Penny of Big Bang Theory: We Like Her Despite…
Ah, the alluring, lastnameless Penny. The Big Bang Theory’s yin to Leonard’s yang. We were perfectly willing to suspend our disbelief enough to go along with the inevitability that she would date Leonard. The producers pretty much hit us over the head with this idea from the first conversation Leonard had with Penny.
And why not? He’s a nice guy, makes a good living, is very kind and always willing to put himself out there and pretty much do anything for Penny. He’s exactly the kind of guy the viewers would root for to get the girl.
As for Penny, let’s face it, she’s:
- Kind of a tramp: According to Sheldon and Amy Farah Fowler’s calculations, she’s slept with at least 31 different men since she moved in.
- Kind of a drunk: She’s frequently drinking by herself, and has been shown on multiple occasions relying on drinking when things are tough.
- She takes advantage of her allure: Lets Leonard do things for her. And this is something that Raj and Howard have talked openly about. In her defense, this is probably something that should be explored as much from the perspective of Leonard allowing it to happen as much as Penny taking advantage.
- She’s always broke: And yet is always partaking in the frequent takeout dinners with the guys and is rarely, if ever, shown contributing the the cost. Yes, it is true that the guys are also not seen paying for these meals, but I get the impression that, in a chivilrous manner, they are covering the cost for Penny.
And yet, she’s a pretty likeable character, right? She’s funny, sassy, fun, pretty and has helped to smooth out the rough edges that Leonard had. And she’s not dumb – she holds her own with the guys. However, she’s also been kind of mean to Leonard and broke his heart. But that happens in relationships – there’s no guarantee that they will last forever.
She’s like that girl in college that I had a crush on but could never figure out how to actually get from acquaintance to girlfriend. (The reasons for this are probably better suited for a psychological journal rather than a blog post, so I will skip over that). I suspect that the same idea could be put forth for women, substituting a stereotypical good looking guy in place of the Penny stereotype character. At least, in a TV show. Reality is a bit different.
But I’m not here to blather on about reality. I’m here to talk about a TV character that represents Hollywood’s ideal girl-next-door. The girl, like Laura Prepon in “That 70’s Show,” who would never have actually dated the Topher Grace character. But in the confines of a television show, that’s exactly what happened.
In reality, that stereotypical character is often not as interesting or appealing once you get through the surface chit chat and really get to know them. More often than not, people are forced to realize that they were chasing an ideal, and the reality of the situation is not as wonderful as what Hollywood has led them to believe it is.
So, what should we say about this? Nothing, really. It’s just an observation. If we really need a moral, then I’ll say that Hollywood should continue to churn out shows and movies with these types of characters. Even though we’ve been trained to believe (more often than not) that the women in the relationship are superior to the men, and that the man is lucky to have her. Hollywood has even gone further with this idea, and would have us believe that should the relationship end, the man would be devastated, and the woman will easily bounce into another relationship fairly quickly.
This might sound like women bashing, but it really isn’t. It’s more formulaic TV/movie writing bashing. Try to think of TV shows or movies (of this genre) where the above scenario isn’t true. Or, better yet, try to think of TV shows or movies that have a boy-next-door thing going on. Not many of those. The girl-next-door scenario is a comfortable, proven vehicle for movies and TV shows. In most cases, the woman is ‘out of his league’ but he manages to win her over despite all of his obvious physical faults and his immaturity. This probably has a lot to do with Hollywood being a male-dominated industry during its formative years. Apparently, vulnerability in men was something that was deemed crucial to silver screen relationships.
Sometimes, we get the happy ending where they live happily ever after. More often than not, though, we get the breakup. This provides some emotional connection to the characters and keeps us coming back to see what happens next. It was true of Moonlighting, That 70s Show, Knocked Up and it is true of Penny & Leonard.
The main thing to take away from this is that Penny, like all the women Hollywood has planted in the girl-next-door role, is likeable. Often, as in this case, that likeability is something that can’t be explained. By any reasonable evaluation, we should not like Penny at all. However, she is very likeable. Despite whatever flaws or failings are attributed to her character.
In the end, she’s nice to Leonard, and she makes him happy. Sometimes she makes him miserable, but more often than not, they make a great couple. And how can you not root for that? Isn’t that something that we all want? Go, Leonard!
Andy Blank
Mike Frangione
Depends on What the Meaning of the Word 'Blog' is 
Alone in His Field; No Zombies or Mad Men
Based on what I am seeing on Facebook, I am apparently the only person on Earth who is not lamenting the season’s end of The Walking Dead and also not watching (nor have ever watched) Mad Men.
But that’s OK – this sort of thing isn’t exactly new territory for me. I am often on the opposite side of the fence on matters such as this. For example: I never saw an episode of Lost. I know. I’ll pause now so you can pick up your drink, or get your heart restarted or just allow time for you to recover from the shock of this bombshell.
While I am sure that Mad Men is a fine TV show, and I am sure that the near universal praise for the show is fully and truly warranted – I have little interest in watching it. And truth be told, for whatever reason – I never did. My reasons for this are best kept to myself. Suffice it to say that I see Mad Men as a fairly generic, sterotypical, recycled set up that has been covered many times over by countless TV shows before it.
I’m sure that this is a narrow minded and frustratingly dismissive attitude to take, but I’ve gotta be me. Sometimes I will decide years later to check out a show from the past and find out that my assessment of it was inaccurate. I don’t see that happening here, but you never know. I can see this happening with Lost, but not with Mad Men. Time will tell.
Now, the Walking Dead is another story. I did watch the first season, and thought it was one of the best shows around. All I needed to hear is that it was based on a comic book and that Frank Darabont (he of Shawshank Redemption fame) was going to be the writer/director for at least some of it, and I was intrigued. And was not disappointed.
Those first six episodes were chilling, compelling, horrifying and just plain fun. Everything you’d want a show to be! At least, what you’d want a horror show to be. I found the story and characters intriguing and the acting and writing was top notch. Every episode left me wanting more, and wanting to see what happened next.
Season two was another story. Started off with a hootenanny, then got a mite slow midway through. Came up with a humdinger of a midseason finale, then drifted back to meandering until the end of the sophomore offering. Unlike with the first season, I was not left with a burning desire to see the next season. I was interested, but the luster had faded. And I think that Darabont had since moved on to other projects somewhere during the season.
I watched maybe the first two or three installments of season three, then called it quits. Among my ill conceived reasons:
Perhaps it’s for the best. I mean, we are talking about the extermination of the human race here. Eventually, all of these people will be Zombie Chow. I think I got the best of what the show had to offer, and I look back fondly to the scenes and moments that made the first two seasons so … utterly watchable.
Now, the good news in all of this is that I have a new show to be looking forward to: Joss Whedon’s Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. After The Avengers, I will definitely be giving this a look. And who knows, if things go well it could join Arrow and Big Bang Theory in a very exclusive club.
That being shows that I watch with anything resembling consistency.