Papers + Thinkpieces 2015 by Watercooler Journal

Papers + Thinkpieces Issue 2015

featuring the written work of this yearâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s TVfocused college students and graduates, from stand-ups to sitcoms to shippers and beyond

watercoolerjournal.com

Contents Fair Use and Fan Vids Kimberly Lynn Workman

George Carlin in the Big Club: Embracing the System He Condemns Brandon Beaderstadt

How I Met Your Mother... and All the Other Women I Mistreated Over the Years Rayna McKinley

Mad Men as Soap Opera Robert Herman

Pretty Little Bi-Ers Freddy-May AbiSamra

Real Husbands of Hollywood: Black and Irrelevant Aisha Musa

Roger Sterling: The Has-Been Who Still Is Mark Nadeau

Sarah Silverman: A Character in Progress Danny Goltz

Death as a Reset Katelyn McGaw

Sleeping with the Enemy: The Antihero in The Americans Liron Cohen (Contributor of the Month)

The Funny Thing About Storytelling: Examining Mike Birbigliaâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Unique Stand-Up Style Ben Roffman

The Moon Belongs to Everyone Robert Glenn Smith

Fair Use and Fan Vids

Content Ownership in the Fandom Community Kimberly Lynn Workman University of North Carolina - Chapel Hill (M.A., 2016)

Introduction The issue of fair use has become more relevant in the past few years as consumers are becoming creators through transformative works and remixed content. This is an act in which the consumer takes the presented media source content and then rearranges the audio or visuals to present a new interpretation (Burwell 2013; Coppa 2011). They are seeking ways to interact with the content; presenting their own takes of what the media means to them. And, in turn, these transformative

Watercooler Journal

3.5 (2015)

works are becoming a cornerstone in an ever-evolving dialogue between the original creators and their fans. Remixed content is being used to both expose the prominent messages of popular culture (Busse & Lothian 2011) and re-imagine the text in ways that expose the absence of representation, such as certain cultural groups that feel pushed to the outer edges of mainstream culture (Burwell 2013). Through the use of transformative works, these consumer-creators can make their voices heard and bring to the forefront media messages that are often unacknowledged. The ensuing dialogue has the potential to transform the societal messages that media highlights, perhaps inciting change through consumer-creator involvement. One area where the idea of transformative works has received much interest, and much debate, is in the realm of fan vids. This form of production has been referred to as ‘textual poaching’ in that it steals commercial products for the purpose of transforming (Lothian 2013). In these types of videos, fans take source content from their favorite media and rework or re-imagine the content to present commentary on what had previously gone unseen, and often are doing so in contradiction to the intended messages set forth by the original creator (Costello & Moore 2007). Vids such as the 2007 “Vogue” by Luminosity, which re-aligns the male gaze in Frank Miller’s 300, or T. Jonesy and Killa’s well-known 2004 Star Trek vid “Closer”, which looks at the concept of desire (Coppa & Tushnet 2011), are re-appropriating the original text in order to make commentary upon it. By doing so, though, these vidders and others are using visual, and often audio, content that they do not own the copyright to. This brings under scrutiny the question of content ownership and what legal rights these creators hold when presenting transformative works in the form of fan vids. Who holds the overall rights to the transformative works? And what legal allowance do transformative creators have when re-appropriating source content of others? While fair use is often used by fan vidders as a means of protection for these works against copyright claims by the source content owners, the concept of ownership is often unclear and the application of fair use principles is conditional to the individual situations in which interpretation is needed. Additionally, the fan vidder’s understanding of fair use application is often variable, and some vidders seek to function on the theory of allowance until being told to cease. But functioning on the basis of ignorance until being educated cannot hold fast in the ever-changing media landscape and the legal constraints within which participants must function. With the role of transformative works becoming more prominent in media culture, a more thorough understanding of the legal role of fair use is needed from both the media consumer and media owner’s perspective. The two communities must learn how to address the inter-relational exchanges that have emerged as being a rule rather than an exception.

