Halloween set the standard for the modern slasher flick, setting up the groundwork for what would become one of horror’s most iconic trope. The Final Girl.

In Halloween, our final girl is Laurie Strode, a prudish high school girl who excels at babysitting and is far too shy to talk to her crush. She’s an American Dream. Innocent, pure, sheepish and caring for children, she would be the only one of her friends to survive Halloween night in Haddonfield, Illinois.

The other characters in the movie are polar opposites from sweet Laurie. Annie and Linda are both sexual active (in their monogamous relationships), bold and less “motherly” than Laurie. An example of this is Annie leaving her charge with Laurie so that she can go pick up her boyfriend and invite him over. After doing this, Annie is immediately smited by the heavenly avenger himself, Michael Myers.

Shortly after this, Linda and her boyfriend Peter arrive at the house Annie is babysitting at. They proceed to have sex in a bedroom in the house. After their risque behavior, they too are taken out for their crimes.

So, what’s the point? Well, it’s clear that the subconcious message of this film revolves around sexual punishment. The women who engage in sexually “promiscous” or behaviors that go against their “womanhood” (like not taking proper care of a child) are punished for their behaviors with a penalty of death.

Laurie, however, is the lone survivor. Not that she wasn’t attacked, but she alone had opportunity to escape. Upon rewatching the film, I noticed that both Annie and Linda were given no chance at escaping, both being strangled from behind. Meanwhile, Laurie is only able to survive because Michael’s first attack leaves nothing more than a gash in her arm. Being aware of her present danger makes her much more capable of being able to defend herself against the killer as he attempts to attack.

This poses an interesting question: What makes Laurie special? Why is she so lucky? It comes down to her innocence. Laurie’s sexual purity and maternal instincts save her from certain death, because she never faces that same vulnerability the other women have. Unlike Annie, Linda and even Michael’s own sister, Laurie never arouses Michael and she never experiences that moment of nudity that made the others so vulnerable. Therefore, she is masculinized. Laurie is not objectified in the same way. She is a hero, and therefore a male audience can relate to her. She never has sex because that male audience can’t feel penetrated and she never gets stabbed for the same reason. That, in the end, is what saved Laurie Strode.

The objectification of the female body has been a significant problem in the film industry for decades and not much has been done to stop it. This is the because the dominant group in film is men and therefore the industry caters mostly to men. This is the phenomenon of the “Male Gaze”.

An early example of this is “Psycho” directed by Alfred Hitchcock. In the film a woman named Marion leaves her life in Phoenix, Arizona and hits the road. This leads her to the Bates Motel, run by a man named Norman Bates and his “ill” mother. One of the most iconic scenes from the movie is Marion’s shower scene. In it the camera pans around her body and shows only parts. This is a common form of objectification.

By “dissecting” the woman’s body and only showing a piece at a time, the camera is taking power away from her and dehumanizing her body parts, which in turn makes it easier for the heterosexual men in the audience to feel at ease objectifying her body. Instead of showing her as a person, she becomes nothing more than the sum of her parts and therefore less than.

Another trope of the male gaze his called scopophilia, which is defined as deriving pleasure from looking. This is displayed in “Psycho” when Norman watches Marion undress through a peephole looking into her room. This act disguises unnecessary nudity as character development, and while it does give us a clearer picture of who Norman is, it also serves as fan service to a heterosexual male audience.

The way I think of it is: if you took these same scenes and took away the score replacing it with “Let’s Get It On” by Marvin Gaye the scene would take on a whole new meaning and the perversion would really be on full display. As they say, “editing is everything”.

On top of that Linda Williams and Laura Mulvey dive into what happens when the woman looks in there articles. They discuss how, while men are expected to look, women are almost always punished for looking in contemporary film. Like in the movie Dressed to Kill where the protagonist has a one night stand with a man. When a man does this, it is seen as normal or maybe even “manly”, but the woman in the film is immediately punished with a brutal murder for it.

