Queerness & Gender in Frasier

By Jake Mannino

The Season 11 Episode 3 of Frasier “The Doctor is Out” starts at Cafe Nervosa with Frasier, his brother Niles and his dad Martin. After running into Alistar a gay celebrity, they meet Roz who introduces her new boyfriend Barry to them. Because of the combination of how Barry then speaks, gestures, his tight clothes, his job as a women’s wear clothing expert, and his timing spent at the gym bodybuilding, calling it his “church”, Frasier makes snide remarks with Niles about how he thinks Barry is clearly a closeted gay man.

Even though Barry demonstrates these campy markers & stereotypical traits that would normally support the assumption Frasier makes of Barry’s sexuality which relates to how media has historically coded in the implication of a character’s homosexuality with these types of campy & stereotypical traits. Frasier & Niles both misinterpret & condescendingly joke about their false judgement of Barry’s sexuality. Yet more ironically, while Barry fits certain stereotypes & markers of being gay, so do Frasier & Niles, if not even more so than Barry does.

This leads me to point out the subtext of the episode that intertwines both structuralism & realism to explore the ramifications of assuming, fixating on & denying one’s sexuality, especially in order to assuage the dissonance & insecurity cultivated by a mindset of heterocentrism in a person who overtly diverges from gender norms as Frasier, Niles, and Barry do.

Looking more through a lens of psychological realism, this episode specifically plays out Frasier’s insecurity over his own masculinity. Frasier’s lack of  traditional “manliness” challenges the heterocentric culture in which he was raised. Frasier’s insecurity about his lack of conventional masculinity interconnects with his lack of satisfaction & successful romance in his 40’s, and is then projected onto Barry and his budding relationship with Roz. Because Frasier & Barry both share these divergent expressions of gender that are often misconstrued as indicating homosexuality & coding queerness, this episode illustrates the dynamic that arises out of this heteronormative projection, misjudgment & stereotyping of queerness & gender expression.

As Frasier Niles project with their jeering reactions to Barry, Martin, Frasier’s dad, remains oblivious to this because Martin isn’t insecure enough about himself to notice Barry’s falsely marked queerness. Martin even says Barry wasn’t gay because he had muscles, to which then Niles makes fun of him in replying “yes and he didn’t have a poodle either.” So even though Frasier & Niles are falsely stereotyping Barry out of the projections of their own insecurities, they still hypocritically criticize their dad Martin for his stereotyping of gay men. Martin’s remark was arguably a more innocent and harmless stereotyping of all gays rather of Barry,  revealing both Martin’s age & general ignorance about the diversity of gay men & rather any hidden insecurity like with Frasier’s stereotyping & judgement of Barry.

Instant karma seems to be a theme with this show, so after the initial cafe scene, Frasier & Niles decide to investigate Barry & follow him around. Barry turns out to be straight but their nosiness about Barry’s sexuality leads Frasier & Niles to stumble into a gay bar that Barry didn’t even go into. At this bar, the gay men joke about Frasier being gay & “looking for a man” which they could tell by his tight over-bleached shorts. Frasier then also runs into his furniture polisher Eduardo bartending the gay bar. This all gets back to the callers on his radio show the next day asking him about his visit to Bad Billy’s, and Frasier fails to convince these callers that he isn’t gay, which leads to Alistar trying to date him after being misled into thinking that Frasier’s gay.

Frasier’s heteronormative assumptions, fixations, & insecurities get reflected back onto him in being picked up and romantically pursued by Alistar, a famous director who happens to be gay. Frasier doesn’t realize this at first and then repeatedly denies that Alistar is courting him romantically & keeps telling himself & his family that Alistar just wants to be friends.

Alistar is a famous gay person in a position of high status and power in a field that Frasier & Niles respect, so Frasier & Niles pretty much worship him. The show also offers an implication of it getting better for gays by displaying the fame, success & respect of Alistar without relying on a post-queer world that completely ignores sexual discrimination & the stereotyping that equates gays and effeminate men that don’t fit conventional gender norms. This is a tricky balance to achieve as a prime-time comedy but Frasier does it effectively without taking away from the show’s humor.

Frasier treats Alistar much differently than Barry from the first minute of the episode to the last ones, by barely considering Alistar’s sexuality and being far too distracted & smitten by his fame, money & power. This total disconnect & ignorance brings about a misrepresented relationship between Frasier & Alistar where they are both on completely separate pages about each other’s intentions. Alistar assumes Frasier’s gay because he excessively marked himself as such though unintentionally, on his radio show. He & Niles poorly stalked Roz’s boyfriend, who they thought was gay & jeered at what they thought was his sham of a relationship with Roz, and the situation now is flipped onto Frasier. This series of events converts the original heterocentric insecurity Frasier projects out of his lack of conventional masculinity into Frasier hiding the fact he isn’t gay from Alistar because he not only wants to avoid admitting to Alistar that he’s straight & lose out on Alistar’s fame & luxury, but also because he wants to deny to himself the reality that Alistar assumes he is gay & is intending on sleeping with him.

