Reality TV: The Roundup

Check out all of the posts for our The Reality TV Theme Week here.

What Would You Do to be Famous?: Looking at Black Mirror and Starry Eyes by Elizabeth Kiy

I’ll just say it, reality TV scares me. It has so much potential to affect the way we live and look at ourselves by showing us how other people live. It can chip away at our idea of strong womanhood by highlighting the successes only of the beautiful, compliant and willing to backstab.


Keeping up with the Kardashians: Looking at Kim Kardashian’s Naked Body by Sarah Smyth

Kardashian quite literally embodies the complex construction of the female body as something to be looked at. And with her body being so readily, excessively, and continually put on show, can we help but do anything but look?


MasterChef and Internalized Misogyny by Robin Hitchcock

Examining my sexist reaction to this season of MasterChef made me realize the pervasive role of gender expectations in the series. MasterChef distinguishes itself from other cooking reality competition shows by focusing on “home cooks” without any formal training.


Reality TV’s Antecedents: PBS, POV, and Barbara Kopple by Ren Jender

A channel that has been delivering a less tempered version of “reality” TV for many decades is PBS, most consistently and interestingly for over 25 years on POV, which showcases independent documentaries with limited theatrical runs (and many of those films are available online to watch as well). In its history POV has put its spotlight on trans* and queer people, people of color, and people with disabilities often in work directed by people who are from those communities (which is not usually the case in other “reality” programming).


Finding Faith and Feminism in The Sisterhood: Becoming Nuns by Max Thornton

Nuns are often unsung activists, and convents are underexamined as feminist spaces. In medieval Christendom, entering a convent might be the only way for a woman to have control over her body, her choices, and her reproduction; and, as reproductive rights come under increasingly virulent attack in the US, it could be interesting to consider how a convent might still be that space today.


Playing with Fire: “Compulsory Heterosexuality” in The Hunger Games by Colleen Clemons

While my conversations with my friends’ 12-year-old daughters about the trilogy always began with “Team Peeta!” or “Team Gale!” our conversations in the classroom focused on the scholarship of female collectives and violent resistance; we didn’t need Gale and Peeta as fodder for conversation. But on the last day of class, I introduced Adrienne Rich’s idea of compulsory heterosexuality to complicate the larger conversation in which readers—and viewers—find themselves forced to choose a camp, just as Katniss is forced to do.

‘Keeping up with the Kardashians’: Looking at Kim Kardashian’s Naked Body

Kardashian quite literally embodies the complex construction of the female body as something to be looked at. And with her body being so readily, excessively, and continually put on show, can we help but do anything but look?

Written by Sarah Smyth as part of our theme week on Reality TV.

Kim Kardashian is, arguably, one of the most visible celebrities of the 21st century. She’s prolific in all forms of popular media including the tabloid press, television, social media, and other internet outlets, and her recent attempt to “break the internet” demonstrates her power and command over these sources. Yet, her prolificacy resides not only in the sheer outlandishness, excess, and controversy of her fame. Rather the success of her celebrity status is situated in the hyper-visible presentation of her body. In particular, through the continual display of her naked body (something in which certain magazines are particularly interested), Kardashian quite literally embodies the complex construction of the female body as something to be looked at. And with her body being so readily, excessively, and continually put on show, can we help but do anything but look?

kim.paparazzi
Who’s looking at you, Kim?

 

Using Kardashian’s hit reality television show, Keeping up with the Kardashians, as a framing device for the presentation of her body, in this article, I will attempt to unpick the multiple ways in which Kardashian’s naked body becomes looked at. Looking at three examples of her nakedness, her sex tape, Playboy photo shoot and Paper photo shoot, I will demonstrate how Kardashian both internalizes and reasserts the strict social and cultural monitoring of the female body’s naked display, as well as the construction of the naked female body as a sexually objectified and fetishized image for the male gaze.

Firstly, I will consider the way in which Kardashian’s naked body becomes looked at through her sex tape. In the pilot episode of Keeping up with the Kardashians, appropriately named, “I’m watching you”, Kardashian worries about going on The Tyra Banks Show to discuss her sex tape. Eventually she does – who can turn down that free publicity?! – but only to show remorse and regret for her “inappropriate” actions. She tells Banks, “[The tape] was [made] with my boyfriend of three years that I was very much in love with, and whatever we did in our private time was our private time, and never once did we think that it would get out… I made it. I need to take responsibility for what I’ve done. I have little sisters. I need to teach them what not to do.” Kardashian’s worries about going on the show and her eventual plea for forgiveness demonstrate the way in which we rigidly monitor and discipline the presentation of the (naked) female body and female sexuality. Leading social critic and philosopher, Michel Foucault explains in his book, Discipline and Punish, that we are not only surveyed by various forms of authority and power, but that we also learn to internalise this surveillance causing us to discipline ourselves. Using the structure of the Panopticon, a kind of prison where the prisoners are constantly watched by guards who are themselves hidden, Foucault demonstrates the way in which we are constantly monitored in our everyday life to the extent that we learn to maintain and embody a kind of self-surveillance.

Although not in a literal prison, Keeping up with the Kardashians reflect this monitoring in several ways. Firstly, as Lucia Soriano claims, “In Foucauldian terms, the viewer [of the show] takes on the role and monitors the Kardashians’ bodies to “assess it, to judge it, to calculate its qualities or merits.” Foucault conveys that “the surveillance is permanent in its effects, even if it is discontinuous in its action” hence, “the perfection of power should tend to render its actual exercise unnecessary.” In other words, when we think about Keeping Up with the Kardashians, regardless if the camera is on or off, they are conditioned to continuously inspect themselves.”

