Compassionate Release: The Agony and the Empathy in ORANGE IS THE NEW BLACK

Compassionate Release: The Agony and the Empathy in ORANGE IS THE NEW BLACK

null
[This essay contains mild spoilers for Season 2 of Orange Is the New
Black]

When US Weekly began its
photo-driven series “Stars—They’re Just
Like Us!
” it was a revelation in the art of Hollywood propaganda. The
magazine rolled up the red carpet and instead offered readers a rare view of
celebrities, not just in their own natural habitats, but in ours. “They recycle! They shop at
Wal-Mart! They sell 100% organic lemonade at a homespun
card-table stand outside their Brentwood mansions!
” The series fashioned a different illusion of us vs. them: a shared world in which we’re all essentially the same people,
but some of Us just happen to have a
few million more dollars in our bank accounts than others.

This is a kind of
reverse-empathy, a strange effort to level the playing field, to “humanize”
celebrities—arguably the most privileged people on the planet (at least the
true A-Listers), those for whom the odds are ever in their favor. It’s a compelling pitch—but it’s tough to ignore that many are
still on the outside, peering in through the pages of a magazine that they probably
didn’t even buy, shopping at the Dollar Store out of necessity in lieu of choice, grazing on photos that are glossy but not so
shiny that they can actually see their own reflections staring back.  

Now that Season One of
the Netflix Original series Orange Is the
New Black
is safely stitched into our pop culture quilt, the show has shed
its initial hesitation and has its crazy eyes on its viewers just as much as they
have theirs on it. Season Two feels emboldened by its newfound
responsibility—to its characters, to its audience, and to actual women in
actual prison. 

The show had its origin, of
course, with an actual woman in actual prison—Piper Kerman, who served a year
or so in federal prison for money laundering and drug trafficking, and then
wrote the memoir on which the show is based. Kerman, like her fictional
counterpart Piper Chapman, is white, blonde, a self-described WASP, educated at Smith, and born into wealth: the
celebrity who’s just like us, except behind bars. But through Orange Is the New Black, she’s also the
glossy magazine, our window into a world of women largely unseen, unexperienced
by most people—most people, that is, who can afford the time and money needed
to subscribe to and binge-watch Netflix.

Women not like us, except
for when they are. 

Showrunner Jenji Kohan first
described the character of Piper Chapman as her
“Trojan Horse,”
her spoonful-of-sugar
access point to be able to sell a show—and have it received successfully—that
is primarily about the lives of marginalized women: the elderly, women of
color, women of varying sexualities and gender identities, and—it’s actually
not an obvious point to make—women with criminal histories. Season One took a
deserved hit for falling short in shifting our gaze away from Piper’s story,
and while Season Two definitely improves upon the silence, it misses many
opportunities to change the conversation, most importantly from “Can you
believe this happens in prison?” to “You really need to know that this happens
in prison.” Put another way, it’s the difference between a tweet and the linked article a tweet lures
its reader into clicking.

Prison-themed shows and
movies often trade
in tropes
the way their characters barter with cigarettes: shower violence,
the uber-butch
lesbian who spends the majority of her time looking for a submissive sex
partner
, prison
breaks
. Kohan does take on the greater cultural mantle of her subject
matter—her indictment of the federal system and the prison industrial complex
is not insignificant, especially in the confines of a comedy. But she often
doesn’t let the punishment fit the crime: she exposes the issue of
guard-on-inmate sexual assault, but then throws a blanket of romance and
“consent” over it, derailing her focus on a
real problem

Tasha “Taystee”
Jefferson, for example, is a black woman essentially raised in the foster care
system before going into juvenile detention at the age of 16. In Season One,
she actually wins her release from a parole panel, but because of a wholly
inadequate re-entry plan, she quickly returns to prison—her only remaining
family—to finish out her sentence. We learn in Season Two that she spent much
of her time in foster care living in group homes. With just this handful of
facts, Kohan has the opportunity to tell a very real, very common, very
troublesome story: girls of color in foster care, especially those who live in
group homes rather than families, and especially those who move from home to
home, are
much more likely than their peers outside the child welfare system
to
experience school dropout, early pregnancy, poor health and—as
Taystee demonstrates—juvenile
delinquency
. Young people who go through both the foster care and juvenile justice systems (often called “crossover youth”) are most likely
to be African-American girls, and they accumulate even more
risk factors
: they are more
likely to be detained as a result of their court cases (rather than released
with community-based consequences or dismissed), and they’re more likely to be
given harsher sentences
than youth who aren’t involved in both systems.