 

Game of Class

By Dillon Sweeney

 

(Spoilers)

 

Wiping themselves with gold to eating dirt, Game of Thrones has it all in terms of class. There’s a common phrase that is said throughout the series “a Lannister always pays his debts” and it’s probably because they have more money than god. Not every family, or faction is this lucky though. The Starks aren’t poor, but they aren’t wealthy by any means. You could classify them as a working-class family. The High Sparrow and sparrows are extremely poor and are barely surviving in King’s Landing. Hell, there are even slaves in Game of Thrones. What makes this show great, is that all these different people from different classes are all vying for the Iron Throne.

Ned Stark, rest in peace, experienced a shock to the system when he went to King’s Landing in season 1. Coming from the North, they work hard for everything they receive, they don’t buy their way out of anything and character matters. But his interactions in Westeros showed that he was a fish out of water. Blades for higher, brothel owners, spies and many more types of evil are at every turn. Ultimately, his death, could be a result of his wealth. Think about it. In a place where money and resources are key, he is outmatched in every way. The Lannisters look down on the poor and took advantage of Ned Stark. As a result, his son Robert takes the role as King in the North. How I mentioned earlier that character matters to the Starks, it matters to the other factions in the North as well. None of them have money by any means but they all rely on strong relationships. They are all working class people who all have the same goal of surviving Winter.

From rags to riches, Daenerys Targaryen simply starts with her surname and three dragon eggs. Very early on it seems that she will only be just a wife to Khal Drogo, a barbarian king. Yet when he dies, she embraces the role as Khalessi and works her way to being the most powerful character on the show. Right after Drogo dies, Daenerys and her new followers are simply the lowest of the low. Constantly fighting for food and water. She eventually realizes she has the most valuable item in all of the seven Kingdoms, dragons. Using this to her advantage she trades one of her dragons for an army of Unsullied who are slave mercenaries. After she acquires the army, she uses them to kill the slavers and set the slaves free because she knows what it’s like being at the bottom of the totem pole. Using her dragons, army and smarts, Daenerys works her way through classes, and becomes a force to be reckoned with.

The most hate able group on the show is the richest. The Lannisters are hell bent on money and power. As the family is in control of the throne for 98 percent of the show, they use their money to conquer. Buying armies and supplies to destroy their enemies. They are very cruel and look down on the lesser people and will flaunt their wealth in front of the common folk. Easily they can always be seen eating feasts, drinking wine or mead, and wearing the fanciest outfits. All while they are snug in their castle and the “king” sits on a throne of swords. The bratty king, Joffrey Baratheon, son of Cersei Lannister, is an annoying kid and gets whatever he wants as king. I believe this goes to show you the difference in class though. As Joffrey comes from money and power already, sitting high class. Robert Stark finds his position as king as a job and responsibility. At one point, when Joffrey intended to marry Sansa, he had ordered his guard to beat Sansa. Tyrion told him to stop and Joffrey responded with that he is king, and he can do whatever he wants.

The Lannisters are high class, yes, but they aren’t as classy as the Tyrells. Led by Olenna, the Tyrells aren’t seen in many battles. Instead, Lady Olenna uses her wealth and knowledge to fight her enemies. The Tyrells differ from the Lannisters in that, it was always politics and smarts they used as weapons while the Lannisters used money to buy physical strength. They are both considered high class families, but they use their class in different ways. It always seemed like the Tyrells were more elegant than others. Margaery Tyrell was always dressed the most beautifully and spoke better than most. You could say that this family is upper-high class.

 

Looking at all the families and groups in Game of Thrones will show you the diversity in terms of class. There are so many to mention that wouldn’t fit but the ones I mentioned are the most prominent. Starting with a working-class group in the Starks. Moving to poor with Daenerys Targaryen. And then looking at two types of upper class in the Lannisters and Tyrells. It’s important to realize their class status when watching the show because it will display to you their values, morals, and how they behave.

“Scandal”ous Religion

Contains mild spoilers for Scandal season 3 episode 10

Its is no mystery that in television and generally across most media platforms, accurate religious representation is lacking. From Muslim’s being portrayed as terrorists, to Christians only telling people they are going straight to hell, portrayals depicts a false stereotype cultivated through a one sided, misinformed society.  While Muslim’s are often thought to be misrepresented in television, far few people consider the inaccurate representations of Christians as well. According to page 5 of the Byrd article, “it is certainly clear that the TV dramatic landscape is littered with failed attempts to present religious landscapes in TV drama.” This post will discuss specifically the lack of understanding when it comes to Christianity and even specifically the notion of evangelism in television through the lens of ABC’s Scandal.

While a body on the floor is hardly unusual for a mid-season finale, how characters in television react can have enormous impacts on the audiences perception of morality altogether. The December 12 episode of ABC’s drama Scandal played out Sally Langston’s faith crisis with an heavy soliloquy of bible verses. For nearly five minutes of the episode, Sally (Kate Burton) recited parts of numerous bible verses found in the books of Genesis, Revelation, etc. one after another: “promised land,” “poison fruit,” “sullied my soul,” “sold my soul,” “cross to bear,” “original sin,” and many more. This is one of the first indicators that we can see her identify as a Christian. Following the scene of the body glares Sally’s religious hypocrisy in guilt and self-justification.