However, the show is not the only place where this monitoring occurs. Kardashian’s appearance on The Tyra Banks Show also demonstrates this surveillance, both by the viewers and by Kardashian herself. Attempting to emphasize her long-term relationship with her partner, as well as her position as a role model for other young girls, Kardashian is aware of but crucially never challenges the societal and cultural demand for women to embody and also present a private and heteronormative constructed naked body.

Kimplayboy
Playboy legitimizes the display of Kardashian’s naked body

 

This moment directly contrasts with a later episode, “Birthday Suit,” in which Kardashian now struggles with the decision of whether or not to pose naked for Playboy magazine. Again, Kardashian demonstrates an awareness of the socially and culturally sanctions placed on women’s presentation of their bodies as she worries about how the nude shoot would impact on her image. She claims, “Ever since the sex-tape scandal, I have to be really careful in how I’m perceived.” Kardashian, it seems, has internalized the wider monitoring of her body to the extent that she now places boundaries and sanctions on the presentation and visibility of her naked body. In the end, she decides to do it. Again, this kind of publicity is too good to pass up.

The difference in this situation, however, is that, framed within male sexual desire, Playboy legitimizes her naked and sexual(ized) body through what Alexandra Sastre calls the normative and regulated sexual practice of posing for Playboy. As Laura Mulvey argues in her famous essay, “Visual Pleasure and Narrative Cinema,” (heterosexual) men have the authority of the look. Examining film in particular, Mulvey argues that male protagonist is the active subject in contrast to the women who functions as a passive and erotic object. Functioning as the identificatory anchor for the (assumed) male spectator, the man is the bearer of the look whereas the woman is there to be looked at. In this way, through Playboy’s conventional heteronormative and phallocentric structures of looking, the magazine legitimizes the display of Kardashian’s naked body. Whereas Kardashian’s sex tape suggests an authority and autonomy over the creation of the tape which makes ambiguous the intended spectator  – Kim jokingly says on the show that she made it because “[she] was horny and [she] felt like it” – Playboy reasserts normative and accepted forms of looking at Kardashian’s naked body.

Although both my examples occurred in an early part of Kardashian’s career, the way we look at her naked body continues to be a point of discussion, controversy, and criticism. The backlash surrounding her now famous photo shoot for Paper magazine demonstrates the way in which Kardashian’s body or, perhaps more accurately, the display of her body is still a site for intense scrutiny, monitoring and judgment. Some, including this Bitch Flicks piece, explored Kardashian’s use of cultural appropriation by presenting her body in a similar way to “freakish” yet fetishized Black bodies. Not only is this particularly disturbing and offensive in itself, but it also adds another complex layer as to how we look at Kardashian’s naked body. In her essay, “Eating the Other,” bell hooks discusses the way in which “ethnicity becomes spice, seasoning that can liven up the dull dish that is white cultural.” What particularly interests me is the way in which hooks discusses the young white male’s fascination and desire to have sex with women from ethnic minorities. She says, “To these young males and their buddies, fucking was a way to confront the Other…  They claim the body of the colored Other instrumentally, as unexplored terrain, a symbolic frontier…”

What becomes disconcerting, then, when considering who is looking at Kardashian’s naked body in Paper is the way in which her cultural appropriation directly feeds into the fetishizing, objectification, and commodification of the black female body in particular by white males. In this way, her body continues to function as a complex and ambiguous site of problematic form of looking. As Kardashian’s body continues as a hyper-visible image in the collective cultural consciousness, we can only hope that we learn to break down the ways of looking at her body in order to dismantle our complicity in the policing, objectification and fetishization of her naked body.

Kardashian's photo shoot for "Paper" magazine was heavily criticized for its appropriation of black female bodies
Kardashian’s photo shoot for Paper magazine was heavily criticized for its appropriation of black female bodies

 

_______________________________________________

Sarah Smyth recently finished a Master’s Degree in Critical Theory with an emphasis on gender and film at the University of Sussex, UK. Her dissertation examined the abject male body in cinema, particularly focusing on the spatiality of the anus (yes, really). She’s based now in London, UK and you can follow her on Twitter at @sarahsmyth91.

‘MasterChef’ and Internalized Misogyny

Examining my sexist reaction to this season of ‘MasterChef’ made me realize the pervasive role of gender expectations in the series. ‘MasterChef’ distinguishes itself from other cooking reality competition shows by focusing on “home cooks” without any formal training.

This repost by Robin Hitchcock appears as part of our theme week on Reality TV. 

Being a feminist can be hard, like when it interferes with my god-given right to irrationally hate reality TV contestants. The “love-to-hate” feeling is basically the entire point of watching reality television. There is no room for guilty consciences. And yet, this past season of MasterChef USA forced me and my partner to wrestle with why we were hating on our least favorite contestants, because the obvious answer was that we’re sexist jerks.

Contestants from Season 5 of 'MasterChef USA' make shocked faces.
Contestants from Season 5 of MasterChef USA make shocked faces.

 

Examining my sexist reaction to this season of MasterChef made me realize the pervasive role of gender expectations in the series. MasterChef distinguishes itself from other cooking reality competition shows by focusing on “home cooks” without any formal training. Between traditional gendered work divisions regarding who cooks at home (somehow persisting even in the era of the “foodie”), and the rampant sexism of the professional culinary industry, the line between “home cooks” and “chefs” is undeniably gendered.

