Bust Your Windows

Lea Michele can sing, but I still think this was the best moment in Glee so far.



Amber Riley can belt it out. I can't wait until the soundtrack comes out in November or whenever it is supposed to come out.

Some friends are mine are super cool because they said they would watch some random episodes of Buffy, the Vampire Slayer that I pick out – well, not completely random but my favorite ones. Buffy got me through a lot of rough times. I know that some of my friends joke that I could reference Buffy in every single Text and Traditions class at Scholars’, but I guess they are the lucky ones (not me) since I choose not to actually do that. I am pretty sure I would have been groaned out of seminar if I would have tried.

Well, I have assembled five clips from five different episodes that I just think are so great. So, in no particular order:

1) “Selfless” (Season Seven, Episode Seven??) – Creepy number coincidence, or just numerological karma. This is a great episode about Anya and has quite the hidden gem, a flashback to the musical episode. “I’ll Be Mrs.”—Anya’s solo song—has been missing from my iTunes library for several years until I discovered it on some obscure web page. It wasn’t released with the original soundtrack, most likely because it wasn’t filmed or written yet (don’t know?) but is quite the cute song. I also think this episode is great because of its exploration of Anya that draws on comedy and tragedy, as well as some demon flashbacks.



2) “Once More, With Feeling” (Season Six, Episode Six) – Numerical coincidence again? Surely not, well, since I referenced this episode above, I knew it would be on the favorites list. Loving musicals, loving Whedon, and loving a love song ridden with gay subtext. Definitely three things this episode brings out in me. I also love it because of the moving moment at the end where (spoiler alert) Buffy reveals that she had been in heaven and not hell. It’s also just great because who wouldn’t love this quirky cast getting together and singing some great shit.



3) “The Body” (Season Five, Episode ??) – Great! Genius! I don’t really like this video I was able to find, but it will have to do.



4) “Potential” (Season Seven, Episode ??) – This episode might not be on a fan favorite list because of Dawn (which so many people seem to hate but I kinda like). I think the storyline for this episode is just great. Like my interest in “Selfless,” “Potential” takes up a somewhat-minor character, at least one who wasn’t on the show from the very beginning and highlights them as an important thread of the Buffy narrative. (See also: “Storyteller” from Season Seven about Andrew and “Superstar” from Season Four about Jonathan.)



5) “Restless” (Season Four, Episode Twenty-??) – Sheer postmodern narrative. And also a most awesome text to study semiology. I think season four might be the most underrated season of Buffy, which is just unfortunate. This final episode of the season is so amazing because of how it breaks so many traditional TV narratives. It’s a final episode, it’s a coded beginning, it’s a dream, or a magical reality?

TV Show of the Month: Upstairs, Downstairs

For my British-Irish Modernism class, I have to create an annotated bibliography for the historical contexts of E. M. Forster's A Room with a View. I came across this really interesting article by Carl Freedman, about the connection between the Merchant Ivory production and a 1970s TV show called, Upstairs, Downstairs. Thus, in the course of research and in honor of feeding my habit, I decided to put the first season on my Netflix, and I finished it just now. While the show covers quite a long time period, the first season focuses on 1903-1909, which works really well with researching the Edwardian period. The show actually starts the same year that Queen Victoria died and features an episode in October 1908, which is the same month that A Room with a View was published. [This episode was a little lame, "The Swedish Tiger." It didn't really fit into recreating history the way a number of the other episodes have.]

This TV version of Altman's Gosford Park has a number of interesting plot lines and twists that makes Altman's attempt to capture the intrigues of early twentieth-century British life as a feeble attempt at best. While their plots are not the same, the documentation of classed and gendered life in Upstairs, Downstairs is amazing! I would say the stand out episodes from the first season would be the first one, "On Trial," episode two, "The Mistress and the Maids," and episode eight, "I Dies from Love." The show does a great job of showing what life for the upper and lowers classes was like and how gender relations were conducted between the classes. Of course, you see the men cheating on women, the servants fighting and dying for the chances of love, and surprisingly, the mother, Mistress Belamy, having her own affair.

