Million Dollar Matchmaker: Conformity

Million Dollar Matchmaker: Conformity

036:065:001-002 Spr14 Television Criticism

Love. Everyone wants it but not everyone finds it, so that’s where Patti Stanger (CEO of Millionaire’s Club) comes in of Million Dollar Matchmaker to tell you to dye your hair, hike up your skirt, and basically change everything about yourself in order to find a man. Simple enough, right? Maybe not, but that is how it is presented to viewers, that as long as you conform to the other person’s wants and needs you will live happily ever after. Sounds logical, however I’m a firm believer in being yourself (cliché I know) but I figure that if you are yourself from day one then it saves you the hassle of having to explain to your partner months later that no you don’t really watch WWE on the weekends and no you don’t really enjoy seafood even though you’ve spent the last four dates at Red Lobster. I just feel like if you are going to date someone they might as well get to know the real you, which is why Million Dollar Matchmaker makes me feel a little uneasy when I am watching woman after woman change who they are just to fit the criteria of what the millionaire wants. Dating shows such as, Million Dollar Matchmaker, should be expressing to viewers that you should love who you are and you should be yourself and the right person will come along and love you for you. Instead, Million Dollar Matchmaker makes viewers feel that they need to conform to what the other person wants in order to find love and that showing their true self is not an option. While Patti Stanger, pushes all dating contestants to conform to the millionaire’s desires, whether they are male or female, for arguments sake I will be focusing on female contestants with the desire to date a male millionaire. Million Dollar Matchmaker makes contestants change their appearance, their values, and their interests in order to find love, expressing to viewers the negative message that being their true selves is not good enough. The show also sends the message that opposites do not attract and all values and interests must be shared by one another in order to be in love… wrongo.

In season 7, episode 13 Patti is looking for a woman who will fulfill all of millionaire Justin’s desires in a woman starting with his desire of wanting a woman who looks like character Sloan from Entourage. Keeping this in mind she analyzes the women that come into the room telling Becca, one of the potential contestants, she needs to dye her hair dark brown in order to come to the mixer to take on the millionaire’s desire of a Sloan lookalike. Even though the woman is clearly beautiful with light brown hair, Patti feels that she should conform to this new appearance in order to fulfill the millionaire’s desires and the color of her current hair will not suffice. Patti is constantly telling the women how to wear their hair, what outfits to wear, and how to do their makeup in order to win over that specific millionaire. While I do agree that everyone needs a little maintenance from time to time, I do not believe a person should change their entire look for a man and they should instead take on an appearance that best fits them and that they are pleased with. A little lip gloss from time to time never hurt anyone, but changing your hair color for a guy eh… a little much.

In season 3, episode 7, contestant Brittany showed up in a conservative green dress and was told that she could only come to the mixer if she wore a black fitted dress with cleavage showing, paired with high heels and lip gloss. Now some guys are probably thinking yes please show up in this exact attire, however my thoughts are that she should be able to show up in whatever outfit she feels most beautiful in and if it is a conservative dress so be it. Whether you like it or not your clothes say a lot about you, which could give off the wrong message about someone if they are wearing clothes that they would not normally wear or feel comfortable in. The different styles worn and hair and makeup worn all resemble that specific person’s personality, so with 20 different girls all wearing the same hair color, same hairstyle, same makeup, and same little black dress, it masks each woman’s individual style and personality. Who Patti tells them to look like is not who they really are or what they actually look like on a daily basis. The women should not change their appearance to what the millionaire wants them to look like and instead they should feel beautiful with their own personal style.

The values of the contestants have also been altered a bit for the mixer. Only women of the same religion are approved to go to the mixer showing viewers that different religions cannot make a successful match. False. In season 7, episode 13 the millionaire, Justin, was Jewish so Patti weeded out any woman who was not Jewish. She even came across women who fit Justin’s criteria, but were turned away because they were not of the same religion. If they do not practice the same religion they are not even considered. Just because both partners practice different religions does not mean that they cannot fall in love and have a successful relationship, but that is the vision the show is giving off to viewers. Patti makes it clear to the contestants that if they do not share the same religion they will not get the chance to meet the millionaire and potentially have lots of money—did I say have lots of money? I meant fall in love… whoops fall madly in love. If the woman in front got the boot for being Catholic then the woman behind her just became Jewish (mazel tov), even if her application says otherwise.