The one thing Scandal does an excellent job of in the representation of Christianity is  demonstrating that faking religion is exhausting. Not only that, but faking religion lead to mixing up salvation and achieving selfish endeavors.

It is incredibly rare that Christian’s in TV are given such ambitious roles, so it’s such s shame to see her faith is twisted into a motivation that lead to murder rather than a motivation for good work, and evidence of a true transformation. How can one inspire real life Christians when undergoing such a misunderstanding of systematic theology?

While Christians are defined by the transformation and grace given to them by Jesus Christ, it is peculiar to see Sally identify a Christian. The book of James in the Bible is a call to action claiming that faith is dead without good works. James claims that we are no different from demons if we refuse to let the grace of God transform us into acting on faith. Demons believe in God, but don’t accept a transformation. In terms of scripture, Sally is no different than a demon. That is not to say she is one, but while she believes in God, demons also believe in God. Her inability to let God’s grace transform her and her actions is an inaccurate representation of Christians and the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

Things would be different if in the series we could see her internal conflict with the Devil and God raging inside her. All we see is this confident individual who acts like as if she has everything figured out, but in reality she can’t even gauge the difference between right and wrong though clearly stated throughout the Bible.

The focus on Sally’s ability to reason herself back intro righteousness reveals to us a popular but flawed portrayal of religion on television: faith as a cloak of justification, not one of grace.

As the Byrd article states, “Contrary to critical commentary, the failure of overtly religious drama is not because TV is inherently anti-religion.” To my understanding, though all too often television portrays Christians in an inaccurate light, it is not because cast and crew are necessarily anti-religion. Rather, it is likely that the creators of the shows misunderstand or are under informed on scripture, and on Christianity as a whole. They portray either misinterpretations of scripture, or heavily legalistic Christians and that does have an impact on how the world sees Christianity and even how Christians see themselves.

Perhaps the best way to improve these misrepresentations is to become informed. Going to scripture and reading what the Bible has to say about topics and how individuals should act in certain situations, or even showing actual internal conflict in characters can go miles in television representation. Showing characters wrestle with existential questions, or interpretations of the Bible on screen can change how the world perceives the christian character.

Luke Cage Is A Defender In More Than One Way

With the recent release of Black Panther it is almost hard to see a world where incredible black super heroes with all black casts don’t exist. The success of Black Panther comes with his popularity in the comics, but also the fact that movies get more attention than most media. But the creation of Black Panther as we know it might not have happened if it weren’t for a lesser known hero with a Netflix exclusive TV show. When he was first introduced in the Netflix series, Jessica Jones, fans of Luke Cage rejoiced for more than one reason. Firstly, Luke Cage is an amazing superhero and his appearance more than likely meant the creation of his own show and the forming of The Defenders. Secondly, however, we were finally going to see a stand alone black superhero. This was far before the idea of Black Panther had even been conceived. Luke Cage was the first to feature predominantly black cast in this genre of media. It’s because of the success of Luke Cage that a movie like Black Panther was even possible. The arrival of Luke Cage means so much more than just adding adding a piece to The Defenders puzzle. Luke Cage is a role model and a light for the black community as a whole. His superpowers go further that bulletproof-skin deep.

Luke Cage is a black man that lives in Harlem, New York City constantly working low paying jobs so that he doesn’t attract too much attention to his unusual gifts. Cage has been gifted with bulletproof skin and super strength. Though he has a passive personality he is more than willing to stand up for what is right. In an age where black men are getting gunned down by police, this super power speaks volumes to issues that black Americans deal with every day. Think about not fearing bullets anymore. An article talking about Luke Cage and its showrunner, Cheo Hedari Coker, touches on this social influence:

“Coker says he was inspired to serve as showrunner when he realized the ramifications of a series about a black man with impenetrable skin and how that might empower him to take on both criminals and crooked authority figures. “The main reason people don’t speak out, their main fear, is getting shot,” Coker says. “So what happens if someone is bulletproof? What happens if you take that fear away? That changes the whole ecosystem.”

This is a show that is more than just a man with superpowers. It is a show that has the ability to encourage and empower black people when they feel as if they have no voice. TV shows often reflect the culture that we live and I believe Luke Cage is the most underrated case. Luke is able to confront not only crooked authority figures, but also the black people that are poisoning his community with crime and feeding racial stereotypes. In the show Luke doesn’t just fight with his fists. He fights with his words. He fights the things that hold black people down whether it be a system or black people themselves.  One topic that comes up is the N-word. While being held up by another black man across from a building named after a hero in the black community, Luke Cage takes offense to this man referring to him as the N-word. This monologue is an epic take that I believe is a perspective that a lot of black people have on the use of that word.

“The N-word is used repeatedly in the show, in passing, in songs, and at one point head on, when Luke tells a stick-up boy who has just used it: “I’m not tired enough to ever let nobody call me that word.””