This video is from the episode where the maid, Sarah, and the Mistress Marjorie Bellamy are both being painted by this artist only for their paintings to be displayed in public, which goes on to create quite a scandal in the Royal Academy.

Along with the really interesting episodes/writing, the show has some first-class acting. The show went one to win BAFTA and Emmy awards. One of the anchors of the show is Jean Marsh, who plays the main housemaid, Rose, and in fact she helped to create the show with fellow actor, Eileen Atkins. [You might recognize Marsh as Mombi from Return to OZ or Queen Bavmorda from Willow.] I would also note that Pauline Collins, who plays Sarah, is another very interesting actress whose role on the show is great. I've never laughed so hard in my life.

Anyways, I just thought I would share this rather interesting "Bits and Bobs" (as one of my favorite EW blogger says) from Britain would be something cool to share.

Heterosexist Volkswagens?

I was watching TV the other day (big surprise, I know) and one of the commercials grabbed my attention because Robert Gant from Queer as Folk was in this new Volkswagen commercial. I tried to find a copy of it but was unable to. The ad is quite clever and features him and a girl riding in a car, with Gant saying something clever like, "I think we are in a car commercial." Basically, what is implied in the ad is that Gant and this female are a couple. This kinda bothered me (personally) a little bit because Gant is an out and proud homosexual actor. Now, I don't think this means that he should only play gay roles, but when you pair this with the infamous Brooke Shields's Routan commercials, I was struck by this trend of heterosexism in the Volkswagen commercials.



Now, if you watch the Routan documentary in its entirety, you do see two women together handling a baby. Does this mean that they are a couple? Well, two women with a baby is striking different from the male-female couples that are seen holding a newborn and shopping at the car lot. Besides this one potential lesbian couple, every couple featured that is producing children for this Routan is a heterosexual couple. I was just struck by the absences of gay parents in this ad. I thought that we, as a society, were growing up, but I guess not everyone is okay with same-sex parenting. And by the way, why are people more willing to accept a lesbian couple having children but not a gay male couple having children. Just some food for thought. (Thanks, YouTube, for the video.)

Secret Life of an American Teenager

Because of DVR, I was lucky enough to catch a marathon of the first six episodes of ABC Family's new television show, Secret Life of an American Teenager, and of course, it wouldn't be a typical summer without latching onto some weird television show that I will indubitably not end up finish watching once school starts. Of course, the big "secret" is that teenagers have sex and that you can get pregnant the first time that you have sex. Wow! I didn't really know that those facts were that secret.



Monopolizing on the rather public pregnancy of Jamie Lynn Spears, ABCF decided to jump on the disturbing "new" trend of redefining "family values." Every episode is followed by a PSA about preventing teen pregnancy, however, it seems the only way to deal with it is to get married and have the kid (uh, disgusting). Of course, I was overly thrilled at the idea that Amy, the main "pregnant" character might actually succeed in getting an abortion. I mean, since the first episode, the word was mentioned and the seed planted. However, I should have known that a network with "family" in the title wasn't going to allow sweet teen Amy to actually follow through with it. This weeks episode was the final straw. She actually made it into the operation room of the clinic after being bombarded by a pro-life, evangelical ex-cheerleader and her new boyfriend who wants to marry her and make everything better. The naivete of half the cast is so lame and sort of passe when it comes to TV drama.


The redeeming features of the show, however, are Molly Ringwald as Amy's mom and India Eisley (quite the newcomer) as Amy's sister. While Molly Ringwald is playing the opposite end of her 80s roles, she does a pretty good job of acting like the adult version of her former roles, sometimes. India often steals the spotlights from the other characters of the show. The dry delivery of her lines seems to make her acting style seem raw and lame, however, her quirky lines and forward-thinking sensibilities outweigh her own childishness concerning her inability to understand adult relationships. And before I forget, I have to mention Francia Raisa as Adrian (the school's resident bad girl who enjoys sex and quite frankly may have the best lines of the show so far) and Amy Rider (Ben's friend and resident romance/sex statistician who seems to know more about sex than those two dudes from Loveline).