Along with religion, the values regarding whether or not the women will move for love or if they want to have kids is important in order for them to get approval for the mixer. In most cases, if Patti meets an attractive girl (with the right color of hair) she will drop the hint that in order to date the millionaire you need to be willing to have a large family and be willing to move half way across the country. She will then pause and wait for the woman’s response. In most cases, the woman will get the hint and claim she will happily hop on a plane and forget her birth control at home. Whether or not she actually means that I’m not sure, but in most cases women will do whatever it takes to date a millionaire. After watching this show viewers might think that changing their values for a man is necessary in order to find love when in reality you should not have to change your values, but instead have your values known and accepted by the other person. That’s how love works, not faking who you truly are.

While it is important to have interests in common with one another, it is okay for the couple to have different interests too and still have a successful relationship. In fact, most couples do. In season 3, episode 3 Natasha was asked if she could learn how to surf so that she would better fit the millionaire’s desire of an athletic girl. She was not asked to surf because Patti thinks that she would enjoy it, but instead asks her so that the millionaire will be more willing to fall for her. Throughout the seasons Patti has told the women about the millionaire and his hobby’s following with the question of if the women are willing to partake in those specific activities too. Of course each woman would agree that they would want to partake in any activity that the millionaire enjoys in order to go to the mixer, even if they would not enjoy that specific activity. These women are basing their own interests on what the millionaire likes to do so that they can go to the mixer and have a better shot with him. They are trying to be the perfect fit for him but are forgetting that the relationship is a two way street and they need to find someone who is as equally right for them. They cannot fake who they are, they need to be honest about who they are and with that the connection will come naturally. If the women conform to what the millionaire wants and are not truly their self, then they cannot have a relationship with one another because their relationship is based on a lie. It is one thing if the women are willing to try an activity for fun, but to act as if they have similar interests as the millionaire, when in reality they do not, is not an effective way to start off a relationship. A couple can have different interests and still be compatible.

Million Dollar Matchmaker shows women changing their appearance, values, and interests all based upon what the millionaire wants. The show sends a negative message to viewers expressing that in order to find love you need to be willing to change yourself to what the other person wants. In reality, a person should never change who they are. People need to find someone who will love them for who they really are. Million Dollar Matchmaker does not send out a positive message to viewers about being happy in your own skin, but is instead sending a message that you need to conform yourself in order to be accepted. People should be their self and be proud of who they are and true love will follow.

Bibliography

Patti Pic. Digital image. Http://briangulledge.com. Brian Gulledge, 23 Sept.

2011. Web. 1 May 2014.

The Million Dollar Matchmaker Contestants. Digital image. Http://www.dailymail.co.uk.    Mail Online, 18 Aug. 2012. Web. 1 May 2014.

The Million Dollar Matchmaker. Digital image. Http://www.aoltv.com. Huff Post TV, 14   Oct. 2011. Web. 1 May 2014.

"The Millionaire Matchmaker Season 2 Episode 02." YouTube. YouTube, 24 Mar. 2014.  Web. 02 May 2014.

"The Millionaire Matchmaker Season 3 Episode 03." YouTube. YouTube, 15 Apr. 2014.   Web. 02 May 2014.

"The Millionaire Matchmaker Season 3 Episode 07." YouTube. YouTube, 15 Apr. 2014.   Web. 02 May 2014.

"The Millionaire Matchmaker Season 7 Episode 13 The Fixer an The D." YouTube.           YouTube, 15 Apr. 2014. Web. 02 May 2014.

Make the Gossip Stop!

          Many controversies have been made over the past few years about the TV series called Gossip Girl, which is based off of the book series. Gossip girl first started airing in 2007 leading their teenage audience to be involved in watching a highly sexual show with underage drinking, partying, and even getting into scandals in and out of school. Gossip Girl’s episodes are encouraging their main characters to act older than their actual screen age and being involved in a type of lateral surveillance that is pushing their characters to grow up at a younger age. Gossip Girl not only promotes sex, alcohol, and constantly breaking rules, but also most importantly enforces their audience to act more mature and in a sense, grow up faster.             

