Dexter, CBS, and Recent Criticism

Um... The following turned out to be a bit of a longer piece than I'd anticipated, and is closer in nature to a rant than I'd really planned (I read it to a family member who tried to put a kind faced on it, but I could tell it was tough), but... oh, well - see for yourself.

* * * *

I have, of late, gotten rather irked. By what? By nothing new, that’s what. By a shtick so old it should have cobwebs growing on it. A shtick I should be used to by now.

And I suppose I am – which is part of what irks me.

The reason for my current displeasure (which, like a seasonal cold, returns from time to time whenever aggravated by some particularly virulent cultural flotsam) is complex, stemming from a myriad of causes. I’ll cover one of those causes here, and address others in future posts.

First cause. Ready?

The arrival, in this strike-starved television season, of Dexter on CBS.

Wait, you might say. Huh? That’s it?

Yep.

Let me explain.

Dexter, Showtime’s sophomore drama about police forensics expert and serial killer Dexter Morgan (well-played by Michael C. Hall), will soon have its original season rebroadcast on CBS in an effort to fill the programming gaps left by the writers’ strike.

My problem lies not with the show itself (which I find to be well acted and intermittently entertaining), but with CBS’s logic in deciding to air the series, and in the misguided complaints of some critics.

Look – I get that the strike has hurt the studios and networks financially, and from a business standpoint I suppose I can understand the desire to import programming from other sources. The networks need viewers and advertisers. They need to make money. I get it.

But in the process of airing Dexter, a premium cable show that includes a solid amount of blood, cursing, and a smidgen of nudity, CBS will have to make some hefty edits, essentially (and pardon the pun) cutting the guts out of Dexter. Come on, folks – it’s a show about a serial killer. On cable. Edit out the naughty parts and you’re not left with very much. My objections here are largely creative in nature. By editing out these parts, CBS is essentially neutering the show. It is censoring a creative work (a process I object to) in an effort to make it “safer” for the general public. In the end, however, this watered down product will please no one. Potential new fans won’t get the show’s full impact, and the remaining material will likely still be unpalatable for others, even in its edited form.

Dexter’s bloody-mindedness is definitely not for everyone, just as the pervasive swearing of HBO’s late, lamented Deadwood was certainly not to all tastes. And you know what? That’s fine. There are people I care about deeply who would not, I am certain, have enjoyed a show like Deadwood, largely because of its violence and its pervasive, and creative, use of swearing.

I, in my turn, certainly couldn’t make it all the way through an episode of Touched by an Angel without becoming a bit nauseous from the vast amounts of treacle it routinely shoved down viewer’s throats. A show exhibiting warmth, decency, and humanity is one thing (Northern Exposure did it for years); foisting insincere, stultifying moralizing on viewers and passing it off as drama is quite another.

It is bad enough when a T.V. show moralizes in heavy-handed fashion. It is far worse when a particular group attempts to dictate to viewers and networks what one kind of morality should be on the air. It is this propensity for foisting a particular brand of morality on the public that I find to be troubling.

Some conservative groups have expressed their dismay at CBS’s choice to air Dexter because they deem a drama about a serial killer to be morally dangerous. (The New York Times ran an informative article on one such example – a reaction from The Parents’ Television Council – here.)

I would argue that it is this type of logic – and not a show like Dexter – that is morally dangerous. A group that would seek to strong arm networks into imposing its own notion of ‘clean culture’ and morality on the viewing public is a group that fails to understand the very notions of a free society.

O.K., look – I’ll state the obvious: every person and every group absolutely has a right to be unhappy with any part of Dexter, and contemporary culture in general. They have the right to express that dissatisfaction in a myriad of forms. That’s part of what makes living in a free society great. We have the right to our own opinions. We can choose what to watch, what to read, what to listen to, and what to think about each of those things. We formulate our own ideas.

I, for example, am right now expressing my dissatisfaction with the myopic groups that would try to dictate what others should watch and think. Yes, they’re entitled to their opinion. So am I. But I am not going try to force anyone to agree with me. Hell, I suspect there are many who think I’m a loon. That’s just fine.

Is a show about a serial killer morally dangerous? Well that depends, in my view, on the fictional context in which that killer is placed, and the way in which the show treats that killer.

Let’s get something clear. I don’t think anyone is about to debate the assertion that serial killers are, generally speaking, bad news. This is about as obvious a statement as you can get, and, I would suggest, one that is pretty well accepted by people of all political, cultural, religious, racial, and social backgrounds. In this era of schism and division, there are some things that most people can still agree on. Hallelujah.

That said, this hasn’t seemed to dawn on those who criticize Dexter for featuring a serial killer. Do they actually believe that anyone in their right mind would look at Dexter Morgan and say – “Gee, I want to be that guy”? If somebody does think that, then something was already very wrong with them long before they watched the show.

Contrary to what these critics might suggest, the show’s creators don’t actually endorse what Dexter does in his off-hours. It is made clear in the show that his actions aren’t healthy or acceptable. While the producers do add a touch of moral ambiguity into the mix (in an attempt to deal with his impulses, Dexter only kills other murderers, psychopaths, and general creeps), they don’t make the mistake of assuming that Dexter’s rationalizations are anything but that: rationalizations. Deep down, he knows he is wrong. So do Dexter’s law enforcement colleagues, who may not know what he does in his free time, but are often called on to find the bodies.

That an organization like the Parents' Television Council should feel the need to address this show also raises questions for me – one, in particular: why is a parents’ council spending time discussing a show that is clearly not aimed at children? Are they letting their children watch this show? I hope not – not because the show is morally poisonous, as they would have it, but because it is clearly not kiddie fair. Young children do not have the sophistication to decode the actions on the show, nor would they understand the show’s treatment of Dexter. So yes, I suppose that if a young kid watched this show, he or she might have some difficulty dealing with it – even in its censored form. But even with the show’s first season airing on CBS, a broadcast network easily accessed by children, I should ask: why would children be watching this show in the first place? If parents do their jobs and exercise a bit of parental responsibility, they shouldn’t have to worry. The kids won’t be watching.

As for the other groups that object to the show, might I suggest they stop trying to tell the viewing public what to think and what to watch, and let us make up our own minds? And if they don’t like the show, they can exercise their wonderful right to turn the T.V. set off.

Just a suggestion.