Taystee tells us these
facts about her life, but we don’t grasp what makes her experience different or
important in the context of our non-fictional lives. Instead, we’re given a troubling
stereotype in Vee, the “evil foster mother” who intentionally takes on wards to
exploit them into her drug ring. Through flashback, we see Vee scouting 11-year-old
Taystee at a foster care/adoption ice cream social, knowing immediately that the
facts are stacked against the young girl: Taystee is not a baby, lives in a
group home, projects a self-assurance that reads as defiance, and tries too
hard to be loved—traits, we learn, as Taystee is told directly by Vee, that will
keep her from being any family’s choice. The nuance of Taystee’s struggles to
define who is and isn’t her family is a truly admirable aspect of her character,
but Kohan could have dug much deeper, given plot lines based on the actual, rich
stories all around us, and still introduced the villain she needed in Vee.

The problem is not so
much that OINTB’s back-stories are not to be believed; it’s more so that these
less-common stories reinforce the general public’s confirmation bias about
important social issues, and as such they betray the true widespread crises
within the criminal justice system and society at large. Suzanne “Crazy Eyes”
Warren is an entertaining, powerful, endearing character. But portraying her as
so physically violent belies the experience of the majority of people with
mental health issues: they are much more likely to be the victims of violence than to
perpetrate it
. To send the false
message isn’t just artistic license; it’s actually damaging
misinformation—especially in an era when nearly 45% of inmates in federal prison have symptoms of
serious mental illness
, such as
major depressive symptoms like attempted suicide, extreme loss of appetite and
extreme insomnia, and psychotic disorders that produce delusions or hallucinations,
among others. Crazy Eyes’s
suggestibility to violence, at the hands of Vee, becomes a much more
heavy-handed theme of Season Two than the notion that Suzanne is being victimized and likely not receiving proper mental
health treatment.

And don’t food stamps (the
colloquial name for the SNAP program) get a bad enough (false) rap already? Do
we need a character whose backstory rap sheet perpetuates the most overused, under-informed urban legend, that food stamp fraud is rampant, a story that
politicians so often use to fear-monger against the poor? Audiences need to
know that most people who depend on SNAP are children, the elderly, disabled
people and working adults who still fall below the poverty line. Smart people
who study these programs estimate that SNAP
lifted nearly 4 million people out of poverty in 2011
, all through a
federal safety net program with a fraud rate of only about
2%
. Storeowners like Gloria certainly exist, but Kohan should weigh the
consequences of using that as her defense. Truth does not always equal
responsibility, I s’pose.

This is not a call for Orange Is the New Black to function as
a documentary, or to make its audience eat broccoli when there’s cake to be shared. There are fine moments when Kohan allows an
important story to be told from the inside-out—as with Laverne Cox’s
outstanding portrayal of transgender inmate Sophia Burset (which
has led to more IRL advocacy opportunities for Cox
), and there are further
fine moments when Kohan does not equivocate. She makes no bones about her bold
indictment of inadequate prison health care throughout both seasons: from
Burset’s inability to receive proper hormone treatment and Tricia’s overdose in
Season One to Season Two’s hunger strike demands and—perhaps the most moving
subplot of all—Jimmy’s “compassionate release,” though she is
addled with dementia

And there are times Kohan
weaves policy and humor so effortlessly it’s dazzling. When the Latinas in the
kitchen serve “special trays” to the Black women filled with food wretched with
salt, Poussey, amongst the grumblings, snaps: “Man, they f*ckin’ us this way
’cause they know our people’s
predisposition for hypertension.”