It’s obvious that the effects of having a male dominance in the film industry has many effects on how women are portrayed and treated on the big screen and how the male gaze is implemented in movies even still today.w

 

J.K. Simmons and Edie Falco spend the first part of their talk chatting about auditioning. They talk about how it feels to go into an interview; what’s expected of you and how they were treated. To them it’s very light-hearted, but I believe it speaks to a bigger issue in the industry. The ‘what’s expected of you’ part of the talk is off-handed. Neither actor felt like they were the person the casting director wanted, so they tried to be someone else, which ultimately didn’t help at all. However, it’s the treatment they recieved that is more worrisome.

Edie Falco tells a ‘funny’ story about a time she auditioned and it didn’t go well. She started her monologue when the director got a phone call, but he told her to continue acting over his coversation. This was extremely unfair to Falco and took his attention away from the audition she probably worked very hard on.

 

 

Directors and Actors have always had an interesting relationship. They need each other, but they don’t act that way. Actors, obviously, are always very thankful of directors and appreciative of them publically, but that’s just part of the power dynamic. Directors on the other hand are less so. This could be blamed on a smaller public presence, but the way Edie and J.K. spoke it almost seems like Directors are careless with their actors, even though they need them just as much as the actors need the director.

After that, Falco and Simmons talk about their respective TV shows. Falco speaks on being asked to come to a show and that feeling of, as she calls it, ‘floating on to the set, because you know you’re trusted. It’s a luxurious feeling.”

However, when it comes to their current roles, both actors speak on the hardships that they bring.

 

 

 

Simmons comments on the struggle of playing two characters in one show and how much work it was filming like that. Falco on the other hand talks about the struggle of playing a real person and trying to portray her accurately without any help from the person herself.

Overall, the interview sort of opened up my perspective on the real life of an actor. There is more work and tact involved than any budding ingenue would have you believe. There is more to it than meets the public eye.

 

Since the 90s, the portrayal of LGBTQ people on television has risen dramatically, going from almost no representation to at least gay side character in most TV shows. There are many reasons for this, but I think the most important is the rise in LGBTQ celebrities that are representing the community in the public eye.

With celebrities like Ellen bringing awareness in the 90s, to countless celebrities like Laverne Cox, Neil Patrick Harris and Ruby Rose giving the community the spotlight today, LGBTQ representation has become a forefront in television in the modern day.

However prior to the rise of celebrities from the community, LGBTQ people had little to no representation in media, because of the hatred and disgust much of America showed the community most, if not all, of the representation pre-90s was extremely derogatory and offensive.

That begs the question though: Is today’s representation of the LGBTQ community any better? Well, that’s a loaded question. On one hand, obviously stereotypical representations of today are better than being a mental patient in need of curing in the 70s. Conversely, one could argue that the stereotypes reinforced in today’s television can be just as alienating to the community and damaging to people’s ideologies of themselves.

 

But is it better than no representation at all? No. Just no. With today’s representations of LGBTQ people, they may be stereotypical, but they are accepted by the people around them, which every little LGBT or Q needs to see in their developmental years. And while the representation could be alienating, it is still beneficial to see someone you can relate to being accepted and loved for something so many people would shun them for.

To put it in context, my five favorite television shows are (in not particular order):

1. Altered Carbon- LBGTQ People: 0
2. Glee- LGBTQ People- Like 7. While Kurt (the main gay man) is represented as very stereotypical and flamboyant, there are many other gay men showing other sides of the community. Like Blaine who is the cool and confident soloist in his all boys choir (ok so a little stereotypical but its Glee, he’s got to sing), or Sebastian, the sly, cunning bully who uses fear and manipulation to get whatever he wants. As well as Unique, a trans woman singer who brings the house down every time she’s on stage.
3. The Chilling Adventures of Sabrina- LGBTQ People- 2 (so far). Sabrina does an amazing job with its representation of queer people. Ambrose, the titular character Sabrina’s cousin, doesn’t come across “gay” at all. On the contrary he is a sarcastic, wise cracking Brit under house arrest who isn’t even revealed to be gay until he invites someone up to his room and they have sex, and then it’s never talked about that he’s gay again, except that he continues seeing the guy. It’s what I’ve always wanted from LGBTQ representation: for a character to be just gay and not have it be a big deal or need a whole story.

