Like all who’ve watched this bizarre happening from the beginning, I have a few thoughts on Glee. These are going to be completely stream-of-consciousness because I quite like the idea of just putting stuff out there these days, as opposed to overthinking and –editing until I get tired of talking about it. I will, however, review and refine these thoughts later, once I’ve teased out what I think are the most interesting points. So, these are subject to change, please let me know if I’ve said something inaccurate or problematic so I can consider and rectify my mistakes, or if you agree or disagree with these ramblings in general. Thanks! Now, onward!
So, everybody’s favourite “is that still on?” musical dramedy after-school special show choir series with Jane Lynch in it, Glee, is indeed coming to an end after its sixth season. Long-time followers of the show, including myself, were both ecstatic and slightly sad, as although it remains a steadfast guilty pleasure, after the first or second season (maybe the third, depending on who you ask), the series swiftly lost whatever understated “black humour” charm it once had (did you know Joss Whedon directed an episode of season one?)1
The series’ writers struggled to mix “edgy, nasty humour” vibes with “inspirational underdog story with iTunes bestselling covers” vibes. The racist, ableist, homophobic or just generally ignorant jokes were difficult to swallow when they were coming from characters we were also supposed to find admirable. Despite its cries of self-empowerment and -belief, dismantling social hierarchies and honouring underdogs, the series began a long history of employing the “male saviour” trope, with “heroic” straight white male character swooping in to save their insecure women and gay men, usually through song. Also, there were more annoying jokes about lesbians scissoring than most family shows tend to include.
Characters graduated and moved from William McKinley High to New York City (cue wish fulfilment and random celebrity cameos), they brought in several stock characters to replace the graduates in season four. It was a hot mess. By season six they swept those forgettable characters under the achingly hipster vintage rug in Rachel’s Brooklyn loft and brought in some new new kids, and all of the original graduates decided just to hang around their old high school every day.
And yet, we watched. Or hate-watched. We laughed at the revolving door policy for wildly inconsistent and forgettable characters (Sugar Motta, dreadlock guy, Demi Lovato's character, that guy Matt), complained joyously about the confusing, swirling dirge of storylines which are never resolved, and watched agape as the show became increasingly meta, pointing out its flaws and spiralling into strange, surreal, self-referential madness. At its best, it’s fun and affecting, at its worst, well, it makes you feel a lot better about the weird fan fiction you wrote when you were 14, because at least you were consistent.
(btw, I just found this hilariously titled article on the Glee Wiki that addresses the inconsistencies and weirdness - fans don't miss a beat, aha.)
Anyway, what I wanted to talk about today constitutes one of the major flaws the series presented since quite early on, and that’s its representation of marginalised groups and minorities. Because, as much as it’s fun to make fun of how bad Glee is, this is a pretty troubling issue that the series has not exactly worked on improving.
Glee has always prided itself on its varied cast and themes of inclusion, featuring characters of different races, abilities, and sexualities early on. Arguably the straight white male was still the cast’s heroic leader, in student Finn and teacher Will, but hey, there was a kid in a wheelchair, an effeminate gay guy and a goth Asian girl, soooo yay representation! They were there. They sang. But seriously, many individual episodes focused on the characters’ struggles with difference or feeling unacceptable as they are, from Rachel being ashamed of her “Jewish” nose, Artie wishing he didn’t need his wheelchair, to Santana struggling with her sexuality. The foregrounding of issues of identity in teens and young adults is a core component of the series’ modis operandi, with a particular focus on self-confidence and –belief. Again, whether or not this is done effectively, or with any respect for their audience, is another matter, but the “after school special” intentions of the series are clear.
The series has also always prided itself on its edgy or black humour, and interestingly, many of the show’s jokes, from “villain” characters (Sue, Santana) and “hero” characters (Rachel, Brittany) alike, have been rooted in more or less laughing at minorities. The “running joke” of Brittany mixing up Unique and Mercedes, the series' two black female-presenting characters, is one example. The jokes like these, from characters that we otherwise root for, are ambiguous – it wasn’t exactly “oh Brittany, you’re so clueless you can’t tell two individuals apart,” more “oh yes you’re right, there are two black female-presenting individuals with big singing voices here! Haha just like Aretha Franklin, amirite?!”