So, what is Amy's way out of this pregnancy? Well so far her options are abortion (which is probably a no-no), marrying Ben (which is lame and shouldn't happen), or getting together with the baby-daddy (which will probably happen for ratings and plot twists). Ah, conventional television.


But what really bugs me is that ABC Family won't just give her the abortion. Doesn't that happen in families? Is every family so story book? There are no gay families on the network. It seems as if the most they are willing to do is have inter-racial families (that are because of a foster agency not because of choice). (While I'm not an expert on the whole network, I'm pretty sure my statements are true, and if not, I apologize.)


Anyways, I'll keep watching it for a while, and who knows, maybe like Gossip Girl, a follow-up might appear in the future.

Follow-up on Gossip Girl

So having now seen all of the first season of the CW's Gossip Girl, I'm sadden to report that since Serena's little brother, Eric, came out of the closet, he was only given one line in the season finale...something lame about the wedding (having been skirted over in the penultimate episode in which Serena's secret became exposed). Anyways, this blog won't be wholly devoted to how I was just a tad ticked that the show is ignoring its great gay plotline, rather, it will be on their new rather aggressive ad campaign for season two. Perhaps we could claim that the campaign is a little desperate, but I'd rather claim that its ingenious. But maybe that's because I love brooking disappointment and I like transgression.

The above image featuring the letters "OMFG" was part of the advertising for the final three episodes of season one. Of course, the Christian right, who I guess happen to be watching this show for entertainment value, as well as a number of other conservatives, seemed to think that the above ad was quite offensive. I mean really? According the Parents Television Council, the ad campaign was perhaps a little too mature for tweens, teens, and adults. I mean inserting the word "fuck," or rather its variant "fucking," between an already pretty blasphemous phrase, which takes the Lord's name in vain, seems rather brilliant.

Although this ad only inserted the letter "F" between the letter "OM" and "G." Surely what they really meant was "official meeting facilities guide" or "Ophelia Madeline Fabrizio Guido" or "Ohio Milling and Farming Group." Regardless, I loved the ads and wasn't really offended by them. Of course, I can handle TV-MA more than the average TV-goer I'm sure.

So, what I find even more completely amazing is the ad campaign in response to the original controversy. Taking some of the most outspoken and heavily critical reviews of the show, the advertisers thought that they would take the most "severest" criticism to plug the show and make it sexy.

I think it works rather effectively, but of course, you should judge for yourself. I wouldn't want to influence you too much. Of course, my favorite would have to be the one on the rather delicious Chuck Bass because undoubtedly he is "very bad for you."

I think its great to take your severest criticism and turn it against those who gave it to you. It's the best form of appropriation.

So, I don't really know how you feel about these ads, but I like them. I'll surely be tunning into o season two. And for those of you that will also be tunning in, I have some spoilerly fun via Ausiello...it appears that Serena and Nate will be having some action going on in the Hamptons, the locale of the season opener; however, it hasn't been disclosed whether or not this wonderful connection will be in a dream sequence or in the real world. Also, prepare for a NYC blackout in episode three that will apparently have Serena and Blair fighting over a flashlight. And what's to come of little Jenny. Hopefully, not this lame spin-off their talking about because I really want to see her in this internship with Blair's mom...not to mention wrecking havoc on the queen bees in this new season.

Gossip Girl (and the Gays)

With numerous reruns crowding the television channels that I watch, I finally segued into an old, favorite station that I've abandoned in recent years--the CW, which was once the glorious WB. Thanks for a wonderful recommendation from a dear friends (shout out to Fink), I found myself watching a rerun of Gossip Girl on Monday night. Catching the season in mid-stride--I was actually watching the Christmas episode--I had no idea what came before or after this rather interesting episode. Of course, the first one I happened to have seen was missing the two of the three reasons I was watching the show. Michael Ausiello, TV Guide's amazing gossip boy and columnist, recently revealed via the Paley Festival that one of the three main male characters was going to be thrown out of the closet when the show's new episodes air in a few weeks. In a desire to see more gays on television, I thought I would scope of the terrain created by the show and check out these possible gays. Two of the main male characters did not happen to be on the show that night, which then led to me to finding full episodes online. Tuesday night arrives, and I ended up watching the only four full episodes that on the CW website.

