|
|
| |
Ilene Chaiken, creator of The L Word, has already explained to the [New York] Times that she rejects ‘the idea that pop television is a political medium,’ and refuses to ‘take on the mantle of social responsibility.’ No wonder the second season, like the first, is entirely devoted to chlorinated water, loud music, pricey apartments, warm weather, hot bodies, and sizzling sex. Nobody ever reads a book, not even guest star Sandra Bernhard, who is supposed to teach writing. Nobody even goes to a movie… It's a soap with nipples. (Leonard)
Rosemary Hennessy says that one of the most popular forms of narrative is commercial film. The way in which these films [and television shows] are monetarily sponsored is based on their message and articulation of a "culture's social imaginary." (145) Hence, we are left with uncultured soap operas and movies where the plot is demolished by large explosives. Our images support the idea of the American dream, and this American dream is a race to acquire the most toys. In a capitalist economy, media is representative of this dream. For women, often times these toys are in the form of clothing or fashion. Since Chaiken is claiming to represent lesbians as "real women" (i.e. feminine women) in an attempt to break the stereotype of lesbians as bulldaggers,23 her construction of lesbians, unfortunately, fits into capitalist ideology, and fashion drives the show. The marketing is consequently representative of Chaiken's idealized lesbian. This marketing strategy calls into question who the show is targeting. Is this show about lesbians also for lesbians, or are Chaiken and Showtime producing and/or marketing the show to a different audience? Or is The L Word a promotion of consumerism, with designers rushing to advertise by outfitting the actors?24
There has been much criticism of the show's attempt to try to defy the gender-sex dichotomy as a ploy to market to a more inclusive crowd, not just lesbians. "The underlying accusation is that she is playing to men, a charge she says she finds mildly annoying since she is, after all, creating a show about sexy young women in Los Angeles, not a documentary about asthmatic mill workers in Pittsburgh. 'Just telling these stories is in itself a radical act,' she said" (Glock). This statement by Chaiken is odd, a non sequitur, and does little to counter the criticism of the show's target audience. This also contradicts her above statement (quote at beginning of section) that the show is not political. But let us assume for a moment that Chaiken is in fact attempting "a radical act;" in attempting a show that gives lesbians a new image (conventionally sexy young women) that tries to break stereotypes (bulldaggers), are the creators allowing capitalism to create a lesbian identity that is more pleasing to heteropatriarchy? Or are they trying to create a queer nationalism that is defiant of the Republican nationalism that has dominated this country's political scene?
While visiting L.A., I passed a giant billboard advertising the second season of The L Word. The image was of the women from the show all huddled together, naked, on a white rug with a grey background. Arms, legs, heads and other body parts, through the huddled embraces of the women, are used to cover any culturally censored body parts. The text read "venus envy" and then provided info for those interested in viewing the show (check The L Word Online for an image). The billboard for the first season was far less sexual, with the women wearing jeans and tanks tops, t-shirts or button up shirts, in a row, arms around each other (the same image as is on the season 1 cd). It said, "same sex. different city." The media images for the first season of the show were also less fashion driven than those of the new seasons, with individual pictures of the women in the same outfits. With each new season, these images become more and more sexual and the clothing more fashionable. Whereas the denim and shirts from the first season could possibly point to a more androgynous, less fashion driven cast, the following seasons' emphasis on dresses and lingerie-like tops reifies the femininity and higher class status of the cast. The women of the show are beginning to look less like themselves (their characters' personalities) and more like runway models.
In looking at the media images of the cast, it is easy to make the assumption that the show reinforces a male gaze, dependant of course on one's definition of what the male gaze is. My former roommate (hetero-male) and I often find ourselves attracted to the same women, and in some cases flirting with the same women. Thus, if our definition of the male gaze is based on an assumption that males and females view things differently, this description not only de-sexualizes women but also reifies a sex-gender binary. As a result, the show does not fit into any definition of the male gaze that posits men as the sole possessors of sexual subjectivity. If the male gaze is more economically based (based on who is assumed to be the financial draw), taking for granted that men are "the" target audience and images produced because of what some assume this target audience wants to see, then perhaps this show does that. Television has traditionally been constructed with a male audience in mind, and sex sells. This is based on the ideologies of a patriarchy (and on heteronormativity), that "[l]esbians, who as women often, but not always, have less (disposable) income, were inevitably seen as a bad financial bet" (Lewis 655). But once again, the show is about women attracted to women and hence a target audience of lesbians would carry this same interest in images. Therefore, this reasoning could do more to construct lesbians (and women) as asexual than it does as a tool of analysis on the show. As a result, the same argument used to criticize the show as targeted towards male audiences can also be used to contradict this claim; lesbians and men are both attracted to women so a show filled with beautiful women should be a draw for both. The thing that sets this show apart from those that use lesbian images targeted towards men is that there is some substance to the show and the female characters are actually involved in relationships with each other.
This, combined with the network's focus on fashion not only within the show, but in its marketing, supports Chaiken's claim of lesbians as a target audience. The first season's DVD Boxset has two extra features that spotlight fashion ("Fashion Extra" and "The Wardrobe Closet"). The second season preview, All L Breaks Loose, also highlighted fashion via the actors' wardrobes. The clothing on the show has become more and more fashionable and the characters more trendy. And Showtime's website for the series is constantly promoting fashion. One page, 'get the L Word look (housed by the Star Style website, which advertises fashion from other network and cable TV shows), allows users to create a style list based on the characters, showing the viewer where Alice's $325 dress can be purchased. Advertisements lead fans to another fashion, their online fashion store "'L' ements OF STYLE: the L word Collection." The below ad was flashed on the website prior to the fourth season airing to encourage more subscriptions, but this designer top is also available for purchase on the "L' ements of STYLE" website which was created during season 3 (this is different from the show's shop of logo merchandise). It would seem that commodification of the lesbian identity is a bad marketing strategy for a male target audience. How many men would be likely to subscribe to Showtime in order to receive "an Exclusive Designer Top" worth $175? This diminishes the argument that men are the target audience, but further constructs a classist depiction of lesbian life, suggesting that to be a real lesbian, one must be fashionable.
Screenshot taken from Showtime's The L Word Site on January 4, 2007 (http://www.sho.com/site/lword/home.do?source=lword4_adbuy). May not be available now.
Perhaps Showtime can be criticized for marketing this show to a general audience, or even to a male audience. This choice of a market audience is justified, as far as television goes, through a battle for ratings and especially through an attempt to broaden the viewership of the show beyond just lesbians. In fact, with queers arguing for more images of themselveson television, and more visibility, to criticize a show's being targeted to heterosexuals is hypocritical, especially when the show breaks away from mainstream ideologies of the role of lesbians in the media. Chaiken has created a show that could empower, if many of these images weren't so problematic. The series caters as much to a male audience as daytime soap operas do. Accordingly, critics of the show should focus on the characters and the way they are being portrayed, i.e. the commodification of a new, less-threatening, lesbian identity, rather than on whom the show is for. Heterosexuals watching a show about lesbians is not necessarily a bad thing; it is the ideas the show is producing about both lesbian identity and consumption that should be the focus of analysis.
| |
|