Gossip Girl is about a group of American teens that go through high school together in the Upper East Side of New York. The school they go to is very ritzy and known to have their cliques and problems among their students. The show mainly focuses on Serena van der Woodsen and Blair Waldorf who are the “queen bee’s” of their school. Blair has her own posse and seems to wrap every single person around her finger, or at least tries to. On the other hand, Serena is trying to get out of her old habits of partying, getting into trouble, and hooking up with random people. Throughout the shows seasons, Blair and Serena have a consistent rocky relationship yet seem to be best friends. The two get into scandals with each other and backstab others along the way.  There was a website that talked about the shows reviews and it said, “Suicide, eating disorders, rape, infidelity, casual sex, and more are all part of the story, but they're rarely addressed in constructive or realistic ways.”

 In each episode of Gossip Girl the cast is always dressed very label-obsessed wearing designer clothes and each person acts materialistic, having the latest and greatest brands. The actual show itself is very unrealistic compared to the normal high school student. Unlike Gossip Girl, normal teenagers are wearing clothes from American Eagle instead of Fendi or Michael Kors.  In the show they are wearing ties almost everyday, high-end brands, and being driven around town in a limo is seen as normal for the teens in Gossip Girl.

Not only does this show displays to their teenage audience that the rich life is something great and a priviledge to have, but they are always promoting to act ten years older than you really are. The language that each character uses is very advanced and not your average high schooler. You wouldn’t hear high schoolers talking about the social event that they are going to attend and then going to a red carpet appearance after. It’s just not what you would hear, ever. The actors in Gossip Girl talk in a sophisticated way and also their appearance seems older than they really are.

The main objective that I’ve realized is how Gossip Girl has a huge lateral surveillance, which justifies a reason for why the viewers comprehend growing up faster. From the article by Mark Andrejevic he writes about lateral surveillance, risk, and governance that is brought up to our attention in the media and in everyday life. He stated that lateral surveillance means, “Lateral surveillance is peer monitoring arguing that in a climate of perceived risk and savvy skepticism individuals are increasingly adopting practices associated with marketing and law enforcement to gain information about friends, family members, and prospective love interests.” This in fact is true in terms of Gossip Girl and the young viewers of the show. It perceives the motive to be someone who you aren’t and act in a way that the characters are. It’s scary how many young viewers think it’s okay to act this way and become someone that acts five or ten years older then they really are.

In an article by buddytv.com it says how Gossip Girl not only promotes alcohol in their show but also demonstrates scandals and sexuality in between their characters. In the article it says how, “These teens do have sex, some of them do indulge in casual drug use, and our beloved Chuck (Ed Westwick) did ponder date rape in the very first episode.  However, the PTC seems to have a naive view of how innocent real teenagers actually are.  I doubt any impressionable youngsters discovered "OMFG" for the first time by watching the CW, and I'd hope that most kids are raised well enough not to snort coke and have threesomes just because they saw it on TV.” PTC stands for Parent Television Council, their main objective is to look out for the younger viewers and create a more controlled censorship for younger generations on television. Gossip Girl shows a lot of things underage kids should never encounter and it promotes that usage of drugs, alcohol, and the mindset that if somethings bad for you it wont “kill” you.  

            Gossip Girl seems to be getting more parents upset about the way they market their show. Gossip Girl had an ad known as the “OMFG ad” which made parents uproar with outrage after viewing it. In an article I found it said, Gossip Girl got a lot of publicity when they ran their "OMFG" ad campaign to get more kids to watch the show. If you need it spelled out that stands for "Oh my f**king God." All of this may be hilarious to Alloy and Channel One executives since they are making money off this filth, but most parents would be offended by almost everything involved with Gossip Girl.” The show itself upsets parents and viewers for what they are not only promoting during the shows but the ads that are related to the show seem to have a negative effect to their viewers.  

In another article that was talking about how the TV series is problematic for teens that watch or read the books because they have a hard time seeing the difference between real life versus fiction. They feel this could potentially be how life is in the rich Upper East Side and can’t justify the difference. Gossip Girl is also promoting teens to grow up faster than they really need to. The article stated that, “The problem is that many of the girls who read the book are in elementary school and middle school and cannot differentiate reality from fiction, Cohen-Sandler said. When they are older, they can see how the books exaggerate things and also see the consequences of partaking in drugs, sex and gossip.”

