Dualcasting

Pamela Chan

CTCS 412 Blog 

Katherine Sender’s discussions in “Dualcasting” touched upon the various ways in which television networks attempted to market gay and lesbian shows—and how fragile gay representations really are in the current day commercial television marketplace. Today, there seems to be a plethora of story lines that revolve around gay characters—for example, there’s Glee, The L Word, and Grey’s Anatomy. There have also been shows like Will & Grace, Six Feet Under, and Ellen who have successfully “brought new, likable, and increasingly complex gay and lesbian characters” to the small screen. The list goes on.

As Sender mentions: “Whereas, as recently as the early 1990s, the inclusion of a gay character would typically be the focus of some dramatic ‘problem’ to be resolved, today, particularly for programs that aim at coveted younger viewers, it seems that the presence of gay people is a necessary guarantor of realism” (304).

But it was only a decade ago, during the ‘summer of gay love,’ that this new insurgence of LGBT programming came racing forward to dominate American television networks. There was a development in the gay market—“gay and lesbian consumers went from a marginalized and largely stigmatized group to a desirable marketing niche in this period” (305)—and it seems that advertisers and media executives used this ‘change’ as an incentive to target an even broader audience, a “dual” audience.

You would think that the target audience of most gay programming would be aimed directly towards the LGBT community. Sender mentions, however, that with these new shows, gay audiences were actually a “secondary priority to females viewers” (307). It was rather interesting to find out that network executives were actually hoping to use the debuts of Queer Eye and Boy Meets Boy to attract women aged 18-49. Surprisingly, they actually wanted to be associated with the gay market in order to appeal to heterosexual consumers—because by including LGBT characters in shows, two distinct audiences could be attracted at the exact same time. As Bravo President Jeff Gaspin put it, the network had a “dual target.”

Sender, however, seems skeptical of “dualcasting.” Towards the latter half of her article, she brings to light that although these ‘queer marketing strategies’ had proved successful in Bravo’s case, there is always the question of whether or not gay-themed shows are actually here to stay in the long run. “It remains to be seen if executives will remain committed to gay content,” she says. Things change, demographics shift, popular culture strays from one thing to the next all the time—there simply is no guarantee that “once gay programming has successfully boosted ratings and shifted audience demographics” that “gay characters and topics won’t simply be sidelined.” (i.e. the initial success of Queer Eye fell flat just one year later).

In many ways this is all just another marketing rouse-- a novel new plan from Bravo network executives to boost ratings and increase revenue for the time being. But Sender asks us an important question: What happens after all of the “novelty” has worn off? What happens when Gaspin and his network no longer need to develop new gay topics for their shows? When that time comes, will they choose to remain committed to the gay-themed programing that they have been consistently marketing? Or will they choose to kick aside their dedication to marketing gay representations? Only time will tell.

Leilani Graham- Teaching Project: Celebrity and Perception, The "Crazy Girls"

Hi all! One of the things that we have discussed in class that really stuck with me was our talk of the female pop-culture celebrity and what the line is between originality and just being explicit.  I would particularly want to look at several of the most vocal (by their own choice or by circumstance) women currently of prominence: Britney, Miley, Lindsay, and Amanda. I specifically want to know if their home lives or their limelight-lives contributed more to wanting to grow out of their traditional child star roles. I’d like to look at their lifestyle choices and why “we” as a public decide that some are worthy of praise and others not.  How are “we” qualified in our own lives to make such judgment calls? 

I would also want to look at why most of these women have been slut-shamed so heavily when their male counterparts, and even collaborators, are glossed over.  Have we simply accepted that rap lyrics with explicit content or music videos with naked women are the norm?  It seems not, considering the backlash to “Blurred Lines,” yet was 50 Cent’s “Candy Shop” any less explicit or presumptuous?  It certainly plays in to whether or not “we” feel that these women, especially in regard to their male counterparts, have made conscious choices to affect how they are perceived.  Are these prominent figures tactically eliciting a response, exploiting their far-reaching influence, or simply just trying to live their lives and how/ why do we judge them for it?

