Column Fodder: The Queer Eyes Have It
Aug. 15th, 2003 09:34 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
eggwardsFive guys take over a person's life and make it over. It's Fabulous!
That might have been the sales pitch for the Bravo show Queer Eye for the Straight Guy. The question was, did the pitch come with the word "gay" or not? How important was that to the whole scheme of the show? Very important. It makes the difference between being a talked-about show and a show left to the doldrums of cable television hell (which is still known as the rest of Bravo's programming).
Gays on television are being talked about. When Ellen's coming out a few years ago was seen as scandalous, Will and Grace has been widely accepted. When the Loud family appeared in the first reality TV show, PBS' An American Family, it was a shock to find out the son was gay. Now reality TV shows regularly feature a gay person. Billy Crystal played one of the first openly gay characters on television and stations were pre-empting Soap for less controversial programming. Strangely enough, a prime-time showing of Queer Eye last night was also pre-empted by several stations in the South, almost 30 years later.
As the Queer Eye theme song says, things just keep getting better.
There's been several stories lately highlighting the number for shows with gay themes are on television, or in production. Television has found it's gay voice. The question becomes, what are the straights seeing in us?
One of the biggest lighting rods has ben Queer Eye's fashionista, Carson Kressley. Kressley is well educated and well heeled, but the show makes him look catty and vain. Is he really like that in real life or just on the show? We may never know. While the show comes off as genuine and the "Fab 5" seem dedicated to making life better for their chosen project, the clips of carson seem to be trying to drive home the differences between him and the straight man.
Another show, also on Bravo that seems to try to make a dividing line between gay and straight is Boy meets Boy. The gay dating show features several straight men, posed to fool the guy who is just trying to find a date. This is a twist that has never been tried on other dating shows. ABC's The Bachelor has never had to worry that there's a lesbian lurking behind that cheerleader facade. What's the thrill? to try to sort out the straights from the gays? To laugh at him if he picks the straight boy? There's a cash reward if the straight "boy" is chosen but the star, but a date is enough for the gay guy?
One more question, do the other gay suitors know they are competing with the straight guys? form the episode the other night, it didn't appear so.
Is this the face the gay community wants? Is the important part that gays are on TV, being seen, and the perceptions can be fixed? Strangely enough, the most "normal" view of gay life may have come from Fox's Normal, Ohio which came and went in the matter of days, not weeks. The problem with the show wasn't Actor John Goodman's portrayal of a big, hairy gay man living in Ohio, or the fact that the character didn't come off as stereotypically gay. The problem with the show was that it was so poorly written with wacky characters surrounding Goodman. While some might have seen it as a failure to bring a gay show on the air, the fact was it was poor quality that doomed the show.
The image that seems to be portrayed most often is the slightly, but not to much of a queen, effeminate male. Is it the fact that the stereotype is so identifiable? One would think that its a kind of shorthand, here's a character, we need viewers to know in ten minutes that he's gay. What can we do without him kissing a guy? There seems to be a lack of actual intimacy, or dating (see Will of Will and Grace). Did Matt on Melrose Place ever have a date? lacking this, there has to be other hints to the viewer that he's gay, especially if he's not out.
People wonder if the normal gay man is truly portrayed. Is it just a fear that a "straight acting" guy would scare viewers? "He's just like us! He could infiltrate our communities!" Perhaps there's something wrong with a gay man who looks like he could be your plumber. Perhaps people don't perceive gays as having normal lives, that every-thing's a cabaret, my friend.
Shows with gay themes can make it on the air, and do succeed. There are several more planned for the upcoming TV season. While Christian groups are rabble-rousing and lamenting that these shows might be ruining their standards of decency, the fact is, nothing stays on the air if it doesn't bring in revenue. if these shows aren't being watched, they will disappear. The fact that NBC put Queer Eye in prime time at the end of the Thursday block, replacing reruns of ER (which fair poorly in reruns anyway) doesn't mean that they are pushing an agenda, or they are fighting for acceptance, it means there was advertising revenue to be made. Any show with as much buzz as Queer Eye would have gotten on.
The Revolution will be advertised!
That might have been the sales pitch for the Bravo show Queer Eye for the Straight Guy. The question was, did the pitch come with the word "gay" or not? How important was that to the whole scheme of the show? Very important. It makes the difference between being a talked-about show and a show left to the doldrums of cable television hell (which is still known as the rest of Bravo's programming).
