Are there circumstances when an affair is not immoral? asks the Huffington Post. Ah, click bait. Plugging the upcoming Showtimes series “The Affair,” HuffPo puts the hay low where the sheep can get it.
Here’s a moral conundrum — let’s ask some actors what they think! Actors who appear in “The Affair” — Showtime employees who are, of course, completely unbiased. It wouldn’t hurt your contract at all to star as a cheater in a new series and then say, “The entire premise of this show is revolting. Personally, I find my character so morally repugnant I wouldn’t spit on him if he were ablaze.”
But they didn’t ask my imaginary actor, they asked Dominic West who plays the star-crossed, hunky cheater “Noah.” He thinks affairs are totally awesome, so long as you engage in them for the right reason — your happiness.
Yes. I think it’s a conflict between knowing that you can’t really be of any good to anyone unless you look after yourself, unless you are happy. And if you’re not happy then it’s gonna be hard to make your family happy, or to live. And in that way, I think if malice is not intended then I suppose you could say morality doesn’t come into it. It’s sort of, it’s an inevitability.
Does anyone in West’s moral universe derive any happiness from knowing they aren’t a total asshole?
I’m trying to wrap my brain around “if malice is not intended, then I suppose you could say morality doesn’t come into it.”
That’s a nice bit of word salad. It makes sense I suppose if you don’t understand the concepts of malice, intention, or morality.
Hey Dominic, next time you run over a kid while driving drunk, try that line of defense, that malice wasn’t “intended” and see how far you get. I was irresponsible? I broke the law and someone died? Hey, I didn’t mean to do it, no harm, no foul!
Putting aside the point we make here all the time — cheaters mean to do it. They are completely aware of what they are doing and how it will hurt you, which is why they keep it a secret.
HuffPo wants us to know that “The Affair” is breaking new ground by alternating the narratives between characters! (No, the Victorians never did this.) The story “alternates between Alison and Noah’s perspective of the events in their relationship. The storytelling mechanism allows the show to offer a much more nuanced portrayal of an affair than the stock ‘evil cheater’ storylines so commonly portrayed on television.”
Are there evil cheater villains portrayed on television? Did I miss something? I thought they were all poor, confused sausages like Alison and Noah. People fated to be together, but kept apart by cruel, cruel monogamy.
“The idea of the show is to tell the same story from two sides or two perspectives,” series creator Sarah Treem told The Writer. “And each perspective has valid weight. I think that’s radical in a love story because so often the woman is written as the object and the man as the subject. But in this show, they are both the subjects of their own story and the objects of each other’s. And the story changes depending on whose perspective we are in.”
You know what would be REALLY radical? Telling the story not alternating between cheaters (idiots on the same team), but between the chump and the cheater.
But I suppose that wouldn’t make for compelling television. Watch Helen, Noah’s wife puke as she discovers the affair. Watch her fall apart at work and lose 20 lbs in a week from shock. Watch her look after her children alone while Noah is busy fucking Alison.
No, we couldn’t possibly have that. People might feel sympathy for Helen. And they might judge Noah and Alison. Better to keep the chumps off screen as bit walk-on parts. If they must be seen, make sure they look frumpy and unfuckable. Mean and controlling. Who wouldn’t cheat on those schlubbs?
The camera pans back to Noah and Alison… and their “inevitable” romance. Who wouldn’t wish these beautiful people happiness?