As a whole this show addresses problems that are very real to black people in America and offers a kick-ass black man that can physically stand up to crime and corruption, but also offers ideological solutions. This show was something that America needed. We needed a predominantly black cast that would pave the way for larger media to follow. We needed a black character for young black kids to look up to. And we definitely needed a black character that stood up for the good of the black community whether those threats are internal or external.

Flanderization of American Christians

There are many tv shows that include a Christian character whether it be to have a moral voice within the show or to be a lovable nuisance. Shows like 30 Rock and Community have done a good job at creating Christian characters with well rounded traits. They do their best to portray the good and bad sides of Christianity as a whole. On 30 Rock the christian character, Kenneth Parcell, is a light within the NBC offices. He is unwaveringly happy, serving, and loving to his fellow co-workers. It’s because of this that he’s arguably the shows most lovable character. However, they also show a side that is sometimes judgmental and a little creepy. On Community the show’s christian character is Shirley Bennett. Shirley is an outspoken christian who is seen as a maternal figure and often offers a sense of moral direction and helpful advice. On the other hand, she also comes off as judgmental and two faced. These characters are meant to portray humans who will always have flaws, but also always have redeeming qualities. Although in this golden age of television we have seen christian characters get a fair representation there is one character that seems to stand firm as the embodiment of what Americans think of christians. That character is Ned Flanders.

Ned Flanders of The Simpsons has become somewhat of a staple for the annoying, elitist, perfect moral Christian. It wasn’t always this way, however. When The Simpsons first aired in 1989 Ned Flanders immediately became an important part of the shows group of characters. The writers did a great job of giving him a certain role on the show while at the same time giving him a well rounded set of traits that made him relatable and likable. One writer describes him as this:

“He’s extremely morally conservative, constantly references his faith, has a seemingly perfect family, is prone to cringe-inducing clichéd sayings and is a fixture at the local church. He’s also a nerd-diddly-dork…Flanders is arguably the most noble person in Springfield—and maybe in all of primetime. The ORU-grad is a perfect neighbor, volunteer worker, organ donor and businessman who’d do anything for his community, and is quick to forgive the many transgressions against him by the Simpson family.”

And besides regular instances of Ned taking his religious zeal too far, this is who he was for the entire span of the golden age for The Simpsons. The fans of the show loved him and looking back on this golden age he was a huge part of the success of The Simpsons. That is until the writers decided to get lazy. For many years now Ned Flanders has become just a joke. The writers have reduced him to one single trait in an attempt to get a quick, unearned laugh. Rather that continue to develop his character on top of the many traits that made him who he once was, Ned is now just a walking christian punchline. Nothing about him is relatable anymore.

Because of this reductive character development forced upon Ned, there has become a word within the media community for instances like this: Flanderization.

Flanderization: The act of progressively exaggerating a single trait (or set of traits) of a character until it overtakes all other characterization.

You know there is bad character development when an entire community comes up with a term to describe what happened to a character. This is something that is happening more and more. As the golden age of television doesn’t seem to be slowing down anytime soon we are seeing more and more tv shows forcing out more episodes. This results in quick, lazy writing which often causes Flanderization. If you aren’t a fan of The Simpsons here is an example you might understand. I often think of the characters on Spongebob Squarepants as the best example of Flanderization second only to it’s namesake. Think about the characters on Spongebob and what they used to be vs. what they are now. Spongebob is annoying. Patrick is dumb. Squidward is irritable. Sandy is smart. Mr. Krabs is greedy. Gary is lazy.

No person is defined by one characteristic so why has it become the norm for writers to decide to go all in on one single characteristic and cut all the rest? I think it’s because no one decided to punish the writers of The Simpsons for turning Ned into THAT christian. Obviously, I’m not implying that the writers of The Simpsons should be convicted for how the chose to write (although that’s not a terrible idea). What I am saying is that The Simpsons almost singlehandedly created a stereotype for the television christian and people kept watching the show. Writers are motivated by ratings and if people don’t stop watching they’ll continue to do what they’ve been doing. It’s because of Ned that we see christians in television represented by Angela of The Office…

Or Marcia Langman of Parks and Recreation…

While Marcia and Angela are significantly different from Ned they still follow the Flanderization rule. Marcia is a pushy, hateful christian activist while Angela is a cold, mean, judgmental christian. These characters followed Ned in being a single trait christian thrown in with little to no redeeming qualities. I believe that Ned Flanders didn’t just have an influence on how writers develop characters, but also how people choose to see christians. Now that Ned has put christians into this box I’ll admit it’s hard for even me to not think of the negative/punchline type traits that are now associated with all christians. This is now how America views christians.

This is not to bash all telebison portrayals of christians. As I said before the golden age of televsion has produced many well rounded christians and the future is looking bright. We as the audience, however, need to keep the writers in check and not allow them to Flanderize any characters whether it be christian, muslim, gay, straight, etc.

End of Days – Where To Next?

By Abby Cox

After planning on watching only the first episode of Hart of Dixie, I fell in love with the show. Hart of Dixie is a comedy-drama series that tells the story of Zoe Hart and her move to Alabama.

