Fox Broadcasting Company

Sunday night Australian time, Channel Ten will air the pilot episode of the FOX network USA’s promising new musical-dramedy Glee; an infectious and charming affair set amidst the everyday dramas of high school, and the fledgling efforts of the once glorious but now misunderstood Glee Club. A decidedly American tradition, a Glee Club is somewhere between a choir and a dance troop, an all-singing, all-dancing mini-Broadway musical in every performance. After learning that the previous Glee Club supervisor has been fired (for somewhat scandalous reasons), Spanish teacher Mr. Schuester (Matthew Morrison), one of those rare teachers who teaches purely for the love of it, and with the hope and faith that he can make a difference, decides that a rebirth of the Glee Club might be the very thing he has been looking for to help inspire the all-too-jaded teens, and perhaps infuse some joy in them along the way.

Rachel Berry, the Glee Club’s leading lady, is a dramatic over-achiever who is all too aware of her talent and wants nothing more but to perform. Thanks to her gay fathers, Rachel has been instilled with a love of musicals from a very young age, and posts a new MySpace video every day performing a favourite Broadway classic. Lea Michele is an inspiring and exciting casting choice in the role of Rachel, having originated the female lead in the critically acclaimed rock musical Spring Awakening—(Michele won the role when she was 14, developing it through several workshops and off-Broadway performances until finally, at age 20, the show made its Broadway debut)—the belting tunes are left in more-than-capable hands. Finn (Cory Monteith) is Rachel’s male lead, the jock that is conned in to joining the Glee Club by Mr. Schuester—by some not-so-savoury means. Finn represents the every-guy, the guy who’s just trying to fit in, but who in a moment of passion, realises that singing is what he loves, regardless of whether his football team-mates think it’s cool or not. Other notable characters include: Sue Sylvester, the aggressive and driven high school cheer squad coach played to perfection by Jane Lynch, most recently notable for her hilarious turn as a cater-waiter in Party Down; Emma Pillsbury, the school guidance councillor with a phobia for germs, played by Jayma Mays most recognisable for stand out guest starring roles in Ugly Betty, Heroes, and Pushing Daisies; and Kurt Hummel, the obviously gay musical-theatre nerd who is resigned to the fact that the jocks will beat him up, just allow him time to remove his Mark Jacobs jacket, played by relative newcomer Chris Colfer.

Glee represents a marked change for executive producer Ryan Murphy, (who co-created Glee along with Brad Falchuk and Ian Brennan), his most famous credit being creator and executive producer of the daring, controversial, and highly sexualised Nip/Tuck. Glee may appear to be worlds away from the happenings of Nip/Tuck’s plastic surgeons with their physical perfection and highly dysfunctional personas; yet, Glee too shows signs of the quirky originality and edgy self-awareness that initially made Nip/Tuck stand out. These qualities, coupled with the infectious enthusiasm of the Glee Club members, and the myriad of guest stars already lined up to take turns in Glee including Kristin Chenoweth, Victor Garber, Eve, and Josh Groban, all point to Glee being an exciting, intelligent, entertaining, and delightful edition to Channel Ten’s line-up. The first season of Glee debuts in the U.S on September 16th, and will air here in Australia shortly after. Don’t miss Sunday night’s preview episode, 9:30pm on Channel Ten.

TVGuide.com, courtesy Lacey Terrell/HBO

The third season of HBO’s acclaimed Big Love drew to a close recently, a season that easily contained some of the hour drama’s best work. From its beginning, Big Love has masterfully represented an uneasy duality in its polarised representations of polygamy; juxtaposing the disturbing eeriness of the Juniper Creek compound alongside the best intentions of the Henrickson’s, trying to live their Mormon faith in the suburbs. Increasingly, these worlds are encroaching on each other, and the line between fundamentalist and mere follower becomes progressively blurred as good people do bad things.

Big Love takes the backdrop of Mormonism or adherence to the faith of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS), and explores the intricacies and conflicts that arise in the Henrickson family from trying to practice their faith through a long abandoned (and illegal) former principle of LDS: polygamous marriage. Bill (Bill Paxton) and Barb (Jeanne Tripplehorne) have two other wives or sister-wives, Nicki (Chloë Sevigny) and Margene (Ginnifer Goodwin), and a whole tribe of children living in three houses side by side in the suburbs of Salt Lake City. Big Love deals with issues not only of faith, but of love, family, and of morality through the lives of the Henrickson’s and their extended families, allowing a true insight in to the workings of Mormonism, LDS, the outlawed practice of Polygamy, and indeed, of human interaction itself.

The importance of casting in television can be the difference between a good show and a great show; if you’re looking for an example of exquisite casting, Big Love is like a master-class. Performances are consistently exceptional, even from supporting players, and the leads are continually inspiring. Bill Paxton, whom I normally have no love for, seems perfectly placed as the patriarchal glue of the Henrickson clan, providing for, guiding their faith and ensuring their smooth passing in to the Celestial Kingdom.

During season three, we witness the trial of Roman Grant (Harry Dean Stanton) for the atrocities he propagated during his rein as prophet of Juniper Creek, most notably the rape of young girls whom he ‘sealed’ (married) to older men. During the trial, Nicki is torn between the love and sense of belonging she feels for her new family, and the sense of duty and obligation she feels for her father, Roman, whom she still believes to be the true prophet. Using a fake name she takes a job in the district attorney’s office, and from the inside she knowingly betrays her new family, delivering information to her mother and father on the developments of the prosecution and on the witnesses that would be called. During Nicki’s time at the DA’s office, she begins to realise the depth of devastation her father caused so many young women. Whilst looking through the Joy Books—pages of photographs of young women including stats on their height, weight and other physical features, which would be used by the men of the compound to select their next wife—Nicki comes face to face with her young self. At the trial her disdain becomes evident, and she shows it by pushing her father down a flight of stairs. She doesn’t, however, reveal her true identity and testify against her father; instead allowing him to walk free. In the final episodes of the season we learn that Nicki was sealed to an older man at age 13, and gave birth to the man’s child at age 15. In the season finale, this child, Cara Lynn (Cassi Thomson), comes to live with the Henricksons. Chloë Sevigny shows unparalleled depth and range through this arc of inner turmoil and divided alliances.

Episode 6, ‘Come, Ye Saints’, is the most inspired episode of the season. The entire clan takes a road trip across country to historical sites in LDS history, culminating in attendance of the Hill Cumorah Pageant depicting the birth and history of Mormonism. During the road trip, several important story points are revealed and dealt with; namely, Nicki’s use of birth control pills, Bill’s use of Viagra, Ben’s (Douglas Smith) crush on Margene, and most importantly, Sarah’s (Amanda Seyfried) pregnancy. Sarah’s character development has always been important to the show; her perpetual struggle with her parent’s decision to begin a polygamous life—which began only when Barb was battling with cancer and feared she would die and leave her children without a mother—serves almost as a refuge for audience members who may at times struggle with the unfamiliar and controversial religion they are asked to immerse themselves in. Sarah has actively betrayed her parents faith, a faith she is not sure she supports or believes. During season two, she began attending support group meetings for ex-Mormons, where she met Scott, the future father of her child. Sarah hides her pregnancy from her parents (and Scott), and struggles with the decision of whether to abort, adopt, or keep her child. Although she may not support her parents’ interpretation of Mormonism, she has still been raised with the teachings of LDS and is certain abortion is not an option falling within her own moral compass. But the thought of giving away her child is also unbearable. She decides to keep her baby, yet during the ill-fated road trip, she suffers a miscarriage, and it is Nicki who consoles and supports her. Nicki convinces her that she needs to tell her family, and of course, although disappointed in her actions and betrayal of her faith, they nurture Sarah in her loss. Amanda Seyfried as Sarah shows great maturity and strength; her expression of grief and sorrow is profound.

Bill also suffers a crisis of faith during the road trip, expressed through several instances along the way. During a disagreement with an LDS member in Carthage Jail (the site of the death of LDS founder Joseph Smith), Bill fails to defend the practice of polygamy, a notion he clearly believes in. Later, he similarly fails to defend the beliefs of his religion when confronted by a Baptist Minister who questions the validity of the teachings of LDS, and finally, on his knees at Hill Cumorah, he pleads with the Lord for guidance. He feels ‘lost’ and ‘foresaken’ by the Lord, and has ‘never been so worried for his family’ in this time during the trial, the uncertainty of his Casino business venture, and in light of Nicki’s use of birth control, an action representative of ultimate defiance of their faith’s beliefs.

