![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Entry tags:
Ramble about Lana and Lex...
Lana has always had special knowledge of Lex. She has seen him - knows him - in a way that none of the other teenagers can. Their first onscreen interactions are shadowed by that earlier encounter, the sexual nature of which informs their relationship. Lana sees Lex as a sexual being, before anything else. Likewise, Lex learns of Lana as an object of male desire, before anything else. When they finally exchange words, they're already sexually aware of each other. I don't think it's a coincidence that Kreuk's performance is often more sexually charged when she is working with Rosenbaum, even when the script doesn't explicitly call for it. The nature of their relationship, at it's most basic does. Their relationship is sexually charge in a way that none of the others on the show really is - awareness without desire; awareness with affinity.
Someone said a while back that the conflation of symbolic Lex and Lana moments acts to queer or feminize Lex, but I would argue that as much as it queers Lex, it does the same for Lana. It does nothing more than draw the two characters together, sexually, morally, iconically and psychologically. Every time the writers contrast the characters, they validate a comparison - they underline the similarities, simply through the effort it takes to point out their differences. Alternately, look at how easily the space between Chloe and Lana is demarcated by the dialogue, script, performances and the mythologies informing the two - there's an obvious and natural gap between them, evident in everything from the way they talk and dress, to the way they act and think. Lana and Chloe occupy very different spaces. Lana and Lex occupy similar spaces.
Both had sheltered childhoods marked by tragedy and scandal. Both are extremely passionate but have been educated to control - supress - that passion. Strong emotion is generally a source or sign of danger for both of them. Romantic attachments tend not to work out very well, and friendships are complicated by envy, deception and a certain lack of understanding. Both are driven by fear and a profound need to impose control, and are limited by their social positions. Both have a profound need to know. More than Chloe's quest for the truth, Lex and Lana need simply know and see everything and everyone around them, to feel safe. Both want to be saved, but doubt they can be. Both are beginning to see Clark's limitations as a hero, and learning that ultimately they only have themselves to rely on. Both are resisting this knowledge.
Circa Zero, Lana is hesitent about trusting Lex. "How much do we know about him?" But she overcomes this easily enough - it never becomes a major factor in their relationship. She forgives 'betrayals' easily and their relationship always seems to return quickly to its starting point: Lex challenging Lana, Lana fighting back. When the Talon is in trouble and Lex suggests playing dirty, Lana does it. She just does it. It's only after that she expresses doubt to Clark. She's not sure she's done the right thing, and she won't do it again. But she does. If Lex suggests Lana take a morally questionable route to her goals, she'll take it. By the third season, she's initiating the transgression.
Both Lex and Lana turn to Clark for moral guidance and their transgressions are positioned as being against Clark, just as they are against Clark's morality. In Perry, Lana turns to Lex for help, because Clark is 'with him'. With Perry White, who forces her to remember the death of her parents, just as she was finally starting to put it behind her, with Clark as the new center of her life. Lana has a very particular picture of who she wants to be and Perry is in her way. She doesn't treat Perry as a human, he's an obstacle to bypassed, an insect to swat. Similarly, Lex, who desperately wants to convince himself that his father is worth caring for and that Lex himself is not a potential patricide, simply pushes Perry out of town.
Perry threatens Lex and Lana's construction of their identities. Clark's connection to Perry makes Clark too, a threat. Perry represents the truth abused. Lex and Lana abuse the truth further, without thought. They will be what they believe themselves to be, what they want to be and what they believe they want themselves to be, no matter the moral cost. Clark's connection to Perry is a betrayal that had potentially explosive consequences - only his get out of jail free card, in the form of his obligation to Perry, mitigated the betrayal for Lex and Lana. There was, however, still a sense that despite the obligation, Clark should have told Perry to shove off, or possibly help the two of them get rid of him. Clark should aid in their self-deception and self-construction. Clark is good when he does this, and when he protects them. When Clark challenges them, Clark is a son of a bitch.
Lex and Lana both want to have the kind of morals that Clark espouses, but they're more inclined to see the world in terms of threats to be eliminated. They constantly seek protection, try to ingratiate themselves to everyone around them, make themselves indispensible and are always ready to do whatever it takes to keep their worlds safe. Whatever is dear to them must be protected at all costs.