Hart of Dixie cast

A specific episode from season three, “End of Days” specifically relates to religion. One of the characters, Annabeth, has a dream that sends warning from the founder of the town. The founder basically tells Annabeth there will be 5 omens that come before the ‘end’ of the town at midnight.

Trailer

Not seeing it as a big deal, Annabeth tells her friend Crickett, who takes it seriously and warns everyone that the world is ending. When the omens start becoming true, the town really thinks this is their last day – and want to do something about it.

In this episode, pregnant Zoe and her boyfriend Wade are arguing about whether to get married or not. Zoe makes it clear she does not want to get married, but starts changing her mind when she realizes this really could be the end. With the help of George, she sets up a proposal for Wade. Even though it ends up confused for Lavon and Lemon, she still had the right intentions.

Lemon, Crickett, and Annabeth decide to find a girl they picked on in high school in order to make their wrongs right. This definitely portrays a sense of religion when they don’t want this sin lingering over them if they die. When the girl denies their apology, they even try a second time to ask for forgiveness. This shows how adamant they are to feel like they did the right thing.

As for the rest of the town, it’s utter chaos. Everyone is checking off their bucket lists as fast as they can. The Prewitt brothers definitely take part in this since they end up with so many injuries. Everyone else is doing the same thing and worrying their lives won’t be fulfilled in time.

Not being completely familiar on every religion’s viewpoint on death and life after, I can speak on Catholicism and Christianity. Especially with Lemon, Annabeth, and Crockett’s case, they want to be free of a certain sin before they go. This is brought back to Purgatory and Catholicism. Purgatory is a place you go when you die in order to be judged on your life. If you are sorry for your sins and they are forgiven, you’ll get to go to Heaven. With Christianity, if you know and believe in Jesus, you are saved. Although Jesus isn’t specifically mentioned in this episode, Reverend Mayfair mentions God in other episodes. He doesn’t say anything offensive or offsetting in order to appeal to the bigger audience.

Bird states, “To be successful, television drama must tread a fine line, offending as few people as possible, while also providing stimulating stories and characters that will bring an audience back week after week.” In my opinion, this is why Reverend Mayfair subtly refers to God throughout the series and this is why God wasn’t specifically mentioned in “End of Days.” The writers of the show did not have religion as a focus of the show at all, but brought it in slightly and sometimes without mentioning it. This was most likely done to avoid offending anyone and, like Bird said, keep viewers watching the next weeks to come.

So now you may be asking, “Did the world end?” It did – in a way. While everyone was going haywire they counted down from ten until midnight. And nothing happened. Except the George Tucker announced he was going to take a job in Nashville and move there. One of the characters states, “All of you. George is leaving. Cyrus was right. This is the end of Bluebells as we know it.”

Avoiding criticisms of other religions and breaking the stereotypes is what television should be doing. According to chapter nine of How To Watch Television, “Nonetheless, although some television writers certainly have humane motives, and although some producers honestly desire to create innovative shows, devoid of stereotypes, such efforts are overwhelmed by the sheer momentum of our current representational scheme.” Hart of Dixie represents this motive well because of its avoidance of stereotyping religions and really leaving specific religions out of it.

What You Don’t See on TV: How ‘Master of None’ Captures the True Muslim American Experience

Written by: Andrew Crum

In the current climate of the United States, the conversation revolving around religion is one that draws heavy and heated debate among citizens of all backgrounds. In our post-9/11 society, stereotypes that come attached with particular religions have created tension among the people of our nation, sometimes leading to discrimination and targeted violence. The people that have appeared to be targeted the most in this sense are those of Muslim-faith. Whether it be Muslim-Americans who practice the actual faith or not (or even those simply of Arab descent), stereotypes regarding terrorism have led to many in our society to view people in one-dimensional forms. However, Muslim-Americans have long noticed these stereotypes commonly spread across the media landscape, and are ready to show the rest of the nation that the image they see on the news is that of a small minority. The Netflix show Master of None will be utilized to demonstrate this rejection of normal Muslim stereotypes.

Master of None is a show starring comedian Aziz Ansari as Dev, an actor navigating his way through his 30’s in New York City. Born in Pakistan and raised by Muslim faith, he has had to leap various hurdles in order to reach the success he has seen. In the first season of the series, Dev experiences the hardships of finding work as an Indian man on television, as most of the roles he is presented with are racial stereotypes. While this is a problem Dev continues to struggle with throughout the series, the topic of religion is never fully delved into until the third episode of season two, appropriately titled “Religion.”

The Episode

Within this particular episode, a younger Dev is shown to be raised under a strict Muslim household, as faith is of upmost importance to his family, especially his mother. However, he is constantly tempted to eat pork (which is forbidden in Islam) when he is around his friends. When he gives in and eats, he discover that he loves the taste of pork, and as time goes on he discovers that being a devout Muslim may not be best suited for him individually.

Now in adulthood, Dev pretends to be a practicing Muslim when he is around his family so that he does not disappoint his parents. When he convinces his cousin Navid into trying pork, he ultimately shares the same love of the food and begins to have second thoughts regarding his faith as well. Dev finally tells his parents that he does not follow the Islamic faith nor has he truly ever, and his mother is shocked and thinks of herself as a failure that her son is not a devout Muslim.

