Reading Feuer’s article, I was interested in the idea of melodramas existing on two levels, one that touts its excess and appeases the dominant ideology, and another that acts to critique that excess, parodying “the extremely smug, extremely self-righteous and petit bourgeois world view.” Throughout the reading, I was trying to think of television shows today that mirror this sort of self-critique. While there are plenty of shows that both tout and critique excess and wealth (I’m sure Succession must have come to mind for many reading), my mind kept on coming back to teen dramas.
Teen dramas of today share many of the same qualities as the melodramas described in this article. Their characters live aspirational, elitist lifestyles, there is no shortage of huge emotional moments, no emotional arch is ever resolved, and no relationship is ever safe from turmoil. Instead of a family centering the show, these shows often center around a group of friends that acts like a family. Instead of focusing on the rigid, hierarchical world of business, they focus on the rigid, hierarchical world of high school. Audiences treat teen dramas with the same contempt and obsession as audiences did with shows like Dynasty and Dallas — they are viewed as low art, and yet enjoy wide viewership and an unshakable presence in the cultural conversation.
So the question then is, do teen dramas present on two different levels? Do they engage in any of the sub-textual self critique elaborated on in these articles? As I said, these shows are inherently aspirational. In shows like Gossip Girl and Pretty Little Liars, the lead characters are beautiful, wealthy, and popular, and even in shows where certain characters are meant to be geeks, like Glee or Degrassi, the actors portraying the geeks are still beautiful, in their early 20’s, and have an enviable group of friends around them. While Dynasty and Dallas, mainly play on their adult audiences’ desire for wealth, shows aimed at teen audiences have even more opportunities to fulfill the desire of their audiences, as teenagers are filled to the brim with desire for what the do not have — intense love, sex, independence, adventure, etc. So subversion in these shows would mean subtly making these audiences wonder why it is they want these things so badly in the first place.
More narratively sophisticated teen dramas like Euphoria make it clear why the desires the are catering to are misplaced, most evidently in the character of Rue. While other teen dramas are allowing their audiences to enjoy the wild parties and rampant drug use of their teenage characters, Euphoria insists on showing their audiences the horror of teen drug addiction. But what about less complex shows? Going back to the article, one could gather that the self-critique is baked into the form. By constantly cycling through relationships, the television shows are proving to teen audiences that the melodramatic proclamations of love one makes as a teenager aren’t always real. By putting their beautiful, popular characters through near constant turmoil, there may be a subtle dismantling of the high school hierarchy.
Shows like Riverdale and Glee take this self-critique a step further by blatantly making fun of themselves and their audiences. Former Gleeks remember a late-season arch where Coach Sylvester goes full fan girl and traps Kurt and Blaine — two halves of a popular ship — into an elevator, refusing to let them go until they become boyfriends again. Riverdale has become increasingly excessive and absurd in its plot lines, becoming a parody of itself.
No comments:
Post a Comment