 

And there are times Kohan’s
nuance is a deft jam: towards the end of Season Two, Piper—whether out of
boredom or cunning or a way for Kohan to further highlight Piper’s book-smarts
vs. her fellow inmates’ street-smarts—starts a prisoner-run newspaper. (+1 to
Kohan, as these enterprises have an important history and role in U.S. prisons.) The show pulls such a fun sleight-of-hand
in Caputo asking Piper to include a column featuring the guards.
“Guards—They’re Just Like Us!” she brightly suggests, though Caputo misses her
wink and edits it to “Guards—They’re People, Too.” The complexity is all the
richer for delivering so much insight so quickly—having the prison focus support
on a program designed to help inmates have empathy for their guards; the uneasy
lack of distinction between those who wear orange jumpsuits and those who wear
blue shirts; and even a sly gut-punch to our own ribs using the very same US
Weekly
shtick.  

nullPrisoners—They’re Just Like Us

It’s what Kohan wants us
to experience, even if it seems as unreal as Piper’s first day behind bars. She
succeeds in many ways: we have empathy for her characters, for these fictional
individuals we feel we’ve come to know, come to care for, despite their
faults—and in some cases, their incredibly violent crimes. We smile warmly when
Frieda, the gray-haired inmate with the octopus neck tattoo, helps Red regain
her confidence, but this is a woman (at least she claims) who severed her
husband’s penis. We know that calm Zen-master Yoga Jones was somehow
responsible for the death of a child. Morello has been called “the most heart-breaking character of Season Two,” and yet we know she stalked a man and his
girlfriend to the point of planting a bomb on their car. And if you looked at
Miss Claudette’s jacket, it would’ve said premeditated murder. In the kitchen.
With the butcher knife.

Are these women just like
us? If we read about them in the morning paper, would we call them heart-breaking,
or throw-away-the-key vicious and irredeemable? Advocates—those who fight
against poverty, over-incarceration, and solitary confinement—use
storytelling to create empathy
.
They use personal, lived stories that shake the status quo, challenge
assumptions and dispute stereotypes in order to effect change and create
connections between all members of a community. Recently, the
New York Times’ five-part series on
11-year-old Dasani
, a young girl experiencing homelessness in Brooklyn,
rattled the internet with its personal, unflinching detail of her family’s
struggle. The expose may not have radically changed the conversation around
homelessness, but it’s not insignificant that an internet search for “Dasani”
returns the article as its 5th result in a country where Coca-Cola
is a brand of patriotism
.

And yet, those with the
time and knowledge and resources to respond and help bring about that change seem
to display more empathy, more compassion for fictional characters than for their very real, real-life
counterparts. We adore Black Cindy for her humor and her charm, enough to laugh
at her penchant for felony theft. Google “Omar from The Wire” and
you get nearly five million results in 0.27 seconds. A shotgun-toting,
murderous, thieving, homeless black man. In the fictional world of The Wire, he’s a charismatic, quotable, beloved Robin
Hood—even President Obama calls him the best Wire character
of all time
.

Viewers watch portrayals
of characters like Taystee and Black Cindy and Omar Little and feel smart when they
call it “real.” They come up with answers the way you might have aced the
reading comprehension sections of the GRE or the LSAT. The theme of the story is how politics makes strange bedfellows, even
in prison
. The theme of the story is
enduring friendship, even in the harshest of conditions. The theme of the story
is that people are more alike than they are different.
We identify all the
right injustices, like circling in a seek-and-find puzzle: solitary confinement
is torture; black women receive longer sentences than white women; sexual
assault in prison is real. We know poverty because we know The Wire’s Baltimore.

It’s no small wonder,
then, that the death announcement of Donnie Andrews, the man who inspired Omar
Little, is paired with a photo of the actor Michael K.
Williams
. Andrews served 18 years
on a murder charge, then founded a youth outreach organization after his
release. He was only 58 years old when he died.

Watching television shows
like OITNB and The Wire has become a kind of compassionate release for our
collective conscience. But then what? What thoughts and words and deeds would we have for these characters
if we were sitting on their jury? What expression would be on our collective
faces if we passed them on a Baltimore corner?

Kohan’s two seasons so
far are hilarious, poignant, irreverent, weird, and ground-breaking for
television in their breadth of gender, race and identity. And worth watching. Season
Three has already begun filming. And it’s fair for us to ask for more from it.
But it’s entirely fair for the show to ask for even more from us, too.

Amy Woolard is a writer and child welfare/juvenile justice
policy attorney who lives in Charlottesville, Virginia. She is a graduate of
the Iowa Writers’ Workshop and the University of Virginia School of Law. Her
work has appeared or is forthcoming in the
Virginia Quarterly Review,
the Massachusetts Review, the Indiana Review, The Journal, Fence, and the Best
New Poets 2013 anthology, among others. You can find her at shift7.me, and on Twitter as @awoo_.