Season three also saw the excommunication of Barb from the LDS church when she is outed as a polygamist, the devastating death of Kathy (Mireille Enos) at the hands of Roman, and the equally shattering actions of Joey (Shawn Doyle), who ensured that Roman got what he deserved. Big Love’s third season, through its impeccable writing and execution, served as a remarkable representation of what truly great television can be; thought provoking, challenging, daring, heart breaking, enlightening and inspiring, all in one season. It may be a drama about religion, but at its heart it is really a drama about family, and the sacrifices we make to ensure our family’s happiness. Big Love season three is available for pre-order from Amazon.com.

TVGuide.com, courtesy Justin Stephens/ABC

Grey’s Anatomy’s maligned little sibling Private Practice has been troubled since day one. Practice was originally introduced to audiences in a 2 episode cross-over within the world of Grey’s. Addison (Kate Walsh), disillusioned with her life in Seattle, visits some old friends in Los Angeles and whilst there, is offered a job at their practice, a holistic family wellness centre. Now, just the mere mention of the term ‘wellness centre’ was enough to send critics sniggering to their keyboards, and admittedly, it does sound pretty new-aged-wanky. Then, after a complete lack of chemistry between Addison and her supposed best friend Naomi Bennett, the role of Naomi was re-cast with the superb Broadway veteran Audra McDonald replacing the talented and likable Merrin Dungey of Alias fame. Personally, I think the blame for this lack of chemistry can’t fall solely to the actors, but also lays somewhat with the writers, who managed to craft a truly woeful set-up, complete with a talking elevator, and a storyline that saw Naomi wary and unconvinced of Addison’s actions and desires. Furthermore, this set-up saw the two best buddies on frosty terms with Addison unaware that Naomi and her husband Sam (Taye Diggs) were now divorced, Addison having ignored her calls and messages for over a year whilst too caught up in her own self pity. These circumstances were certainly not conducive to chummy best friend antics. Moreover, Practice was also hurt by the writers strike, being a first season show having to break for the strike after only nine episodes left the show vulnerable to losing its still building audience, much like other strike casualty Pushing Daisies.

Much has also been made of the cast of Private Practice, with some big names taking up residence in the wellness centre. As mentioned, Audra McDonald is a sensational Broadway actress, having won 4 Tony awards; whilst she has done television before, Practice represents her first substantial regular television role. Television favourite Amy Brenneman also stars as the resident emotionally rattled psychologist, along with television veteran Tim Daly (brother of Tyne Daly, Brenneman’s mother in Judging Amy), the alternative medicine practitioner. Then of course there’s Paul Adelstein, who I personally didn’t know much of before seeing him first on Prison Break as the creepy guy chasing down Sarah and Michael, but apparently he was a cast member on Rob Thomas’ former brainchild (and soon to be re-booted) Cupid. Here, he plays sensitive man-whore paediatrician Cooper, best friend to Brenneman’s Violet. Other notables include the already mentioned Taye Diggs, who it seems can now finally live down his completely unfortunate and unfair ‘show-killer’ status; fellow former Rob Thomas employee Chris Lowell, from the brilliant-but-cancelled Veronica Mars, and of course Kate Walsh herself.

Although critics continue to not take this show seriously, and it is easy to do with some of the kooky plot-lines, I believe the remarkable cast is what makes this show consistently watchable. In the hands of lesser actors, it would have already been relegated to a ghost of series-television’s past. A few weeks ago in the US, Private Practice enjoyed a crossover experience with its sibling Grey’s Anatomy, a medical emergency with Addison’s brother (Grant Show) requiring the expertise of the best neurologist around, whom is of course, Addison’s ex-husband; awkward. This little promotional stunt only highlighted for me the strength of Practice and cemented in my mind that Grey’s is officially struggling. The little school-yard squabbles and childish antics can only take a show so far, and for Grey’s I think their number is nearly up. Private Practice and Grey’s Anatomy are currently airing here in Australia on Channel Seven, back-to-back Thursday nights from 8:30pm.

TVGuide.com, courtesy Kurt Iswarienko/Fox

Friday night U.S time marks the premiere of one of the most highly anticipated and hyped shows in television history, Joss Whedon’s new Sci-Fi series, Dollhouse. The one-hour drama series from the creator of Buffy the Vampire Slayer and Angel marks the auteur’s return to television, after the short-lived run of his previous Sci-Fi series, Firefly. Starring Eliza Dushku as Echo, an ‘active’ living and working within a secret organization wherein, ‘actives’ can be hired and their personalities implanted with a series of characteristics necessary for their current mission. After their role is complete, these characteristics are removed from consciousness, leaving the active in a state of blissful ignorance, of almost childlike unknowing.

The series’ development so far has been marred by very public re-writes, re-shoots, work stoppages, a killer timeslot (and I don’t mean that in the post-modern ironic sense), and questions about the lead thespian’s capabilities. All of which the mainstream entertainment media have taken as a sign of disunity, maybe speaking towards a larger problem between Whedon and the Fox network. Whedon himself however, has assured fans that the situation with Dollhouse is very different to the struggles of Firefly, and asserted that these teething problems were all at his request, in the greater interest of creating a more captivating and compelling pilot and a unifying start to the season. See Ausiello’s interview here, and Eliza Dushku’s response to the situation here.

All this attention ensures that Dollhouse will have a healthy pilot ratings share, despite its Friday night timeslot, however the scrutiny will also mean that the show has a tough mountain to climb to live up to the hype. In this regard, perhaps Friday night is not a bad slot to begin in, enormous ratings will not be expected by the network and within the context of new media formats, the show will still be found by its faithful prospective audience through DVR and TiVo playback, and online viewing. With less pressure placed on ratings, the show may be allowed time to build a larger audience before being shelved prematurely due to under performing, which is more likely to occur on a Monday or a Thursday night when the networks pay their bills. Fox’s move to program the most hyped show of the millennium on a Friday may seem like a death sentence, but ultimately, it could end up working in Whedon’s favour; especially considering that early reviews of the pilot (the re-shot, second pilot) are not fantastic, which points to the show needing time to establish itself.

I for one am looking forward to seeing what the show has to offer, and I certainly hope that, given time, Dollhouse can live up to its predecessors. I am also interested to see what in fact Dichen Lachman can bring to the table, as whatever it may be eluded me during her days on Neighbours. Whedon, however, is somewhat known for discovering talent in unknowns, and I hope that Lachman is the same, for the show’s sake as much as for her own.

One aspect of early reviews that disappoints and concerns me is the observation that Dollhouse lacks the comedic wit that Whedon is famous for. The humour in Whedon’s previous works is a huge part of their charm, and to see it not utilized would be a great shame, and may in fact serve as Dollhouse‘s undoing. I hope, that humour will begin to be woven in to the text as the show progresses, but I can’t help but consider that lack of humour is a conscious decision made by Whedon to heighten the isolation and desperation of the actives’ circumstance within the dollhouse. I guess only time will tell.

Here in Australia, we will be unable to watch Dollhouse on free-to-air TV, as Channel Ten, who originally bought the rights to the show, has now sold them to FOXTEL’s Fox8. This is frustrating, especially since Dollhouse would have been a pretty good fit with Channel Ten. However, perhaps Whedon fans can take comfort in knowing that at least Dollhouse will air in Australia, which is more than could be said for Firefly. Furthermore, I still hold out hope that Hulu could pull off its international deal soon, allowing us to watch online for free. Otherwise, there’ll be a long wait ahead for A DVD release. Dollhouse premieres in the U.S on Friday the 13th of February at 9pm. Fox8 has not yet set an Australian air date.