Like Clark's connection to Perry, his connection to Chloe is potentially a threat to them both. Not only because she takes Clark away from them both, in terms of time, but because she takes Clark away from them in terms of morality. She reminds Clark how important the literal, rather than emotional truth is. Clark and Chloe, and Lex and Lana, are on two sides of a moral dialog that underwrites the series.
Hmm. More ramble later.
Someone said a while back that the conflation of symbolic Lex and Lana moments acts to queer or feminize Lex, but I would argue that as much as it queers Lex, it does the same for Lana. It does nothing more than draw the two characters together, sexually, morally, iconically and psychologically. Every time the writers contrast the characters, they validate a comparison - they underline the similarities, simply through the effort it takes to point out their differences. Alternately, look at how easily the space between Chloe and Lana is demarcated by the dialogue, script, performances and the mythologies informing the two - there's an obvious and natural gap between them, evident in everything from the way they talk and dress, to the way they act and think. Lana and Chloe occupy very different spaces. Lana and Lex occupy similar spaces.
Both had sheltered childhoods marked by tragedy and scandal. Both are extremely passionate but have been educated to control - supress - that passion. Strong emotion is generally a source or sign of danger for both of them. Romantic attachments tend not to work out very well, and friendships are complicated by envy, deception and a certain lack of understanding. Both are driven by fear and a profound need to impose control, and are limited by their social positions. Both have a profound need to know. More than Chloe's quest for the truth, Lex and Lana need simply know and see everything and everyone around them, to feel safe. Both want to be saved, but doubt they can be. Both are beginning to see Clark's limitations as a hero, and learning that ultimately they only have themselves to rely on. Both are resisting this knowledge.
Circa Zero, Lana is hesitent about trusting Lex. "How much do we know about him?" But she overcomes this easily enough - it never becomes a major factor in their relationship. She forgives 'betrayals' easily and their relationship always seems to return quickly to its starting point: Lex challenging Lana, Lana fighting back. When the Talon is in trouble and Lex suggests playing dirty, Lana does it. She just does it. It's only after that she expresses doubt to Clark. She's not sure she's done the right thing, and she won't do it again. But she does. If Lex suggests Lana take a morally questionable route to her goals, she'll take it. By the third season, she's initiating the transgression.
Both Lex and Lana turn to Clark for moral guidance and their transgressions are positioned as being against Clark, just as they are against Clark's morality. In Perry, Lana turns to Lex for help, because Clark is 'with him'. With Perry White, who forces her to remember the death of her parents, just as she was finally starting to put it behind her, with Clark as the new center of her life. Lana has a very particular picture of who she wants to be and Perry is in her way. She doesn't treat Perry as a human, he's an obstacle to bypassed, an insect to swat. Similarly, Lex, who desperately wants to convince himself that his father is worth caring for and that Lex himself is not a potential patricide, simply pushes Perry out of town.
Perry threatens Lex and Lana's construction of their identities. Clark's connection to Perry makes Clark too, a threat. Perry represents the truth abused. Lex and Lana abuse the truth further, without thought. They will be what they believe themselves to be, what they want to be and what they believe they want themselves to be, no matter the moral cost. Clark's connection to Perry is a betrayal that had potentially explosive consequences - only his get out of jail free card, in the form of his obligation to Perry, mitigated the betrayal for Lex and Lana. There was, however, still a sense that despite the obligation, Clark should have told Perry to shove off, or possibly help the two of them get rid of him. Clark should aid in their self-deception and self-construction. Clark is good when he does this, and when he protects them. When Clark challenges them, Clark is a son of a bitch.
Lex and Lana both want to have the kind of morals that Clark espouses, but they're more inclined to see the world in terms of threats to be eliminated. They constantly seek protection, try to ingratiate themselves to everyone around them, make themselves indispensible and are always ready to do whatever it takes to keep their worlds safe. Whatever is dear to them must be protected at all costs.
Like Clark's connection to Perry, his connection to Chloe is potentially a threat to them both. Not only because she takes Clark away from them both, in terms of time, but because she takes Clark away from them in terms of morality. She reminds Clark how important the literal, rather than emotional truth is. Clark and Chloe, and Lex and Lana, are on two sides of a moral dialog that underwrites the series.
Hmm. More ramble later.