Days Like Lost Dogs: In Support of Loose Ends in Procedurals from TWIN PEAKS to TOP OF THE LAKE

Days Like Lost Dogs: In Support of Loose Ends in Procedurals from TWIN PEAKS to TOP OF THE LAKE

null

This month marks the 24th anniversary of what
could be considered the first of the now-increasingly popular season-long
“hyperserial” procedural crime dramas—the pilot episode of David Lynch’s Twin Peaks. This show swapped the sequins
and mansions of traditional nighttime soap operas for a talking log and a Black
Lodge, and it countered TV’s biggest previous question at the time—Dallas’ “Who shot J.R.?”—with another
question: “Who Killed Laura Palmer?”

In a criminal courtroom, a prosecutor wouldn’t ask a
question to which she didn’t know the answer, but the opposite is true during
an investigation—anyone confronting a mystery must ask an ocean’s-worth of
questions and learn from whatever might wash ashore: grief, silence, anger,
misdirection, more questions. A crime show called “Occam’s Razor” would almost
certainly be a flop (or last for only one episode). Television has evolved
since the 1980s to accept that audiences can handle more than simple resolution,
but why is it too much to ask that viewers push past the need for any resolution at
all?

Though Twin Peaks (or perhaps ABC’s marketing department)
began with a big question that set up
an expectation that the show would be high in single-plot resolution, it was arguably
most successful when it provided more questions than answer. Lynch himself said:
“The murder of Laura Palmer was the center of the story, the thing around
which all the show’s other elements revolved—like a sun in a little solar
system. It was not supposed to get solved. The idea was for it to recede a bit
into the background, and the foreground would be that week’s show.”

Laura Palmer’s murder—not the revelation of her
murderer—gave the show its heat, its gravity. Without that sun, once Laura’s
killer was revealed (well into season 2), the show’s planetary makeup began to
spin a bit out of its orbit.

Twin Peaks was
dark, but sincere. It was ambitious, but also terrifically personal. It made
television humor lyrical. And it was both hyper-local, and also situated a bit
outside of time—leading us to wonder if the red curtain separating our world
from the next was actually inside the Black Lodge, or rather hanging at the Twin
Peaks town border itself. The show set a new standard of negative capability that
television had never seen before—striking notes of the low-ball absurdity of shows
like Fantasy Island
(sans quicksand traps) and the macabre of The Twilight
Zone
, and impleading Lynch’s cinematic influences, like Hitchcock.

Enjoyment of Twin
Peaks
also required this negative capability from its viewers, but Lynch
didn’t ask anything of his audience that he didn’t seduce out of his own
characters, or even his collaborators on the show. Agent Dale Cooper was just
as enchanted by his cherry pie as he was by the specter of a dancing dwarf.
Sheriff Truman may have been a bit puzzled by Cooper’s strategies (e.g., looking
for leads by saying a suspect’s name, then throwing a rock at a bottle to see
if it breaks[1]), but
gladly accepted his new friend’s help in whatever form it arrived. And when
Lynch called up Twin Peaks co-creator
and screenwriter Mark Frost during the show’s production and said, “Mark,
I think there’s a giant in Agent Cooper’s room
,” the only possible response
from Frost was “OK.”

And it was, hypnotically, OK. The whole knot of Twin
Peaks
became greater than the sum of its loose ends.

Often the mark of a show’s fortitude is measured by how deftly
it sets its fish hooks into shows that follow: X-Files, Buffy the Vampire
Slayer
, Lost, and
even—specifically admitted by David Chase—The
Sopranos
took permission first granted by Twin Peaks and used it towards freely weird ends. These shows all
delighted in the unresolved. People still ask David Chase about what happened
to the
wounded Russian in “Pine Barrens”
as much as they might have water-coolered
about what they knew happened to Adriana, Vito or Big Pussy (RIP Adriana &
Vito, who didn’t deserve it).

And this fearless evasion  of resolution also delighted its viewers. Each
of these shows has, at its base, a cult adoration that lounges at the core of
any larger popularity it might also enjoy. The truth is out there, but so are we.

