Author: wardk2

by Kate Ward

As my Hulu password recently ran out, I’ve recently been pursuing the “watch again” section of the other streaming services I’m stealing my brother’s passwords to. Scrolling back far enough, I spotted Freeform/ABC Family’s Pretty Little Liars, a teen drama about four high-school girls being stalked and harassed by the elusive “A” (later “AD” or “A Team” or “Red Coat”, this show had to create a lot of new villains). Every episode, they get a text message from “A” blackmailing them or leading them into hazardous situations. 

As I began to rewatch the show, I couldn’t help but think about the piece we read on Gossip Girl and transmedia TV. I think Pretty Little Liars would also have been a great candidate for a case study in this method. 

Like Gossip Girl, PLL relies on the audience wanting to be like the main four girls. Would the audience ever want to be in a remotely similar situation to any of them? I can’t imagine. But while they are experiencing their psychological torture, they are fashionable, wealthy, and adored by their hot partners. The audience can’t help but want to be like them. This is where the marketing comes in.

While watching a season three episode, I noticed a long pan over a beautiful organized display of Tresemmé dry shampoo. “Wow, this is obnoxious”, I thought to myself. Then, one main character told another, “Try this Tresemmé dry shampoo, it’ll fix that oil”. What I probably would have just rolled my eyes at in the past, I begin to think a little more deeply about. If I were to have watched this episode when I was younger (which I did not because 1) my mom wouldn’t let me and 2) it seemed scary), I would’ve run to a local CVS to pick up this product if it meant I could look like Hannah. I find this thought sad and also a little insidious. 

It’s not hard to find media that pushes products onto young, impressionable and insecure girls sad, but I think I’m opening my eyes to places I didn’t even realize it was being done. In a way, maybe I’m healing my inner child. It’s nice to know that maybe I didn’t need to buy the right dry shampoo to look like a PLL girl, they were just 35 playing 15 year olds.

By: Kate Ward

When reading the Gray, Jones and Thompson piece for Tuesday’s class, the difference between satire and parody stuck out to me. Honestly, I had never thought critically about what those terms meant and suppose I may have mixed them up in the past. I now know that while satire is political, parody need not be. That does not mean parody is non-critical of the genre or text it assumes the norms of, that would make it pastiche. The first example that came to mind when learning about parody was from one of my favorite shows: Community. 

“Modern Warfare” is the episode that hooked me on Community. It’s ridiculous, funny and downright entertaining. The episode begins just like any other sitcom opening, but transforms into an action flick. Our main character Jeff, initially acts as the straight man, but then falls into place as the hardened, muscly protagonist (think: Bruce Willis in Die Hard). The moment of his switch shows the audience just how ridiculous this trope is– who would strip into a plain white tank top in a full-on paintball battle?!

Throughout the episode there are a myriad of action movie conventions: elaborate fight scenes, sacrifices, a makeshift fire-pit they all bond around, clever battle strategies by our ingenious but rugged protagonist, and of course, an elaborate final fight scene featuring a secret bomb! This episode is jam-packed. 

Although this chaotic episode defies the norms of a regular Community episode, it still furthers the narrative of the show, addressing the sexual tension between Jeff and Britta. Their dynamic also fits into action conventions, with Britta as the badass, femme fatale to Jeff’s jaded macho man. 

I find it to be a very effective parody as it highlights the ridiculousness and unbelievability of the action genre while being clever, self-aware and entertaining as hell. Trust me, you’ll never watch an action movie the same again.

By Kate Ward

Sex and the City was huge. It influenced a generation of women to move to Manhattan, attempt to order cosmopolitans at their local college bar, and debate with their friends which of them got to be Carrie. As I have begun to watch the show in the past few weeks I’ve wondered: Can I like this show and also think it’s a little problematic? I will be using Stuart Hall’s dominant/oppositional/negotiated framework to parse through the public and my reaction to this cult classic.

A dominant reading could be: This is a comical, yet heartfelt show about 4 friends navigating the romantic and sexual culture of late 90s/early 2000s Manhattan. It is realistic about the experiences of 30-something, professional metropolitan women in the dating scene.

An oppositional reading may be: This show is not funny or heart-warming. This is not at all representative of the romantic or sexual lives of 30-something women, disempowers them, and reinforces sexual stigma and stereotypes. This show centers on the heterosexual, cis, white, and wealthy experience while ignoring or disrespecting the experiences of LGBTQ+ people and people of color.

I have a more negotiated reading of the show where I pull from both an oppositional and a dominant reading. I think I skew closer to the dominant side as I share many traits with the main characters (I am also an adult white woman with deluded ideas about romance, stupid things to say, and a love for a cosmopolitan cocktail). I also appreciate how Sex and the City paved the way for other shows representing women in control of their sexual lives and health. It shows “older”¹ women having exciting and fun sex, as well as fulfilling careers and female friendships.

I do think that my most oppositional stance to the show is how it portrays LGBTQ+ people, working-class people, and people of color. But as those criticisms are fairly documented in literature about this show, I will instead unpack how it reinforces sexual stigma and gender roles.

Although I can sometimes relate to the dialogue between the women (as my roommate said, I am clearly a Charlotte), I think some of how they talk about sex, sexuality, and gender are very dated. The Sex and the City women often sit around brunch on weekends for a gab-sesh. It is not uncommon for these gab-seshes to contain dialogue that reinforces sexual stigma or gender roles like, “She’ll never find a husband if she keeps sleeping around” or “I don’t know why he can’t just be a man about it”. These are not exact quotes from the show but are fairly similar to real conversations on it. I would not say that every conversation goes down this conservative/problematic path but it only takes one every few episodes to sour my feelings for the characters.

I will definitely keep watching Sex and the City to see how the “will they/won’t they”² of Carrie and Mr. Big turns out, but not without a serious cringe here and there.

1. these women are not actually old, but considered old for tv ↩︎
2. I wish they wouldn’t already ↩︎