Watercooler Journal

3.5 (2015)

The Rise of Remix Culture Media consumption has been rapidly changing, and no longer is the population satisfied to just passively take in the television, movies, or music that is being presented to them by corporate culture. Instead, consumers are becoming creators through the presentation of mash-ups, remixes, and other transformative works. Utilizing what they know, which is often the copyrighted media they consume everyday, these creators are using this source as a point of commentary upon which they feel compelled to respond (Burwell 2013; Tushnet 2009). These types of media works have become a way for consumers and fans to communicate with each other and insert themselves into popular culture (Burwell 2013; Collins 2013) as active participants. They are taking control over the content and presenting their reinterpretation, thereby giving them power over what was once a one-way communication system. Remixers and mash-up artists create something new out of parts of old, and the application of this concept through transformative videos has opened up a dual commentary upon the text (Burwell 2013). No longer is the presented media confined to one reading, but now has been opened up as potentially having multiple interpretations by which the audience can expand upon. â&#x20AC;&#x153;[A] vid always represents at least two stories: the story contained within the original source text, and the story of the vidderâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s response to and transformation of that text at the level of narrationâ&#x20AC;? (Tushnet 2011). One particular community receiving more notice as a source of transformative works is media fandom: the collective subculture that shares a love of a particular media source, such as television, movies, or music (Costello & Moore 2007). Not only are these fandom community members exchanging ideas and interpretations through forums and other dialogue exchanges, they are taking on the role of creators themselves to present their ideas of interpretation. These fans participate in the act of vidding, combining media sources of television and movies with audio soundtracks to create fan vids (Coppa 2011). Through these vids, they can extend the initial dialogue between source and consumer through a re-imagining of the source, and thereby incite a new way of interpreting the shared media. The fan vid community is an important group to understand when considering remix culture, as the immediate target audience has intimate knowledge of the source text and has already created an opinion of it (Stedman 2012). Instead of the baseline presentation of transformative works that might be seen in more mainstream remixes, when familiarity with the source is not a necessity, fan vids allow for a more complex engagement of their transformative works. This intimate knowledge of the source influences both the creators and the consumers, as it informs their interpretations of the remixed texts and allows a layered reading of the transformative presentation (Stedman 2012; Trombley 2007). Multiple readings of the same content are possible among the audience, and multiple ensuing dialogues could be inspired by the same transformative work. This has the potential to extend the conversation even further, and create a never-ending exchange of transformationWatercooler Journal

3.5 (2015)

interpretation-transformation in media contexts.

Fan Vidding: Re-Purposing Content The art of fan vidding is one that is important both historically and culturally. It is one of the oldest ongoing forms of remix culture and dates back to Kandy Fongâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s 1975 slideshow, which set the outtakes of the original Star Trek series to music, and is prominently engaged in by female fans (Busse & Lothian 2011; Coppa 2009; Coppa 2011). The fact that the main creators of these works are female opens up a larger commentary on gender roles in media and how the interpretation of these roles are seen by the audiences. Fan vidding gives voice to a gender that has historically been underrepresented, allowing female fans to assert their power through manipulation and reinterpretation of the source in order to show the secondary characters and storylines that might easily be missed (Coppa 2011; Tushnet 2009). The act of vidding gives power to those who have historically not been allowed to harness it. Fan vidding allows individuals who are not necessarily professionally trained to gain technical skills, form communities, and develop both artistic and critical viewing skills by which they can reinterpret and read more into the source material they are given (Tushnet 2011). They open themselves up to being able to gain inspiration from source materials, as well as the transformative works of others, upon which they can build their own interpretations of what is being presented (Stedman 2012; Tushnet 2009). These fandom participants are able to share their own takes on the selective cultural narrative that is most important to them (Coppa 2011; Tushnet 2011), presenting an individualized reading of a shared source. It is a participatory culture that has grown with the increased access to tools for non-professional creators and overall benefited these individuals through the opportunities for interactions afforded to them. In addition, these technically complex fan vids can be presented to a larger market audience within which conversation and engagement can take place. Fan vidders are no longer restricted to distribution methods through person-to-person contact, as was the medium of sharing that past fan vidders had to rely on, but their vids can be distributed widely through online social networks and provider sites to an audience that is not necessarily confined to just fandom participants (Coppa 2009; Trombley 2007; Tushnet 2011). This brings up potential complications, as the shared understanding of the fan vid culture is lost once they are accessed from outside that core audience, and the reading of the transformative texts can be vastly different than the original intent.