After all, Gossip Girl is yes, a fictional series that demonstrates the life of the superficial in the Upper East Side. Yet, viewers  have a hard time relating to such characters and they continue to look up to being either Blair or Serena in actual life. Isn’t the life of the rich and famous what every girl wants? No. Instead of over the top sex scandals or seeing drugs being used on television I think that they should have toned down their drama and incorporated things that the viewers could relate to and understand. Instead of being forced to grow up, we need to learn how to enjoy the life  as it is.

Works Cited

http://www.buddytv.com/articles/gossip-girl/watchdog-group-rages-as-gossip-18911.aspx

http://www.obligation.org/2009-01-15-oh-my-gosh-channel-one-is-advertising-gossip-girl

http://www.surveillance-and-society.org/articles2(4)/lateral.pdf https://www.commonsensemedia.org/tv-reviews/gossip-girl
http://crunchingsandmunchings.wordpress.com/2012/04/27/spotted-10-reasons-you-should-watch-gossip-girl/ (image)
http://www.missmoss.co.za/2009/08/09/bumper-fashion-special-no-10/gossip-girl/ (image)

The Spectacle of "Broad City"

A spectacle, according to The University of Chicago’s Theories of Media is, “A specially prepared or arranged display of a more or less public nature forming an impressive or interesting show or entertainment for those viewing it.” The television show Broad City, pushes the image of women as a spectacle on television to a whole new level with their excess, sloppiness, ideas on love, awkwardness, weirdness, vulgarity, and the many (not always very subtle) hints that the two main characters portray qualities of two people in a relationship not a friendship. They show excess in this show through their extremely loose and big body movements, very contradicting of the traditional idea that woman should take up as little space as possible. They also show excess through their speech, which is generally loud and overly drawn out, also contradicting the typical woman portrayed on television who is quiet and dainty with her speech. Throughout this television show these women openly embrace all of the qualities listed above and their status as a spectacle. Just like in the show Roseanne though while they may be portrayed as spectacles they still have control over the spectacle they are, which in turn puts them in control of the message of “femininity” portrayed in these television shows. The fact that the two main characters, Ilana and Abbi, not only act these roles but they also write the programs giving them the ultimate control of the “spectacle” they are enacting and the way in which they are portraying feminism.

            The article, Unruly Woman as Domestic Goddess, states, “Through body and speech the unruly woman violates the unspoken feminine sanction against “making a spectacle” of herself I see the unruly woman as prototype of woman as a subject- transgressive above all when she lays claim to her own desire. The unruly woman is multivalent, her social power unclear. She has reinforced traditional structures…but she has also helped sanction political disobedience for men and women alike by making such disobedience thinkable” (Rowe, p. 253). This is exactly what Ilana and Abbi do throughout this series. These two girls are not over weight like Roseanne is, however, they both do not portray the idealized bodies on television today and they embrace this quality of themselves.

            Ilana definitely takes the role of a spectacle to a much higher level than Abbi does which is for many different reasons in my opinion. Ilana is biracial, with unruly short curly hair and carries herself as if she has no control over her limbs portraying the qualities of a spectacle. Ilana is vulgar, loose, smokes excessive amounts of weed and then eats excessive amounts of food. She is also the one who in episode 15 of the series, Mom Brunch the two mothers ask if the girls have gotten them together for brunch to tell the mom’s that the girl’s are lesbians. Abbi finds it ridiculous while Ilana seems to have not only considered this idea but also thinks it may happen some day.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Pc8viIxmpg

Ilana proceeds to very bluntly give the waiter her phone number in front of everyone and then Abbi and her proceed into a competition to see who the waiter would rather be with. The relationship between these girls is blurred between friendship and relationship because it is bringing into question women’s sexuality. Their outward sexuality, especially Ilana and her many attempts to get Abbi into a threesome with her, are reserved for male comedies in most television shows today not comedies in which the women are embracing their sexuality. Women like no-strings attached relationships, women have fantasies, women like to be sexual but the only place in television where this message is accepting is if they are doing it for male enjoyment, which is not the case in Broad City. In this show it is Ilana’s sexual partner of sorts Lincoln who wants a relationship not Ilana, it’s Ilana who tries to enact sexual fantasies not any of the male characters. Here is a show where probably for the first time men are being restricted in their sexuality and needs in a relationship and woman are in control of their sexuality and how they use it, express it, etc.