It’s said that the role of satire is to punch up and critique the protected, dominant culture, rather than punch down to poke fun at oppressed minorities. Glee has the chance to do this, but never does. Whilst Sue makes fun of Will’s hair a lot, she doesn’t joke about his male saviour complex, or about how he belittles certain students and favours others from his privileged position as teacher, about how he planted weed on a student to blackmail them, or about the fact that he was a Spanish teacher who didn’t speak Spanish (I’m still mad about this last one). There’s plenty to critique about him that would be more hard-hitting, that would really break down their flaws and flaws in our society. But nope, all we can critique about Will is his curly hair.2
Tonally Glee has been way off the mark for a long time. Hell, once a male character admitted that he was sexually abused as a child by an older woman, and when his male friends shockingly whooped in awe ("awesome, every boy’s dream come true," etc), Will told them to be quiet, but didn’t punish them or point out why that is such a harmful view to express. A female character suffering from an eating disorder passed out from exhaustion during an important glee club performance, and her peers groaned and blamed her for their loss and made fun of her, and at no point was this pointed out as wrong or insensitive.
It’s like the writers of Glee believe that simply featuring a character from a minority group, or mentioning a traumatic or difficult topic, is enough to lend the show weight and hubris and “educational value” for its young audience. They simply mention these differences or experiences, often in deeply problematic ways, and yet never, even in a satirical or humorous way, suggest how we can respectfully or safely navigate these issues in our own lives. Ultimately, Glee comes across as making fun of serious issues, rather than making fun of those who are ignorant or insensitive.
There’s also the “Very Special Episode” issue, which likely requires a whole separate discussion.3 In earlier series of Glee, same-sex kisses or cliffhangers were used to drum up extra viewers, but in 2013, during season 4, an episode centred on a school shooting scare aired, just four months after news of unspeakably tragic real-life school shooting was heard across the world. Critical responses to this ranged from harrowing and emotional to exploitative and manipulative, and whilst the acting in the episode was effective and understated, I unfortunately tend to agree with the latter reaction.4 It just seemed to me as if the show was jumping on to a hot button issue for the sake of it; the trauma of the scare was forgotten almost immediately, and life moved on at William McKinley High without another mention of the event.
Could this lack of depth actually be a good thing? Perhaps our family television doesn’t need to educate or serve justice to every insensitive commenter, and perhaps it is better to leave things up for discussion than setting down any kind of moral imperative. I’m not sure how to feel about this. Whilst the series loves the “individual underdogs come together to lift each other up” trope, it also relies on mean-spirited humour that pokes fun at difference, and often characters express more derision than support towards one another. Problematic statements about race or trauma or ability or personal expression are left hanging without resolution, and often come from the mouths of characters we are supposed to admire and root for. Heavy issues are dropped for shock value, and then forgotten about. In short, the series tries to be all things for all people – we're supposed to watch and be inspired, but also laugh at how awful everyone is. Considering all this, perhaps Glee is better off staying away from content it can’t handle respectfully.
Next I wanna talk about the representation of a couple of particular groups in Glee’s past and present, then about its unique relationship with its audience and fan fiction, and also about metafiction and jokes within the series. I love reading Glee critiques and conversations, so if you have any thoughts, I'd love to hear them!
1 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dream_On_(Glee)
2 Sue is a difficult character because whilst she was initially painted as a two-dimensional, moustache-twiddling villain, she’s stuck around long enough that she can’t sustain that, and the writers have attempted at different times to give her some admirable or sympathetic qualities. She even helps to support the Glee club at times, and they have supported her during times of need, for example at her sister’s funeral. The fact that she has these moments of expressing actual human emotion, and at times acts out of kindness, but then returns to being a cardboard cut-out meanie pants, is dissonant and jarring and weird. But more on that another time.