Gays on television are being talked about. When Ellen's coming out a few years ago was seen as scandalous, Will and Grace has been widely accepted. When the Loud family appeared in the first reality TV show, PBS' An American Family, it was a shock to find out the son was gay. Now reality TV shows regularly feature a gay person. Billy Crystal played one of the first openly gay characters on television and stations were pre-empting Soap for less controversial programming. Strangely enough, a prime-time showing of Queer Eye last night was also pre-empted by several stations in the South, almost 30 years later.
As the Queer Eye theme song says, things just keep getting better.
There's been several stories lately highlighting the number for shows with gay themes are on television, or in production. Television has found it's gay voice. The question becomes, what are the straights seeing in us?
One of the biggest lighting rods has ben Queer Eye's fashionista, Carson Kressley. Kressley is well educated and well heeled, but the show makes him look catty and vain. Is he really like that in real life or just on the show? We may never know. While the show comes off as genuine and the "Fab 5" seem dedicated to making life better for their chosen project, the clips of carson seem to be trying to drive home the differences between him and the straight man.
Another show, also on Bravo that seems to try to make a dividing line between gay and straight is Boy meets Boy. The gay dating show features several straight men, posed to fool the guy who is just trying to find a date. This is a twist that has never been tried on other dating shows. ABC's The Bachelor has never had to worry that there's a lesbian lurking behind that cheerleader facade. What's the thrill? to try to sort out the straights from the gays? To laugh at him if he picks the straight boy? There's a cash reward if the straight "boy" is chosen but the star, but a date is enough for the gay guy?
One more question, do the other gay suitors know they are competing with the straight guys? form the episode the other night, it didn't appear so.
Is this the face the gay community wants? Is the important part that gays are on TV, being seen, and the perceptions can be fixed? Strangely enough, the most "normal" view of gay life may have come from Fox's Normal, Ohio which came and went in the matter of days, not weeks. The problem with the show wasn't Actor John Goodman's portrayal of a big, hairy gay man living in Ohio, or the fact that the character didn't come off as stereotypically gay. The problem with the show was that it was so poorly written with wacky characters surrounding Goodman. While some might have seen it as a failure to bring a gay show on the air, the fact was it was poor quality that doomed the show.
The image that seems to be portrayed most often is the slightly, but not to much of a queen, effeminate male. Is it the fact that the stereotype is so identifiable? One would think that its a kind of shorthand, here's a character, we need viewers to know in ten minutes that he's gay. What can we do without him kissing a guy? There seems to be a lack of actual intimacy, or dating (see Will of Will and Grace). Did Matt on Melrose Place ever have a date? lacking this, there has to be other hints to the viewer that he's gay, especially if he's not out.
People wonder if the normal gay man is truly portrayed. Is it just a fear that a "straight acting" guy would scare viewers? "He's just like us! He could infiltrate our communities!" Perhaps there's something wrong with a gay man who looks like he could be your plumber. Perhaps people don't perceive gays as having normal lives, that every-thing's a cabaret, my friend.
Shows with gay themes can make it on the air, and do succeed. There are several more planned for the upcoming TV season. While Christian groups are rabble-rousing and lamenting that these shows might be ruining their standards of decency, the fact is, nothing stays on the air if it doesn't bring in revenue. if these shows aren't being watched, they will disappear. The fact that NBC put Queer Eye in prime time at the end of the Thursday block, replacing reruns of ER (which fair poorly in reruns anyway) doesn't mean that they are pushing an agenda, or they are fighting for acceptance, it means there was advertising revenue to be made. Any show with as much buzz as Queer Eye would have gotten on.
The Revolution will be advertised!
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2003-08-15 07:59 am (UTC)I don't get the same impression of Kressley at all. He's pretty clearly being over the top for comedic effect. His cattiness seems to be more good-humored chastising of their charge than meanness. He doesn't seem excessively vain to me, and I consider myself more critical of vanity than most. Clearly he's not the most attractive man around. He even compares his physical appearance to Ellen Degeneris; not exactly a paragon of physical beauty.
no subject
Date: 2003-08-17 12:05 pm (UTC)My question is is this an image (and it's only one image) that's good for the gay community? Are we being bombarded with a narrow image of the community when we know that it's much more diverse? I think it's good to just be visible, but I think we all hope for a wider view. If we are everywhere, and we are, the it will be good to be able to show this.
no subject
Date: 2003-08-15 08:01 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2003-08-15 02:19 pm (UTC)I couldn't agree more. I saw the first episode and was disgusted at the inclusion of straight guys, and the fact the star? protagonist? wasn't told.
Did they put married women in "The Batchelor?" No. (I don't think...) Same idea.
no subject
Date: 2003-08-15 08:08 am (UTC)Do I wish the men were slightly more mixed, like a bear, a fem, a twink, a jock? Sure, but who knows, maybe down the road.. The thing we have to remember is that it is for entertainment purposes, and fortunately or not, gays on t.v. are in demand right now. So I choose to sit back and be entertained, while throwing my support to the channels who choose to air it.
