It must
        be "intellectual" people who watch 2, 11, 44, which must make me
        some sort of lower specie.  This is because I hear this type of
        rhetorical question frequently.  People don't just calmly say,
        "no, I didn't watch it."  When people mention a Nova episode that
        they saw, I don't reply by saying "Why would anyone watch channel
        2?"  As if channel 2 was a boring channel or something. 
    
        I hope you don't get upset, I'm not attacking you, I'm attacking
        irrelevant statements about what channel is best when a particular
        show is being discussed.   Yours just happened to be the nth one
	that made me want to reply.

	...Karen

    Re: .4
    
    I thought the show was great also.  For those who watch Moonlighting
    on a regular basis, you get to realize that it is not the reality
    of the show itself, but the dialog that is constantly passed between
    Mattie and David.
    
    The show is simply fun to watch for those who don't take T.V. to
    seriosly.
    
    

    re: .4
    
    "let down the barriers and followed their hearts"?????
    
    I hope this isn't too much of a flame ...
    
    I'm an avid follower of Moonlighting.  Many of the shows are great, and
    the special shows are mighty nice.  But last Tuesday nights episode was
    trash.  Pure trash.
    
    I felt that Maddy *CLEARLY* communicated what she wanted.  "David, get
    out!  Get out of here!"  Pretty clear stuff to me.  Any gentleman that
    gave a *^%&$*& about the person he was with would have listened. But
    David?  No, he plays this macho bullshit game of "Oh, she's saying NO
    but really means YES".
    
    What bothers me more is that TV perpetuates this garbage.  No means no.
    Simple.  End of story.  Can't people understand English and respect the
    desires of others?  If No doesn't mean No, then don't say it!
    
    Grrrrr ...
    
    	-- Jeff

    If Mattie DID want David to leave, there is no way what happened
    would have happened.  She wanted it and He wanted it, so they did
    it.
    
    In reality (which everyone seems to be comparing a TV show with)
    David would not have gotten his way, (or Mattie her way) if they
    did not "let down the barriers and follow their hearts :-)!!!!
    
    

    Karen, if you're not attacking me, why are you using my name?  I
    asked a question, and your first paragraph gave me an answer.  The
    rest seems to be some kind of defense.  I apparently hit one of
    your hot buttons.  
    
    Well, is it true then, about this conference, that if you don't
    go with the flow you get cut?
    
    Ask a question about why people watch the kind of TV shows that
    they watch, and get a valuing differences lecture...incredible.
    
    It must be time for supper.
    
    /Jo-Ann

    RE .17
    
    	Ah, M. Cooper?  
    >"If Mattie DID want David to leave, there is no way what happened
    >would have happened.  ... In reality ... David would not have gotten
    >his way (or Mattie her way) ..."
    
    One out of every three women will be raped in her lifetime.   Over
    half of all rapists are known to the rape survivor.   David could,
    indeed, (statistically speaking) have stayed even if Mattie wanted
    him to go.    Over 30% of rapes occur in the rape survivor's home...
    
    Tamar

    Ok, ok, ok already!!!
    
    Moonlighting is just a comedy-drama (mostly comedy) that cannot
    be taken so seriously.  It's a fun show to watch.
    
    (how did we get on the subject of rape?????)
    
    

    But Jeff, she really WAS saying "no" when she meant "yes"!
    That much was OBVIOUS!  I mean, I knew it and David knew
    it, and Maddie knew it too!  She was saying "David get
    out" with her mouth.  Her heart and mind were saying
    "David, hold me in your arms and never let me go."  And
    David loves her enough to KNOW what she REALLY meant!!
    
    (don't forget, he DID try to leave and she followed him
     down the stairs and continued the conversation....)
    

    (and furthermore!)
    
    Okay, let's talk reality.  Reality is my telling the
    man I live with "Okay, that's it, I'm leaving!!"  Of
    course he knows me and he knows that I'm really saying
    "Talk me into staying" and yes I know this is not good
    communication and yes I know it's childish and immature
    and yes I know that it's very silly to play games....
    but don't we all play games sometimes with the ones we
    love?  Aren't these games designed to protect ourselves?
    
    Sometimes what we say is NOT what we mean and that's why
    we have so many silly misunderstandings.  Wouldn't it
    be nice if we all spoke the same language?
    
    

    
         As have some of the others, I did like the show.  These are
    fictional characters, and as such they have to have flaws.  Maddie
    Hayes is certainly not perfect and no one was raped on that show.
     The writers are constantly doing a good job of doing what is at
    least 50% unexpected, and (as they did on this show) this is the
    first time I have ever felt something for both sides in this sort
    of situation.  It was well done, and in keeping with the flow of
    the show.  It's just a "like it or don't" kind of thing.  I like
    it.
    