Breaking the Stereotypes

This family dynamic regarding religion is one that is commonly referenced when it comes to American television shows and religion, usually Christianity in our country. Audience members of the faith can relate to the problems the characters are facing when it comes to their dialogue and family interaction, and this episode of Master of None is able to present similar problems that almost anyone can relate to, regardless of individual faith. The theme of parental disappointment is one that is universal, and the episode allows audiences to feel as if they are in Dev’s shoes, even if they do not look like him or practice Islam.

The episode additionally succeeds in presenting Muslim Americans in their everyday lives, and not within the context of stereotypes. In the chapter of How to Watch Television regarding the show 24 and challenging stereotypes, the author discusses how representations of Muslims and Arabs on television are commonly shown within the context of terrorism, even when programs try their best to show more three-dimensional portrayals. In the “Religion” episode of Master of None, the show does not view Dev and his family within this context, but rather as a normal family going about their business. Dev is a character who faces various personal and financial problems, and the majority of his problems do not revolve around the fact that he is a Muslim-American. While those issues do exist and are a part of how many in society may view him and his family, his experiences and personal relationships with his family and others give viewers a glimpse into his lifestyle, which is one that people from all walks of life can relate to.

Muslim-Americans are not normally afforded this normal representation that the majority of Americans are accustomed to in the media. Muslims and Arabs are constantly viewed within a negative image across the news, especially when issues around terrorism and religion appear in the headlines. This can cause viewers of television to apply those stereotypes to all Muslim-Americans, leading to tension and discrimination. Aziz Ansari and his character of Dev draw attention to how those of different faiths and nationalities do not face this similar fate, and how their feelings would most likely be similar if they were given the same treatment.

Conclusion

Religion in the overall media landscape is a topic that is tackled in a variety of ways. Sometimes religion is the driving vehicle behind a particular program, while in other instances, it is used as a tool to further show that all religions and those who practice them can face similar problems and ideas. Master of None is a television show that masterfully exemplifies this latter concept, offering three-dimensional characters and storylines with which any person of faith (or lack therof) can invest their time in. Unfortunately, even with these kinds of representations, stereotypes revolving religions continue to exist in our society, whether it be Islam, Christianity, Judaism, etc. However, with fair representation and honest discussions about where we are as a country, we can steadily improve and gain more empathy with one another each and every day.

 

 

 

 

 

Jane the Virgin (Mary)

by Jordan Grollmus

A year ago I wrote an analysis on the negative representations of Christian throughout the media, specifically in films. This past week, we analyzed an article that switched my perspective from the portrayal of Christians from being negative, to being generally positive (or at least neutral), specifically within television. Now, I want to further this analysis and compare the representations of religion in films to the representation in television.

Christianity in Film

A trend that I have noticed is not that Christians are represented unfairly and unjustly consistently (or always) throughout films, but that Christians are more often portrayed negatively within a movie as opposed to a television series. For the film discussion, I am choosing to focus on God’s Not Dead, a 2014 drama/family film founded on Christian principle.

The film supposedly encourages college freshmen to participate in a passionate debate about faith with philosophy professors, or professors who publicly declare and disregard the existence of God, for that matter. Every non-Christian character in the movie actively disliked Christianity, a lot of them saying they even “hate God”. The Christian characters throughout the film are collectively against something – whether it be a professor, a parent, or a relationship. This reflects that Christians are detached from the rest of the world and can refute or disagree with authority figures because of their faith. Though the Christian religion does believe in the sovereign power of the Lord and His reign extends far above those of authorities on Earth, it could give unbelievers an inaccurate representation of Christlike individuals.

The problem with the representation of Christianity within this film is NOT that it is necessarily an inaccurate representation of Christians, rather, that the representation of Christians within films is more actively debated and challenged.

Catholicism in Television

For the discussion of representation of Catholicism within a television series, I chose the series Jane the Virgin. I chose this show, although it represents Catholicism instead of Christianity, because designated Christian series, such as The Bible, would be interpreted representations of Biblical stories, rather than reflect how the religion as a whole is incorporated and portrayed in story development within mainstream television.

Within Jane the Virgin, the series is not shy from tackling controversial issues within our society today, such as abortion, class issues, and sexual stigma. Those issues aside, the series’ title itself is inspired by the main character Jane’s vow to not have sex until after she was married because that practice followed her religion. The insertion of religion is more “natural” or “subtle” throughout the series because it relies on the continuing story to build on her religion and portray it through character development. As we come to be familiar with Jane’s self-righteous behavior, we learn that it’s founded on her self-confidence instilled by her faith.

A Screener article reads,

Jane the Virgin has presented a multifaceted, sophisticated, cosmopolitan view of religion since the pilot. It isn’t a punchline, it isn’t a gospel: It is a quiet and undeniable undercurrent, occasionally surfacing in the actions and choices of the characters, part of life for more people than not.