I honestly can’t think of anymore shows that I really love, but those three should show that representation gets better everyday, and thankfully stereotypes, while still living in the minds of people, are starting to be pushed aside in the realm of television. The future for the LGBTQ community is looking brighter than ever.

The Golden Girls is a show I have always been interested in watching, so when I saw it on the list of shows with a predominantly female cast, I knew that I was going to watch it. Of course I didn’t want to jump in the middle, so I started with the pilot episode.

In the pilot, Blanche announces to her housemates and friends Rose and Dorothy that she has a date with a man named Harry. When they press her for more details, she reveals that he proposed and wants an answer that night. Dorothy and Rose immediately try to talk her out of saying yes, but Blanche simply says she hasn’t made up her mind yet and leaves with Harry. Meanwhile, Dorothy’s mother Sophia shows up saying her retirement home burned down and needs to move in with them.

This is when Sophia says the Blanche looks like a prostitute for wearing too much makeup. Blanche simply doesn’t respond, but Dorothy tells Sophia off, but Sophia sticks to her guns and walks away.

In this scene, there is a prime example of women reinforcing patriarchal values for the men. By calling Blanche a whore for wearing too much makeup, Sophia is reinforcing the idea that women should be proper and, at their age, plain. Now, the show itself seems to mock Sophia for this backwards ideal, with Blanche saying her stroke took away her filter, but there is an earlier scene that doesn’t get the same treatment.

When Blanche is getting ready for her date, Rose and Dorothy come into her room to ask for more details about her date with Harry. When they walk in, Dorothy looks at Blanche’s makeup table and makes a snide comment about the amount of makeup she owns, saying “Would you look at this she has more colors than Benjamin Moore Paints” and then later in the scene when Blanche says her face isn’t finished, Dorothy says, “The only thing left is to dip it in bronze.”

The comments are clearly meant to be simple jokes, but they do show a clear pattern of slut-shaming towards Blanche, and Dorothy seems to be “in the right” so to speak. The attitude towards Blanche the “lusty southern belle” is, in my opinion, both sexist and ageist. She is known as the “slut” of the show because she wants to find love after the death of her first husband and she wears “too much makeup”, but if a younger woman were to perform the same actions, no one would have anything to say. The message from the other Golden Girls is clear: Give up.

Watching the I Love Lucy episode titled “Gossip” displays a very clear vision of relations between men and women. The men of the cast believe that the women can’t go on without gossiping, but they protest. When the men start gossiping in front of them and the girls call them out, Ricky says, “We can take it or leave it, to you women it’s your life blood.” So they make a bet and whoever gossips first loses.

What stands out to me is how the husbands treat their wives about it. The whole episode they act patronizingly towards the women. They treat Lucy and Ethel as if they are obnoxious and rude for gossiping and chastise them. The whole demeanor of the episode has a misogynistic slant to it.

To me, I Love Lucy is a strange show, because even though it centers on Lucy and her misadventures, she is still characterized as a stereotypical housewife, and that comes down to the times. Conversely, if you look at a show like “Supergirl” or “Orange is the New Black” which are shows with strong female leads that preach the empowerment of women, those characters and their motivations are stark opposites to the characterizations of Lucy and Ethel.

Lucy’s character, motivations, and actions all come down to the view of women at the time, and the show is certainly doing little to nothing to challenge that view. The men always come across as smart and mature, especially Ricky, (Fred a little less so), while Lucy comes across as ditsy and irresponsible, and Ethel embodies these characteristics even more.

This is a very clear depiction of men’s status above women at the time. The women can’t really get anything right together. On top of that, when the men aren’t gossiping, it’s clear that their relationship dynamic is altogether unaffected. However, when the women get together their relationship is dull and empty in the absence of gossip. So, clearly Ricky is right in saying that they can’t survive without gossip.

The way modern TV approaches feminism is vastly different to the way that older shows like I Love Lucy approach it, but the society we live in also approached feminism differently. The issues with I Love Lucy and it’s portrayal of women can really be blamed on the culture that created the show.