                                   Bubba
    

    re: .22
    
    >But Jeff, she really WAS saying "no" when she meant "yes"!
    >That much was OBVIOUS!

    Well, *EXCUSE ME* for not recognizing the obvious!!! :^)
    
    While it looked like she possibly meant "YES" even though she was
    saying "NO", *I* wouldn't chance it if I were Dave.  (Good point,
    how did we get on the subject of rape?)
    
    This subject came up in the old SEXCETERA file, and I'll be just
    as determined now as I was then.  If somebody says "NO", *LISTEN*.
    It's not worth being wrong about.  No means No.  Period.
    
    I remember somebody asking, "What if someone says No but really means
    Yes?"  A story went along with it that a woman *REALLY* wanted to go to
    bed with some guy and was just "playing the game".  The guy found out
    years later and was frustrated, as he listened to what she had said.
    
    My attitude: I'd rather not take the chance, thank you.  If I'm told
    "No", that's good enough for me.  I pride myself on understanding
    single syllable words!
    
    Getting back to the subject at hand: There is already enough problems
    with people understanding the seriousness of date-rape.  Many people
    think that date-rape is less serious than "real" rape.  Clearly, this
    is rubbish, and only displays the ignorance of people.  And trash like
    Tuesday night's Moonlighting only serves to perpetuate this ignorance.
    
    *I*, for one, would have been much happier if David respected Maddy's
    wishes.  And don't give me the crap that he did; She said "NO"! If she
    didn't mean it, she shouldn't have said it.  At the very least, she'd
    learn a lesson of life.

    Perhaps I am taking this too seriously; after all, it is "only" TV.
    Sorry, though, I see no joke when it comes to rape.  And when Maddy
    is fighting David off with a lamp, it sure looked like it was leading
    down that road to me.
    
    	-- Jeff

    I haven't seen this episode, but from what I've gleaned from the
    comments so far I think they could have handled the situation better,
    both from a dramatic/comedic point of view and from a
    socially-responsible one.

    Yes, the show is modeled on the old romantic comedies, and a stock
    ingredient of those is the "says-no-but-means-yes" syndrome, wherein
    all women secretly want to be talked/coerced/forced into doing what
    they *really* want but are too ladylike to admit. But I would have
    much preferred it if either: Maddy says No, David starts to leave,
    Maddy runs after him and says "I didn't mean it" (which could have
    turned into a lovely bicker about "say what you mean"); or, she
    says No but won't leave him alone, and *he* says "Look, I'm going
    to take you at your word - do you want me or not? No more games..."

    The former is more in character, but the latter would make a nice
    object lesson: when in doubt, ASK!
    
    [By way of contrast, the last episode of "A Fine Romance" included
    the following dialogue: 
    
    Laura (a bit confused): "Are you trying to seduce me?"
    Mike (looking even more confused): "Yes."
    Laura: "What kind of lady-killer do you think you've become?"
    Mike: "Well, I thought you were trying to seduce me!"
    Laura: "Yes..."
    (There follows a long pause during which both parties stand side
    by side, fidgeting nervously and inching closer. Finally they kiss,
    *very* tentatively, and - Fade Out.)]
    
    -b

    Another interesting point about Moonlighting is the photography.  I'm
    not an expert on camera work, but I've heard that they use a "soft"
    lens to photograph her (so she comes out looking soft and feminine),
    and a regular lens for him (so he comes out with clearly defined [hard]
    edges and looking masculine).

    I saw about 2 minutes of the show (also waiting for Max Headroom), and
    the two characters did indeed appear to be different.


    When the show first started, I watched it once or twice. It seemed like
    a good idea, but another bad implementation.  More stereotypical
    interactions between men and women.  Don't we have enough of this crap?  

    	RE: Soft and Regular lenses
    
    	My $.02 worth:
    
    	I noticed the same thing. I never thought anything more about
    	it, figured it was just tired eyes. I guess we all can use
    	all the help we can get, right?
    
    	Scott

    I don't watch Moonlighting that much, just some of the special shows
    (like Christmas and this last 4 episode "trilogy). Most of the
    time I turn it off because the actions of the charaters, mainly
    David, really put me off. I think his character is a jerk and a
    slob and I don't need to spend my "relaxing" time watching what
    I can get in real life.... Occassionally the show is good, though.
    
    Most of the other night's episode, from the aspect of Mattie's
    character,  was good. I liked the introspection she was doing about
    getting married or not and is it because of the two guys involved
    or just the idea of marriage itself...   
    