But the MasterChef producers have done their best to obscure this dynamic: there are a roughly equal number of male and female contestants at the start of each series; and over five seasons, the collective male/female breakdown between the top ten, top five, and top three contestants stays close to 50-50 (26-24 women-to-men in the top ten, 12-13 in the top five, and 8-7 in the top three). This steady equality might be the result of some producer meddling, but MasterChef contestants are never explicitly separated into gender ranks (whereas on the long-running Hell’s Kitchen, also hosted by Gordon Ramsay, has a “boys team” and “girls team” for the bulk of each season, but not necessarily a steady rate of loss from each side as one team is generally made safe from elimination in each episode).

'MasterChef' season 5's top three (from left): Courtney, Leslie, and Elizabeth
MasterChef season 5’s top three (from left): Courtney, Leslie, and Elizabeth

 

This hasn’t stopped the MasterChef contestants from breaking into gendered ranks. A recurring theme is for male contestants to look down on creating desserts and baking as lesser talents, and to dismiss their female competitors’ successes in those challenges. The quintessential example is the first-season elimination of would-be front-runner Sharone, a cocksure Finance Dude, by Whitney, the Personification of Sugar and Spice and Everything Nice, in a challenge to bake a chocolate souffle. Sharone’s attempts to “elevate the dish” (the second most liver-damaging item on the MasterChef drinking game, after Gordon Ramsay using “most amazing” to describe an ingredient) with sea salt backfired, and Whitney’s straightforward but perfectly executed souffle carried her forward to become the first US MasterChef winner. In his exit interview, Sharone expressed lament that “the pastry princess” had the chance to knock him from the competition in a baking challenge.

Season 1's "Pastry Princess" Whitney
Season 1’s “Pastry Princess” Whitney

 

The High Cuisine Pretenders of MasterChef, who scoff at “rustic” challenges to make comfort food and awkwardly attempt molecular gastronomy, have been nearly exclusively male contestants. They are not there to be crowned “the best home cook in America,” they are there to be discovered as culinary geniuses. These guys usually flame out before the top 10. But notably, even the more grounded male competitors usually say they will use their winnings to open a restaurant, while the women in the competition often focus on the opportunity of the winner’s published cookbook, and see the $250,000 prize as a financial break rather than a seed investment.

The “this will change my life” reality TV cliche applies neatly to the MasterChef Season 5 HitchDied Hateoff. My most-hated contestant, season-winner Courtney, leaned on this trope with all her weight. My husband’s most-hated contestant, Leslie (second-runner up), was notably privileged and “didn’t need” the winnings.

Man-who-looks-naked-without-a-yacht-under-him Leslie
Leslie, no doubt dreaming of his yacht

 

But this is not just a matter of haves and have-nots, because of what Courtney and Leslie each do for a living. Leslie is a stay-at-home father with a very successful wife. Or, as fellow contestant Cutter put it, “an ex-beautician house bitch.”

Courtney, per her talking head caption, is an aerial dancer. But in her own words, she frames her work as the desperate choice of a woman struggling to make ends meet: “I’ve done things I’m not proud of. No being able to pay my rent, I made the difficult, embarrassing decision to work in a gentleman’s club.”

Courtney shown with her job title, "aerial dancer"
Courtney shown with her job title, aerial dancer

 

And so the HitchDied Hate-off for MasterChef Season 5 became mired in dueling accusations of antifeminism. Collin would insist it is not that Leslie is a metrosexual stay-at-home dad that makes him unlikable, but that he’s haughty phony. I would insist that I don’t judge Courtney for her job, just her attitude about it. (Neither of us could get away with saying we hate them for being untalented chefs or cruel competitors, they both clearly deserved their success on the show.)

Runner-up Elizabeth says "if Courtney wins this... I will stab kittens"
Runner-up Elizabeth says, “If Courtney wins this… I’m going to stab kittens”

 

But I also made fun of Courtney for her aggressively performed femininity (her kitchen uniform is poufy dresses and towering heels) and breathy baby voice, and I can’t deny the sexism in finding these “girly” traits annoying. Especially because I’m a big fan of poufy dresses myself, and might wear towering heels if I weren’t so clumsy. (I thought maybe the heels were to “keep in shape for work,” but aerial dancers perform barefoot, right?) MasterChef‘s narrative didn’t let me feel alone in my hate: other female contestants (including runner-up Elizabeth) complained in their talking heads that Courtney benefited from favoritism from the judges, something we never heard when former Miss Delaware Jennifer came out on top of season 2. So why is Courtney so specially hate-able? Do we hate her because she’s beautiful? Do we hate her because she does sex work? Do we hate her because she’s a girly girl? Is there some other answer here that doesn’t make me a bad feminist for hating Courtney?

Gif of camera zooming in on Courtney's glittering high heels
Gif of camera zooming in on Courtney’s glittering high heels

 

And is my internalized misogyny to blame, or the MasterChef producers for exploiting it? I couldn’t tell you what any of the other contestants in four seasons of MasterChef wore on their feet, because they didn’t cut ShoeCam every time they walked their dish to the judges. Judge Joe Bastianich bizarrely wears running shoes with his super fancy suits, and I think that took me three seasons to notice. But we saw more of Courtney’s shoes than we saw of some contestant’s faces. It seemed like a sneaky way for the producers to remind us “Courtney is a stripper!” in between her self-shaming confessions, because reality TV producers would see a woman being “saved” from sex work the greatest possible form of the “this will change my life” narrative.