Now a new post-Sopranos generation of shows has taken on the
specific task of the season-long crime procedural model pioneered in Twin Peaks and re-introduced us to the
hyperserial killer: AMC’s version of The
Killing
, Sundance’s Top of the Lake,
and most recently and bro-splosively, HBO’s True
Detective
, just to name a few. Each sets itself in motion on the rational
tracks of a whodunit and attempts to use both the intuitive and the atmospheric
as a third, energizing rail. There are plenty of valid critiques of each of
these shows, but in the end, the most pervasive seem to be aimed at the coherence
with which they resolve their central crime-question.

But what if these types of shows refused to answer their own
big question? What if they began with
an answer (“Laura Palmer is dead.”)
and let the show ask the questions? If what they do best is mystery, and what
they do worst is solution, then why not simply not do the worst thing. Why not let the viewers metabolize their
expectations and let the stories do their own work?

Who Didn’t Kill Rosie Larsen?

The Killing is
arguably less ambitious than Twin Peaks
and a bit less interested in its main characters than True Detective, but AMC has certainly proved itself to be a network interested
in creating original, rule-busting shows. It was smart to adapt the original Danish
series of The Killing, but the network set
up its audience with too clear a directive from the jump, nodding to its
predecessor by reprising its promising big
question
strategy—this time: “Who Killed Rosie Larsen?”

Again we have a murder, a (supposed) angel/devil girl-victim,
and an angel/devil obsessed investigator. The big question wasn’t answered for
audiences until the end of Season Two, which left many viewers feeling like the
show broke up with them via text message (on a flip phone, no less) after two years
of a wrenching but ultimately forgettable committed relationship. The nuance,
mood and humanity of the show—though slickly meditative—concerned itself only
with a linear path to Rosie’s killer, and when all you have is a murder,
everything looks like a crime scene.[2]

Push past the conceit of the investigation, however, and
exacting, nuanced character interaction become richly visible, like dusting for
prints. Michelle Forbes as Rosie’s mother Mitch delivers one of her finest
performances. She’s physically etched with her pain. Add that to the ways she
and Brent Sexton as her husband Stan Larsen convey the way tragedy distorts the
passage of time, the way tragedy distorts routine, and the show—though
difficult and raw—finds a particular, necessary truth in storytelling. As such,
The Killing might best be categorized
as an intelligent TV show about grief asking its audience over on a date to
watch a mediocre TV show about solving a murder.

“You Don’t Own It
Like You Thought You Did”

True Detective
spends imagery as currency to put a down payment on its audience’s loyalty. The
South spreads out before us like a Sally Mann retrospective, tired and
tempting, one long morning after. Just like Twin
Peaks
and The Killing, though not
part of its marketing package, we get a big
question
in the first episode: “Who killed Dora Lange?” Just as in Twin Peaks and The Killing, a young girl’s corpse is arranged for us like
sculpture, in all its macabre beauty.

True Detective attempts
to specialize (and spectacle-ize), as might delight Agent Dale Cooper, in the
local color. Sweet tea and obese women in day pajamas. Long stretches of two-lane
highways and weary prostitutes in trailer communities. A certain way the
landscape infiltrates the characters—the way Rust Cohle uses a drag on a
cigarette as a semicolon. Everything an invitation for us to come over for
supper. Everything lined up for us to drawl some conclusions.

Throughout each episode, though, an image narrative runs
parallel to the action and dialogue—the visual version of a voice-over. We are
excited because of where the layered images and dialogue and characters take
us, not because of where the plot narrative leaves us. With the exception of
being nearly entirely humorless, True
Detective
seemed to have all the tools it needed to overcome its own big
question, to charm its audience into valuing storyline over plotline.

And yet much of the chatter leading up to the finale zeroed
in on Who Killed Dora Lange, the detailed speculation sometimes
reaching A Beautiful Mind-esque
heights
. When the show’s finale proved a bit more ordinary—or at least
didn’t answer all the questions each episode’s clues seemed to collage—it
was as if the Internet itself audibly pouted
.

The Portrait of a
Lady

From my view, the most successful of these crime-hyperserials
since Twin Peaks is Sundance’s Top of the Lake, created, written and
directed by Jane Campion. It’s billed as a “TV Mini-series,” though it turns in
only one fewer episode than the first season of True Detective. The show leans
on the lush New Zealand landscape just as heavily as True Detective leans on the languor of the South or The Killing leans on the drear of
Seattle, and it offers us the familiar victim with talent/grit and
protagonist-investigator with accompanying angels/demons and introversion/strength
(Elisabeth Moss as lead detective Robyn Griffin—and if I can forgive Woody
Harrelson’s marble-mouthed Southern accent, you can forgive her bent-nail of a
New Zealand one).