    As I said, I liked most of it, until the last scene..... which really
    bothered me. I too agree that David didn't really hear what Mattie was
    saying at all and the old "get out.... no" doesn't really mean no
    aspect made me furious. By the time they got to the final clutches,
    with him wrecking the apartment I was about as disgusted with the show
    as I have ever been.  The only thing I could think of was that rather
    than taking that seriously, the actions were meant to be a parady on
    other "love scenes" from other movies/shows (since the show has
    been known to do that on other subjects)?  I don't know, maybe I
    am reaching for straws to find some redeeming factors....haven't
    really convince myself, though. 

    I already said this in the UCOUNT::TV notes files on Moonlighting.
    I can't imagine why anyone would turn down a guy who was sensitive,
    intelligent, clean (vs the David 3-day-without-a-wash look), and
    not to mention much nicer looking for someone like David. Of course,
    that is if marriage is the goal. I think I respect the Maddie character
    a lot more because she was really choosing between marriage and
    no marriage, rather than the guys.
    
    Oh well.....  it is just TV after all and not all that important.

    janet b.

re: "soft lenses" -- there's probably no difference in the lenses themselves,
but, if you watch carefully, you'll see very distinct differences in the
style and colors of the lighting and makeup.

If you're interested, tape the show and examine it frame by frame.

Martin.

ex

    re: earlier
    
    I, too, felt that on Hill Street Blues Darryl Anne (sp?) was only
    saying that to hurt Andy.  Notice their relationship has been getting
    worse, not better.
    
    Was it in this file that the show was mentioned that couples a young
    boy and a middle aged man as roommates in college?  The older one
    was teaching the younger one that "women sometimes mean yes when
    they say 'no'"?  
    
    Television is not something that we can ignore when we talk about
    influencing our society's values.  If we are going to change prejudice
    and outdated notions, then we need to change the media which promote
    these ideas.
    
                   Carol

re: .8:

>    4) *** The worst -- His violence to her apartment. Talk
>    about a repudiation of all the things she was trying to tell
>    him were important to her.  He had to destroy/mess up her
>    things so he could have the sexual encounter on his level.

That was the best part of the show.  Remember that only a few
minutes before, she was at work cleaning up his office.  If he
wanted a neat and tidy office, he'd clean it up himself.

I wonder whether she's attracted to him as an object to straighten
up -- and he to her as a perfectly finished porcelain doll to drag
through the dirt.

Martin.

    RE: .18 

    Jo-Ann, 

    I'm sorry for attacking you.  I guess I assumed that your question was
    rhetorical and you didn't really want an answer to why people watch
    other stations.  And with that assumption, I went on to why a lot of
    others make the same sort of rhetorical question which bothers me.
    Yes, you hit one of my hot buttons, and I was trying to tell you why
    it was one, not trying to attack you. I guess I also have a problem
    articulating what I want to say. 

    So, since you really want to know why people watch stations other than
    the ones you watch, it's because we're all different.   And in
    particualar, I watch Moonlighting because it used to be an innovative
    humerous show, and I keep hoping a new episode will be as well written
    as some of the first ones were. 

   ...Karen

    Off the subject, sort of, but did anyone catch last night's episode
    of LA LAW?  That was the first time that I watched it (and I don't
    watch that much T.V.) but it was really well done.  I can see why
    all (some, whatever) critics are going nuts about this show.
    
    That Susan Dey, who I remember as little Laurie Partridge, is a
    rising and refreshing star to nighttime T.V.  She did an excellent
    job and I can see that this show is doing her well.  I wonder if
    she feels the same way.
    
    Cathy (who grew up watching Laurie and Danny and David and Suzanne
    and what's_the_younger_boys_name?)

    
    	I watch it every week,  I taped it last night...I've haven't
    seen it yet, so don't tell me about it 8*)....
    
    	That show, also deals with very, very sensitive, and highly
    	controversial issues.  In the past, they have has cases, on
    	Date Rape, Child ABuse, SExual Abuse, Racial cases.  It is
    	by Steven Bocho, who also has done/doing Hill Street 
    	Blues. It also deals with a 2 secretaries, who are indeed,
    	concerned about there well-being.  I've actually learned things
    	from that show, that I deal with daily.
    
    
    			Mike
    

    Why the surprise?
    
    Maddy has always made little sense to me.  She always has
    some strong, definite statement to make, only to be totally
    dismissed based on David's reaction to it.  
    
    David has always behaved like a sixteen year old jerk,
    pretending to be a grown up human being.
    
    I found each of them to be perfectly in character throughout
    the rape/lovemaking episode.
    
    
    Jacki