So it goes. Courtney gets her trophy and cookbook, the producers get their “provocative” storyline, Leslie probably has enough money to do whatever he wants anyway, and the HitchDieds will continue irrationally hating reality show contestants despite our feminist misgivings.

Have you ever hated-to-hate a reality TV contestant? Have you caught yourself hating people on TV for sexist reasons?

 


Robin Hitchcock is an American writer living in Cape Town and slightly-better-than-mediocre home cook.

 

Reality TV’s Antecedents: PBS, ‘POV,’ and Barbara Kopple

A channel that has been delivering a less tempered version of “reality” TV for many decades is PBS, most consistently and interestingly for over 25 years on ‘POV,’ which showcases independent documentaries with limited theatrical runs (and many of those films are available online to watch as well). In its history POV has put its spotlight on trans* and queer people, people of color, and people with disabilities often in work directed by people who are from those communities (which is not usually the case in other “reality” programming).

shut-up-and-sing_592x299

This post by Ren Jender is part of our theme week on Reality TV and includes part 2 of an interview with documentary filmmaker Barbara Kopple.

Those of us who generally avoid reality TV programming would be wise to remember the genre attracts audiences for legitimate reasons. So many movies and television are based on lies: even those supposedly “based-on-fact” are riddled with enough revision and omission to make their stories unrecognizable–Slate has taken to posting a semi-regular column on how far the latest bio-pic diverges from reality. Audiences hungering for more genuine programming shouldn’t be a surprise.

When audiences tune into reality TV they are also often looking for images they don’t see onscreen otherwise–women who use wheelchairs going about their business without “uplifting” music crescendoing in the background, Black families hanging out together at home without a laugh track, women who aren’t a size 2 with sex lives that aren’t a punch line.

The problem with most reality TV is that much of it isn’t very satisfying, like eating a bag of potato chips when what one really craves is a full meal.  In spite of its name, reality TV still has a lot of fakery in it: scenes edited together to create the illusion of tension where none exists, scripts that the “stars” know to follow whether they are part of “reality” or not and women with glamorous hair and makeup when their real-life counterparts bear little resemblance to women on magazine covers.

POV featured "Living With AIDS" directed by Tina Tina DiFeliciantonio
In 1988 POV featured “Living With AIDS” directed by Tina  DiFeliciantonio

 

A channel that has been delivering a less tempered version of “reality” TV for many decades is PBS, most consistently and interestingly for over 25 years on POV, which showcases independent documentaries with limited theatrical runs (and many of those films are available online to watch as well). In its history POV has put its spotlight on trans* and queer people, people of color, and people with disabilities often in work directed by people who are from those communities (which is not usually the case in other “reality” programming). For many years POV was one of the only places on TV to see nuanced portraits of these people, especially before cable TV (and platforms like Netflix and Amazon) started to produce their own content.

POV  and documentaries in general have, historically, a far more proportionate share of women directors than the rest of the film and television industry. Barbara Kopple has been directing documentaries since the 1970s, has won two Oscars and her work has been featured, among many other places, on PBS. In part 2 of an interview I conducted with her (part 1 is here) she talks about how she began her career and the challenges through the years of making films about real people living their lives.

(This interview was edited for concision and clarity.)

pov-barbarakopple
Barbara Kopple

 

Bitch Flicks: I’m wondering about your own beginnings as a filmmaker. You worked in a collective at first and with the Maysles brothers. That was the early ’70s and there were hardly any women in filmmaking then. Did you always see yourself going into directing?

Barbara Kopple: I think I did. Because I started learning everything I could possibly learn. This woman who became one of my best friends, Barbara Jarvis, who is now passed away– I’m her daughter’s godmother– I started at Maysles and she would leave me work to do at night, so I’d do the assistant editor’s work, which is what she was, at night, so I would learn. And then I got a job with this guy who was an editor and he would say to me, “OK, I’m going out to lunch and I want you to edit this piece down from 20 minutes to five minutes by the time I get back.” I started to learn storytelling. And also doing Winter Soldier, being part of that wonderful collective. I just loved talking to people. I had this incredible curiosity. Then Harlan County came up and I was able to get a loan of $12,000 to start doing it.

BF: So that was a personal loan that you got? It wasn’t from a foundation or anything?

Kopple: It was just from a producer named Tom Brandon, now passed away. I was searching everywhere to try to find money and he gave me $12,000 and I paid him back.

BF: How long did it take you?

Kopple:: Until the film was finished, and then I got a very small advance and I paid all my debts with him.

From "Harlan County, USA"
From Harlan County, USA

 

BF: That’s amazing. I know that you lived among and followed the people in Harlan County, USA for a long time to get the film that you made.

Kopple: In Harlan County  we were machine-gunned. A miner was killed by a foreman, the picket lines… I mean, every day something was happening. You couldn’t miss a moment.

BF: I realize you’ve directed a wide range of things. Have you always felt free in filming people?

Kopple: Yeah. The Dixie Chicks let us sit in on all their intimate moments…And Gregory Peck and all of them.

BF: So nobody has said, “I feel like this scene shows me in a really unflattering light, like in a big way.”

From "American Dream"
From American Dream

Kopple: Someone would close the door in our face in American Dream before we would go in. I would just open it, and sometimes, you know, when things were really tough and people were upset, they’d make me say why I wanted to film them, and then I’d get up in front of the room and say why and then they would vote and they would say, “OK.” I’d only been there months and months and months.