Watercooler Journal

3.5 (2015)

Breaking Out of Fandom: Fan Vids in the Mainstream Marketplace This expansion of fan vid distribution has both good and bad elements. On one hand, the internet has allowed an increased ease in sharing these creations, along with the conversations they inspire, thus opening up fandom from a face-to-face endeavor to a widely distributed marketplace of ideas (Coppa 2011; Tushnet 2007). This digital preservation means that not only will fan-created content be less likely to be lost over the years, but also the social connections that the conversations create will be continued despite the distances between fans (Lothian 2013). However, this expanded audience for fan vid consumption includes not only fandom participants, but also those who are unaware of the shared community culture that exists within fandom. This conflicts with the initial understanding that exists in fandom, which is meant to lead to deeper interpretation of the content presented. There is an art to vid interpretation, which has been honed in fandom for years; one that utilizes the complex subject matter to create a deeper understanding of the fan vidder’s intent (Busse & Lothian 2011). When this implied knowledge is removed, the context of the vid is sometimes lost. Instead of reading vids as a layered presentation of the characters and themes from the source, outsider viewers may instead focus on the technical aspects of vidding, such as the visuals, editing, and music overlay (Busse & Lothian 2011). It is in this situation that the creator’s original intent is perhaps lost, but also read in new ways, as interpretation is up to the consumer in all forms of creative consumption. This opens up a larger commentary on transformative works in general. Just as the fan vidder reinterprets the source material’s original intent, so too do these non-fandom viewers reinterpret the vidder’s intent and place their own understanding upon it. In addition to the difference in audience interpretation when fan vids enter the mainstream market, the fan vidder must also take into account the exposure of the creative element this brings forth. The fan vid’s audience may be the individuals who ultimately hold the rights to the source material being transformed (Trombley 2007; Tushnet 2011). The intent of the transformative work may run against the intent of the original source owner, and calls into question whether the transformative creator has the right to do so. It is in this intersection of copyright holders and transformative creators that the fair use defense often comes into play, by means of protection over the ownership of content being presented.

Watercooler Journal

3.5 (2015)

Fair Use as a Concept Fair use was cited in the U.S. Copyright Act [17 U.S.C. § 107 (1976)] and sets forth a four-factor test by which a work can be determined to be fair use. These factors include: • the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes • the nature of the copyrighted work • the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole • the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work The act was meant to provide a balance between the economic interests of the original rights holders and the rights of the creators of transformative works that seek to contribute to society in new and different ways through their creations (Marques 2007). However, over the years it has been brought up more frequently as a result of the rise of remix culture, and each claim must be looked at individually to determine the application of the factors and the subject’s compliance. There is no ruler by which all transformative works can be judged, as interpretation will vary depending on the situation. But while interpretation of fair use is done on a case-by-case basis, the basic categories of fair use are understood to be classical (such as when copyrighted material is used within a media review), personal (such as when a consumer records media for their own consumption), and personalproductive (a combination of the two prior, whereby the creator is exercising control over material use in reference to it) (Marques 2007). The transformative nature of the work is considered when determining the application of fair use versus an obvious infringement upon the original copyright. For fair use to be in effect, the new work must transform the original and create something new by way of message, expression, or meaning through the use of the original source material (Marques 2007). Utilizing these general concepts, it would appear that fan vids would automatically fall under the application of fair use, since they can be read in multiple ways and are targeting the underlying content of the original source (Tushnet 2011). But there are no absolutes in the area of fair use application. Fair use is an exception, not a legal defense against copyright infringement (Collins 2013), and must not be relied on as such. Using copyrighted material to create a new work may be allowable under the determination of fair use, but it does not mean that an automatic assignment of fair use rights will be determined in each case. Fan vidders often lack an understanding of these concepts and instead function under the illusion that they are automatically protected from legal ramifications because of their intent and lack of commercial financial gain.