TVGuide.com, courtesy Christian Weber/Showtime

When Channel Ten started to air season one of U.S Showtime’s acclaimed hit Dexter, I was both excited at Ten’s bold move, and intrigued by the show itself. Everything I had read claimed that although the protagonist is in fact a serial killer, this alone should not put one off giving this little series a try. I wasn’t convinced that it would be for me. Although I am partial to horror movies, the presentation of Dexter as a normal person, living a somewhat normal life with his girlfriend, her children and his stable, respectable job, made the whole idea a little eerie and unsettling. But, knowing the calibre of Showtime’s programming, and the talent of Michael C. Hall from his days on Six Feet Under, I wanted to give it a go. So I watched. I’ll admit, the first episode was strange and somewhat challenging to watch; it was creepy, daring, violent, and messed with many of the moral-absolutes that one might believe should guide humanity. However, by the end of the episode I was hooked, thanks in no small part to the astoundingly measured performance by Michael C. Hall as Dexter Morgan himself. Hall manages to imbue Dexter with polarized personalities, the one he shows the world within the text, and the deeply private and personal one that is only seen by his victims, and by the audience. On the outside he is the responsible, lovable and dedicated forensic blood-spatter analyst. Yet underneath this persona he shows the world is something else, a darkness, a bubbling rage just beneath the surface that he knows could blow at any time. It is this understanding of what he is, of what is inside him that has led Dexter to become a serial killer. He knows he needs to kill, and has channelled that need into killing those that slip through the normal parameters of the justice system, usually through legal loopholes. Dexter kills murderers, people that have killed, gotten away with it, and shown no remorse. This is of course, the great irony of the show and the audience is forced to face the realisation that no matter how noble he is, no matter how much we may grow to love him, Dexter may be no different than his victims.

After unravelling the mysteries of The Ice-Truck Killer in season one, I was compelled to jump right in to season two with the DVDs already released in Australia (season two will air on channel ten later this year; Caution, spoilers ahead!) Season two again raises more moral questions when Dexter’s clandestine activities are in danger of being discovered after his underwater graveyard is found. His victims come back to haunt him, and his greatest fear comes to light: execution by electric chair. We learn more about the relationship between Dexter and his adoptive father Harry (James Remar), and how influential Harry was in moulding Dexter into the person he is today, including teaching him the code he kills by. Dexter begins to deal with some of the emotions associated with having killed his brother (The Ice-Truck Killer), and starts to deal more and more with the emotional weight of his “dark self” when Rita (Julie Benz) surmises that he must have a drug addiction after discovering he assaulted Paul (her ex-husband), coupled with the strange hours he keeps. Dexter confirms to her that he does have “an addiction” and she vows to stand by him as long as he submits to a 12-step program. It is here during a Narcotics Anonymous meeting that he meets Lila (Jaime Murray). A former junkie, Lila convinces Dexter that she knows more about him than anyone could, she knows the darkness and she understands the daily struggle to keep it at bay. She draws Dexter into her web of dependence until he begins to think she may be a better match for him than Rita. Although their addictions are clearly very different, she may be able to begin to understand the pull of the darkness inside him. However, Lila is a destructive and dangerous force in Dexter’s life, doing anything she can to try and keep Dexter as her own, including framing Detective Batista (David Zayas) for rape, and placing the lives of Rita’s children in jeopardy.

Meanwhile Sergeant Doakes (Eric King) is convinced that there is more to Dexter than what he shows the world, especially after the way Dexter managed to save his sister Debra (Jennifer Carpenter) from The Ice-Truck Killer. Doakes has taken to trailing Dexter at night, eventually discovering his secret in the final episodes, that he is the Bay Harbour Butcher (the moniker adopted by the media for the elusive killer of Dexter’s found victims). While Dexter holds Doakes hostage in a cabin in remote swampland, the investigation into the Bay Harbour Butcher breaks, with a lead pointing Debra and Batista to an unknown member within their own Miami Metro department. Dexter decides that this is his only chance to get rid of Doakes, the man he fears will bring him down, and protect his identity at the same time. He frames Doakes, drugging him and placing his fingerprints on a set of butchers knives, the very ones Dexter has used for so long, and throwing them into the ocean at the end of a pier, a pier he knows is used for dive training every week. When Doakes’ car is found at an airstrip with blood slides of all the Bay Harbour Butcher’s victims inside – the prized trophies Doakes had stolen from Dexter’s apartment – along with the found knives, the case closes in on Doakes, although he can’t be found.

During Dexter’s imprisonment of Doakes, we begin to see a new vulnerability within our stoic protagonist. Dexter seriously contemplates the idea of turning himself in to authorities, of accepting his fate and facing the punishment for his crimes. We see him struggle with his emotions, with the same emotions that the audience may be feeling. Is what he is doing – killing murderers – in some way just and therefore morally acceptable? Or is he simply the brutal killer he is portrayed as in the press?This polarized sense of self is only heightened by the debates taking place between the Miami Metro staff, and the everyday people of Miami on the very subject, when it is discovered that every single victim was a criminal who slipped through the system. As Dexter contemplates the inevitability that there is less and less time before he is found out, he begins to have his affairs put in order, making Debra sign his Will and spending some last quality time with Rita and the kids.

No matter how deranged and destructive a force Lila may have been, upon discovering his true secret, she did prove to Dexter that he is capable of receiving love; that someone could still love him knowing what he does. She is also ultimately, the person that sets Dexter free from his exceedingly confined situation. Lila’s obsession leads her to steal Dexter’s GPS device from his car; following the last route taken, she discovers Doakes, and exactly who Dexter really is. Taking things into her own hands, Lila, with a history of arson and with a deep desire to protect Dexter’s big secret, sets the cabin on fire killing Doakes and eliminating any chance he may have to expose Dexter and clear his own name. In a last ditch effort to win Dexter’s heart, she then kidnaps Rita’s children and almost commits them, and Dexter himself, to the same fate as Doakes. Now convinced of her volatile, unpredictable nature, Dexter is certain she can’t be trusted, and pays Lila back for his freedom, and for her endangerment of Rita’s children, by sending her to a watery grave.

Dexter leaves season two by declaring he is done contemplating the question of whether he is good or evil. He doesn’t have the answers, and questions whether anyone does. I myself would posit the same question. This certainly isn’t a show for everyone; some will not be able to see past the violence, and among those that can, some will struggle to entertain the concept itself. However Dexter serves as a fascinating, insightful look into the mind of a serial-killer, positing the unsettling notion that maybe one of them could be simply like you or I. Dexter works on many moral levels, and it can’t be ignored that at its heart lies the simple understanding that, sometimes good people do bad things, a notion that is all too familiar in this world.

Dexter is available for purchase from all major retailers, or from DVD Orchard.

TVGuide.Com, courtesy Andrew Eccles/The CW

Hey upper-east siders, Gossip Girl here, your one and only source into the scandalous lives of Manhattan’s elite world of television in Australia.

So, this was going to be a post about how happy I was that channel Nine in Australia had started to air Gossip Girl, albeit at 10:30pm on a Wednesday during summer non-ratings period, but instead, it’s just going to be an angry rant. Channel Nine originally bought the rights to Gossip Girl back in mid-2007, but on-sold them to FOXTEL’s Fox8 because it didn’t feel the show fit its demographic. Clearly channel Nine is committed to its whole crime procedural/reality vibe, because I honestly couldn’t tell you anything else that they screen. Listen up Nine, you’re not ‘the one’ anymore, it isn’t working, move on. You need to take a chance on some original programming that doesn’t involve a blue light and evidence bags. Gossip Girl was your chance to begin to attract a younger audience. OK, let’s not kid ourselves, this show isn’t going to win any Emmys, but it’s deliciously fun, and bitingly funny, and never fails to entertain. However, it was probably never going to work out, because you wouldn’t have invested anything in promoting it (anyone remember Nine airing three episodes of The O.C before giving up on it? Probably not, because it was barely promoted; Channel Ten bought the rights from Nine, promoted the hell out of it and it became a ratings staple for the underdog.) 

