Economic Escapism

It occurred to me while watching Keeping Up With the Kardashians last week how different the show used to be. One of the main differences was the focus on extravagance. Newer episodes seem to focus much more on the spending habits and lavish lifestyle the Kardashians can afford. Part of that is because they have more money now, but it also seems that the public’s interest in their economic status has increased. This might have to do with the country’s current economic status. With a growing number of people living below the poverty line and even more in debt, economic struggle is a common worry in America. And this is reflected by the media. Instead of wanting to relate to the characters on that level, the audience would rather escape to a place where money isn’t an issue. Many other shows, both fictional and non-fictional, feature very rich or well to do families. Even the characters on Modern Family appear to be upper middle class and living in pricey Los Angeles, while the real modern family’s income is not nearly enough to cover that sort of lifestyle. It says a lot that some media outlets regarded Kim Kardashian’s wedding as the “American Royal Wedding.” At a time when financial struggle is commonplace, a lifestyle that can afford a $20,000 wedding cake is the modern day fairy tale.

Keep it Gay

LGBT issues are nothing new in the world of politics. However, it seems that recently they have been brought to the forefront of the media. And like any hot button issue, it’s presence in the media garners a lot of attention. Shows like Glee and Modern Family are both praised and criticized for their portrayal of gay characters and Lady Gaga’s message of acceptance and equality for the LGBT community has only furthered her level of fame. All of this exposure and support helps move the country forward and is met with attention both good and bad. As progressive as it is, however, it also opens up the LGBT community to exploitation. More and more shows, movies, and artists have jumped on the bandwagon, attaching LGBT positivity to their content in order to gain attention and profit. For example, pop stars Ke$ha and Katy Perry both released singles in the past year that were “for the gays.” As nice as the gesture is, it’s also problematic in that both songs were not explicitly gay-positive. The support almost seems like an afterthought in these cases, tacked on in order to increase sales and reach gay-icon status. Last week’s episode of Community parodied this phenomenon, when Pierce’s brand of wipes unintentionally become a gay icon and he takes the praise and runs with it, despite his usual aversion to the gay community. He even makes a product specifically for his new fans. Pride Wipes: “They may cost more, but they’re gayer!”

Ron Swanson: Actual Feminist

Recently I’ve been catching up on NBC’s Parks and Recreation. One of my favorite episodes so far has been "Woman of the Year". In this episode Ron Swanson, Pawnee, Indiana’s Director of Parks and Recreation, is named Woman of the Year by the Indiana Organization of Women, a title Leslie Knope would kill for. He immediately recognizes that he does not deserve the award, and that it should go to someone who has actually done something to empower women and is actually a woman. Of course, he only reveals this to the audience and goes on to mess with Leslie in an attempt to show her what little importance awards actually have. This is only reinforced when a representative from the IOW comes into the Parks and Rec office and explains the reasoning behind choosing Ron. She claims that the award and organization were looking for some recognition from the media, and chose a “Mustachioed, manly man” in order to avoid being called a “niche group” again, after years of choosing women for the title. While Parks and Rec is obviously a comedy show with often ridiculous situations, this stood out to me as something that could actually happen. Like Jackson Katz points out in Tough Guise, white men are the dominant group in our society. Now women make up about half of the world’s population so it seems odd that a group so large would be considered a “niche group.” However, because of the control white males exert over the media, this is actually very possible. What the IOW was trying to do was appeal to that group by awarding the picture of masculinity, Ron Swanson. Ironically, Ron rejects this idea, and pushes for Leslie to get the award. In the end all of the trouble is worth it for the following quote from Leslie: “The IOW is a bunch of sexist jerks who need to get back in the kitchen where they belong and leave the real feminist work to actual feminists like Ron Swanson. Oh my god what is happening?”

Modern Family?

As one would guess from the name, Modern Family touts itself as a progressive representation of the American family. The ABC sitcom definitely does a good job of portraying realistic familial relationships, but that doesn't mean they're necessarily progressive. At first glance, the cast and families portrayed seem diverse enough. Claire and Phil are the white middle class, cookie cutter family, Jay and Gloria are mixed-race couple with an age gap and Cam and Mitchell are the gay couple. Except that they hardly act like a couple. And I'm not talking about last year's campaign to get them to kiss on screen. Despite the unnecessarily long time that took to happen, their relationship has far more problems than a simple lack of PDA. Obviously in a sitcom about relationships, conflict between couples is inevitable. However, while the other couples bicker, at least their love for each other is apparent. Cam and Mitchell often make me wonder why they're even together. In one episode last season, Mitchell spends a whole episode devising a plan to get out of taking care of Cam, who is sick with the flu, so he can go to a concert. What stands out in this scenario is how little Mitchell seems to care about Cam. Their attitude towards each other is often disdainful or even competitive in one instance when they compete for the attention of one of Mitchell's co-workers. And while Claire is often fed up with Phil, or Jay with Gloria, their frustration is usually accompanied with fondness and attraction on some level. This is not the case for Cam and Mitchell and they end up reading more like a flamboyant Odd Couple than a married couple. In my opinion this is ABC's way of quieting anyone who advocate for LGBT inclusion without making the other side uncomfortable by portraying them as a real couple. This exploitation of a minority is hardly progressive or "modern" in any way.

