Saturday, January 24, 2009

"House" and religion

"House" is, in general, a frustrating show for me-- fascinating and compelling, but not among my tip-top favorites. This is for several reasons. First, House's consistently acerbic demeanor makes every episode predictable on some level. Second, any given verbal sparring match with House ends with House left speechless, unable to reply after a zinger from his interlocutor (usually female). Third, the plot of every episode (except, notably, the one under discussion) unfolds almost exactly the same way. Fourth, those aforementioned zingers-- usually psychoanalytical in nature-- can be annoying because they often sound like what they are: the work of writers desperately reaching for something new and profound to say this week. It's not often that I want my TV writing to be as stilted and self-conscious as the writing one expects to find in stage plays, or even in some movies. "House" would be just as interesting if it didn't try to bring us one Deep Human Truth per week, but some episodes occasionally do invite an exploration of deeper matters.

I wish I had recorded and re-watched a rather uncharacteristic episode of "House" that aired as a repeat on the USA Network last night ("One Day, One Room"-- see here). A young woman is brought in, and it soon becomes apparent that she's a rape victim. She insists that only House should be her caregiver-- not the psychiatrist, and not a different medical doctor. House is perplexed: he knows how unlikable he can be, and reasons that the woman deserves to be treated by someone more socially adept. Eventually, though, House finds himself stuck in a treatment room with the woman, and they eventually begin to talk. House asks the woman about her background, and she says she majored in comparative religion.

The ensuing dialogue was interesting, but I couldn't help feeling that the woman didn't sound like a student of comparative religion. Of course, students in that field come in all shapes and sizes, from atheistic to hard-core fundamentalistic. Nevertheless, the conversation rang false with me; the woman would have, at the very least, brought out tidbits from a variety of religions instead of relying on very generic and oversimplified God-language. She also wouldn't have rejected House's attempt at injecting philosophy into the discussion: no self-respecting student of comparative religion would fail to see the relevance of philosophy to religious discourse. She invites philosophical rebuttal every time she makes general metaphysical statements.

The episode ends with House and the woman on cordial terms: it turns out that she insisted on House because she saw him as something of a kindred spirit, someone who had also suffered a deep hurt, and it was this perception that fed her desire for connection. House tells her about the physical abuse he suffered as a child, which allows the woman to open up and tell House about her rape, and to terminate the pregnancy caused by the rape. The episode, while different from the usual "House" fare, was nonetheless frustrating because it did attempt to make time for some sort of religious and philosophical debate, then cheated us by not giving us a fully fleshed-out comparative religion student. The show included a subplot about a dying old man; had they dropped that subplot, there would have been more time for House and the woman to have had a meaningful (not to mention more realistic-sounding) discussion.


_

2 comments:

Anonymous said...

I find House (both show and character) annoying for some of the same reasons you cite (though I can't seem to quite stay away from it, either. Annoying.) But I have other objections to is, as well.

The show is untrue to life on many levels, and sells a variety of bed messages via its subtext. For instance: No one as completely rude and verbally abusive as House would ever keep a job, at least in a caring profession, no matter how competent he might be. He'd be fired, after the third or fourth lawsuit, if not the first. (That's if he made it through medical school in the first place.) Further, he'd at least occasionally run into people who would stand up to him and/or call him on it (or punch him out)--but no, not on this show. The subtext is that House's brilliance justifies everything else he does. Bull. Neither artistic creativity nor intellectual brilliance justifies the way he treats other people.

Another example: House's drug use. The subtext of the show here is that if you're smart enough, you can get away with using drugs habitually. Again, bull. No one would continue to be smart at all, let alone smarter than everyone else, if they were using the kinds and amounts of drugs that House uses. Those drugs affect the brain--after awhile, functioning is affected. This one bothers me even more than the first, because the message is dangerous to anyone who might believe it, or use it to justify their own drug use.

The third thing that bothers me about the show is that House insists on treating people in advance of the data--that is, he guesses what might be wrong, but won't wait for the diagnostic tests to determine whether or not he's right, but insists that extremely risky procedures be done RIGHT NOW, and that anyone who resists is a coward, an idiot, an uncaring cretin. Overtly, House is all about the supremacy of material reality--but his diagnoses and treatments rely on the magic of being the hero and having scriptwriters to get him to the right conclusion. (Who needs God when the scriptwriters are on your side?) He gets there every time, thanks to the scriptwriters--but he does plenty of damage along the way. If I ever have a serious and mysterious disease--please, please, don't send me to House, or anyone like him. I want a real doctor, one who's more about thinking and figuring out what's wrong, and less about snappy insults and putting down every other human being on the planet.

And yet--I do watch the show from time to time. Go figure.

Anonymous said...

I am surprised he even does this crap. It must surely be the money the the US networks pay - much more than the BBC.

He was so much better in "Black Adder" with Rowan Atkinson.

I'm so glad a ditched my telly.