Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

sillystevedore t1_iud2yqx wrote

While queer baiting is an annoying trend in some circles, the idea that any piece of art that gestures at romance but doesn’t explicitly show it is somehow problematic is just so dumb. It’s called “subtlety,” people. Hannibal — and that central relationship — is an extremely romantic show. The imagery, the direction, the music, the writing of those characters… it’s all right there for the viewer to parse.

Pretty annoying (and ironic) that there are seemingly tons of people who balk at sex and nudity on TV and also people who throw a fit when there isn’t explicit romance between some characters. You can’t win with these losers.

9

JohnWhatSun t1_iuegt0i wrote

I think that queer baiting is frustrating to see because this kind of "leave it up to the viewer" thing only seems to happen with same sex relationships. If we saw a similar trend with opposite sex relationships, I'd get it, but as far as I can see, it's not the case. If you have any examples of hetero relationships as a counterpoint, then fair enough.

Queer baiting won't ruin a show for me on its own and I don't need to see characters have sex on screen to confirm the relationship, but it's a trend that has been long outgrown and the current talking point of "intimate male friendship is misunderstood by fujoshis" is being applied with broad strokes wherever the phrase queer baiting is mentioned, regardless of merit. I'm just tired of the lack of nuance from both sides.

I can love Hannibal as a show and still wish that we got that kiss scene.

4

sillystevedore t1_iueyvqc wrote

As I said, I think it’s a legit gripe sometimes, and you’re right about there being few heterosexual examples (Mulder and Scully is the biggest one I can think of). But the way it’s getting thrown around (like so many other buzzwords that people fundamentally misunderstand) is getting a bit ridiculous. And, like, it’s fine that you wanted them to kiss — a lot of people did while still enjoying the show, which was excellent. But when people start suggesting that those characters should have kissed, as if the writers behind the show were cruelly and incorrectly depriving the audience of that, that’s where I draw the line. That can lead to toxic fandom in which people are claiming ownership over something they didn’t create and isn’t theirs.

I don’t think the show was ever about explicit interpersonal romance in the traditional sense. In fact, it was about an extremely unique, extremely taboo, very obviously untraditional sort of intimacy between them that I think a ‘climactic’ kiss or some reveal that they’re both bisexual would have dumbed down quite a bit, honestly. But that’s just me. I’d argue that the two of them teaming up to take down Dolarhyde and then jumping (or, Will pushing Hannibal — it’s left a bit ambiguous) off that cliff is the kiss, for all intents and purposes.

Queer-baiting (when it does actually happen) is essentially indebted to the “will they or won’t they” trope of two main characters on a sitcom taking years before they get together. It’s a tried and true device that gets viewers coming back for more and waiting for the eventual hook-up. When it’s being clearly dangled and never given in a context like that, I’m more inclined to call it what it is. Then it becomes part of the bigger issue of media being super chaste with regards to showing gay sex and gay intimacy. That’s finally changing, at least a little bit.

4

JohnWhatSun t1_iuf6fpf wrote

I think in the case of Hannibal, you are right. Mizumono and the cliff scene had incredible emotional payoff. Just fantastic storytelling.

I was probably being argumentative for the sake of it here, so I apologise, and your comments have shown me that we're largely thinking along the same lines. Your last paragraph resonated with me - I find it hard to call out any one show for queer baiting, especially when they're otherwise great shows, but it's the broader trend of media up until the last few years that, when you look back on it, was not great.

Thanks for the detailed response, I really appreciate it

6

sillystevedore t1_iugm5hu wrote

No need to apologize! Didn’t find you argumentative at all, really.

3