How “modern” is the Modern Family? I started thinking about this question after we viewed one of the episodes in class. Something really stood out to me in the episode: None of the “mothers,” Claire, Gloria or Cam, actually have jobs outside of the home. This is really annoying to me because it does not represent reality, and for a show that is supposed to be “pushing the envelope;” it completely fails to convey the reality of the “modern” woman. After sharing this thought with a classmate, he pointed out that while the show represent “modern” forms of families: gay couple and an older divorced man with a younger woman, it still portrays stereotypes and the more “acceptable” form of alternative families. What if Gloria was an older woman and Jay was a younger man with a son? How would that change the series and would the show be as popular? I think shows like Modern Family are trying to being “modern,” but unfortunately are continuing to perpetuate stereotypes, albeit the modern versions of the stereotype.
Katie, you are right. In a way, the creators of this show are being "safe." Would it be harder to sell the show with a Lesbian couple with a child? How about the young heterosexual couple had a kid who was bisexual?
ReplyDeleteI also agree that for some unknown reason, an older man having a younger wife is more acceptable than the opposite. What does that say about gender stereotypes? Are they suggesting that the man must bet the older spouse, regardless of age difference? Are we still concerned about age that much?
I was upset to watch the crying scene in the kitchen. It's 2011 and the world still has a problem with men crying. That's so ridiculous! And you wonder why we have men that we saw in "Tough Guise". If they're not allowed to show emotion, how are they supposed to function? Really, let's be smart about this. Maybe we should tell women that they're stupid if they laugh at jokes. How stupid would it be if only men chuckled at humor? Do I make my point?
As to the "modern" aspect of the show, I think there is a fine line in the TV business as to what is "new" and what is "unprofitable." How much profit would there be in making a TV show that featured different minorities? Let's include a straight Asian American, a bisexual woman, and a gay Black man. You need to ask what is the purpose of including these minorities in the show. Is it just to be "current"? Are the producers trying to create "awareness" or something like that? And how many people in the "majority" would watch a show like this? Unfortunately, I really think the bottom line is the business. TV shows must make money to survive. But I'm sure in the future we'll see more shows that will try to be more "modern" (shouldn't it be postmodern?) about American families.
It is definitely unrealistic that only one partner in each of the three couples on Modern Family works outside the home. A possible rationale for this creative choice is that it allows for most of the action to take place in the home, where the “moms” usually are. If the moms had jobs, you’d expect to see them at work—at least occasionally, which would create a need for more sets, actors, costumes, etc. If Gloria, Claire, and Cam worked, it would pull the focus of the show and increase production costs. While I’m OK with this unrealistic aspect of the show, I understand why some viewers may be critical of it.
ReplyDelete