Watercooler Journal

3.5 (2015)

Fair use does not automatically apply to every fan vid and the burden lies with the creator to show how it would qualify (Collins 2013). As a result, creators have either become misinformed about how to apply fair use when defending their work, or promote a willful ignorance in the face of copyright claims by which their art trumps the right-holderâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s. While fan vidders may be technically skilled, learning new techniques and new ways to approach commentary, they are often not legally skilled, which puts them at risk when dealing with the confrontation of copyright law (Tushnet 2011). Operating under assumptions and misinformation can create issues in the fan vidder community, and it can have repercussions throughout transformative culture in general if legal precedence is shown.

Unclear Understanding when Invoking Fair Use Defense While the concept of fair use has become more commonly seen in conversations between the creators of transformative works, it is often evident that concept and application are not necessarily aligned. A survey conducted among 58 college students who provided user-generated content online shows that misinformation regarding the application of copyright principles remains present, but it does not necessarily stop these creators from continuing to use the source material. While 87% of the respondents who used copyrighted materials in their work admitted they did not seek permission for the use, 74% said that they thought it was fair for copyright holders to request payment for the use of their materials (Aufderheide, Jaszi, & Brown 2007). Why, then, is there a disconnection between the two? The issue lies in the unclear understanding of when the use of these materials constitutes fair use, and is therefore permissible. Among the survey respondents, 54% admitted that they didnâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;t understand when the use of copyrighted material was permissible, but this percentage might even be an underestimate of the true number (Aufderheide, Jaszi, & Brown 2007). When asked, 76% thought fair use allowed them to use copyrighted material, though they werenâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;t able to describe the doctrine correctly (Aufderheide, Jaszi, & Brown 2007). And there was also the assumption that absolutes of application exist, such as a limited amount of seconds of source material that can be borrowed at a time (15 seconds, 10 seconds), even though there is no time limit specified in the fair use doctrine (Aufderheide, Jaszi, & Brown 2007). It is clear from this study that misinformation is rampant among creators and that clarity is warranted in order to better understand the limits and allowances of fair use. Because of the misinformation and misunderstanding of legalities of use, some creators simply choose to ignore the restraints that copyright law forces upon them and instead use the material as if it were open source, because of the perception that compliance limits creative expression (Collins 2013; Trombley 2007). Others justify their use, whether it actually complies or not, by citing the fact that the creator is not gaining financially from the creation of the work, and the copyright holder may

Watercooler Journal

3.5 (2015)

actually be the one financially benefiting as the use of the material exposes wider audiences to the material (Aufderheide, Jaszi, & Brown 2007; Collins 2013; Trombley 2007; Tushnet 2007). While fan vids create alternative readings of the source material, it also helps to bring notice to the presence of these characters in the media sphere, thereby increasing their permanence in the collective consciousness (Lothian 2013). Fan vidders are not claiming ownership of the original source and are often careful to provide disclaimers giving credit to who they believe actually owns the rights to the materials they are using (Tushnet 2007). These fans do not look to transformative works as a question of overshadowing the original. Instead, itâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s concentrated on comparison. Fan culture can see both the original and the transformative text, comparing the two and having more content with which to play (Tushnet 2009). What other protections do creators put into place when presenting their fan vids, to hold fast to the notion that their works are allowable within the contexts by which they are created? There are attempts by some fan vidders to harken back to the olden days of enforced limitations on access, such as through password-protected sites or keeping relatively quiet about their creative practice, in hopes the rights holder will not find them (Coppa & Tushnet 2011; Trombley 2007; Tushnet 2007), but with the increased mobility of content distribution these attempts are often unsuccessful. The non-fandom audiences are becoming all too aware of fan vids, and this causes the fan producers to lose control over the distribution of their works (Russo 2009). Others do not seek to control the distribution of their work, but instead utilize the perceived safety net of cease and desist notices to allow them to continue until told specifically to stop (Trombley 2007). They are satisfied to plead ignorance rather than become informed of the legal limitations within which they must create. This may ultimately prove to be an unwise choice.