            I believe that Abbi is portrayed as less of a spectacle in this series because throughout these episodes you come to think of her character as normal. As Karlyn points out in the quote above portraying a spectacle on television allows you to make the disobedience their characters portray thinkable. This series not only makes the disobedience seem thinkable, by aligning an extreme version of a spectacle (Ilana) next to a mild version (Abbi) you come to find the milder qualities of Abbi to be normal and through this they are morphing people’s idea of femininity.

            What I also found interesting about this episode is Abbi and Ilana’s mothers are the typical representations of feminine. Both women are dressed and manicured well, both appear to be in pretty decent shape, and both characters talk in a more quiet and pronounced dialect (completely opposite than the two daughters). Up until the women disagree over which daughter should back off of trying to go out with the waiter these woman give a very contradicting message of what is acceptable as feminine. Then they start their disagreement, which ends in them screaming, swearing, and fighting in a public place, which also reinforces the message of femininity given in this show. No matter the age, size, shape, personality, etc. of a woman it is acceptable to be loud, vulgar and even violent. This shows ability to not only make the qualities of a “spectacle” seem normal through Abbi’s character but effectively show that you do not have to portray the qualities that Abbi and Ilana do in this show to employ qualities that people would consider spectacle shows a giant step this television show is having in representing women in a more realistic way. It is also showing women and men audience members that it is okay to act like this, the woman does not always have to be seen but not heard, consume but still remain skinny, etc. This show is simply displaying what women all over the place behave like and putting it out for the entire world to see for the first time.

            What Ilana and Abbi are able to accomplish effectively sending these messages through masquerade. Rowe defines masquerade in the book The Unruly Woman as,

Having much in common with irony as it has traditionally been understood in literary and film studies. However, while irony is often used to affirm the cultural superiority of those who “get it” over those don’t, masquerade creates a “bottom up” distinction based on shared recognition within a subcultural group. As a form of self-representation, masquerade retains the distance necessary for critique, but a distance that is Brechtian and politicized, created by the subject between herself and various forms of representation available to her (p. 6-7).

Ilana and Abbi use masquerade throughout the series to essentially poke fun of their own characters by having the extreme personalities they do, but they illicit control of these extreme personalities and through this they are creating the distance for critique. They do not have an idealized body type, they are sloppy, and loose when it comes to doing anything even flirting with a boy, yet they still have sexual encounters often throughout the series. They visually hate doing anything grown-up, especially working, yet they both are employed full-time and are capable of supporting themselves in an expensive city like New York City, and they are also able to indulge themselves with marijuana and countless fattening snacks.

            What Ilana and Abbi are doing in this series is groundbreaking in my opinion. No other show is able to portray the “spectacle” and use it in such an effective way. Women are a little overweight, they smoke marijuana and get the munchies, and they talk about weird and sometimes even disgusting things about themselves with their best friends. Sure they do not do it in excess like Abbi and Ilana but that is the point in their extreme characters, to really drive the point home that this “disobedience” can become thinkable for society. Men and women alike have an accurate representation of how women in America really do act. Like I said they do not necessarily enact all of these qualities or all at once but I am sure all women do, say, etc. one of these things that Ilana and Abbi do and they also probably hide it because it is not represented in our society as acceptable because of the typical image of femininity that has almost always been portrayed on television. This is hopefully a gateway to a new image of femininity that television will start portraying on their programs because this show that started strictly on YouTube was so popular that Comedy Central picked it up to air it on television. It appears that this means progress for the female character on television.

Work Cited

"Mom's Brunch." . youtube.com, 20 Sept. 2010. Web. 20 Apr. 2014.             <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Pc8viIxmpg>.

"Theories of Media." . The University of Chicago , n.d. Web. 29 Apr. 2014.             <http://csmt.uchicago.edu/glossary2004/spectacle.htm>.

Knobloch, Susan. ": The Unruly Woman: Gender and the Genres of Laughter. Kathleen             Rowe.." Film Quarterly: 58-60. Web.

Rowe, K. K.. "Roseanne: unruly woman as domestic goddess." Screen: 408-419.             Web.

Connor Burke

The 'Anti-Nuclear' Family; Bursting the American Bubble without a Fallout Shelter.

