Just recently, my TV viewing pleasure has included the CSI franchises. But these raise a question that bugs me - why are the women such unrealistically ideal types?
The thing is, although I've met men like Gil Grissom, Mac Taylor or Nick Stokes (though, granted, few with Horatio Caine's uncanny stillness), and can recognise these as realisticish characters, I've never met women who combine intellect, looks and integrity in the way that Catherine Willows, Alexx Woods or Stella Bonasera do. (As for Calleigh, I have far more chance of being abducted by aliens than of ever meeting anyone like that).
Why is this? Is it that CSI has some kind of reverse sexism which requires it to present women, though not men, as improbably perfect? If so, why is CSI unusual (though not unique - think of Alison Cameron in House) in doing this? The women in Sex and the City, Desperate Housewives and 24 (say) were much more realistic being, variously, neurotic, vacuously self-obsessed and not especially attractive. Or is it just that I've been unlucky? Or what?
I suspect it has a lot to do with audiences. Sex and the City and Desperate Housewives are very much designed for a female market and so naturally if you put perfect females there then the audience would get annoyed and switch off. While CSI is a more male audience who are quite up for some perfect female specimans. The other alternative is that they're not particularly perfect, in fact most men would think they're a bit geeky, but they're exactly what you're looking for. Maybe you should hang out in forensic labs more often.
Posted by: Nick | October 29, 2007 at 08:41 AM
Nick makes a good point re 'perfection'. Note that the more perfect bodied and ambitious Gaby Logan has been voted off Strictly Come Dancing while Kate Garraway has stayed in despite not being able to dance since she is seen as more attainable and 'average.'Women like to punish other women.
But you know there are a few of us in real life who have intellect, looks and integrity.
Posted by: Ms Robinson | October 29, 2007 at 11:06 AM
It's not unique to CSI. I'm a regular viewer of "spooks" on BBC1 and although I'd don't work in quite such a glamorous part of the civil servce it makes me laugh that their (government) IT is state of the art, their offices are modern designer type and most of the staff are improbably young, ambitious, attractive and trendy.
Most comtemporary drama is the same - career girls must be seen to be "having it all", a perfect blend of intelligence and attractiveness, whilst their male counterparts must be seen to be flawed in some way (cynics with alcohol problems, failed marriages, unable to acheive work/life balance etc etc). The explanation I think is that the media is now dominated by middle class 30 something career girls who want to portray an uber version of themslves on screen.
Posted by: Matt Munro | October 29, 2007 at 11:21 AM
Perhaps realism isn't their goal? Your photo shows a lassie doing something that would enrage the Elfin Safety Stasi in Britain - look, no lab glasses.
Posted by: dearieme | October 29, 2007 at 12:03 PM
"Hiding" Emliy Proctor's eyes has never improved ratings.
Which is probably close to the answer to the original question.
Posted by: Ken Houghton | October 29, 2007 at 01:22 PM
Then there's the perfection of the uber-goth, teeny-dominatrix schloc of Abby in NCIS ...different kind of perfect - different demographic
Posted by: thefatman | October 29, 2007 at 08:19 PM
Judging by the adverts shown during CSI the audience is mostly female. A female audience will relate to 'realisticish' males leaving the makers with no need to go beyond stereotypes with the female characters, although Calleigh & Stella both having big eyes is good..
Posted by: matthew | October 30, 2007 at 09:08 AM
Catherine Willows... Ideal?! I thought she was a really irritating bitch, who only shines in comparison with Sara who's worse. We've very different tastes!
Posted by: Jackart | October 30, 2007 at 11:30 AM
Aren't you being rather selective in your choice of characters there? You might view Alexx Woods as "perfect", but the character of Sarah Sidle, for example, is presented pretty three dimensionally. In the meantime, describing Horatio Caine as "still" doesn't begin to do justice to the fawning way in which he is portrayed - infallible, intelligent, caring, blah blah - so much so that I'd rather scratch my eyes out than watch CSI Miami.
Posted by: Katherine | October 30, 2007 at 06:15 PM