Queer Eye for the Straight Guy was a groundbreaking show in its time, bringing gay culture to the forefront of American television. It was a fight for tolerance in the hopes that if a group of gay men could become established in our culture, then homosexuality itself would become a normal part of it as well. Now, Netflix has brought the hit series back with a whole new cast. Queer Eye, as the reboot is called, follows the same format, but in a different era. As cast member Tan France declares, “The original show was fighting for tolerance; Our fight is for acceptance.”

However, D.C. McAllister in a post for “The Federalist” believes this to be a far fetched goal. In her article, “The Return Of ‘Queer Eye’ Could Be A Win For The Right Kind Of Tolerance”, McAllister attests that, “if you want to get people opposed to homosexuality not only to tolerate it and treat homosexuals respectfully, but also to approve of it, this sugary show won’t do it.”

This displays a fundamental issue of misunderstanding. What the show is doing isn’t just trying to get people to accept gay people overnight, but it’s doing what the first show did to the next level. Queer Eye is making homosexuality mainstream.

While it is definitely not the first show to do this, the format it is attempting to do it in gives it the best chance of actually creating change. Instead of gay characters played by actors, the cast is made up of five real gay men who are leading completely normal lives, aside from the fact that they are on TV. Along with that, these five gay men are interacting with and assisting straight people. This creates an interesting dialogue because it shows gay people as not only a part of our society, but a friendly and beneficial part. The gay man isn’t some far off biblical demon, he’s your neighbor. The lesbian isn’t some raging Valkyrie, she’s your hair stylist.

The point is that, while progress, as McAllister argues, takes time, Queer Eye is undoubtedly a step in the right direction. As Maya Angelou said, “Perhaps travel cannot prevent bigotry, but by demonstrating that all peoples cry, laugh, eat, worry and die, it can introduce the idea that if we try to understand each other, we may even become friends.” That, to its core, is what Queer Eye is attempting to accomplish and that is why it may just succeed in its fight for acceptance.

 

Phenomenal Television is TV that uses it’s platform for the good of social change and cultural growth. To that end, the television show that embodies this quality arguably more than any other is Rupaul’s Drag Race. Rupaul’s Drag Race tackles issues as serious as homophobia, gender identity and even HIV/AIDs in the gay community.

 

The way the show is able to handle these issues so gracefully is another reason it belongs in a list of “Phenomenal Television”. The humor of the show balanced off with the severity of it’s issues, makes it educational while still extremely enjoyable to watch.

Another reason this show falls into the phenomenal category is its extraordinary ability to bring new audiences into such a niche form of art. While drag has been a staple of the gay community for years and years, as the popularity of Rupaul’s Drag Race grows, one begins to see more and more straight people who enjoy the show. For example, Matthew and Stephanie Patrick are a popular married couple on YouTube who host a channel called “The Game Theorists” and a show on that channel called Game Theory Live. On this show, the couple has talked openly and excitedly many times about how much they love Drag Race and how amazing of a show it is.

 

Overall, Rupaul’s Drag Race clearly embodies these two aspects of Phenomenal Television as defined by Amanda Lotz and many more, securely putting it in the ranks of Phenomenal Television.

High and Low culture is best measured by the “Cultural Skyscraper”, a model that displays the levels of culture. For example, the top of the skyscraper would be the “High Culture” forms of media in society, such as theater or great literature. High culture is synonymous with high levels of education and is reserved only for those with the minds to understand it. On the other end of the spectrum, near the ground floor, is “Low Culture”. Low culture is much easier to consume, like Keeping Up With the Kardashians or a monster truck rally. Anyone can sit down and take in low culture with little to no issues understanding what they are seeing.