BF: Was that in a union setting?

Kopple: Yeah.

BF: But that’s still really amazing because quite a few people, even those who are interested in filming others would be like, “Wait a minute.”

Kopple: Then they wouldn’t do it! All these people wanted to do it. These people said, “Yes.” And if you want to do it, maybe you don’t understand what that means at the beginning…

BF: But eventually you do.

Kopple: Absolutely

BF: Now more and more women are making films, but the problem is: many have short careers, even if their films win awards, even if they really want to direct and they’re really trying to continue their careers as directors. And I’m wondering if you can think of specific things–because you’ve had a really long career–that have helped you to go from project to project. Because, correct me if I’m wrong, it seems like you haven’t taken much of a break.

Kopple: No. I probably should! I don’t know. I guess that I just…somebody will call me and say, “How would you like to do a film on…” and I’m a girl who can’t say no. I do it. I mean, I’m finishing a film now on The Nation magazine; they’re about to have their 150th anniversary in 2015, and we’re finished shooting a film on Sharon Jones and The Dap-Kings. And we’re doing a very short piece on homeless veterans. I love working. I love the curiosity of it,  I love learning about people and being out there. [It’s made] my life so rich and so full. Of course I don’t do it for the money, because I can hardly keep my head above water most of the time. I do it because I love it. It doesn’t seem like so many years. Each film is just very magical and exciting and different, and it gives you energy rather than taking it away, so I really just consider it an honor to be doing what I’m doing.

BF: If you could give advice to women who are making films now, what do you think it would be?

Kopple:  I think it would be that you’re not alone that there’s tons of people out there who will help you. And only care about the story. Don’t… some people get hung up in, like, the technical, and that’s not what the story is about. It’s about the people. If you feel passionate about something, that passion’s going to flow to a lot of other people and you’re going to be able to do it. [It’s not] easy. You have your ups and your downs. I have my ups and my downs all the time.

BF: Even now?

Barbara Kopple: Yeah! I mean some things get really small budgets and I really want to make these films, so I don’t care about the money, and then I don’t know where to get it to keep paying electricity, to keep the place (her production company) going, but I just figure the films in the end are what’s going to matter. You want to put it out there. I used to dream that some white knight on a horse would come and say, “Here, do whatever you want.” Cinderella wants her lover and I want somebody to care about these films.

___________________________________________________

Ren Jender is a queer writer-performer/producer putting a film together. Her writing. besides appearing every week on Bitch Flicks, has also been published in The Toast, RH Reality Check, xoJane and the Feminist Wire. You can follow her on Twitter @renjender

Finding Faith and Feminism in ‘The Sisterhood: Becoming Nuns’

Nuns are often unsung activists, and convents are underexamined as feminist spaces. In medieval Christendom, entering a convent might be the only way for a woman to have control over her body, her choices, and her reproduction; and, as reproductive rights come under increasingly virulent attack in the US, it could be interesting to consider how a convent might still be that space today.

Written by Max Thornton as part of our theme week on Reality TV.

I have written before about my admiration for nuns. Although rarely present in popular culture as anything more complex than tight-lipped disciplinarians (or, at best, all-singing all-dancing disciplinarians), nuns are often unsung activists, and convents are underexamined as feminist spaces. After all, in medieval Christendom, entering a convent might be the only way for a woman to have control over her body, her choices, and her reproduction; and, as reproductive rights come under increasingly virulent attack in the US, it could be interesting to consider how a convent might still be that space today.

The-Sisterhood

So I was excited to watch Lifetime’s new series, The Sisterhood: Becoming Nuns. The show, which aired all of its six episodes within the past month, follows five young women who are in the discernment process of trying to figure out whether they are called to become women religious. If that sounds many more steps away from actually becoming nuns than the show title suggests, that’s because it is. The complexities of Church procedure do not, perhaps, translate too easily to reality TV soundbites. Indeed, at least one sister has criticized the show’s oversimplifications, complaining that:

The Sisterhood is a ‘reality’ series that really isn’t. While perhaps not scripted, the scenarios are deliberately constructed, the crises are set up in Survivor mode as if a competition is in play, and someone will ‘go home’!”

To which one is tempted to respond, well, yes. It’s a reality show. Of course it has all the characteristics of reality television: a focus on manufacturing drama and sensationalizing wherever possible, the artificial shoehorning of events and interactions into satisfying narrative arcs, avoidance of the really deep interrogations. If you’re not on board with those terms, or at least capable of engaging them with a suitably genre-savvy skepticism, then perhaps reality TV isn’t for you.

Sisters like selfies too! They're just like us!
Sisters like selfies too! They’re just like us!

But once all of the usual disclaimers have been made, there’s really quite a lot of interesting stuff going on here, even for those of us who might not go quite so far as to call the show “surprisingly insightful.” First and foremost, we are being presented with a perspective rarely seen in pop culture, that of young women who (might) want to become women religious. Young women – a demographic so often trivialized at best, demonized at worst – are being taken seriously in their existential quest, whether that quest involves an unnameably deep yearning for the absolute or a panic attack over acne. We are shown women’s communities, women’s interactions, women’s relationships with God. By definition, there are almost no men at all in the whole show: Eseni’s boyfriend shows up a couple of time, and Claire spends a whole evening witnessing to / flirting with a guy at a bar, but that’s about it.