This quote follows the ideas introduced in the article discussed in class in which religion is generally accepted, and the only individual left out in the cold is that whom is not religious at all. The Jane the Virgin series portrays Catholicism in the same way, where Rafael, a non-religious character, is left out of the know and doesn’t fully comprehend right from wrong because he’s not pursuing any religion.

Conclusion

I think this introduces a larger “problem” within the media and the stereotypes of Christian films – potentially that they can’t be good if they’re accurate, or that they’re not as appealing. In reality, The Passion of the Christ, a 2004 film, is still the top grossing rated R film. That film was categorized as a drama/indie film. So what exactly is it that stirs the debate of religious representation in films, but not so much television? Why is it more welcomed and comfortable in a series and not a film?

I think that the reason that the Christian representation is seen in a more positive light within television is because television shows consistently introduce new challenges that need to be solved, character development, and other major plot points surrounding the faith that is inserted. Christian films, on the other hand, have a designated period of time in which the story has to come to fruition and completion for the audience to be satisfied, meaning the religion taking place within a film has less time to be represented and less time for character development/formation through faith.

Films may undergo more critique because once it’s produced and in the public, it doesn’t undergo change. Television series are a continuing opportunity to adjust to viewers’ desires, listen to comments/concerns, and make changes as needed. Whatever the reason, I think representation of religion is something we should continue to be aware of and ask questions about.

But it may be possible that the representation of Christians within films are actually more accurate representations of a Christian individual closely and actively practicing their religion, whereas the representation of religion within television is a portrayal that welcomes religion, but only comfortably.

An article in Christianity Today says,

…the Left Behind books were venues for the Good Christian Main Characters to look good, without really ever doing anything particularly Christlike. They were only likable by being inoffensive to your average reader… (Remember: Jesus offended the devout more than he did the irreligious.)

So is it possible that God’s Not Dead, aside from its seemingly negative affects from its portrayal of Christians, that it’s actually more accurate than the positive portrayal of Jane’s Catholicism throughout the series?

 

Sources Used:

https://www.thrillist.com/entertainment/nation/christian-movies-why-gods-not-dead-and-faith-based-films-hurt-religion

http://screenertv.com/television/jane-the-virgin-subversive-storytelling-religion/ 

https://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2014/october-web-only/left-behind.html

 

 

 

 

 

Religion in Media

Christianity in Media

Zachary Wohlstein

Since the the declaration America has always been one nation under God, with Christianity being the most popular religion in the country for the past 241 years. This trend has continued into media as well. With most of the media produced in the U.S. the lead characters more often than not tend to be a Christian, even if they don’t actively talk about their religion and the only way you would know by religious iconography found in their home or on their jewelry. Typically when one hears “christian” there is a certain stereotype that is pegged to that person with a set of expectations that is often joked about of reinforced through the portrayal of Christians in television and film. Two of the biggest trait associations in this would be christians being “goodie two shoes” as well as christians being judgemental of others for not being christians. Both of these traits are seen in various television shows and movies though one character who truly embodies this is the character of Shirley Bennett from the NBC sitcom, “Community”. In this show, Shirley is a middle aged Christian mom who enrolls in a community college and becomes a part of a study group with six other people. Of those six people, Shirley is the only person who is a christian and she constantly makes sure that people know that she is. Shirley almost always plays by the rules and treats everyone very nicely though if anyone mentions doing something wrong (premarital sex especially) Shirley will almost always shoot them a look and remind them of their heresy. She also has a tendency to try and get others to participate in her religion.

In her chapter, “True Believers and Atheists Need Not Apply: Faith and Mainstream Television Drama” author S. Elizabeth Bird gives a description of what religion in media (mainly christianity) looks like today. She talks about how the portrayal of christians in media is very similar to how we see religion in society as well, people taking the middle of the road approach (Bird). This means that in society we tend not to see those who are very dedicated to their religion while we also don’t see those who are very much against religion. Which, for me personally, this tends to ring true. Now Bird claims that media today mimics this Middle of the Road approach in having characters be religious without acting like Shirley Bennett or be atheist without bashing on the idea of religion. Along with this approach mirroring society today, I also believe that this is a conscious choice that some studios make with the goal of expanding the size of the audience for a particular show. In the sense that if a character doesn’t overly act one way or the other the studio is less likely to anger/lose viewers due to their differing opinions on religion.

I’ve discussed this before, but I am a fan of the show “Supernatural” which is a show that has loads of religious themes including characters referencing God himself, demons, hell and one of the main characters being an angel. Despite having these religious themes the show rarely would discuss Christianity and what beliefs the characters held. I found this to fit in pretty well with the idea of middle of the road portrayal. Occasionally there would one of the characters would pray, or you would see a cross necklace/decoration but aside from these occurrences religion isn’t discussed.

Religious Stereotypes in Media

One thing that I have noticed in media in the ridiculous amount of television and movies I watch is that more often than not, if a character’s religion isn’t Christianity and that is a something prominently known about that person they are often reduced to a stereotype of that religion. Such as if someone is Jewish in a show, that person tends to be portrayed as being stingy and cheap with money. Though excluding Shirley, Community is a show that serves as great example of breaking religious stereotypes.