Anyway, I will try and get back to the original point of this article, before I digress again at the end. Gossip Girl has been airing on pay-TV network FOXTEL, with the second season premier set to air tonight. But of course, not everyone can afford, or even wants FOXTEL. Channel Nine, after the show’s now proven success, has picked up the second-run rights (or perhaps these were part of the original sale agreement) to air the first season. Although all the cool kids have already seen it, this is a step forward for free-to-air television and the Australian television industry. Pay-TV has not been the success story here in Australia that it is the U.S. People are not willing to part with their hard earned money for a boatload of garden design and cooking shows speckled with biographies of washed up stars. However, increasingly, FOXTEL is gaining the rights to more and more first run original programming from the U.S, and is producing more quality Australian shows such as Love My Way. This is making it harder for the average Australian to get access to these original and quality shows. The fact that Nine has finally decided to screen Gossip Girl, despite its ridiculous time-slot, means that more people can have access to this exceedingly addictive show. It is a trend that has been occurring increasingly, most notably with Channel Ten’s brilliant pick up of Showtime’s Dexter, which brought quality, original programming to Ten’s Sunday night line-up. Season 2 of Dexter will screen on Channel Ten early 2009, while Showtime will be screening season 3 on its Showcase channel at the same time. I hope Ten continues to acquire such quality programming – even if it is second-run, still, the majority of the country has not seen it – and I can only hope that Nine and Seven follow suit.

Now, on to the continuation of my rant. In my post about Pushing Daisies a few weeks ago, I mentioned that channel Nine would most likely air the brilliant but cancelled series over summer beginning in December, well, while doing some research for this post, I have discovered that this is no longer the case. Channel Nine has sold the rights to its swag of Warner Bros. shows which includes Pushing Daisies, as well as the successful and delightfully funny NBC spy comedy Chuck (incidentally also from Josh Schwartz, the creator of Gossip Girl and The O.C), and the action thrill ride and highly-acclaimed Terminator: The Sarah Connor Chronicles. FOXTEL really is becoming a force in the quality TV stakes, and if Nine keeps selling its original content to them, it’s only going to get harder for people to access quality television programs in this country. In this regard, Nine really has taken one step forward, and two steps back in terms of providing Australian’s access to great, entertaining, and well written television programming. I really hope they see the error of their ways, stat, and stop bulking up their schedule with more crime and legal shows. 

TVGuide.com, courtesy Andrew MacPherson/ABC

Sadly, my prediction about the fate of Pushing Daisies in my recent post was apparently prophetic. Whilst checking out The Ausiello Files on Friday I read the sad news that ABC has cancelled not only Pushing Daisies, but also other cult favourites Eli Stone and Dirty Sexy Money. ‘Quality television’, as Ausiello puts it, has suffered a serious blow. Although I hadn’t been keeping up with Eli Stone, from all I have heard it was a delightful and original concept, garnering much critical attention and attracting big name guest stars such as Katie Holmes, who performed a musical dream sequence in the second episode of season two. Created by Greg Berlanti and Marc Guggenheim (of Brothers & Sisters fame) and with the entire first season written by the pair, it was certainly a show on my list for future viewing, perhaps over summer. Dirty Sexy Money (also executive produced by Berlanti) was a guilty pleasure of mine, but I am not really surprised it has not been renewed. Despite its stellar cast, I just haven’t felt the ‘appointment television’ vibe from it this season, and I feel it is another show that’s momentum was damaged by the WGA strike. I will however, miss the oh-so-wrong sexual chemistry between Darling twin Jeremy (Seth Gable) and the older woman, wife of Jeremy’s lawyer, Lisa George (Zoe McLellan).

The only light at the end of this story is that apparently all three shows will finish production on their ordered episodes, but as Ausiello points out, them being finished and them actually airing are two different things. Let’s hope ABC grants us this small virtue and lets the final episodes of these three terrific shows go to air. If, however, this is too much to ask, we thankfully live in an age of DVD box sets! 

TVGuide.com, courtesy Paul Drinkwater/NBC

One of my favourite shows of all time is The West Wing; I am unsure whether my fascination with U.S politics stemmed from my love for this show or vice-versa. In any case, I couldn’t help but be drawn back into the world of the Bartlett administration during the coverage of the recent U.S election, re-watching favourite episodes and understanding more and more the process of the unfolding election. Even here in Australia, coverage of this historic election was widespread. I don’t think our own federal election garnered as much attention as did the Obama/McCain campaigns for the White House. During the initial campaign for the democratic nomination, I didn’t really know all that much about Barack Obama, the truth is I was barracking, in my own small and un-influential way (seeing as how I couldn’t really have a say in this election) for Hilary Clinton. Having studied feminism at university, from its beginnings with the suffragettes through to its current incarnation of third wave feminism, I was excited about the prospect of a woman holding arguably the most powerful job in the world. I wasn’t really ‘briefed’ as the political aides say, on her political standings, platforms or policies, I was more simply excited that she was there fighting it out for the party nomination, this was a huge step forward for The United States and for the world. The fact that she was fighting alongside Barack Obama made it all the more exciting. I felt the same way about Hilary as many African American’s felt about Obama; this could be the culmination and ultimate salvation of centuries of injustice. These two minority representatives garnering support and attention on the world stage, was exhilarating; I felt like I was witnessing something truly life changing.

When Hilary lost the democratic nomination to Obama, it was no great loss to me. Like I said, my support of her was not based on her political policies, in fact I knew little about them except that she was a democrat. I was supporting the idea of her; of what she could represent, and what kind of change she could bring to America and the rest of the world. In this regard, I was happy to throw my support to Obama, and to follow him with the same excitement as I did Hilary, because ultimately, he represented the same thing: a new definition for the representations of power in the Western world.

As the intensity of media coverage of the Obama campaign increased, and seeing Obama on the evening news became a daily occurrence even here in Australia, I began to be reminded of a certain presidential candidate from my old favourite show. Obama’s resemblance in status, circumstance, and even personality was uncanny to that of Jimmy Smits’ Texan congressman Matthew Santos. Young, charismatic family man with two young children seeks the democratic presidential nomination. Refusing to be defined by his ethnicity, he strives to be a voice for all the people of America and not just those who identify with his minority background. Along the way he faces tough competition within his own party from a former White House occupant during the most recent democratic administration. Through his rousing oratory focusing on change and the idealism that there is a lot more that unites Americans than divides them, he wins the nomination after a hard fought convention. He goes on to win the presidency, fighting a long campaign against his much more experienced, Republican war-hero opponent. The script, it seems, could not have been more prophetic.

It was with great delight, then, that I discovered that these similarities were not coincidental. It seems that, when over 4 years ago the writers at The West Wing began to plan for their final two seasons, they modelled their minority presidential candidate on a young, Illinois politician named Barack Obama. I may be behind the 8-ball on this realisation, I found articles on this very subject dated as far back as February when former West Wing writer Eli Attie first spoke of the origins of the Santos story, but it seems during this time Obama was not on my radar. I was still all about Hilary back then, and I somehow, inexplicably, missed the whole thing. If you want to read more about it try here or here, or the numerous other sites that will pop up in a search page.

Watching the Obama campaign was true life reflecting art, and it reminded me of just how politically and socially aware the writers of The West Wing were. Furthermore, it proves to me what great television can be, a vehicle to inspire the impossible, and a forum through which representations of our greatest social desires can be made possible. I am excited to see what Obama will mean for The United States and indeed for Australia, if only there was more West Wing to tip us off as to what the future may hold.

ABC.com

ABC’s delightful and imaginative series Pushing Daisies could be nearing the end of its run on network television. Production has started on the last episode of its 13 episode order, with sluggish ratings suggesting the network will not order a back 9 pick-up of the cult favourite. Campaigns are underway to help save the series, here and here.  Daisies got off to a great start in its first season receiving much favourable critical attention, but was halted drastically by the WGA strike, and it seems it has straggled to regain its original momentum. As a new show trying to make its mark in the televisual landscape, and with one of the most bizarre premises a TV series has ever seen, it was arguably one of the shows hurt most by the strike. Daisies aired just nine episodes of its first season before being shut down, and ABC executives decided not to order additional episodes once the strike was over, (something they did with their other favourites Grey’s Anatomy, Brothers & Sisters and Ugly Betty), instead choosing to hold off on new episodes until the next American fall season. This meant that a show that had barely found an audience was absent from TV screens for almost 10 months; a long time for any show let alone a quirky little one that had only ever aired nine episodes.

Pushing Daisies stars Lee Pace as Ned, a pie maker with an unusual gift; he can bring life to dead things with his touch. Once touched a time limit of one minute applies whereby Ned must touch the thing again, committing it to death forever, or something else must die in its place. Ned decides to use his powers for good, solving murders with local P.I Emerson Cod (Chi McBride) by touching murder victims and getting vital information from them within the one-minute time frame. Anna Friel plays Ned’s childhood sweetheart, Charlotte ‘Chuck’ Charles, who is murdered and subsequently brought back to life by Ned. The rules of Ned’s gift however mean that Ned and Charlotte, although clearly in love, can never touch – ever.