Well, it looks like they might be some interesting prospects and possibilities as to who will be outed in the near future. Immediately stepping back from the Gossip Girl show, I became obsessed with trying to find out about ever-diminishing population of gay characters on television. So, here is a quick run through of what I watch and what I know: Queer as Folk, The L Word, Will and Grace, Ellen, Brothers and Sisters (one main, two minor characters), As the World Turns (two minor characters, not the whole show) ... [I can't go on any further than this because of something that I think is really interesting.]

Surely there must be more gays on television, you ask? We've all been in theatre, dance, and music departments on campus. To say homosexuality was in vogue would be an understatement. Is it that the gays are more attracted to the stage (i.e., the rather notorious thanked partner at the Tony's rather than lover/spouse at the Oscars) than they are on celluloid? Well, as a matter of fact, there are a number of homosexuals acting in Hollywood, except that a large majority of them on television seem to be playing heterosexuals. [Here, I would say my flair for hyperbole should be evoked since I only actually know of two prominent examples.] Why is it that some of the more prominent members of the gay Hollywood elite aren't playing homosexual characters? Why are people hiding behind the sex-crazed Barney (Neil Patrick Harris on How I Met Your Mother) and the adorable nerd George (T. R. Knight on Grey's Anatomy)? And why is that heterosexuals are playing some of the great homosexuals out there--Brian Kinney (Gale Harold), Will Truman (Eric McCormack), Jack MacFarland (Sean Hayes)?

The reason why I find the need to expound upon this is because of some of my recent viewings, in particular Jennie Livingston's documentary, Paris Is Burning. Watching the film suggested to me that there is a facet of culture (transvestites) that truly epitomize the idea that gender is a construction. In their desires and dreams to be more "heterosexual," the drag kings and queens of the documentary demonstrate that everything under the sun--from sexuality to class to intellect to gender to identity--is about performance. Of course, Judith Butler states all of this rather high-handedly in her works/essays that I've read, and while I've understood the concept for some five years now, it is only recently that I beginning to understand the impact it might have on me and the culture that I inhabit.

Therefore, does it matter that gays or playing straight and straights are playing gay? Yes, it does. Even though it is all about performance and everything we do is about creating and performing who we think we are, I think by passing as heterosexual is somehow inherently false, and I apologize for perhaps not articulating this a bit more clearly. And the very fact that prominent and recognized shows with a major homosexual theme are being canceled disturbs me. Was the cultural swing into accepting homosexuality, particularly of the male variety, via the hot metrosexual male about to shift in the other direction? Unfortunately, I feel that it already has. Look at the number of canceled and failed shows that highlight homosexuality--Queer as Folk, Queer Eye for the Straight Guy/Girl, Boy Meets Boy (which only lasted one season), The L Word (with only one season to go), Will and Grace, and the abysmal, Lifetime failure Gay, Straight, or Taken. It's almost as if those shows that highlighted or fore-fronted homosexuality is gone or about to leave the television screen. Are the gays doomed to reruns (at least of syndicated television)?

I don't have to answers, but I would at least like to return to the first subject--Gossip Girl. Show likes this seem to be doing fine. Heterosexual love and intrigue have always worked well in the entertainment industry, and I think this show does a fine job hooking an audience. It's refreshing to see a show where the primary couple doesn't break up every week to sustain a season worth of episodes. I certainly recommend the show to those still nostalgic about high school, those slightly romantic, and those who think that being an adult makes things easier (because it doesn't). However, I wonder if this show is emblematic of the show for the new 21st century, where the romance and relationships of the adolescents parallel the adults and gays are relegated to a minority?

Enough ranting, peace out.