Oh, apart from Jesus. There is SO MUCH Jesus. Catholic Vote slots the show neatly into a proud lineage of “emotional, expressive young women dealing with the notion of becoming a Bride of Christ,” drawing parallels between the young women of The Sisterhood and Saint Thérèse of Lisieux. The “Jesus is my boyfriend” trope is so interesting because of its indeterminacy: is this the hegemony of compulsory heterosexuality over even those who explicitly reject its demands, or is it a queering of the faith and a way for women to take control of their sexuality within a patriarchal institution?

This question does not get explored in any depth, and it’s not the only issue I wish had been examined. For example, when judgmental white girl Claire objects to African American Eseni’s twerking, it’s clearly a racialized interaction, but that doesn’t get addressed. Similarly, when Eseni expresses trepidation about going to the south, the race angle is never mentioned. The experiences of Black women in Catholicism in the US could be whole show on its own, and since pop culture usually only ever shows Black Christians as being part of Black church, I would have loved an honest look at the role of race in Eseni’s experiences as a Catholic.

Claire is probably trying real hard not to judge Eseni right now, but being judgmental is like 75% of her personality.
Claire is probably trying real hard not to judge Eseni right now, but being judgmental is like 75 percent of her personality.

Additionally, a feminist take on the convent is never really explored. One sister talks about finding fulfillment of nurturing instincts in ways different from traditional family expectations, but she has to make it icky by tying the nurturing instincts to the nuns’ being female. The girls discuss their understanding of chastity a little, but it all does still seem very rooted in a culture of shame.

To my surprise, I found myself in tears over the culmination of one woman’s story. As the only daughter, Christie is acutely aware of how she is thwarting her parents’ expectations by entering religious life, and this was painfully relatable for me. Who knew that becoming a nun and coming out as a trans guy had such resonances? And yet it makes a certain amount of sense, considering the number of narratives we have of female saints living their lives as men. The construction of the nun as a woman who is voluntarily surrendering her sexuality and reproduction (and the idea that this makes her a man) opens up a whole vein of feminist analysis which isn’t brought into the show at all. Feminist analysis and profound explorations of faith are not part of The Sisterhood, but they are almost irresistible responses to it.

Christie just has a lot of emotions about Jesus, okay?
Christie just has a lot of emotions about Jesus, OK?

____________________________________

Max Thornton blogs at Gay Christian Geek, tumbles as trans substantial, and tweets at @RainicornMax. As an Anglo-Catholic who also has emotions about Jesus, he snarks from a place of love.

Playing with Fire: “Compulsory Heterosexuality” in ‘The Hunger Games’

While my conversations with my friends’ 12-year-old daughters about the trilogy always began with “Team Peeta!” or “Team Gale!” our conversations in the classroom focused on the scholarship of female collectives and violent resistance; we didn’t need Gale and Peeta as fodder for conversation. But on the last day of class, I introduced Adrienne Rich’s idea of compulsory heterosexuality to complicate the larger conversation in which readers—and viewers—find themselves forced to choose a camp, just as Katniss is forced to do.

This guest post by Colleen Clemens appears as part of our theme week on Reality TV.

I taught Suzanne Collins’s novel The Hunger Games as the culminating text for my Women and Violence in Literature course this semester.  Almost all of us had read the book already, but to look at Katniss through the lens of the female protagonists that had come before her in the semester—The Bride, Firdaus, Aileen Wuornos, Legs, Lisbeth Salander, Malli, Phoolan, Sihem—meant we could consider the work Katniss is doing in popular culture.  So while we had read the book before, we hadn’t read it the way that we read it together.

Much conversation focused on subverting gender norms, yet we talked little about the focus of the love interests until our final discussion.  While my conversations with my friends’ 12-year-old daughters about the trilogy always began with “Team Peeta!” or “Team Gale!” our conversations in the classroom focused on the scholarship of female collectives and violent resistance; we didn’t need Gale and Peeta as fodder for conversation.  But on the last day of class, I introduced Adrienne Rich’s idea of compulsory heterosexuality to complicate the larger conversation in which readers—and viewers—find themselves forced to choose a camp, just as Katniss is forced to do.

unnamed

Of course, the filmic versions of the novels rely on the love triangle between Katniss, Peeta, and Gale as a way to include the most viewers, including the 16 or so people who saw the films without having read the trilogy.  In a perhaps unintended meta-moment, Caeser smiles to the adoring crowd and calls a surviving Peeta and Katniss “the star-crossed lovers from District 12” from a set that looks uncannily like one from American Idol or The Voice.

Within the context of the Hunger Games and the arena, The Capitol, just like Hollywood, gives the audience what it wants:  a forced—or let’s borrow Rich’s term “compulsory”—heterosexual relationship that Katniss barely tolerates in the novels.  However, Katniss co-opts the Capitol’s compulsion, her only opportunity to ensure the survival of both herself and Peeta, and uses it to resist the Capitol and disrupt their narrative of what the Hunger Games should accomplish—passivity—and instead incites the fire of revolution.

unnamed

After Katniss becomes District 12’s first volunteer in an attempt to spare her sister Prim, whose odds were clearly not in her favor, the former is whisked to the Capitol where she must become what the audience wants:  the picture of femininity as a clean, waxed, young lady, a female object that must win the affection of the wealthy sponsors who hold her life in their hands.  In the clinical setting of the Remake Center, her team—after a required second round of cleaning–transforms her body from that of a ragged, hard coal-mining daughter to that of a smooth, soft Capitol woman where femininity means manipulation of one’s body, often to the point of disfigurement (as happens to Tigris in Mockingjay).  Haymitch reminds Katniss that she needs to be “nicer” to win the attention of the viewers.

unnamed

Once the tributes are in the arena—the Capitol’s entrancement with the Hunger Games relying on bloodlust, the Districts’ on fear—Katniss and Peeta separate.  After many, many deaths of children in a PG-13 film, the Gamemaker announces a change of rule after his menacing conversation with President Snow: two winners can emerge from the same District.  As Gale watches the Games, his jealous sidelong glance casting toward the television, the rest of the Capitol can now root for love in the reality death match.