Let me know if you are interested! I'm very much open to narrowing or adding to the focus of this topic and would love input. 

Leilani

Teaching Project: Gender and Nation

I would like to form a teaching group who are interested in the topic the Gender and Nation. As you might see after finishing this week readings, the relationship between Nation and Gender has a wide spectrum to work on. Some questions you might think of to generate your own ideas are: How is gendered citizenship? How film and media present the issues of gendered citizenship? In what context? For what reasons? More specifically, you can take Yuval-Davis’s article as a platform for your journey. For example, Yuval-Davis states that women usually symbolize the nation; they are required following “appropriate behaviour”. Her point can lead us to a plenty of possibilities to work on. For instance, we can examine how this mode works in Western films or in films of minor cultures. Does the representation of women in the relationship with their nation subvert the tradition of filmmaking in the particular film industry or the myth of genre that you care for? This is just a very starting point for us to have an idea of the project. Hopefully, we can develop both our teaching project and our own essays on this topic when we sit down and talk about it.

Feminism and Transmigration

This week's topic is about the relationship between women and nation.  In her writing, deriving from Marshall’s definition of citizenship–its civil, political, and social aspects--Yuval-Davis examines gender in the active response to citizenship and membership in the nation and communities the person belongs to. She argues that the “dualistic nature” of women’s citizenship is what distinguishes women from men.  By dualistic nature she means “on the one hand, women are always included, at least to some extent, in the general body of citizens of the state and its social, political and legal policies; on the other hand, there is always, more or less developed, a separate body of legislation which relates to them specifically as women” ( p. 404). Therefore, according to Yuval-Davis, only when women and men are both characterized in a “dual manner as reproducers as well as producers of the nation”, might there be a change in the “principle of the sexual division of labor and power” (404). 

Yuval-Davis’s point resonates with the writings of authors from the book Mapping Transitional Feminist Media Studies.  While their topics on women are varied, the configuration of these writings is  the argument:  transnational procedures are not equal to genders and racial statuses. Specifically focusing on issues of transmigration,  the book offers pro-active feminist views by examining gender inequality in the transmigrant context, one of the most treacherous circumstances for women who are searching for a place in which to settle their lives. 

The film Flowers from Another World explores the inequalities and difficulties that women have faced when immigrating to the remote village of Santa Eulalia.  As Nair points out, being alienated from their communities, the women like Patricia and Milady lack necessary securities. That is why the characters have a strong sentiment of connection with each other. Although there are sharp distinctions in their characteristics and a huge gap in their life experiences, they easily become friends. This immediate relationship can be read as an implication of the notion of the division idea between us (the outsiders ) and Others (domestic villagers). These characters’ alienation is emphasized through their desires to connect with people of their communities. Patricia challenges her harsh mother-in-law criticism of her friend coming from her hometown. Milady’s attempt to contact with her family and friends in Cuba is to satisfy her “sense of belonging.” 

Obviously, Milady’s instability and vulnerability is not only the result of her immigrant status. Her relationship with Carmelo also reveals the powerful relationship of gender and neo-colonialism.  At the very beginning of the film, Milady’s sexual appearance is in tightly fitting yellow clothes attracts everybody in the village.  Moreover, Carmelo’s respectful and considerate behavior to her makes her image distinguished from that of poor Patricia with her passive childish husband. Yet, she is soon controlled by Carmelo. She is almost locked in the house, and later is violently hit by Carmelo in front of villagers. Nair argues that Milady leaves the village because she cannot be part of the new community, in contrast to Patrica who overcomes the challenges of transculturality. From the perspective of neo-colonialism,  I would argue that Milady’s flight results from her will against the whites' domination rather than a failure to transition into the community. In another word, the case of Milady illustrates the argument of book Mapping Transitional in the sense that transitional processes are not only "gendered" but also differentiated within the gender category depending on different racial groups.