The whole system itself is truly bogus. We as a culture most likely have a vested interest in all three forms of culture. There is no one that will only enjoy high culture because they too good, or only enjoy low culture because they are too dumb. Keeping Up With the Kardashians is a national phenomenon for people both rich and poor. For us to categorize aspects of our media into high and low culture is to say that some are better than others and they deserve better things. Do people learn things from high culture? They might, yes. Do people learn things from low culture? Probably not. But does that really make it worse? Do we have to learn something from everything we’re watching, or can we just plop down on the couch and mindlessly eat popcorn while Kim cries about Khloe’s newest antics. We absolutely can, because entertainment isn’t about being educated, it’s about enjoying ourselves and letting ourselves be distracted for a moment. That can be watching Hamlet or America’s Next Top Model, either way the point is to enjoy yourself. Let’s not forget that the Shakespearean plays we call “High Culture” now, were once seen as the monster truck rally of Victorian England, until eventually it became for everyone. Except the rich people had the better seats.

High to Low Culture Television:

10. Downton Abbey

If any show is going to be considered “High Culture” than what better show than Downton Abbey. It’s a compelling period drama with an actress like Dame Maggie Smith adorning it’s cast, it’s bound to be classy. Regardless, the historical accuracy portrayed by the show as well as the romance of old England makes it a perfect choice for the 10th spot.

9. Queer Eye

The reboot of the old makeover show Queer Eye for the Straight Guy, Netflix’s Queer Eye definitely deserves a high place on this list. The show features messages of positive body image and self-love as well as education about gay culture in America. It stands out as something educational as well as approachable. The fun makeover format, makes it more generally consumable than something like Downton Abbey while its brilliant messages put it cleanly into high culture.

8. Peaky Blinders

Peaky Blinders falls into the same category as Downton Abbey. It’s a fascinating period piece, but it’s a little more focused on the drama and crime. The show itself can be educational to many viewers about old England, but it mainly focuses on crime and the Low Culture of England, so it puts itself down in the 8th spot. Still a good watch and a thrilling and historical show, but less classy nonetheless.

7. Rupaul’s Drag Race

Rupaul of Rupaul’s Drag Race in the promotional material for Season 9.       themovieb.org 

As far as reality television goes, Rupaul’s Drag Race to me belongs in the top tier. It’s funny, dramatic, and goes a long way in shaping the image of gay culture in America. While it is a reality competition show, which will never truly make it into High Class, it does fall towards the top of Middle Class because of its forward thinking model.

6. Jane the Virgin

Jane the Virgin is an American soap based on the tropes and characteristics of a classic telenovela turned on it’s head. The show is very smart and compelling, leaving you wanting more with every subsequent episode. But, the petty drama and melodramatic telenovela style put it firmly in the Middle Class.

5. Unbreakable

Unbreakable or Unbreakable Kimmy Schmidt follows the life of Kimmy Schmidt, a girl who was kidnapped at a young age and locked up by an insane DJ who called himself Reverend and told her the world had ended. The show handles many societal issues like income gap, sexuality, feminism, and racism with grace and humor. The jokes themselves range from clever to crass, but its handling of complex issues is nothing to scoff at.

4. Shameless

Shameless follows an impoverished family as they struggle to get by despite their fathers alcoholism. The show talks about poverty very openly and brashly, even sometimes humorously. It is a very smart show with compelling characters, but it’s mostly simplistic and easy to come by. The jokes and material itself are a little crass and on the low class side, but that makes sense seeing as the family is so low class to begin with.

3. The Vampire Diaries

The Vampire Diaries is a pretty basic teen vampire romance TV show. The plot follows a straightforward march towards the finish line of romance and the strange relationships between characters are mostly ineffectual to that end goal. Overall the show isn’t trashy, it’s just basic, with little to no societal impact.

2. Keeping Up With the Kardashians

KUWTK as we all know is a pretty trashy reality show that banks on the crocodile tears of rich girls to make its money. One might expect this to be at number 1, but the show itself doesn’t take gross measures for entertainment. Mostly it’s just a couple of upper class women having issues that they react to in hilarious over the top ways.

1. Below Deck

The cast of Below Deck in the promotional image for the show.                     play.google.com

Below Deck is probably the worst thing since Jersey Shore and it is very entertaining. The show follows the crew of a commercial yacht as they cater to rich, entitled customers and their own emotions. Being stuck on a boat in relatively small servants quarters with ten or so people is bound to cause drama and oh does it. Overall, the trashy behavior of many of the crew members reflects perfectly on the show itself and people just want more.