The Capitol viewers—and the Hollywood viewers—are then treated to the scene they have been waiting for.  All of us feel relieved there is a chance for the heterosexual love to live; the edict seems to good to be true!  We get the love scene that confirms their relationship, and Katniss’s performance makes it easy for all of us to forget that this relationship is forced, that Katniss and Peeta have both come to realize that their best chance of surviving is by feigning heterosexual desire.  They press together in the cave.  Haymitch sends medicine with a note reminding Katniss what she must do:  “You call that a kiss?”

unnamed

In talking about Kathleen Barry’s work, Rich reminds readers in her 1980 essay  “Compulsory Heterosexuality and Lesbian Existence” that “[t]he ideology of heterosexual romance, beamed at her from childhood out of fairy tales, television, films, advertising, popular songs, wedding pageantry, is a tool ready to the procurer’s hand and one which he does not hesitate to use.”  The viewer requires a fairy tale—Katniss and Peeta’s lives depend on this fairy tale.  In an infection-induced fog, Peeta dreamily recounts watching Katniss go home, “Every day.  Every day.”  We are led to believe she has been the object of his love without her awareness.  We can hear the viewers in the Capitol swooning—and lining up to help.  And we see Gale leering at the screen as his love goes to another man.

This feigned relationship is in fact their only option for survival, one that they will play up later in this film as they dress like Prince Charming and Cinderella…

unnamed

unnamed

and (spoiler alert) in Catching Fire with their acceptance of the sad fact that the Capitol’s desire for their heterosexual relationship to carry on means that they must marry in order to survive…

unnamed

and (super spoiler alert) by Katniss’s resignation in the epilogue of Mockingjay in which she succumbs to Peeta’s desire to have children with him.

In the final scene of the Games, Katniss is mocked by another girl for trying to save her “lover boy.”  We see the Capitol watching the love story.  The command center grows quiet while the men and a few women controlling the couple’s environment watch during a rare moment of stillness; even they are captivated by the story they have created.  Katniss and Peeta are the finale. The audience must know:  Will their (heterosexual) love survive?

Panem holds its breath.  The desire for compulsory heterosexuality is the pair’s shield—though it puts them at risk, it is the only way for the two of them to survive.   They are in a bind of expectations others put on them in order to endure in this system of oppression called Panem and its games.  And instead of choosing herself–“We both go down and you win”—she sends Cato to the dogs, saving her life and Peeta’s (and in a moment of gender essentialism, fires a mercy shot to spare Cato an even more horrible death).

unnamed

They hug.  Everyone relaxes.  A crescendo of anxiety is released for a moment when we think they will both live:  Heterosexual normativity can persist.

unnamed

And then the previous provision is revoked.  Peeta and Katniss stand at the cornucopia, the ultimate symbol of hearth and home reflecting the audience’s desires for heterosexual normativity, and recognize that their attempt at playing into the Capitol’s desires for a heterosexual relationship to flourish even in the face of terrible odds did not work.  One of them must kill the other.

Katniss takes control of the situation.  We see the districts watch them hold the poisoned berries to each other.  The thought of losing both lovers becomes unbearable, and the games are called to an end.  They are the “winners,” a moniker few of the surviving tributes accept. Katniss and Peeta hug again.

Rich argues that “[h]eterosexuality has been both forcibly and subliminally imposed on women, yet everywhere women have resisted it, often at the cost of physical torture, imprisonment, psychosurgery, social ostracism, and extreme poverty.”  The Capitol has done just this:  imposed the narrative of heterosexuality onto the lovers, and then used it to attempt to kill them.  However, when Katniss takes the Capitol’s desire and pushes it to its limit—to the star crossed lover, the Romeo and Juliet, the Pyramus and Thisbe, the dangerous hyper-heterosexual narrative of “if my partner is dead, I can no longer bear to live” story—and thereby breaks the games.  By encouraging co-suicide, she makes the story so much more than the viewers can bear (whilst they have no problem bearing the awfulness of watching children die) that she takes the Capitol’s desire and exploits it to save their own lives—though it relegates her to a life of living a lie to maintain the ruse that saves her life.

In their final interview, the fairy tale couple, “the star crossed lovers from District 12,” sits onstage as the audience swoons.  Caesar feeds them the story they are to parrot: “You were so in love with this boy that the thought of not being with him was unthinkable.”

Katniss plays into the audience’s desire, though we know she is not in love with Peeta:  “I felt like the happiest person in the the world. I couldn’t imagine life without him.”

And finally, “We saved each other.”  The audience practically faints with joy.

Katniss-Peeta-We-saved-each-other-the-hunger-games-30731285-500-248

But forcing herself into the ruse of heterosexuality puts her at more risk, not less. Katniss is trapped:  she cannot “win.” Playing into the deception draws the attention of the Capitol’s leaders, while not playing into the narrative means she may have been dead in the arena.