If you’ve never seen the show the premise reads as highly convoluted, but in viewing it, its delightful, unique and refreshing; a true original in a landscape of law, crime, and hospital dramas. Its high production values are evident in its rich and textured sets, costuming, and special effects. The whole thing feels like a fairytale, a storybook being played out in real life. The general rules of television don’t apply here, and there are often moments of pure, unpretentious joy.

Waitress Olive Snook, who works at The Pie Hole with Ned, is an irreverent, sassy blonde whose love for Ned is evident to all but Ned himself. Played by the enchanting and incredibly talented Kristin Chenoweth, Olive is prone to musical interludes such as her fully orchestrated rendition of ‘Hopelessly Devoted to You’ delivered as she shuts The Pie Hole for the night; or her duet with Chuck’s Aunt Vivian (Ellen Greene) ‘Make a Little Bird House in Your Soul,’ an elegy to the grief Vivian feels over Chuck’s supposed death, and how Olive suggest she should deal with it. Vivian also has her own musical moments, such as her hopeful and bittersweet rendition of ‘Morning has Broken,’ delivered as she walks from her house into the rain, a new woman reborn from the grief and depression that has plagued her.

Pushing Daisies is a visual fantasyland, with a decidedly 50’s throwback aesthetic coupled with heightened colour and stylisation. It even feels emotionally like a 50’s family drama, with its sense of innocence and jubilation. It is witty and charming without any sense of highbrow television elitism. It is quite simply, fun.

As of today Channel Nine in Australia has no scheduled date for when they will begin screening this gem, but I was advised by their programming department it would most likely air over summer, from mid-December onwards. If you can’t wait that long, and I hope I have convinced you that you can’t, Pushing Daisies is available from Amazon.com in Region 1 format. 

HBO.com

With the launch of the Sex and the City Movie DVD here in Australia and both Candace Bushnell and Patricia Field in town for the Melbourne Cup Carnival, Sex and the City has been on my mind lately. I got to thinking about the writing that I did for my thesis two years ago, and the way I was thinking about the show so critically and through a theoretical lens of third wave feminism. I wrote my thesis on the representations of third wave feminism present within the text, and focussed mainly on the attitudes and representations of love, marriage, fashion and the pursuit of beauty. I hadn’t thought about the show in that way since I finished my thesis, after a year of picking it apart I just wanted to enjoy it again. But today, I started flipping through my thesis and I thought perhaps some of you might enjoy seeing the show from a more analytical perspective, the way I saw it for so long, so I thought I would print an excerpt of my thesis here for you. It’s hard to pick just one bit, and you must remember that this excerpt is missing all the context and grounding in theory that were laid out in the previous chapters, but it should give you an idea about some of the bigger issues at work within the series. I hope you enjoy it!

chapter three:

fashion and beauty

Later that night I got to thinking about Narcissus, a man so consumed with his own image he drowned in it. Did he have no best friends to mirror back a healthier view of himself? And why is it, that we can see our friends perfectly but when it comes to ourselves, no matter how hard we look, do we ever see ourselves clearly?

                                                               Carrie Bradshaw (4/02 ‘The Real Me’).

The pursuit of beauty and a penchant for fashion have long been considered frivolous and trivial by the feminist agenda: the pursuits of unintelligible women who don’t know better, women abiding in their own submission – both social and sexual (Brydon 1998, 6). In the second wave, as discussed in chapter one, radical feminists burned their bras in protest of what they believed to be a socially constructed and consented form of subjugation and oppression thrust upon the unassuming female population. Yet, despite these radical efforts of the feminist anti-beauty rhetoric, the fashion and beauty industries have only continued to grow. Current feminist thinking has acknowledged this fact, suggesting that perhaps the continued allegiance of women to the fashion and beauty industries highlights an important re-organization of feminist politics.  In the emerging third wave of feminism; beauty, fashion, and the feminist politics that accompany these pursuits, have experienced a resurgence: an embracing of all things feminine for women, and by women. Can it still be assumed that wearing stilettos represents a woman’s submission to sexual objectification? The four women of Sex and the City – strong, independent, mature beings that actively pursue sex on their own terms – are converts to the stiletto revival, and do we view them as mindless and unknowing in doing so? This chapter will analyse these questions and other related issues such as consumerism in the feminist world, in order to gain an understanding of if and how fashion, shoes, and the pursuit of beauty are used within Sex and the City in service of a third wave feminist agenda, and further how the show uses fashion and beauty as representative of women reclaiming the right to partake in their own empowerment.

fashion is the fifth character

From the very beginnings of Sex and the City, discussion of the fashions within the series has been prevalent. From Fendi, to Prada, Jimmy Choo to Manolo Blahnik, these names have seeped into the present female – and even male – vernacular. From the humble beginnings of the show, designer labels were employed not simply to signify that the four women of Sex and the City were fashion savvy shoppers with disposable income, but also to paint each character with their own sense of style. Every week, the four women’s high fashions are emblematic of their own personal style and personalities. Miranda’s style is practical, corporate and understated; Charlotte’s is preppy, sweet and classic; Samantha’s is sexy, daring and chic; and finally Carrie’s, being the most diverse and changing of the four women, is everything from wistfully pretty to edgy and hip, from eclectic and personal to romantic and dreamy.

These widely varying fashions play an important role in character definition, functioning classically as stereotypes of characters, especially within the first few seasons (Bruzzi & Church Gibson 2004, 115). As Stella Bruzzi and Pamela Church Gibson confirm, this is quite obviously a conscious decision by the show’s producers, writers and designers, to create stereotyped versions of women and feminism – the corporate woman, the sexy woman, the quirky romantic, and the preppie princess – in order to make these different forms of feminism definable and recognisable at first glance. Thus, Miranda is representative of corporate power ideals of feminism; Carrie with her quirks and whimsy can be seen as an emblem of one of the very first incarnations of feminism within the workplace – the writer; Samantha is representative of feminist sexual liberation; and Charlotte represents a return to old-fashioned values, for as Bruzzi and Church Gibson claim, she is everything Simone de Beauvior despised (Bruzzi & Church Gibson 2004, 120). The individualised fashions of the four female characters can also be viewed as emblematic of female choice within a highly dynamic and diverse fashion society; as Naomi Wolf claims, when a woman partakes in fashion, she partakes in choice; moreover she demands it (Wolf 2003, Internet). Such demand, coupled with the sheer plethora of choices available to women in the pursuit of fashion and beauty, serves to further provide women with an atmosphere conducive to personal freedom, something that can be considered feminist in nature and emblematic of the show’s attempts to negotiate the different forms of feminist politics.

The four female characters can be viewed as partaking in the practice of Girlie feminism outlined in chapter one: a re-claiming of ownership over feminine practices and adornments. Embracing fashion and feminine practices, they do so with open minds and in the pursuit of nothing more than their own empowerment. They partake in fashion not to serve the patriarchal tyranny portrayed by the second wave and as recounted by Scott, but perhaps to be ironic, to be sexy, or to be whimsical. Girlie feminism suggests that women in general be allowed to re-claim their femininity and to do so with an open and educated mind: women should no longer mindlessly comply with outdated misogynistic ideals of fashion, they should choose their fashions for their own empowerment and at the same time, understand that it is their right to do so.

a woman’s right to shoes

There are countless examples of the use of fashion within the series as an expression and symbol of empowerment; many of these examples come from the use of the stiletto shoe as a catalyst for feminism within the series. The image and symbol of the high-heeled shoe is a constant presence within the series on an episodic basis and their utilisation is highly emblematic of third wave feminism. Carrie and the girls don’t wear Manolo Blahnik’s because they feel that they make them more attractive to men, they wear them not only because they are attractive and desirable to themselves, but also because the act of wearing them makes them feel powerful and strong. This is evidenced in many instances throughout the seasons of the show; one such example is visible in season three’s ‘Attack of the 5’10” Woman’ (3/03). In this episode, Carrie feels nervous about running in to Big’s new wife at a ‘women in the arts function’, and so decides a new pair of Manolos will be just the thing to help give her the confidence to face the woman she feels threatened by. Carrie’s feelings of inferiority and rivalry towards Natasha are easily viewed as childish, immature and irrational, yet in her new shoes, Carrie is empowered to face Natasha not only because the five inch heels are literally high enough to put them face to face, but because the act of wearing them in itself makes her feel powerful and strong. Carrie’s insecurities are quashed by the empowerment she draws from her new shoes, and no matter how superficial her empowerment may be, no person should begrudge her, or anyone, for drawing empowerment from any source they deem necessary and possible. In this sense, Carrie can be seen as drawing power from what was once a symbol of female oppression, her shoes, in a manner Baumgardner and Richards liken to “gay men in Chelsea calling each other ‘queer’ or black men and women using the term ‘nigga’” (Baumgardner & Richards 2000, 137). For these authors, Girlie is an attempt to re-cultivate the meaning of such feminine adornments, something that is exemplified in Carrie’s use of shoes.

