This spring there were two big breakout hits on HBO, “Girls”
and season two of “Game of Thrones”.
While epic fantasy set in the mythical kingdom of Westeros makes for
smashing TV in my opinion, it became clear that “Girls” is probably the more
controversial of the two shows. Because
nobody really goes out and does actual “reporting” on what happens in our world
these days on the internet, criticizing “Girls” became something of a cottage
industry among bloggers and commentators.
It didn’t hurt that the show is set in New York (the most important
place in the universe) about a group of highly dysfunctional 20’s something
women and is filled with awkward/hilarious sex (the most important subject in
the universe) scenes to boot. This made
for great commentary about all sorts of hot button subjects in American life; Atlantic blogger Ta-Nehisi Coats let loose a typical critique.
But reading these types of arguments I was struck by how
narrow their subject matters of identity are.
Gender, race and sexuality seem to encapsulate the be all and end all of
who a character—dare I say who we—can be.
This of course is a profoundly limited way to look and human beings and
identity. While Ta-Nehisi might be right
that “Girls” doesn’t have a very racially diverse cast, I think that “Girls”
brings an element of diversity that is often overlooked: it is filled with unhappy,
miserable people. Just think about it,
with the exception of a few shows (“Curb Your Enthusiasm” comes to mind) TV is
a non-stop parade of happy people with interesting lives, great careers and
loads of material security. The ignored
group on TV doesn’t strike me as being an ethnic group at all, but people who
say hate themselves, or have dead end jobs or are miserable every day. I think this this is a big reason why a movie
like “Office Space” or a show like “The Office” became such hits, finally
something about people who are profoundly dissatisfied with life and their jobs
was made.
When American TV tries to deal with unhappiness it is often
forced to simply borrow from other countries.
Some of this probably has to do with economics; TV execs probably figure
that no one wants to watch a show about some guy who is dissatisfied with his
life but can’t make any meaningful changes to it either or someone who starts
her morning acting like the protagonist from “A Single Man” (a really good, really
sad movie by the way), staring at themselves in the mirror and saying “Just get
through the god damn day.” But I think
it also has to do with the history of American entertainment, which largely
comes of out things like vaudeville and 19th century commercial theater like what’s shown in “Old Man River”.
Most American TV shows that deal with unhappiness are adaptations from
other countries. “The Office” or course
comes from Britain and the only American show I’ve seen that puts unhappiness
front and center, “In Treatment”, is a development of an Israeli show, with
some sections of dialog simply translated from the original Hebrew script.
When sadness, frustration or misery does get shown in
American TV it often takes on an almost petty quality. Izzie gets sad in “Grey’s Anatomy” because the
chief of thoracic surgery yelled at her (fyi Izzie this is what chiefs of thoracic surgery at major American hospitals do, they are ornery leaders who yell at people who fuck up, what they aren’t are people
who think their role in life is to make you feel better). Izzie also has big existential conundrums,
like which gorgeous highly successful doctor she will date, sure is hard being
Izzie. “Girls” breaks this mold by
serving up miserable characters, going nowhere in life, in terrible
relationships doing things like eating cupcakes for breakfast. Now maybe adding an inter-racial lesbian
couple to season 2 would diversify things some on the show, but if she was a
professor of journalism at Columbia and she was high power executive in the
high tech field living some 2 million dollar loft in so-ho while they both find
life to be a fun and interesting adventure where everything works out in the
end, I think something would be lost as well.
Personally I’m glad that one of the most ignored groups in all of
American culture, unhappy people, finally gets some screen time.
A fair point. I admit, I've only seen a handful of episodes. But I wasn't wild about the show, not because it was poorly written or because it was about unhappy people...but because I just disliked the characters that I really struggled to find someone to root for.
ReplyDeleteIt's one thing to show miserable, unhappy people. It's another to show miserable people that the viewer thinks are such crappy humans that they probably deserve what they get. I dunno. I didn't even really enjoy watching them suffer and struggle. A little too obnoxious/annoying for me, I guess.
I don't need everyone to be smiley happy pretty perfect people on tv, but I like having someone that I can root for.
Thanks for the comment Josh! I totally get not liking a show, at the end of the day all media has a subjective level to it. Either you like it, or you don't. I just don't like the Beatles very much, call me weird but I just don't. That said my big point-or at least the point I tired to make-was that just thinking about being "diverse" as being a racial things excludes all sorts of other types of people and thus can make a show not diverse in other ways. Thus there are almost no Veterans (let alone active duty military personnel) on American TV (other than shows ABOUT the military) and next to no one with a southern accent. So why is excluding them not a problem?
Delete