From 1989 to about 2004 (even though the show is still running, I consider 2004/s14 to be the show’s post-climax of quality and importance) , the jaundice-skinned Simpsons series dominated mainstream television- which is a giant feat for the likes of an animated television show. But why? The likes of an animated show featuring your average nuclear family seems outdated in contrast to the myriad of past programs, of which have been centered around the same aesthetics. You don’t have to be young or old to enjoy the multiple layers of satire and parody present throughout the series, just as you don’t have to be a certain age or demographic to buy into the show’s humor. Why? Why has a show like The Simpsons become so immensely popular and significant? I argue that the show’s importance and popularity arises from its critique every cultural aspect of the American way of life through a variety of comedic styles (satire, parody, lowbrow, and highbrow). Furthermore I postulate that the show’s unique blend of comedic styles and subject critiques makes it more accessible to both domestic and global audiences.

Growing up, I loved watching The Simpsons mostly because of all the ridiculous shenanigans, whether they pertained to Homer’s buffoonish and drunken disposition, or Bart’s anarchic and hyperactive personality. Even today I still watch the show but I’m blown away by the number of satirical references and cultural critiques that were previously well over my head. This is something that makes the show into an all-Americana-consuming conglomerate; even if you’re unaware, you’re still not safe. But the aesthetic blend of comedic styles compliments and allows for the show to function as a vehicle of criticism towards everything- nationally or internationally. This differentiates the show from being considered crude and “obscene” (I say that loosely) compared to the likes of South Park, etc.

Let’s examine a few different episodes and the devices employed within. In the episode ‘Helter Shelter’ (s14), Homer receives skybox tickets after agreeing not to sue the power plant for physical bodily damage. As the family nears the stadium they realize that the tickets are for a hockey game, to which they all groan, before the shot cuts to the rest of the crowd realizing that the event is a hockey game, rather than something “more enjoyable.” Even as a gross over-dramatization of what’s perceived as an exciting sport, we’re left to agree or disagree with the show’s treatment of hockey as more boring than something like basketball. Perhaps this two second fragment stands to poke fun at what could be considered Americans’ limited attention spans and desire for sports with a more “productive” pace. 

What is so unique about the Simpsons world is that the environment is constantly changing, as if Springfield is a labyrinth existing in some marginalized bubble of America, meaning that no matter where the Simpsons family goes, the background crowd is almost always made up of recognizable and recurring characters. During the hockey game we are introduced to an establishing shot of some never before seen Springfield mega-arena, where the family and rest of the town presently preside.

Cut inside and we’re presented with a critique and satire of the differentiation between “normal seating” and “skybox seating.” The Simpsons family is the only group of people in line being ushered to a red-carpet-escalator entrance and greeted by a butler, while the rest of the people wait in an adjacent and congested line. The butler offers Homer some cologne to which he obliges and asks for one made of ‘ground up whale.’ 

While pompously spraying the cologne, we see one of Homer’s best friends, Lenny glaring at him from the ‘cheap’ line. “What do we get?” he asks the security guard, only to be greeted with a punch to the stomach. Even though I blew this small situation out of proportion, it highlights a wealth gap and preferential treatment that money or status entails. Furthermore it employs Homer as a dysfunctional buffoon from the lower middle class, who treats complimentary skybox tickets and treatment the same way that one would expect someone of similar demographic to do so in real life. Kids are laughing at Lenny and other recognizable characters being punched in the stomach, while older viewers chuckle at the whale-based perfume (BlowHole) being offered as a perk for buying skybox tickets to a hockey game; America.

"Are we supposed to tip these guy, or what?"

From Grey’s Imagining America: The Simpsons and the Anti-Suburb Go Global, he poses that “Homer is playfully drawn as a drone-like ideal consumer, subject to any and all fads and advertising plugs,” which reinforces the origins of his behavior while waiting to enter the skybox. Though these American behavior patterns do not pertain exclusively to Homer, as we later see Bart, Maggie, and Marge mimic Homer’s drone-like consumerism while watching the actual hockey game. Everyone except Lisa (who remains one of the few characters actively aware of her surroundings) is enjoying the dramaticized perks of the skybox such as an unlimited amount of sushi, a hot tub, and a snooty French artist offering to paint portraits. These are unfathomed and ridiculous perks that would cease to exist in a real life scenario, but again the Simpsons universe employs excess as a way to critique American and consumer culture. We’re then given a high-angle shot (from the skybox) to where regulars, Barney, Moe, and Lenny quote, “Hey’ Homer’s looking down his nose at us, let’s take Mr. Figgy Pudding down a peg,” clearly a pun that operates on a few different levels, both high and lowbrow. As the regulars attempt to form a chain to reach the skybox, Homer snobbishly retorts, “tsk, tsk, why can’t they be happy for my success?” before dumping a cauldron of hot fudge onto them.