3 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Very_special_episode
4 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shooting_Star_(Glee), I am all over this Wikipedia-as-a-source game today hey.
So, everybody’s favourite “is that still on?” musical dramedy after-school special show choir series with Jane Lynch in it, Glee, is indeed coming to an end after its sixth season. Long-time followers of the show, including myself, were both ecstatic and slightly sad, as although it remains a steadfast guilty pleasure, after the first or second season (maybe the third, depending on who you ask), the series swiftly lost whatever understated “black humour” charm it once had (did you know Joss Whedon directed an episode of season one?)1
The series’ writers struggled to mix “edgy, nasty humour” vibes with “inspirational underdog story with iTunes bestselling covers” vibes. The racist, ableist, homophobic or just generally ignorant jokes were difficult to swallow when they were coming from characters we were also supposed to find admirable. Despite its cries of self-empowerment and -belief, dismantling social hierarchies and honouring underdogs, the series began a long history of employing the “male saviour” trope, with “heroic” straight white male character swooping in to save their insecure women and gay men, usually through song. Also, there were more annoying jokes about lesbians scissoring than most family shows tend to include.
Characters graduated and moved from William McKinley High to New York City (cue wish fulfilment and random celebrity cameos), they brought in several stock characters to replace the graduates in season four. It was a hot mess. By season six they swept those forgettable characters under the achingly hipster vintage rug in Rachel’s Brooklyn loft and brought in some new new kids, and all of the original graduates decided just to hang around their old high school every day.
And yet, we watched. Or hate-watched. We laughed at the revolving door policy for wildly inconsistent and forgettable characters (Sugar Motta, dreadlock guy, Demi Lovato's character, that guy Matt), complained joyously about the confusing, swirling dirge of storylines which are never resolved, and watched agape as the show became increasingly meta, pointing out its flaws and spiralling into strange, surreal, self-referential madness. At its best, it’s fun and affecting, at its worst, well, it makes you feel a lot better about the weird fan fiction you wrote when you were 14, because at least you were consistent.
(btw, I just found this hilariously titled article on the Glee Wiki that addresses the inconsistencies and weirdness - fans don't miss a beat, aha.)
Anyway, what I wanted to talk about today constitutes one of the major flaws the series presented since quite early on, and that’s its representation of marginalised groups and minorities. Because, as much as it’s fun to make fun of how bad Glee is, this is a pretty troubling issue that the series has not exactly worked on improving.
Glee has always prided itself on its varied cast and themes of inclusion, featuring characters of different races, abilities, and sexualities early on. Arguably the straight white male was still the cast’s heroic leader, in student Finn and teacher Will, but hey, there was a kid in a wheelchair, an effeminate gay guy and a goth Asian girl, soooo yay representation! They were there. They sang. But seriously, many individual episodes focused on the characters’ struggles with difference or feeling unacceptable as they are, from Rachel being ashamed of her “Jewish” nose, Artie wishing he didn’t need his wheelchair, to Santana struggling with her sexuality. The foregrounding of issues of identity in teens and young adults is a core component of the series’ modis operandi, with a particular focus on self-confidence and –belief. Again, whether or not this is done effectively, or with any respect for their audience, is another matter, but the “after school special” intentions of the series are clear.
The series has also always prided itself on its edgy or black humour, and interestingly, many of the show’s jokes, from “villain” characters (Sue, Santana) and “hero” characters (Rachel, Brittany) alike, have been rooted in more or less laughing at minorities. The “running joke” of Brittany mixing up Unique and Mercedes, the series' two black female-presenting characters, is one example. The jokes like these, from characters that we otherwise root for, are ambiguous – it wasn’t exactly “oh Brittany, you’re so clueless you can’t tell two individuals apart,” more “oh yes you’re right, there are two black female-presenting individuals with big singing voices here! Haha just like Aretha Franklin, amirite?!”