The last shot of the film focuses on Snow watching the “lovers” hold hands overhead.  Menacing music plays as he walks off.  The image of their heterosexual coupling is not enough for him.  Katniss will be at risk for the rest of the trilogy because of her subversion.  Rich ends her essay with a call to the reader to consider the damage that occurs to women within the framework of compulsory heterosexuality:

“Within the institution exist, of course, qualitative differences of experience; but the absence of choice remains the great unacknowledged reality, and in the absence of choice, women will remain dependent upon the chance or luck of particular relationships and will have no collective power to determine the meaning and place of sexuality in their lives. As we address the institution itself, moreover, we begin to perceive a history of female resistance which has never fully understood itself because it has been so fragmented, miscalled, erased. It will require a courageous grasp of the politics and economics, as well as the cultural propaganda, of heterosexuality to carry us beyond individual cases or diversified group situations into the complex kind of overview needed to undo the power men everywhere wield over women, power which has become a model for every other form of exploitation and illegitimate control.”

Katniss spends the rest of the trilogy grappling with the material consequences of her decision to co-opt heterosexuality to save her life in the arena.   Her experience echoes in Rich’s words:  “absence of choice,” “cultural propaganda,” “the power men everywhere wield over women.”  Catching Fire and Mockingjay find their roots in her struggle to come to terms with her need to feign a heterosexual relationship with Peeta.  We will have to wait to see how the filmmakers decide to construct the rest of their “love story.”  Because Katniss and Peeta never really have a choice.

unnamed


Colleen Lutz Clemens is assistant professor of non-Western literatures at Kutztown University. She blogs about gender issues and postcolonial theory and literature at http://kupoco.wordpress.com/. When she isn’t reading, writing, or grading, she is wrangling her two-year old daughter, two dogs, and on occasion her partner.

 

Call For Writers: Reality TV

However, the truth and realness of reality TV is, and always has been, a myth. A basic concept of psychology is that the act of observing a thing changes that thing. How could a camera crew with all their equipment following people around not affect what those people do and say? How could knowing that millions will be watching and listening not affect their actions?

Call-for-Writers-e1385943740501

Our theme week for December 2014 will be Reality TV.

Though films like The Running Man explored the concept of reality television before the genre actually took off, most US audiences identify the 1992 MTV show The Real World as the defining reality show that popularized the genre. Audiences were hungry for representations of real people, unscripted, unproduced, and raw. The idea of watching these real people go about their real lives, experiencing real emotions in real situations was, and continues to be, fascinating to audiences.

However, the truth and realness of reality TV is, and always has been, a myth. A basic concept of psychology is that the act of observing a thing changes that thing. How could a camera crew with all their equipment following people around not affect what those people do and say? How could knowing that millions will be watching and listening not affect their actions? Not only that, but most reality shows often create a non-real (often absurd) premise, such as making strangers live together or having them compete for love or money in increasingly elaborate ways. As time goes by, audiences expect less and less of the realism supposedly inherent in reality TV, much the same as professional wrestling fans accept the performance component of their sport. All the while, many reality series continue for over a decade, a constant, reliable source of income for show producers.

There are many films that question or parody the notion of reality TV. Both The Running Man and The Hunger Games series critique the bloodthirsty, drama-hungry gladiatorial reality TV physical challenge sub-genre that we see in shows like Survivor or Naked and Afraid. The show Burning Love satirizes the absurdity of shows like The Bachelor and The Bachelorette, which require group competition for a single mate. The Truman Show calls into question reality itself, exploring the idea that unbeknownst to the subject, their life could be a scripted, carefully executed reality show.

Some questions to consider for your submission: Is there value to reality TV? What kind of gender roles are advocated? What kind of notions on race, sexuality, and class are advanced? Who is represented as the subject? Who lacks adequate representation as a subject? What does the progression of the genre look like, i.e. will we be televising executions in the future or will everyone have a camera to film and share their own reality? Why has reality TV sustained such a long history of success and audience engagement? Is it possible for reality TV to be more realistic?

Feel free to use the examples below to inspire your writing on this subject, or choose your own source material.

We’d like to avoid as much overlap as possible for this theme, so get your proposals in early if you know which film you’d like to write about. We accept both original pieces and cross-posts, and we respond to queries within a week.

Most of our pieces are between 1,000 and 2,000 words, and include links and images. Please send your piece as a Microsoft Word document to btchflcks[at]gmail[dot]com, including links to all images, and include a 2- to 3-sentence bio.

If you have written for us before, please indicate that in your proposal, and if not, send a writing sample if possible.

Please be familiar with our publication and look over recent and popular posts to get an idea of Bitch Flicks’ style and purpose. We encourage writers to use our search function to see if your topic has been written about before, and link when appropriate (hyperlinks to sources are welcome, as well).

The final due date for these submissions is Friday, Dec. 19 by midnight.

The Real World

The Bachelor

American Ninja

The Bachelorette

Millionaire Matchmaker

The Osbournes

Top Chef

Rock of Love

Jersey Shore

Flavor of Love

Intervention

Drunk Histories

Survivor

Naked and Afraid

Wife Swap

The Apprentice

The Truman Show

Running Man

Ru Paul’s Drag Race

The Nanny

Gamer

Keeping Up with the Kardashians

The Hunger Games

Here Comes Honey Boo Boo

The Hunger Games: Catching Fire

Duck Dynasty

The Hunger Games: Mockingjay Part I

Burning Love