Now this is so ridiculous but characteristic of the show and series, as these comedic antics serve as innocuous surface humor, while illustrating the sheer ridiculousness of a consumer activity mirroring flaws and insecurities of contemporary American society.

I’ll be brief but the episode progresses to where Lisa frees herself from the skybox antics, advises one of the Russian hockey players how to score on the goalie, and then receives his hockey stick. Homer nails the stick above Lisa’s bed and the following morning the house begins falling apart, where it’s eventually concluded that the hockey stick has infested the house with Russian fighting termites. Even in a small scenario as such The Simpsons’ bubble draws all corners of the world (even figures like country presidents (ie: GB senior) into its dysfunctional interpretation of American culture and the quintessential nuclear family.

The show further treats every character as a passive consumer incapable of having an authentic opinion, and instead highly polarized. In Marge vs. The Monorail, a slick salesman is able to throw around some choice words and convince the entire town to invest in a fucking monorail, while Marge remains the only rational voice. But she’s thrown under the bus and when the project fails, everyone is instantly polarized back to “well, whose fault is it for not convincing us that we didn’t need one?” I argue that each episode ends with little comfortability and closure (with some exceptions), hardly ever coming full circle. Instead the audience is given a certain amount of intricate and layered critiques of aspects from the American way of life, and left with just that. Make what you want about it but The Simpsons does whatever the fuck it wants, the universe exists in Everytown, America, in a bubble littered with excessive paradigms of American consumer culture that often expands into foreign domains (Russians in s14e5). Combined with a unique blend of comedic styles, The Simpsons is not only easily accessible to anyone from Americans to people in countries where they maybe feel the show to be a remedy towards the impacts of cultural imperialism.

Hi I’m Troy McClure, you may remember me from such films as,

-Alice’s Adventures Through the Windshield Glass

-Mommy, What’s Wrong with that Man’s Face?

-Man vs. Nature; the Road to Victory

-Christmas Ape

-Christmas Ape Goes to Summer Camp

-Hydro: the Man with the Hydraulic Arms

-Lead Paint: Delicious, but Deadly

-Let’s Save Tony Orlando’s House

-An American in Toronto

-The Frontier Family Gets Deer Ticks

-Human Fondue: Surviving the Wisconsin Dell’s Cheese Factory Explosion

References

1. Gray, J. (2003). Imagining America: The Simpsons and the Anti-Suburb Go Global. Conference Papers -- International Communication Association, 1-23. doi:ica_proceeding_11428.PDF

2. Kaiser, R. (2014, April 20). The Simpsons:. "Two Bad Neighbors" · TV Club · The A.V. Club. Retrieved May 1, 2014, from http://www.avclub.com/tvclub/simpsons-two-bad-neighbors-203626?utm_medium=RSS&utm_campaign=feeds

3. Ellis, I. (2013, June 23). Is 'The Simpsons' TVs Most Sacred Show?. PopMatters. Retrieved May 1, 2014, from http://www.popmatters.com/column/172555-the-simpsons-tvs-most-sacred-show/

4. Episodes: Helter Shelter, Marge vs. the Monorail, Two Bad Neighbors.

Welcome to the Jam: Come on and Slam

At some point or another every one of us have watched some kind of reality television to some extent, or are at least familiar with the idea. Whether it is a game show or a slice of life show the premise is still basically the same: the show is about real people’s real reactions to situations. Of course anyone who has actually watched a fair amount of reality television knows that this isn't always the case. Many of these shows have sponsors that of course want to get the most out of the money they invested, and thus insist on changing and editing aspects of the show to make it, they believe, more appealing. This can quickly lead to some very not real aspects interjected into what is supposed to be reality television. The expectations and conventions of contemporary reality television can undermine and corrupt the aspect of genuineness that should be at the core of this genre. To help show this we will look at two similar reality based shows, one which choked itself with a corporate sponsorship and another that allowed reality back in reality television with great results.

