In this piece I will write about the presence of stereotypes in current television shows whose target demographic is late teens/those in their early 20’s. The larger statement about American popular culture I will be making is that America loves stereotypes. Stereotypes sell, and that is why shows that profit from including stereotypes continue to saturate our television screens. I will also explore the history of TV stereotypes, and how older shows relate to current shows.
My primary source will be the show “Glee”, which made its début last year. “Glee” is a show about a high school Glee club, and the struggle the students involved in the club have faced, many of them ranging from teenage pregnancy to bullying. “Glee” will be my primary source because it’s a recent and an extremely successful show. Also because “Glee” incorporates just about every stereotype known to man: the geek, the football player, the cheerleader, the physically disabled, and more. It also includes a multitude of racial and weight-based stereotypes. It has been a highly controversial show.
Other examples of shows, new and old, include but are not limited to: Saved by the Bell, Gossip Girl, Greek, The Office, Ugly Betty, and Family Matters.
Stereotyping in television shows has been going on for years, but it has continued to be a driving force in American television shows, which is why the piece is relevant to popular culture today. Networks are continuing to profit from these series, which is what my examples will support.
I am the right person to write this piece because I watch (most of, but not all of) these television shows and I am within the targeted demographic.
Monday, February 22, 2010
Pauline Kael knew movies, at the very least (rewrite)
American film critic Pauline Kael expected a lot from the cinema. By the end of her 23-year tenure at the New Yorker, she was exhausted by all of the negative reviews she had given actors like Barbra Streisand—actors she believed had potential they weren’t displaying on screen. Movies that others loved, classic films like “It’s A Wonderful Life” and “The Sound of Music”, she slammed. She called Alain Resnais’s “Hiroshima Mon Amour” an advertisement selling peace, and admitted the audience, people who were “bowled over by it,” felt otherwise. In that same review she made it clear that she thought all American films were forms of advertisement selling some way of life.
In Will Brantley’s book, Conversations with Pauline Kael, Kael said she enjoyed writing reviews of bad movies that were universally praised and drew in globs of money. She wanted to tell people they were being scammed.
Any critic wants his or her voice to be heard, but Kael always thought about her audience. And that’s the cardinal role of all critics.
In Conversations, Kael claimed studios were satisfied with “utter conventionality” in movies because they were terrified of anything that didn’t satisfy the networks. But Kael wasn’t afraid of dissatisfying anyone. She didn’t view movies the way the mass audience did, which was reflected in her criticism of popular movies like “The Sound of Music,” which was in her opinion, “the sugar-coated lie people seem to want to eat.”
Kael admitted in Francis Davis’s book Afterglow that she enjoyed reading very few critics. One of those few was Andrew Sarris because he had genuine reactions to movies, and many critics don’t, in her opinion. She introduced ideas most people didn’t think to consider, because many of them weren’t accepted by the public at large. But the conversational tone she used in her reviews reflected her desire to write in a language the public could, and did, understand.
Film critic Sheila Benson, best known for her tenure at the Los Angeles Times from 1981-91, once heard someone say, “Pauline Kael has the shortest chute from her brain to her mouth of anyone I’ve ever heard speak.”
But Kael’s style, that conversational tone she infused in her writing that made it accessible to the average American, was criticized by many of her peers, including film critic Renata Adler.
In “House Critic,” Adler condemns Kael for her straightforwardness, and her “vain, overbearing, foolish, hysterical” voice that developed out of strong opinions of what Adler believes are unimportant subject matters. She complains about Kael’s quirks and tactics that have such dominance throughout her writing only to emphasize a unique style that is the very reason she altered 20th century criticism for the better.
In 1979, Kael took a leave of absence in reviewing to work with Warren Beatty in Hollywood as an executive consultant for Paramount Pictures, where she remained for only five months. Although her stay was short-lived, Kael had first-hand experience in film production and preparation. She experienced film on both ends of the spectrum. Kael made bold claims in her criticism, but she was never ignorant. If she hated a popular film, well, she had the authority to back those bold claims. And contrary to what Adler so brazenly declares in "House Critic", she certainly did know about movies.
In Will Brantley’s book, Conversations with Pauline Kael, Kael said she enjoyed writing reviews of bad movies that were universally praised and drew in globs of money. She wanted to tell people they were being scammed.
Any critic wants his or her voice to be heard, but Kael always thought about her audience. And that’s the cardinal role of all critics.
In Conversations, Kael claimed studios were satisfied with “utter conventionality” in movies because they were terrified of anything that didn’t satisfy the networks. But Kael wasn’t afraid of dissatisfying anyone. She didn’t view movies the way the mass audience did, which was reflected in her criticism of popular movies like “The Sound of Music,” which was in her opinion, “the sugar-coated lie people seem to want to eat.”
Kael admitted in Francis Davis’s book Afterglow that she enjoyed reading very few critics. One of those few was Andrew Sarris because he had genuine reactions to movies, and many critics don’t, in her opinion. She introduced ideas most people didn’t think to consider, because many of them weren’t accepted by the public at large. But the conversational tone she used in her reviews reflected her desire to write in a language the public could, and did, understand.
Film critic Sheila Benson, best known for her tenure at the Los Angeles Times from 1981-91, once heard someone say, “Pauline Kael has the shortest chute from her brain to her mouth of anyone I’ve ever heard speak.”
But Kael’s style, that conversational tone she infused in her writing that made it accessible to the average American, was criticized by many of her peers, including film critic Renata Adler.
In “House Critic,” Adler condemns Kael for her straightforwardness, and her “vain, overbearing, foolish, hysterical” voice that developed out of strong opinions of what Adler believes are unimportant subject matters. She complains about Kael’s quirks and tactics that have such dominance throughout her writing only to emphasize a unique style that is the very reason she altered 20th century criticism for the better.
In 1979, Kael took a leave of absence in reviewing to work with Warren Beatty in Hollywood as an executive consultant for Paramount Pictures, where she remained for only five months. Although her stay was short-lived, Kael had first-hand experience in film production and preparation. She experienced film on both ends of the spectrum. Kael made bold claims in her criticism, but she was never ignorant. If she hated a popular film, well, she had the authority to back those bold claims. And contrary to what Adler so brazenly declares in "House Critic", she certainly did know about movies.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