The Dramedy Problem

Genre is more than just a way to organize media. Genre tells us what to expect from what we’re watching. If the text in question is a comedy we can expect to laugh and to take things lightly. With drama we can expect to be emotionally invested and sympathize with the characters. However, the idea of combining the two is becoming more and more popular. When done correctly, dramedy can truly be the best of both worlds. I’ve noticed that Glee is one show that attempts this balance of drama and comedy. I love Glee, really, but it can be extremely problematic. most of the issues I have with it stem from its inability to keep a consistent tone. Sometimes it’s a comedy with dramatic moments and other time it’s vice versa. Because of this, many storylines and characters come out very uneven. While many of the characters represent certain stereotypes yet some of those stereotypes are meant to be satirical while others are portrayed with much more depth. For example, one of the characters, Becky, has Down syndrome and is portrayed with great sensitivity towards her disability. The actress even appeared in a PSA about the slang term “retarded.” This level of sensitivity made the introduction of a new character, Sugar who exploits mental disability jarring. Sugar is a stereotypical self-obsessed rich girl, seeking attention and an excuse to say whatever she wants. This causes her to claim to have Asperger’s syndrome, a form of autism that affects social interaction. If a character like Sugar had appeared on any other satirical comedy it would be very obvious that her behavior wasn’t meant to be taken seriously. However, on Glee and alongside Becky it becomes unclear how we’re supposed to react to her. Treating some characters as more than just parodies complicates the blatant use of stereotypes. This is one of many cases in which Glee has become problematic because of its combination of genres. It seems the best of both worlds is easier said than done.

Reality vs. Reality TV

I have a big list of things I probably should be ashamed of, one of them being my love for Scott Disick. For those who are unaware and probably better, more well rounded people than I am, he's Kourtney Kardashian's baby daddy, frequent pot-stirrer, and questionable alcoholic on Keeping Up With The Kardashians. He's also a pretty terrible person. He's almost cartoonishly arrogant and short tempered, always strutting on screen in ridiculous, flamboyant outfits and causing problems. He's the source of a lot of the conflict on the show, which is mainly where the love comes from. I'm sure if I actually had to interact with him, or anyone on the show if I'm being honest, I'd feel very different about it. But then I'm sure the Scott we see on tv has very little in common with Real Scott. But that's the thing. TV Scott isn't a real person. He's a character and I love/hate him just like I love/hate all of the ridiculous villains on the scripted shows I watch. In my mind, there's not really a difference to me as a viewer. Reality TV, it turns out, isn't very real at all. There's a lot that's controlled and directed in order to create interesting plots and story lines. I don't think any modern viewer would deny that, but it's easy to forget how much of what we're watching is manufactured when it's presented as reality. This means that we still have to take into consideration the motives of the people and corporations behind the show as if it were completely fictional. It also means we're allowed to love Scott Disick and still sleep okay at night.

Diversity and Representation on Community

If there's one show I try to get everyone I know to watch, it's Community. Like, NBC should probably hire me to do marketing for this show. Community follows a study group of mismatched individuals at a community college. It's a little like Breakfast Club meets the Office meets every movie genre you've ever watched, depending on which episode you're watching. I love it. And it's not just because it's witty and heart-warming and it has absolutely nothing to do with my massive crush on Donald Glover. A whole lot of it has to do with how well it avoids falling into the usual hack-nyed stereotypes that we see so much in the media. Although three of the main characters are white, there's also two black characters, a Muslim character with Asbergers, and a bisexual man in a position of power, all of whom are regular characters who get equal amounts of screen time. Additionally, the female characters are all independent and unique and the presentation of male friendship through Troy and Abed is both adorable and applaudable. It's actually kind of baffling that this show doesn't get more credit for they way it handles hot-button issues without ever getting too controversial or self-congratulatory. The characters differences are neither ignored nor exploited. They're simply treated like people, with flaws and quirks and depth. It's this kind of casual progressiveness that help make diversity the norm. It's really a great show. If it's wonderful aversion of hegemonic ideals isn't enough, just watch Troy Barnes crying and try to resist.