Hopefully we'll get lucky and have a bear survivor soon! 8-)
no subject
Date: 2003-08-15 10:48 am (UTC)David could replace Jai as the culture maven, even!
I'm not sure if we could use a bear to replace Kyan as a grooming expert. The idea is a makeover, and in some of these cases, a bear probably wouldn't advocate much of a change.
Bear Survivor. Hmmmm…
Somehow I smell a porno waiting to happen. *grin*
no subject
Date: 2003-08-15 11:26 am (UTC)Did you happen to see the show "Under One Roof" ?? It was a reality show with families competing for a tahitian hide-a-way, and there was this bear on there.... Good Lord! I was sad to see the show cancelled, cause he made it worth my hour.
Bear Survivor.. Sign me up, please !!
no subject
Date: 2003-08-17 08:08 am (UTC)I'm getting Mark Burnett on the phone now!
no subject
Date: 2003-08-15 08:42 am (UTC)I've written about this before and I hardily believe that Normal, Ohio failed cause it was too realistic. Goodman had a family around him that hated him deeply. The entire show revolved around how much scorn they could reap at him. All these side characters grew to be shrill and unredeemable. Thats hour-long drama territory. TV-scorn has to be diluted like the cross-class tension between Frasier and the other members of Cheers. You put up the kind of bile that the family on Normal, Ohio directed at John Goodman and the humor dies away because you don't know what to laugh at. And its John fucking Goodman of all people, we can't hate him, we can't see him as anything as lovable so the fact that his family hated him, like he was a stain on the carpet of their dreary house (which happened to be the same set as Roseanne) didn't click at all. No matter how hard the writers tried to express the kind of shit that children of conservative parents go through. Remember when Jack's mother found out he was gay, there was an issue there, Jack doubted how she would take it. A tension filled that show, made the laughs happen and then was brushed away as she made some catty comment. Thats how sitcom handles it, not episode after episode of scorn and ridicule at a character the audience is required to love, it ruined the show. And for that I am very sad, cause there was something really pure and strong and well written somewhere in that show.
If the gay guy chooses a gay guy, he gets a date and 25 grand. If he chooses a straight guy, he gets 25 grand and no date. So, he doesn't "lose" anything but his wagered pride. I think the show might do some good things as to erode the barrier between "Straight" and "Gay". As we see both men side by side, and note how much they have in common, how useless some of the stereotypes are (pays too much attention to hair...c'mon, does anyone on these reality shows not strike you as the kind of guy who doesn't pay attention to how he looks.) and other stereotypes. Maybe it will create new ones, but it challenges the untested preconcieved notions about what a gay man looks and acts like.
I hope to see more of the gay community represented but its probably not in sitcoms. Unless we are in every sitcom and thats hard. But, what these new gay moment can hope to is create a set of characters varied enough to diminish the old stereotypes and create a new set that is more representative of our variety and our strengths. This new type, I'd hope will then become available to television creators.
Where is the Michael?
Date: 2003-08-15 08:57 am (UTC)Fiction writers frequently use stereotypes for incidental characters (the Irish priest, the snobbish heiress, the hoity-toity starlet). One of your commentors rightly observed that in the 22 minutes of actual program in a 30-minute sitcom, cutting to the chase in a character is essential. Are the gay men in QEftSG victims of this shortcut? How does that impact their portrayal? Is race or baldness enough diversity from Carson's iconic flamboyance, or does the show really "need" a paunchy carpenter with plumber-butt?
As I said, this is a nice piece of writing. You should be proud. If you put some of yourself into it, the piece will be essential reading.
Re: Where is the Michael?
Date: 2003-08-15 09:50 am (UTC)Instead, in QEFTSG, what you have is 5 personalities and sets of talents. They are not representative of anything other than themselves. Did Bob Vila change? Did he have a character? No, he had a presence, a stable and performed countenance that was necessary. He had to be somewhat authoritarian to be seen as an expert and at the same time warm enough to allow us to follow him. He wasn't a person, just a figment of the show.
Same thing in QEFTSG. Carson and the 5 other folks are experts in their fields. And their flamboyance varies with personalities, not an enforced view. Carson is catty, the food guy is very Ted-like in his calm, Jai is smooth, the designer is a little neurotic. I feel that these personalities are as authentic as reality television can be. (which isn't all that much since its all performed, but its a performance of themselves mostly, not of a stereotype). They are playing themselves, not a gay character that they can craft up like Queer As Folk.