            To begin with let us look at a failed show that burned and crashed spectacularly, Game Jam. For those who may not know a game jam is when some small time developers, usually called indie developers, come together and make games with limited time and resources. Originally the show was simply going to be a kind of documentary meant to show what it is actually like to make a game. However it quickly grew beyond itself and attracted some high level sponsors, Pepsi. Over time the focus of the show changed from its documentary base to a full blown competition between the teams, to better please the sponsors, The competition involved physical challenges and competitive gaming, which has nothing to do with the original purpose of the show, game designing. Once the game developers were flown out to the set and filming began things got even worse. Early into filming representatives from Pepsi barred any drink from the filming floor that wasn’t Mountain Dew or water, forced contestants to change their dress style, shouted at people for not holding Mountain Dew bottles properly on camera, and lectured everyone on how to smile properly when drinking it.  While this upset all of the contestants, and many others working on the production, it was only the tip of the iceberg to come. Namely the Pepsi representatives purposely trying to inflame minor arguments just for the sake of drama and asking blatantly sexist questions of the contestants and then cutting them off when they didn’t get the answer they wanted, a sexist and derogatory one.  After a long day of being treated horribly all of the contestants decided to band together and walk out on the production, thus ending the shortest and most expensive game jam ever (Rosen, 2014).

            The other show that we will be comparing Game Jam to is The Gauntlet season two. The Gauntlet is a video game competition show created and made by a long time web content producer Rooster Teeth. The second season of the show features four teams of competitor competing in an increasingly ridiculous series of video game related challenges to eventually declare a sole winner. One of the biggest differences between The Gauntlet Season Two and Game Jam is that The Gauntlet, even while having corporate sponsors, allowed much more freedom to is contestants to allow their stories to grow naturally. One of the creators of the show and one of its hosts Michael Burns, more popularly known as Burnie Burns, has said that they originally were going to try to have it be a bit more scripted but quickly abandoned that idea once they realized that it would hurt the show and that the contestant would make it interesting all on their own (Burns, Jones, Gustavo , and Free, 2014). This shows a fundamental difference between the two shows, Game Jam wanted to make a reality show while The Gauntlet wanted to make reality into a show.

            The biggest thing to take away from this comparison is that Pepsi is scummy and awful. The second biggest thing to take away is that the main reason Game Jam failed is not because of its content put but because its sponsors tried to make it fit within the expectations of what they believed a reality show is, product placement surround by pointless drama.  Through their product shoehorning, purposeful antagonizing, and sexism they choked any kind of natural growth of story and creativity. Thus betraying one of the core concepts of reality television: real people’s real reactions.  In contrast Rooster Teeth’s The Gauntlet allowed their competitions to unfold much more naturally and even poked fun at contemporary reality show conventions with purposely bad edits and wacky immunity items such as a pool, a large wrench, and a dog. This more open approach lead to a good show loved by many while Game Jam lead to nothing but anger and resentment.

            All in all Game Jam had great potential to show people what it is actually like to make games but it was snuffed out by corporate greed. Their belief that sticking dogmatically to reality show conventions would create the best product to bring them the greatest profit with the lowest risk is what crushed any kind genuineness and interest in the show. By looking at a similar show, The Gauntlet, we truly see that Game Jam was possible and could have been incredibly popular if these conventions were not adhered to. Sadly it is likely that because the Game Jam incident left such a bad taste in the mouth of everyone associated with it that a show like it will not be attempted again any time soon. But seriously, Pepsi as a company is pretty scummy.

Works Cited

Rosen, Jared. "How The Most Expensive Game Jam In History Crashed And Burned In A Single Day." Indie Statik. N.p., 31 Mar. 2014. Web. 19 Apr. 2014. <http://indiestatik.com/2014/03/31/most-expensive-game-jam/>.

Burns, Michael, Michael Jones, Sorola Gustavo , and Gavin Free, perf. "Rooster Teeth Podcast 266." Rooster Teeth Podcast. Rooster Teeth, 8 Apr 2014. web. 8 Apr 2014. <http://roosterteeth.com/podcast/episode.php?id=266>.