Yet a further example of the use of shoes within the series comes in season six’s ‘A Woman’s Right to Shoes’ (6/09). In this episode, Carrie’s favourite pair of Manolos go missing from a baby shower at which the host had asked guests to remove their shoes and leave them in the foyer of the apartment. When Keira, the host of the party, denies that it’s her fault the shoes went missing and refuses to pay for Carrie’s “extravagant lifestyle” Carrie surmises that after she has bought this woman a wedding present, an engagement present, three baby presents and paid for a trip out of town to attend her wedding, she has spent over “twenty three hundred dollars celebrating her choices, and she shames me for spending a lousy four hundred and eighty five bucks on myself?” (6/09). In this instance, the symbol of the stiletto is used to represent a lifestyle choice, that of choosing an independent and single lifestyle, of being a financially self-reliant, fashion-conscious woman who won’t settle for anything less than the best in all spheres of life. After dissecting the situation and venting her feelings with the girls, Carrie decides that her life, although “filled with shoes and not children,” is no less relevant and worthy than Keira’s, and therefore, perhaps Keira should help to celebrate her choices for once; she calls Keira and leaves a message on her machine stating “I wanted to let you know that I’m getting married – to myself. Oh, and I’m registered at Manolo Blahnik” (6/09). As the episode closes and Carrie struts the streets of New York in her brand new shoes, her “very first wedding present,” the elegant silver stilettos are symbolic of her independence, empowerment, and self-worth (6/09).

In her article ‘Sex and the City: A Visible Flaneuse for the Postmodern Era?’ (2003), Helen Richards further proposes that Carrie’s footwear is highly indicative of her role as a postmodern flaneuse. An historical figure originally belonging to the male gender, the flaneur was a figure of modernity that wandered the streets of Paris, observing, noting and watching its inhabitants, a sort of early journalistic figure (Richards 2003, 149). Richards notes that Carrie, who spends at least three scenes per episode walking, is the modern, female form of this figure, an insight also alluded to by Barbara Creed (Creed 2003, 52). Richards further notes that the flaneur was the “possessor of the gaze, objectifying the inhabitants of the city, noting their activities and appearance for his own enjoyment” (Richards 2003, 150). Carrie’s role within the series is certainly similar; hers are the eyes through which we see the world of Sex and the City, they are her judgements and descriptions of people, places and events that the audience bears witness to, and she is constantly roaming the city, researching, shopping, thinking. As Richards notes, there have been many critics of the idea of a female flaneur. Janet Wilson and Griselda Pollock for example suggest that the concept is implausible because the sphere of the modern city, and the right to look, was not a female privilege but in fact belonged entirely to men (Richards 2003, 151).

Carrie’s affinity with walking further serves to highlight her shoes of choice, stilettos, which are often shot in close up and constantly referred to, as in ‘Valley of the Twenty-Something Guys’ (1/04). “I decided to walk to clear my head. So I walked forty eight blocks in four hundred dollar shoes.” The stiletto can be viewed as a symbol of empowerment when identified with its highly phallic connotations: the metal-cored spike of a stiletto is both a symbol and a weapon with every step. Furthermore, the act of wearing stilettos can potentially be painful, dangerous and deforming (Brydon 1998, 9). In the 1950’s the stiletto was representative of sexual freedom, defiance and decadence; it was a potent symbol of life outside the domestic sphere (Brydon 1998, 7). Girlie feminism and the reclaiming of feminine practices by women as empowering has ensured that the dim view of stilettos held by radial feminists of the second wave has been redefined, within Sex and the City we are experiencing a throwback to the original meaning of the stiletto. Stilettos are now synonymous with the empowerment of the wearer (Young 2002, Internet), as it appears they once were. As evidenced in the analysis of the above scenes, the women of Sex and the City can be seen as drawing empowerment from their stilettos, performing tasks from business, to sex, masturbation to walking the dog in the high priced, high-heeled masterpieces, without any hint of feminine passivity (Young 2002, Internet). The representation of shoes and stilettos within Sex and the City echoes the notions of Girlie feminism discussed by Baumgardner & Richards – re-claiming the right to wear stilettos and knowing how, because of feminism, to use them to their own advantage (Baumgardner & Richards 2000, 126-166).

In this sense, and bearing in mind Wilson and Pollock’s belief that the flaneuse is an impossibility because the right to see and be seen within the city belonged only to men, Carrie’s shoes can be viewed not only as her equipment for walking the streets and for observing the world of the city of New York, but as a powerful phallic symbol of assertion, with every step, of her right to see, and to be seen within the space of the city.

cover girl

As I discussed earlier, the topic of beautification and the pursuit of beauty has long been a point of contention amongst feminists. However, the newly emerging third wave appears to have embraced the practices of beauty under the doctrine of Girlie feminism. Likewise with fashion, Girlie embraces beautification as a form of feminist empowerment. A woman can be a powerful company leader and wear lipstick at the same time; these things are not a contradiction. In fact, the act of wearing the lipstick can enhance the sense of empowerment. There are numerous examples within Sex and the City which adhere to this principle, demonstrating that Sex and the City can be viewed as a definitive example of a third wave feminist television text.

One such example is evident in seasons three’s ‘Sex and Another City’(3/14). In this episode, the girls head to L.A so Carrie can meet with executives about turning her column in to a film. After a week in L.A, Carrie decides she needs a bikini wax and makes an appointment with the ‘waxer to the stars’, a stony-faced Russian woman named Alicia. Carrie is shocked and appalled when she unexpectedly receives a Brazilian wax from Alicia, exclaiming to the girls later, “I got mugged! She took everything I got!” (3/14). Although Carrie is initially upset and uncomfortable with her newly waxed bikini line describing herself as “one of those firkin’ hairless dogs!” (3/14), she later displays confidence and empowerment that she otherwise wouldn’t have exhibited without her Brazilian wax, more aggressively and actively pursuing sex as she states; “standing in the South American’s living room, my Brazilian made me kiss him” (3/14). Typically, the fact that a woman would subject herself to the pain of a Brazilian wax would be seen as a clear act of sexually objectifying oneself for the pleasure of the man, as Miranda puts it “L.A men are too lazy to go hunting for anything” (3/14). However in this episode, Carrie’s Brazilian was initially unplanned, and therefore not a conscious act of objectification; furthermore, it awakens within Carrie an aggressive sexuality empowering her to pursue sex in a way typified as masculine, and further suggesting that perhaps such practices could be viewed as offering empowerment to the female, instead of simply sexual gratification to the male.

Another such example of the pursuit of beauty being an empowering act to women is recognisable in season two’s ‘The Freak Show’ (2/03). During this episode, Samantha considers plastic surgery, only to be told by the doctor that she needs work all over her body. As he draws the red Texta colour lines over her skin suggesting where he would cut, tuck, sew and stretch, Samantha is shocked and appalled by her reflection in the mirror. The whole experience teaches her that there is nothing wrong with her body, and that the red-marked, circus-inspired image staring back at her in the doctor’s office was not something she desired at all. In this instance, the source of empowerment is reversed; Samantha finds her empowerment not through the act of excessive plastic surgery, but through the rejection of it. This example suggests an underlying message; that the pursuit of beauty can push women too far, and that some of the practices of beautification available today such as plastic surgery are drastic and un-natural. It further highlights that Girlie feminism’s embrace of feminine practices of beautification, is not without reasonable limits. What Samantha learns, and what the audience can garner from this example, is that sometimes the most empowering thing can be to reject societal pressures, and be happy with who you are. This ideal is clearly embedded within Baumgardner & Richards definition of Girlie Feminism (2000, 134), as the concept of reclaiming feminine practices such as beautification is not aimed at changing the woman, but at helping her to achieve self-empowerment and self-expression.