But even from its opening act, the show distinguishes itself
in an important way—we know something has happened to a young girl named Tui, but
we also know she’s not dead. Even so, Campion still generates a haunting story,
a rich tension, and shades in the classic detective-victim bond in a more
nuanced, less fetishizing fashion than True
Detective
or The Killing (or Twin Peaks, even). Top of the Lake takes Lynch’s note of letting the crime recede into
the background while the characters unfold their lives in its wake.

The varsity-level discomfort this produced in some critics
was perhaps a sign of its success. Mike Hale of the New York Times began
his review
with what I thought was a compliment: “There are times during
‘Top of the Lake’ when you can convince yourself that you’re watching a mystery
story about a girl who goes missing. But that sensation never lasts.” That was
not a compliment. Hale later calls Tui’s disappearance “a MacGuffin,” and seems
to demand that each of the show’s plotlines come attached to a life preserver
he can cling to.

With a small show, Jane Campion made the landscape bigger.
She does answer the crime-question (and it is
the weakest moment of the show), but she does it quickly enough that viewers
aren’t left in a comfortable, or resolved, place. She doesn’t ignore the notion
that a criminal can be discovered and punished, but that discovery and
punishment don’t solve the crime—the
consequences continue to be lived by everyone involved.

“Harry, I’m going to
let you in on a little secret. Every day, once a day, give yourself a present.
Don’t plan it. Don’t wait for it. Just let it happen.”

Campion has said “acting is about vulnerability.” I’d offer
that viewing is likewise. What I wish for audiences is to give themselves a
present: resist that feeling of betrayal fingered by David Foster Wallace in “David
Lynch Keeps His Head
”—resist the feeling that when directors and writers
seem to fail in rewarding the suspense an audience endures with a morally
self-satisfying conclusion, that “an unspoken but very important covenant has
been violated.” 

Let there be shows that hold an audience in suspense, but
not hold as in handcuffs—hold as in a spell. Let the crime be another part of
the landscape. If there is a big question, let it be answered with other intimate
questions. Let viewers sit in the discomfort of their not-knowing, of their wonder
and fear, of the unresolved-ness of a show’s resolve. Let these hyperserial
crime shows live in the world of poems and short stories, rather than airport novels—not
puzzles to be solved
, but lakes to be dredged by the imagination.


[1] Kimmy Robertson, who played receptionist Lucy Moran
in Twin Peaks, illuminates this idea one bulb further with an anecdote from her days on the set: “There’s a scene where Kyle [MacLachlan] had to
throw a rock and hit a glass bottle. [Lynch] sat us down and told Kyle he was
going to hit the bottle—and that bottle was freaking far away. Kyle hit it, and
everybody freaked out. It was like David used the power of the universe to make
Twin Peaks.”

[2] Part of the let-down, too, of finally knowing Who
Killed Rosie Larsen wasn’t just the short walk on a long pier—it was also what
David Foster Wallace prescienced based on an insightful notion in one of his
essays from 1995. Wallace:

The
mystery’s final ‘resolution’, in particular, was felt by critics and audiences
alike to be deeply unsatisfying. And it was…but the really deep
dissatisfaction—the one that made audiences feel screwed and betrayed…was, I
submit, a moral one. I submit that [the victim’s] exhaustively revealed ‘sins’
required, by the moral logic of American mass entertainment, that the
circumstances of her death turn out to be causally related to those sins. We as
an audience have certain core certainties about sowing and reaping, and these
certainties need to be affirmed and massaged.”

The show to which Wallace was
referring? Twin Peaks.


Amy Woolard is a writer and child welfare/juvenile justice
policy attorney who lives in Charlottesville, Virginia. She is a graduate of
the Iowa Writers’ Workshop and the University of Virginia School of Law. Her
work has appeared or is forthcoming in the
Virginia Quarterly Review,
the Massachusetts Review, the Indiana Review, The Journal, Fence, and the Best
New Poets 2013 anthology, among others. You can find her at shift7.me, and on Twitter as @awoo_.