Each member of the study group is of different religious beliefs but (once again, other than Shirley) none of the characters are defined by their religion and no one is reduced to being a stereotype of their religion. This is something that is especially true for the character of Abed, who is Muslim. One of the biggest issues we have in the world of media today is the trend of making all Muslims out to be terrorists or just threatening people in general. This is damaging trend that needs to stop.

In our How We Watch Television book one author, Evelyn Alsultany, wrote about the show 24 and what it was doing to stop the prejudice false light that was being shone on the Muslim religion. With the show being at the height of its popularity shortly after the 9/11 attacks, various movies were showing Muslims as nothing but terrorists. 24 was then asked by the Council on American-Islamic Relations to change the way the terrorists were portrayed. (Alsultany) What 24 then did was roll out a few different strategies with an end goal of removing the Muslim stigma. Some of these strategies were changing the religion of the terrorist, changing the nationality of the terrorists, adding a character who was Muslim to the good guys’ team, making the president the antagonist and lastly fleshing out the Arab terrorists. This last strategy was the most interesting to me, they chose to make the terrorists fully fleshed out multi-dimensional characters with backstories and families. This was to create the idea that just because the happened to be Arab and Muslim didn’t mean that they were bad for that reason. Another show I have seen similar tactics used in is the original NCIS show.

The character of Ziva David is Israeli and Jewish. This character’s inclusion in the show alone shows that not every Arabic person is Muslim and the with Ziva’s patriotism the character helps to remove the stigma against her nationality. Ziva’s character then goes further to reveal that one of her best friends when she was young was Muslim, this helps to show that people of the Muslim religion are not bad people. They are normal much like everyone else.

All information retrieved from: S. Elizabeth Bird, Evelyn Alsultany, Cheresa Reynolds and my own knowledge.

Ready Player One: Choosing Stereotypes

By Dameon Black

The reason I went out to watch Ready Player One was not because of the story, or the actors, or because Steven Spielberg directed it but because of a take on a virtual reality. I have already experience some VR games and wanted to see what VR may turn into in the future. The movie was simple and straight forward, Wade, a teenager who lives in low class neighborhood, tries to find an easter egg in a virtual reality game. By obtaining the easter egg he was will have access to all the assets and the game itself. He is stopped by a corporation, run by a man who wants all the power to himself. After finding out this plot it was clear to see it is a take on socialism.

The decisions of this movie can be understood by looking at history. From the 00s to the 10s, there was a surge of patriotism, creating may stories dealing with corrupt corporation (Bensoff and Griffen). Ready Player One the book was officially published in 2011 but was developed in the 00s. So, it adopted these themes. The adaptation of the book to the movie maintained the same structure retaining the same themes as the book.

As the movie was going on I started to see stereotypes and cliché’s that occurred. For the rich man who was head of the corporation, he would stop at nothing to obtain the easter egg. He was the antagonist within the story and was evil. Even (spoiler alert) trying to kill people out in the real world rather than handling them in the game. With his corporation having an army of workers to be players within the game. Even the players in the game who were wealthy such as I-R0k had cliché acted in selfish ways in hopes to save his money and power rather caring what would happen to the game itself.

The poor within the movie was represented by their way of living. Their housing and living area was cluttered with trash and objects, to the point the characters had to move themselves around the trash when they walked or scaled the “Stacks”. The Stacks were large trailers stacked on top of each other and was bounded by hunks of metal. All these representations point to poor people not being able to keep up with themselves. Compared to the corporation who had clean and polished floors and rooms. Another stereotype was the poor management of spending. The boyfriend of Wade’s mother’s sister spent the money for there rent (If I remember correctly) for a new pair of gloves that would give him a better opportunity at winning the game.  The last stereotype was, we saw no one working, they would only be playing the game. However, this could be argued that everybody as a society was occupied and controlled by the video game rather than them just being poor.

Even with all these stereotypes was one that was surprisingly missing. That being poor people are stupid. It was pretty interesting to see this one left out all the other stereotypes were in full effect but not this one, maybe with the exception of the boyfriend, but other than that it seemed that everyone was had the same level of intelligence. This decision is crucial to the plot because without the stereotype it allows for main character to challenge this large corporation. I’ll start to go into spoiler territory for now on. The main character meets one of the best players within the Oasis and makes befriends with her only to find out that they live in the same city and Samantha actually being part of a rebellion who live in similar conditions to wade. The continue on and join forces with Wades friends who end up rivaling the intelligence group of the corporation. Even out beating them to the first two keys to obtain the easter egg (you need three of them).

In HTWT jersey shore can be used to escape reality and theories and see what happens when people do irresponsible behaviors. It is important to show the consequences of these wrongful behaviors to inform the viewer. The same thing can be said for Ready Players One’s view on equal opportunity. The viewer can see regardless of their background they can do anything with dedication and hard work. So why is this important? Because it sublimely shows these young kids or other viewers that they still have a chance to make a difference in their life despite their unequal upbringing.

From all these points we can deduce that the main theme of this movie is regardless of who you are, background, or status, in the oasis you can be who ever you want to be.