Another example of the pursuit of beauty as an empowering act for women is evident in season two’s ‘The Caste System’ (2/10). While receiving pedicures, the girls discuss the problem with Miranda and Steve’s relationship, which centres on the fact that Steve feels uncomfortable with Miranda earning more money than he does. In this example, the practice of beautification provides an open forum for the women to discuss issues in their lives (just as the act of shopping does, something that I will talk about in further detail later in this chapter). This scene also brings up interesting issues in relation to race and class, as Charlotte insightfully states, “you’re trying to pretend that we live in a classless society, and we don’t” motioning towards the four Asian women currently pampering the lead characters’ feet (2/10).

Nancy Etcoff argues that the pursuit of beauty can be viewed as a unifying pursuit for women across classes and cultures in her book Survival of the Prettiest: The Science of Beauty (2000). Etcoff states “racism and class snobbery are reflected in images of beauty, although beauty itself is indifferent to race and thrives on diversity” (Etcoff 2000, 5). She further claims that beauty is an inescapable part of universal culture, taking on many different forms throughout the world, and though practices may vary the intent is always the same. “We allow that violence is done to the body among ‘primitive’ cultures or that it was done by ancient societies, but we are yet to realise that beauty brings out the primitive in every person” (Etcoff 2000, 5). This notion is further echoed by Linda Scott who states, “from a cross cultural perspective, the [second wave] feminist notion of ‘natural’ grooming is a perverse fiction. What is natural for human beings is artifice” (Scott 2005, 12). In this manner, the pursuit of beauty is a practice that can unite women across cultures, class and race. It is a practice that has been observed and undertaken for centuries, regardless of class or culture. This is a notion one can recognise within Sex and the City, with the practice of beautification uniting the four lead characters and further providing a forum for them to discuss their problems.

However the more pressing issue highlighted within this scene, is one of the key criticisms of feminism. It is often claimed that feminism in its early incarnations was a relatively white and affluent association (Jowett 2005, 4); (Wolf 1993, xvii); (Karlyn 2006, 60). Conceived as a movement to fight for women’s equality, marginalised groups such as women of colour and women of lower classes often felt abandoned by essentially white academic feminists. The third wave was largely born out of this perceived lack of second wave feminism to truly speak for ‘women’ as a collective group, attempting to present through its newer ideals and philosophies, a more individualised view of feminism able to cater to many more women than the second wave appeared to. In this sense, although representing different stereotyped views of feminism through its four lead characters, Sex and the City admittedly still fails to capture this ideal of the third wave as a more inclusive feminism, representing only white middle-class women in its lead characters, and therefore highlighting the extent to which the second wave still informs the text. Joanne Hollows and Rachel Moseley note that this failure is a common characteristic of popular third wave feminist cultural products, which often represent the third wave selectively, and further reinforce omissions of the second wave (Hollows & Moseley 2006, 11), Although the work of Etcoff and Scott may highlight the ability of the practices of beautification to unite women across class and culture, Sex and the City still serves to prove Hollows and Moseley’s generalisation of selective representation within third wave feminist texts. 

change of a dress

There are multiple examples within the show whereby clothes and fashion are also used as symbols of empowerment, enabling the women to wield their femininity, pursuing and engaging in their own self-fulfilment. One such example comes in season three’s ‘Frenemies’ (3/16) wherein Charlotte is frustrated by Trey’s inability to see her as a complete and whole being, with sexual desires and needs. “Trey sees you as his virginal wife and not as his sexual plaything…you’re not going to get anywhere until you change how he sees you” Samantha tells Charlotte, and insists that she try to change his views (3/16). Through shopping for the right lingerie, Charlotte feels empowered to force Trey to see her for who she really is, a real person, instead of the Madonna that he believes or simply wants her to be. The right lingerie allows Charlotte to express herself completely, to really express the sexual being that she is, something she hasn’t felt able to do on her own, and moreover, allows Trey to see his wife completely for the first time.  In this way, the act of wearing lingerie is a feminist act aligned with the concepts of Girlie feminism – re-claiming the right to feminine practices and signifiers, and knowing how to use them to one’s advantage – as it is used to represent Charlotte as her true self, a sexual being.

In ‘The Real Me’ (4/02), Carrie is asked to be a ‘real’ model in a charity fashion show which teams media figures with fashion models. At first she is unsure, not believing that she could possibly walk the runway with real models, the figures she has worshiped her whole life. She is swayed when she hears that the designers were allowed to pick the celebrities they wanted and Dolce & Gabbana picked her, furthermore, she would be allowed to keep the clothes. At a fitting at the studio of her fashion icons, D&G, she meets high fashion photographer turned ‘behind the scenes’ photographer Paul, who she later praises for his 90’s high fashion work, gushing “when I first moved to New York and I was totally broke, sometimes I would buy Vogue instead of dinner. I just felt it fed me more” (4/02). Paul tells Carrie that he used to do “all that high fashion shit, but the behind the scenes stuff I’m doing now is so much better, more real” to which Carrie replies, “Real. Ick” (4/02). Later, when D&G change Carrie’s outfit minutes before her turn on the catwalk, she is shocked and uneasy about wearing their new choice, sequined underwear and an open blue satin trench coat. Samantha assures her that she looks fabulous, that she could be a real model. But when mid-strut down the runway Carrie falls flat on her face, leaving Heidi Klum to breezily step over her like “fashion road kill,” she feels anything but model fantastic (4/02). From the beginnings of this episode, we can easily read Carrie’s worship of all things high fashion as un-feminist, unintelligible and flighty. However in the final moments of the episode, when she peels herself off the runway and continues to strut in her sequined underwear, simply because “when real people fall down in life, they get right back up” (4/02), what is revealed is the show’s belief that the clothes don’t make the person. High fashion couture may make a woman feel sexy, confident, strong, and feminine, but really those things don’t come from the clothes at all. The clothes may help facilitate them, but those things come from within a real person. This notion is an element clearly evident within third wave feminism and within Girlie feminism. Girlie promotes the use of clothes, shoes, and feminie adornments for many reasons: to be ironic, to be pretty, to make women feel good, to inspire empowerment; but it does not presume that the use of these feminine adornments will change women, they must do that for themselves. 

to market, to market

Actively engaging in and pursuing fashion can only mean one thing: shopping. These two concepts are emphatically entwined in our culture. The act of shopping can be viewed as a potentially feminist activity where women come together to discuss their problems, engage in active problem solving, counsel and console each other, and garner personal style, self confidence and a sense of community. However, society and feminists alike have long viewed the act of shopping as actively engaging in the evils of global consumerism, as a mindless compliance with the capitalist regime, and perhaps as a product of the doctrine that ‘free choice’ of goods equals freedom in the free world (Nava 1992, 162). As John Jervis states in his study of modern culture Exploring the Modern, the concept and act of consumerism is “a celebration of excess, an indulgence in waste” (Jervis 1998, 91), but it is yet, nonetheless, “a crucial aspect of modern social and cultural life” (Jervis 1998, 93). Cultural studies theorist Mica Nava further suggests that cultural forms such as consumerism “have the power…to indoctrinate and manipulate men and women into social conformity and subordination” (Nava 1992, 162). To be a participant in consumerism is to fall prey to the “conspiratorial messages designed to inhibit true consciousness” (Nava 1992, 165). This negative view of consumerism has been the dominant discourse for feminists of the past, as evidenced in Scott’s recounting of the radical second wave’s embrace of clothing untouched by capitalist machinery (Scott 2005, 289). If one was to apply these theories to the representations present within Sex and the City, the conclusion could easily be reached that, yes, the women of Sex and the City are complicit victims of a consumerist society.

