A Triangle Has Three Points:
The Chloe/Clark/Lana
dynamic in first and
second season, and how it has evolved
by Tara/LJC [s]
A love triangle in a television series generally has three points.
- It polarizes the audience, giving them someone to root for
and therefore become emotionally involved in the characters
- It provides conflict which results in compelling drama
- It furthers the characterization of all three characters
When Smallville was developed for television, the love
triangle the producers had in mind was Whitney/Lana/Clark.
However, this triangle was flawed in two damning ways. Firstly, if
Whitney was a jerk, then Lana would look like a moron for dating
him when she could be with a sweetie like Clark. Secondly, if
Whitney is sympathetic, then Clark looks like a jerk trying to
make time with another guy's girl, and Lana looks like a ho for
accepting or reciprocating his advances. So, the problem with the
original love triangle was that by definition, it made two of the
show's leads unappealing and unattractive.
However, as the first season wore on, it became obvious that there
was chemistry between Allison Mack and Tom Welling, and that
Chloe's crush on Clark had the potential to become a major
sub-plot. So in the last third of the season, this character arc
was a major focus which actually served both the show and the
characters quite well. However, what has become frustrating for
the audience is the way in which the Chloe/Clark/Lana triangle
seemed to have been focused solely on adding another level of
angst to the season finale, and the writing staff and producers
didn't seem to plan, in terms of the consequences of their
actions, much father than that.
Chloe and Lana both have very different relationships (both
platonic and romantic) with Clark Kent, and those relationships
have also changed dramatically from first season to second. It is
interesting to see just how different they are, and to wonder how
much of it was planned, and how much of the character dynamics is
an accident—the result of several scripts being in development
simultaneously, rewrites due to unexpected situations with actors,
etc. conspiring to shape arcs organically rather than in a
methodical (or, at times, logical) fashion—albeit in some cases,
a happy accident.
For example, given almost identical circumstances (Clark finds
Chloe buried alive in a field in the middle of nowhere, Clark
rescues Lana from a truck in a tornado) one simply accepts the
improbable, while the other flat out can't. In Obscura,
Chloe tells Clark "It's you, it's always you," but she
never questions him as to how, simply expresses her gratitude that
he is there for her. However, Lana cannot accept Clark's claim
that he was not responsible for any kind of extraordinary feat,
and unlike Lex of season one, actively rejects Clark based on her
frustration with the knowledge that he is keeping something from
her which she believes she has a right to know.
One calls Clark on his bullshit and doesn't back down, while the
other forgives him time and time again. Last season, despite
taking Clark to ask for being emotionally unavailable in Crush,
Chloe is willing to wait for him to ask her to the Spring Formal
because in the end, she wants him more than she wants to lose him
because he frustrates her. This season, Lana, on the other hand,
continues to question Clark and tells him flat out that unless he
is honest with her their friendship is in jeopardy, as is any
potential romance.
One has been the crusher, the other has been the crushee. This is
perhaps at the core of the triangle, because Chloe developed
romantic feelings over time while being best friends with the
crushee, while Lana never spoke 5 words in sequence to the crusher
and only developed feelings for Clark while becoming disenchanted
with a committed relationship (Whitney) and suddenly saw the
crusher entering a new romantic relationship (with Chloe) which
caused her to re-evaluate her priorities and situation. It is the
fact that Clark is the boy with the crush that the producers are
counting on to make the audience root for Clark and Lana to enter
into a romantic relationship. Because audiences immediately
identify with and root for the underdog. However, being cognisant
of this, it would make sense that they would then extend this same
model of logic to Chloe/Clark. That it would not come as such a
shock to realize that a large chunk of their audience were pulling
for Chloe to get Clark much more than they were for Clark to get
Lana, because, wonder of wonders, their core audience is 18-35
female. (Side note: Welcome to fandom!)
But most of all, one has been friends with Clark for several
years, while the other has only just become his friend, yet
expects to be treated as if she has been in his life the whole
time. Fans of Lana as a character, and Clark/Lana who believe that
Lana should have been the one to be let in on the whole alien
thing seem to have a blind spot. Neither Chloe nor Lana nor even
Lex have been friends with Clark as long as Clark has been friends
with Pete. That, to me, is the backbone of why Clark chose to tell
Pete, and not Chloe, Lex, or Lana. Not just because his secret was
threatened, but become aside from his parents, Pete is actually
the person he has been closest to or the longest period of time.
Whether intentionally, or by "happy accident," Chloe and
Lana are polar opposites in almost every aspect of their
relationships with Clark, and it's interesting to see how he
interacts (or rather, used to, since he hasn't really this year)
with Chloe, and how he interacts with the New Improved Lana. In
season two to date (up to Nocturne) Clark has been a cipher
where Chloe's concerned. The audience gets to see—in graphic
detail—how he feels about Lana, yet they never, or at least, not
since Drone, Crush, Obscura and Tempest see how he
feels about Chloe. They are left to infer his relationship with
Chloe, while his relationship with Lana is stated and re-stated.
One wonders if any of the remaining Smallville writers are
closest Clark/Chloe fans who know that if they ever do
explicit Chlark again, it would actively conflict with the
Clark/Lana relationship which has been a marketing touch point for
both Tollin/Robbins Productions and The WB. The entire Chloe/Clark
arc of the latter third of first season has yet to be given any
kind of closure since the writers have effectively paired Chloe
off with Lana so that she's almost never in direct contact with
Clark unless she's serving her function as Miss Exposition in
regard to the A Plot.