Duality of Permission in What is Allowable Transformation The approach to fair use is unclear when copyright holders and fan vidders are engaged with one another. Both rights holders and fan vidders hold fast to the notion that they are able to properly interpret what the law allows, but there is no legal precedent to say that they are necessarily correct (Tushnet 2007). This leads to situations where disengagement seems the best choice, for fear that they would be proven wrong. Again, willful ignorance often wins out over becoming better informed. Adding to the issue is the fact that some rights-holders have started to engage fans for promotion, therefore blurring the lines of consumer and creator (Russo 2009). The rights-holders utilize the fan base to create promotional materials, tapping into the ready-made enthusiasm and creativity to help their brand succeed. Some fans may see this solicitation as a legitimization of their works, but that is not necessarily true (Lothian 2009). The rights-holders usually put limitations on the solicited creations, with fan vidders only allowed to use the materials provided to them by the official

Watercooler Journal

3.5 (2015)

solicitation (Trombley 2007). And the message of the fan vid must be approved, so those that run counter to the themes the rights-holders want to promote are at risk of being disallowed (Trombley 2007; Tushnet 2007). This leads to even more confusion, as one video might be seen as welcome and another threatened with legal action. At the core, it’s about content ownership. Who has the right to control the production of the transformative works? Fan vidders are adamant about ownership of their works, even more so than their possible misinterpretation of fair use principles (Lothian 2009). They feel they have the right to produce their works and should be recognized as creators, rather than criminals. They are recognizing the rights-holders of the source content, but are producing new works, which the rightsholders should not be allowed to control (Tushnet 2007). Added to the debate is the issue of transformation within the fandom community. While the argument between fan vidders and copyrights holders seems to be well-trod, there exists the potential for re-appropriation of these works within fandom itself. This is where there potentially exists a duality of permissions because of fandom culture. Fans do not feel limitations when remixing and re-purposing the source material, but fandom culture asks that fans respect each other’s works by seeking permission before remixing others’ vids (Stedman 2012). Why is there a double standard in where and when content can be transformed? And who ultimately owns the transformative works themselves?

Giving Voice to the Topic It is evident that the issue is not straightforward. The standards of use are vague, at best, and since determination is on a case-by-case basis, all creators cannot be assured of the same ruling despite their level of intention. This lack of standardization may lead to confusion and misunderstanding of what protections actually exist within the fair use principle and who ultimately owns the content that is being produced through these transformative works. In a culture that is turning more towards consumer-creators as a commonality rather than an exception, it is vital that the area of transformative works is understood and clarified for those that engage in it. The constant struggle between content owners and fandom producers has been ongoing for decades. It’s such a prominent part of the fan vidder’s mindset that some vidders have taken to producing commentary vids about the issue. One particular vid that has stood out not only for its commentary, but for breaking out of fandom and entering the mainstream conversation, is Lim’s vid “Us.”

Watercooler Journal

3.5 (2015)