Yet recently, a new view of consumerism has begun to emerge, one that seems more representative of the theories and practices of third wave feminism. Theorists have come to consider the ways in which the status and power of women have been enhanced and furthered by the nature of consumer society. As Mica Nava puts it, “consumption…has offered women new areas of authority and expertise, new sources of income, a new sense of consumer rights and…a heightened awareness of entitlement outside the sphere of consumption” (Nava 1992, 166)

Naomi Wolf, a famous early third waver, has similarly embraced such a view, performing something of a political feminist turnaround. In her 1990 publication The Beauty Myth, Wolf actively spoke of the myth of beauty and its use as a currency system determined by politics to “keep[s] male dominance intact” (Wolf 1990, 3). However she now actively and vehemently defends the rights of women to shop, thus partaking in the pursuit of fashion and beauty, and hence presumably defending the rights of women to likewise partake in these practises. In one article she passionately states: “anti-consumerism is misogyny. To hate shopping and all of its representations is to hate women” (Wolf 2003, Internet), and further supports the view of shopping as providing a safe, community environment for women when she claims that although shopping can take all day and may not yield any purchases, “It yields something else. It yields sorority, or sisterhood – a true sorority, not restricted to the blond and wealthy” (Wolf 2003, Internet). Jervis also supports this theory when he writes that shopping is one of the only areas “where women [can] have a legitimate presence” (Jervis 1998, 95), being “the most widely visible sign of female emancipation in the modern city” (Barth quoted in Jervis, 1998, 95).  Helen Richards offers further support in her article on the flaneuse when she states that “the department store [is] a public place where women [are] free to wander aimlessly, to look at people and the latest fashion, without the prospect of being labeled loose women” (Richards 2003, 151), thus, Richards sees the department store as a safe haven for women, somewhere where they can do what they please uninhibited by judgment and free to partake in feminine pleasures. These new theories and ways of analyzing the relationship between feminism and consumerism suggest a re-organization of feminist politics within the third wave, and perhaps signal a shift of the third wave itself towards new ideals and theories beyond what we already know. This sense of sorority, friendship, warmth and safety provided by shopping and discussed by these theorists, is a constant presence within Sex and the City.

There are numerous examples in evidence of the use of shopping within the series as a self-affirming activity, such as in season six’s ‘Let There be Light’ (6/13) when Carrie discusses the idea of “taking a lover” whilst shopping for perfume with the girls. Or season four’s ‘I Heart NY’ (4/18), when Carrie helps Samantha project her feelings about her fear of intimacy and of having her heart broken by Richard while shopping for shoes. A further example comes in season three’s closing episode, ‘Cock a Doodle Doo!’ when while shopping at Carrie’s favourite thrift store, “right there next to the two for five dollar bin, Miranda and [Carrie have their] first big fight” (3/18). After telling Miranda that she is busy Saturday because she is meeting Big for lunch, Miranda informs Carrie that she will not support her if she chooses to get back together with Big crying “wake up Carrie, how many more times are you going to go through this? He is bad for you. Every time you get near him you turn in to this pathetic, needy, insecure victim” (3/18). Carrie is hurt and upset that Miranda would be so judgemental of her choices exclaiming, “everybody isn’t as tough as you Miranda, some of us make mistakes” to which Miranda turns and walks out of the store without replying (3/18).

Another example is identifiable in season four’s ‘My Motherboard, My Self’ (4/08) when Samantha, distraught, openly discusses her fear that she has lost her orgasm while shopping for flowers for Miranda’s mother’s funeral. It may seem absurd for Samantha to be worried about the fact that she couldn’t climax when Miranda’s mother has just died, but for Samantha, this problem is genuinely her worst fear realised and when Charlotte comments that she “read an article about a woman who was having Orgasms round the clock and then BOOM, Orgasms stopped – for good,” Samantha replies shaken and anxiously “that’s the meanest thing you’ve ever said to me” (4/08).

All of these examples provide evidence that shopping is used within Sex and the City as a true feminist forum, a catalyst for women to talk about their deepest emotions and troubles. It provides a forum for friendship to grow and to challenge itself and a place where women can feel safe and free to openly discuss their hopes and fears, to foster their relationships, to comfort and confront – a feminist space where women share in the sorority of femininity; and not an evil capitalist fraternity only valuing the currency of money. In this sense, it is clearly evident that the representations of shopping within Sex and the City are highly reminiscent of recent theoretical receptions of shopping as a feminist space and activity.

From the examples provided within this chapter, it is evident that the third wave feminist practices of Girlie feminism are embedded within the text of Sex and the City. Clothing, shoes, shopping and the pursuit of beauty are all used within the series as forms of feminist empowerment, ways for the women to express and articulate their feminism, and to feel empowered in doing so. From these examples and the numerous others present within the text, one can ascertain that Sex and the City is a prime example of third wave feminist opinions on the nature of fashion and beauty in current society.

Bibliography

Baumgardner, J. & Richards, A. 2000, Manifesta: Young Women, Feminism, and the Future, 1st edn, Farrar Straus and Giroux, New York

Bruzzi, S. & Church Gibson, P. 2004, ‘‘Fashion is the fifth character’: fashion, costume and character in Sex and the City’, in K. Akass & J. McCabe (eds), Reading Sex and the City, I.B Tauris & Co. Ltd., New York, pp. 115-129.

Brydon, A. 1998, ‘Sensible Shoes’, in A. Brydon & S. Niessen (eds), Consuming Fashion: Adorning the Transnational Body, Berg, Oxford, pp. 1-15

Creed, B. 2003, ‘Television & Taboo: The limits of Sex and the City’, in, Media Matrix: Sexing the New Reality, Allen & Unwin, Crows Nest, N.S.W, pp. 43-57.

Etcoff, N.L. 2000, Survival of the Prettiest: The Science of Beauty, Anchor Books, New York.

Hollows, J. & Moseley, R. 2006, Feminism in Popular Culture, Berg, Oxford.

Jervis, J. 1998, Exploring the Modern: Patterns of Western Culture and Civilization, Blackwell Publishers Inc., Massachusetts.

Jowett, L. 2005, Sex and the Slayer: A Gender Studies Primer for the Buffy Fan, Wesleyan University Press, Middletown.

Karlyn, K.R. 2006, ‘Feminism in the Classroom: Teaching Towards the Third Wave’, in J. Hollows & R. Moseley (eds), Feminism in Popular Culture, Berg, Oxford, pp. 57-75.

Nava, M. 1992, Changing Cultures: Feminism, Youth and Consumerism, Sage Publications, London.

Richards, H. 2003, ‘Sex and the City: A Visible Flaneuse for the Postmodern Era?’ Continuum: Journal of Media & Cultural Studies, vol. 17, no. 2, pp. 147-157.

Scott, L.M. 2005, Fresh Lipstick: Redressing Fashion and Feminism, Palgrave Macmillan, New York.

Wolf, N. 1990, The Beauty Myth, Chatto & Windus, London.

Wolf, N. 1993, Fire With Fire: The New Female Power and How it Will Change the 21st Century, 1st edn, Random House, New York.

Wolf, N. 2003, ‘Anti-Consumerism Equals Anti-Womanism’, The Exile, 18/9/2003, <http://www.exile.ru/2003-September-18/anticonsumerism_equals_antiwomanism.html>, 12 June 2006

Young, E. 2002, ‘High Strollers’, The Sydney Morning Herald, 21/6/2002, <http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2002/06/20/1023864476771.html>, 19 June 2006.

Episodes Cited

1/04, ‘Valley of the Twenty-Something Guys’, 1998, Sex and the City, HBO Network, USA.

2/03, ‘The Freak Show’, 1999, Sex and the City, HBO Network, USA.

2/10, ‘The Caste System’, 1999, Sex and the City, HBO Network, USA.

3/03, ‘Attack of the 5’10″ Woman’, 2000, Sex and the City, HBO Network, USA.

3/14, ‘Sex and Another City’, 2000, Sex and the City, HBO Network, USA.

3/16, ‘Frenemies’, 2000, Sex and the City, HBO Network, USA.

3/18, ‘Cock a Doodle Doo!’, 2000, Sex and the City, HBO Network, USA.

4/02, ‘The Real Me’, 2001, Sex and the City, HBO Network, USA.

4/08, ‘My Motherboard, My Self’, 2001, Sex and the City, HBO Network, USA.

4/18, ‘I heart NY’, 2002, Sex and the City, HBO Network, USA.

6/09, ‘A Woman’s Right to Shoes’, 2003, Sex and the City, HBO Network, USA.

6/13, ‘Let There be Light’, 2004, Sex and the City, HBO Network, USA.