It’s said that the role of satire is to punch up and critique the protected, dominant culture, rather than punch down to poke fun at oppressed minorities. Glee has the chance to do this, but never does. Whilst Sue makes fun of Will’s hair a lot, she doesn’t joke about his male saviour complex, or about how he belittles certain students and favours others from his privileged position as teacher, about how he planted weed on a student to blackmail them, or about the fact that he was a Spanish teacher who didn’t speak Spanish (I’m still mad about this last one). There’s plenty to critique about him that would be more hard-hitting, that would really break down their flaws and flaws in our society. But nope, all we can critique about Will is his curly hair.2
Tonally Glee has been way off the mark for a long time. Hell, once a male character admitted that he was sexually abused as a child by an older woman, and when his male friends shockingly whooped in awe ("awesome, every boy’s dream come true," etc), Will told them to be quiet, but didn’t punish them or point out why that is such a harmful view to express. A female character suffering from an eating disorder passed out from exhaustion during an important glee club performance, and her peers groaned and blamed her for their loss and made fun of her, and at no point was this pointed out as wrong or insensitive.
It’s like the writers of Glee believe that simply featuring a character from a minority group, or mentioning a traumatic or difficult topic, is enough to lend the show weight and hubris and “educational value” for its young audience. They simply mention these differences or experiences, often in deeply problematic ways, and yet never, even in a satirical or humorous way, suggest how we can respectfully or safely navigate these issues in our own lives. Ultimately, Glee comes across as making fun of serious issues, rather than making fun of those who are ignorant or insensitive.
There’s also the “Very Special Episode” issue, which likely requires a whole separate discussion.3 In earlier series of Glee, same-sex kisses or cliffhangers were used to drum up extra viewers, but in 2013, during season 4, an episode centred on a school shooting scare aired, just four months after news of unspeakably tragic real-life school shooting was heard across the world. Critical responses to this ranged from harrowing and emotional to exploitative and manipulative, and whilst the acting in the episode was effective and understated, I unfortunately tend to agree with the latter reaction.4 It just seemed to me as if the show was jumping on to a hot button issue for the sake of it; the trauma of the scare was forgotten almost immediately, and life moved on at William McKinley High without another mention of the event.
Could this lack of depth actually be a good thing? Perhaps our family television doesn’t need to educate or serve justice to every insensitive commenter, and perhaps it is better to leave things up for discussion than setting down any kind of moral imperative. I’m not sure how to feel about this. Whilst the series loves the “individual underdogs come together to lift each other up” trope, it also relies on mean-spirited humour that pokes fun at difference, and often characters express more derision than support towards one another. Problematic statements about race or trauma or ability or personal expression are left hanging without resolution, and often come from the mouths of characters we are supposed to admire and root for. Heavy issues are dropped for shock value, and then forgotten about. In short, the series tries to be all things for all people – we're supposed to watch and be inspired, but also laugh at how awful everyone is. Considering all this, perhaps Glee is better off staying away from content it can’t handle respectfully.
Next I wanna talk about the representation of a couple of particular groups in Glee’s past and present, then about its unique relationship with its audience and fan fiction, and also about metafiction and jokes within the series. I love reading Glee critiques and conversations, so if you have any thoughts, I'd love to hear them!
1 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dream_On_(Glee)
2 Sue is a difficult character because whilst she was initially painted as a two-dimensional, moustache-twiddling villain, she’s stuck around long enough that she can’t sustain that, and the writers have attempted at different times to give her some admirable or sympathetic qualities. She even helps to support the Glee club at times, and they have supported her during times of need, for example at her sister’s funeral. The fact that she has these moments of expressing actual human emotion, and at times acts out of kindness, but then returns to being a cardboard cut-out meanie pants, is dissonant and jarring and weird. But more on that another time.
3 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Very_special_episode
4 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shooting_Star_(Glee), I am all over this Wikipedia-as-a-source game today hey.