Chloe's function in the story, beyond being Miss Exposition, has
also been to act as a foil to Lana. In literature, a foil is one
that by contrast underscores or enhances the distinctive
characteristics of another. Think Hamlet and Fortinbras. Chloe is
self-assured in that she knows what she wants out of life, what
her goals are, and where she is going. Yet she has little or no
self-esteem where her personal life is concerned. Lana, on the
other hand, has never doubted that she is loved and cherished by
Whitney, Nell, and even Clark and her self-esteem seems to be
quite healthy. Yet feels no direction in her life and is in the
process of discovering who she wants to become over the course of
the first season. It has often been said that Lois Lane in the
Superman mythos is a synthesis of both Chloe Sullivan and Lana
Lang. She has Chloe's professional drive and tenacity, with Lana's
looks. This, somewhat retroactively, proves that Clark has a
"type" and by being attracted to both Lana and Chloe as
a teenager sets the stage for his eventual relationship with the
love of his adult life.
Which brings me to Chloe and Lana's friendship. When the series
began, Chloe and Lana barely knew each other and Chloe "snarked"
on Lana's cheerleader status. This changed when Lana came to Chloe
in X-Ray and asked Chloe to locate Laura Lang's graduation
speech. This was the first instance of the two girls building any
kind of relationship that did not involve Clark. It was further
explored in Rogue when Lana inadvertently was made editor
of the Torch, both removing Chloe's identity at the school, and
removing the one activity which Chloe and Clark shared, where
Chloe had Clark all to herself. And it is important to note that
the two worked out their differences together, without any input
from Clark. However, as the first season wore on, it became
obvious that while Chloe may hate Lana's effect on Clark, she does
not actually hate Lana. This is most noticeable in Drone,
when the triangle is actually a major focus of the episode.
This season, Chloe and Lana have been shown to be even closer, and
in fact, the majority of Chloe's scenes that are character related
rather than plot related have been with Lana, rather than Clark.
This leads me to speculate that the writers are at the very least
aware that if they returned to the status quo of Chloe and Clark
as close as they were last year then they'd be forced to deal
with the fact that they altered those interpersonal relationships,
because once you cross that line, as all three of the characters
have said, you can't ever hide behind the cloak of friendship
again. And so they're just not dealing. They're avoiding.
For all intents and purposes, so far as the first five episodes of
season two are concerned, the character dynamics have shifted
radically. Pete's the new Chloe in terms of both his function in
the plot and the amount of screentime devoted to development of
his character. Chloe has been uncharacteristically hostile and
sarcastic towards Clark, in a way that is not supported by her
actions of first season, and her role has been reduced to 2 or 3
scenes per episode. Lana has suddenly inherited her
comics-counterpart's sense of curiosity seemingly out of nowhere,
and has a Quixotic quest to uncover the secret Clark is obviously
keeping from her due to her new-found sense of entitlement.
Unfortunately, this last development has lead to Clark and Lana
re-enacting effectively the same scene over and over for the last
four weeks, which does not further the characters or the plot at
this point, but serves only to annoy the viewer.
As a viewer, I wanted to see the rift between Lana and Clark in Red
last because it's the only thing keeping Clark and Lana apart.
It's a dramatic structure the show needs because the whole point
of Clark's crush on Lana has always been the fact that he can't
have her. If he gets her, there's no story. It's the way the
show has been structured, and the endless dance of "How can
we keep them apart?" while simultaneously removing
obstacles (Whitney and Chloe) and replacing them with less
compelling and at times utterly out of character ones
(Lana's and Chloe's bitchy streaks that go far outside everything
we'd seen thus far from either character) is giving me, as a
viewer, whiplash.
Going in two directions simultaneously means something's gonna
snap, and I'm worried it'll be my patience by the time we
reach midseason.
What worked far more effectively in the first season was Clark and
Lana's growing friendship. Dramatically this worked because Clark
doesn't love Lana—he loved the idea of Lana. The fantasy
girlfriend. He didn't know her, and you can't have any kind
of real relationship with someone you don't know. So by showing
the two of them becoming friends, and showing the affection he
felt for Lana the real girl as opposed to Lana the fantasy figure
growing and changing, it further both of their characters and
developed the Clark/Lana subplot without actively diminishing
either character. However, and inexplicably, Clark has remained
stuck in starry-eyed former stalker mode 90% of the time, while
Lana's character has vacillated wildly between loving Whitney and
being bored by Whitney, being selfless and supremely selfish, and
alternately encouraging or spurning Clark's advances seemingly at
random, depending on the demands of each individual script. The
lack of internal consistency hurt the Clark/Lana part of the
Chloe/Clark/Lana triangle tremendously in terms of its
effectiveness.
As a constant viewer (as opposed to occasional), I am tired of
"Obligatory Clana Tags" that do nothing to further the
drama of Clark Kent's adolescence, and instead pander to the WB's
network identity. It is no secret that the WB has considerable
input into the Clark/Lana relationship, and have stated their
preferences to the series writers and producers quite clearly.
Almost their entire marketing campaign for the series in built on
Clark's crush on the perfect Miss Lang.
And despite my personal preferences, I do not care if Clark and
Chloe never have any romantic interactions again. I can live with
that, so long as the way in which that is accomplished does
not involve gutting Chloe's character and active dismantling Chloe
and Clark's friendship, which was a huge part of the first season
character dynamic, and part of the appeal of the series to me. I
do not hate the emphasis and focus on Clark and Lana's romantic
relationship simply because it's not the Chloe who is the object
of Clark's affection.
I hate the Clark/Lana dynamic because it goes nowhere, gives
nothing to me as a viewer, because to put it in the vernacular,
they're doing it half-assed. It's just spinning its wheels for
me, and I guess I'm hoping someone will stick some gravel behind
the truck so it will get up and go somewhere this season. Anywhere.
Rather than sort of covering the same ground every week.
back
to essays
|
|
