Everyone in the Western World is raving about Glee, a new musical comedy television series from across the pond. Being a fan of trashy and brilliant US televisual exports, I tuned in for the first couple of episodes, needless to say I don't think I'll be watching again.
First, the singing is so badly dubbed they may as well be on the Top of The Pops stage circa. 1973. I know it's asking a little too much for actors to be singers as well, but if you're going to produce a musical - at least put a little effort into making it believable. I'm a picky customer when it comes to TV and film, so I have to admit that for this reason I took an instant disliking to Glee.
Petty complaints aside, it struck a discordant note with me in the wider sense. (This is the point at which, were I talking to you face-to-face, you would roll your eyes and tell me I'm reading into it too much.) In essence, this show is about a group of misfits with some degree of talent who, I assume, will eventually become wildly successful and popular, all the guys will get all the girls and everyone will skip off home into the sunset and all the bullies will be sad. So it looks like this show is great because it is subverting all the stereotypes in our culture (particularly American culture) which state that anyone who is different is at some kind of disadvantage, or to use teenage vernacular, if you are gay/disabled/fat etc. then you are by default a 'loser'. Yes?
No. I reject the notion that this is subverting any stereotypes because in setting up the pretense it is reinforcing the stereotypes in the first place, or worse (and I think this is more to the point with Glee) it is accepting those prejudices as the norm.
Let's take stock of the characters of the eponymous group for a moment. We have:
- a homosexual boy (haven't we seen this before - I'm thinking of legwarmers and dancing on cars by the way...)
- an asian girl
- a black girl
- a girl raised by gay fathers (the only hint of originality here - kudos to the writers for that at least, although she is the all-singing-all-dancing product of the stereotypical gay men)
- a paraplegic (yawn)
This is all so predictable I could spit. Then to top it all off we have a supporting cast of:
- an obsessive compulsive (yawn)
- a butch Sports coach who by her own admission "doesn't menstruate"
- and finally a whole bunch of white, middle class, bitchy cheerleaders (double yawn)
My point is, why should we have the stereotypes in order to break them down? For me it is accepting in order to reject. Why not reject in the first place? Why not have a bitchy but popular cheerleader raised by gay fathers, a feminine Sports teacher, an asian musical theatre teacher?
Would all these things not be just a hotbed of humour as the characters that the writers have chosen to show us (again and again and again)???
I'd like to think popular culture is (or should be) past this kind of thing. It's a new decade in a new century; post-feminist, post-apartheid, post-stonewall. These assumptions deserve no place in our consciousness any more, even if they are just there to be broken down.