So, why not Bears/chubs as the designers. Why did they need these thin boys and their stuff. One is photogenic, the other reason is telegenic. The superhero image that they push, 5 guys in suits walking down an empty street to their next job, 5 guys all reacting to the summons, it may not work without a certain type of male. *ding ding* It isn't a question of gay queen versus regular gay, its a question of male. Television has one image of males. John Goodman is the exception and even then he's marginalized. Who you gonna have host a show? Ted Danson or George Wendt? I think George is hysterical, but Danson is the host.
Would anyone want to take styling tips from an un-stylish man? And these men are stylish.
Re: Where is the Michael?
Date: 2003-08-17 12:24 pm (UTC)I thought of the piece as one where I wouldn't write in the first person, so I didn't appear so much in the proceedings. That doesn't mean that I can't take a stand, but it prevents you from making the statement "I think these shows are only showing one facet of the community, but I think it is a way to open the door for more diverse characters that won't necessarily be written off as a stereotypes."
It's much harder to say that without directly telling your audience this.
Something I've noticed lately, is the backlash from other gay men that the Queer Eye guys make them look bad, since they don't have perfectly decorated apartments and great hair and clothing sense (I know I don't). It's funny that we're concerned about not appearing as good as a thing that we're criticizing as being too stereotypical.
no subject
Date: 2003-08-15 09:26 am (UTC)I had a couple thoughts while reading it, one has to do with the content, the other is a humorous tangent.
1) Where does Queer as Folk fit into this discussion? To me that show actually demonstrates a gay lifestyle, whereas Queer Eye only demonstrates gay personalities. I too also worry about the Boy meets Boy show, what happens if the guy gets totally mortified and either goes on a killing spree or commits suicide over it (my thinking is drifting back to that Jenny Jones incident, where the gay man professed his love to his straight friend, who ended killing him)?
2) What happens to Queer Eye if one of their subjects reveals that he is actually gay, would they even air it? Along that same vein, what if the chosen suitor on Boy Meets Boy turns out to actually be gay, but he rejects the star as worthy dating material. (I know I would)
Some other thoughts from reading other comments. Would it not be better to have homosexuals presented in dramatic shows rather than in sitcoms? It seems to me that with a sitcom, every character in such a show represents a sterotypical personality type, and the point of the show is to play these sterotypes off of each other for comic relief. To me there doesn't seem to be any reason to label a character as gay unless you are planning to play off a sterotype. Sitcoms are about sterotypes, plain and simple. Putting a gay character into a drama on the other gives the writers a chance to make a statement about gay life and sterotypes, to show depth and growth of personality as the characters experience life. This kind of effort doesn't really fit into a sitcom format very well. I think Normal Ohio should have been an hour long drama instead of a sitcom. Something that would have showed off Dan's acting skills better.
no subject
Date: 2003-08-15 12:38 pm (UTC)First, I've always had a problem with the whole concept of make-overs. I hate those awful daytime TV programs where some wife or daughter or child has decided that their spouse or parent or child or co-worker absolutely has to change their image and needs help or some sort of life changing intervention to do it.
Who the hell do they think they are to decide how someone else should look or act? Half the time, the person in my opinion looked better before the makeover. How does making someone who's perfectly comfortable in their own skin conform to norms and look like a carbon copy of someone's idea of "normal" make them a better person? I'm all for individuality. I may not like the way someone else looks or lives, but that gives me no right to change them to suit myself. Besides, I kinda like "plumber's butt".
What I really have a problem with is the whole idea of the stereotypical gay designer. Why do people have the idea that only gay men do this work? I deal with this issue all the time because I AM a gay designer. However, my sexual preference has absolutely nothing to do with my skill or talent, and I don't think I act or look like a stereotype. I know many, many straight male designers who are even more frustrated with the issue of always being assumed to be gay because of their chosen field.
On top of that, many of the best designers I know are among the worst dressed and most poorly groomed people around. They are so wrapped up in and focused on their work that they don't care about their own appearance.
Who decided only gay men have taste? Frankly, I think some of my gay aquaintences are completely tasteless and revel in it.
And who decided straight men need help? I very much admire the way many of my straight friends dress. They could and possibly should give lessons to some of my gay friends.
What does "queer" (a word I hate) or "straight" have to do with anything? If you've got to have a show about makeovers, I think the idea of men making over men instead of women dictating style and taste is possibly more interesting. The sexual preference of any of the characters involved seems irrelevant to me.
And by the way, you've forgotten the very first prime time gay character on national television, Blake Carrington's son on the prime time soap "Dynasty". I later worked with the actor who played his lover (who was killed off after only one season).