We took our time to watch latest Spanish Netflix medical drama, Breathless. The first season, released in late August 2024, consists of 8 episodes and it’s been created Carlos Montero, same as “Elite,” another series whose storylines we had enjoyed.
WARNING: this post may contain some spoilers.
Breathless
We have been interested in medical drama since “E.R.” an American series that started in the 1990s and ended in 2005. There, at least for the first six to seven seasons, we became attached to their plots because that series balanced personal and professional lives of doctors and nurses, exploring their friendships, romances, and the challenges they faced while caring for their patients.
Later came other tv shows. From Dr. House to The Good Doctor, we didn’t watch them all to the end, but if we tried the new “breathless” product, it’s because we had faith in screenwriter Carlos Montero.
We didn’t watch all 8 Elite’s seasons but just the first and we had appreciated some of the themes addressed (HIV, Islam, homosexuality).
Politics: why?
HALF SPOILER. A common thread of the Whole TV series is actually a dilemma: right-wing politicians who want to privatize health care and doctors go on strike, but what happens when the person who needs public health care is the one reducing public health services to the point of no return?
Hence the clashes are inevitable: “you on the right, you on the left,” and we stand in the middle. We watch a TV show so we don’t have to hear this old stuff from newspapers or social media, and they feed them to us here as well? It would be better to give it up here! If you want to bring us some social engagement you’re welcome, but treat it less superficially, as matters of health and politics are a very, very sensitive topic.
We are also puzzled by a specific character who killed himself after making a fatal mistake during a surgery, but as they have not described this guy’s life in detail, they accuse political situation. So, at least say it, warn us that politics is the purpose!
Breathless: what a mishmash!
When a TV series or book “leaves you breathless”, it means it has rapid succession of action and plot twists. With “breathless,” they actually created in 8 episodes what they usually do in six to seven seasons! In itself, this would not be a bad thing, if the plots were well developed; the behaviour and even the past of an individual character is important, maybe not inventing from when they were small kids, however if you want your protagonist or antagonist to be effective, you have to create empathy for them. And if you run from one action to the next dealing with them superficially, we see the stories flow from one episode to the next and we soon forget about the Whole thing.
Are we demanding? Perhaps, but we have had occasion time and time again to see short films that in a few minutes managed to explain a difficult theme comprehensively. One though, not a thousand themes to compress into a season!
The effect that “Breathe” has given us is that of a collection of plots without a really clear narrative, let’s call it a “medical mishmash.” Netflix has planned a second season and we don’t know what to expect.
Hit and run
Complex themes cannot be treated with the “hit and run” solution because then people don’t pay attention to them! To explain this with an example, we must anticipate an event: two characters in a vonversation mention PrEP; we know very well that it is a pre-exposure prophylaxis for HIV prevention but in the shoes of those who see the series without knowing the topic? “I’m not afraid, I’m on Prep!” One looks at you and says, “hey dude what are you talking about?”
A tv series should not be a medical course or sex education, but if you give more space to political issues than medical ones, turn it into a political drama and end of discussion!
Gay, lesbian and clichés
SPOILER. In Spain, where LGBTQ+ rights have long been recognized by law, one would expect a more accurate and respectful portrayal of same-sex couples. Instead, this series falls back into the usual clichés, demonstrating that there is still a long way to go to achieve a consistent portrayal of contemporary society, from TV. Social life is complex, and clichés damage even little conquests we have obtained rearding Freedom and civil rights.
We do not notice any cliché of effeminate homosexual male, the two gay characters however meet at a party where drugs are used to unlock sexual inhibitions (chemsex), one gets HIV from promiscuous encounters, they have had sex intercorses without actually knowing each other.
This kind of habit in the gay environment exists for sure just as it does in the hetero context where, however, they tend to hide it; but how can we happily welcome this one as the only possible representation of gay life?
Lesbian women are treated even worse: the couple splits and non-biological mother wants to kidnap the baby girl her ex-girlfriend has just gave Birth to.
Then what about FOUR LGBTQ+ characters all connected to the same hospital in a way ot the other? In our opinion this has a name: overdoing.
About this we have to admit that in the early 2000s, the American series “Queer As Folk” USA was way ahead because in addition to excellent character development and stories, it strove to illustrate the complexities of life as realistically as possible. Monogamous couples and gay parents with children, monogamous and promiscuous people, straight men in public but secretly gay, stereotypes were present there too but as soon as you got an idea about a behavior, you discovered someone showing you that the opposite could happen as well. And everything was okay.
During recent years, despite more awareness about LGBTQ+ rights, diversity and inclusion are being used for marketing purposes: “let’s create TV shows with stereotypical gay characters, so LGBTQ+ feel represented while we please conservatives at the same time.”
“Gender theory”, “woke”, “politically correct”, this is usual bullshit coming out from conservatives’ minds when they protest against inclusion; however, what happens in many tv series has nothing to do with politics or propaganda or the imaginary enemies they bring up every time; it is a very specific business strategy aimed at saving money on marketing. “If I create a story that scandalizes and causes discussion, I am guaranteed free publicity both if people like and dislike.”
Saying this we would not want to return to the era of being invisible, although too many people wish for that lately. We would just like less superficiality because inclusion does not mean sticking gay plots in every damn movie.
Can entertainment deal with so-called “diversity” without being tiresome? The E.R. series in the 1990s and 2000s had already succeeded in this challenge.
Lascia un commento