This video, released in 2007, has garnered both fandom and scholarly discussion about the layered messages it is presenting about fandom creation and engagement with the source (Busse & Lothian 2011; Lothian 2009). In her vid, Lim not only focuses on the beloved source text that has carried fandom through the years, but also comments on the legal gray areas that fan vidders exist within when creating their vids (Busse & Lothian 2011; Lothian 2009). One particular image within the vid transforms the well-recognized Bat Signal from the Batman franchise into a copyright symbol, using the imagery as a cornerstone to present a commentary of how fan vidders both utilize the content of corporate culture and reject the notion of centralized ownership of all its subsequent creations (Busse & Lothian 2011). These fan vidders celebrate their existence within the “den of thieves,” where they are borrowing without permission and transforming the source through new readings (Lothian 2009). What makes “Us” particularly interesting is that it has broken out of the fandom-only audience and been analyzed by viewers who are not immersed in the shared fandom culture. This has, in turn, created a multi-layered reading of the text that illustrates the issues of how vid interpretation can differ depending on the audience. While those outside of fandom could comment on the artistic choices made within the vid, or attempt to critique the perceived messages that the vid contains, they would fall short of understanding the emotional impact the vid provides to those who are within the fandom community (Busse & Lothian 2011). The vid is not only a celebration of the act of vidding, but also a commentary on the persecution that vidders weather as a perceived threat to corporate culture (Lothian 2009). Outside viewers may likely miss the layered illustration of alienation and exclusion that fandom participants often feel in relation to content owners when engaging in the act of creation (Busse & Lothian 2011), or the underlying question of what type of threat the fan vidder really poses within the fight for content ownership (Lothian 2009). But it is an issue that will remain prominent. Who ultimately owns the transformative works that fandom has produced? And what will that mean in the changing cultural dynamic of content consumption leading to content production? The conversation continues.

Watercooler Journal

3.5 (2015)

image credits © YouTube works cited Aufderheide, P., Jaszi, P., & Brown, E. N. 2007. The Good, The Bad and the Confusing: UserGenerated Video Creators on Copyright. Center for Social Media. Retrieved from http://aladinrc. wrlc.org/handle/1961/4612 Burwell, C. 2013. The pedagogical potential of video remix. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy 57(3):205–213. Busse, K., & Lothian, A. 2011. Scholarly Critiques and Critiques of Scholarship: The Uses of Remix Video. Camera Obscura: Feminism, Culture, and Media Studies 26(2 77):139–146. doi:10.1215/02705346-1301575 Collins, J. E. 2013. User-Friendly Licensing for a User-Generated World: The Future of the VideoContent Market. Vanderbilt Journal of Entertainment and Technology Law. 15.2:407. Coppa, F. 2009. A Fannish Taxonomy of Hotness. Cinema Journal 48(4):107–113. doi:10.1353/ cj.0.0136 Coppa, F. 2011. An Editing Room of One’s Own: Vidding as Women’s Work. Camera Obscura: Feminism, Culture, and Media Studies 26(2 77):123–130. doi:10.1215/02705346-1301557 Coppa, F., & Tushnet, R. 2011. How to Suppress Women’s Remix. Camera Obscura: Feminism, Culture, and Media Studies 26(2 77):131–138. doi:10.1215/02705346-1301566 Costello, V., & Moore, B. 2007. Cultural Outlaws: An Examination of Audience Activity and Online Television Fandom. Television & New Media 8(2):124–143. doi:10.1177/1527476406299112 Lothian, A. 2009. Living in a Den of Thieves: Fan Video and Digital Challenges to Ownership. Cinema Journal 48(4):130–136. Lothian, A. 2013. Archival anarchies: Online fandom, subcultural conservation, and the transformative work of digital ephemera. International Journal of Cultural Studies 16(6):541–556. doi:10.1177/1367877912459132 Marques, J. M. 2007. Fair Use in the 21st Century: Bill Graham and Blanch v. Koons. Berkeley Tech. LJ 22:331. Watercooler Journal

3.5 (2015)

Russo, J. L. 2009. User-Penetrated Content: Fan Video in the Age of Convergence. Cinema Journal 48(4):125–130. Stedman, K. D. 2012. Remix Literacy and Fan Compositions. Computers and Composition 29(2):107– 123. doi:10.1016/j.compcom.2012.02.002 Trombley, S. 2007. Visions and Revisions: Fanvids and Fair Use. Cardozo Arts & Ent. LJ 25:647. Tushnet, R. 2007. Payment in Credit: Copyright Law and Subcultural Creativity. Law and Contemporary Problems 135–174. Tushnet, R. 2009a. Economies of Desire: Fair Use and Marketplace Assumptions. William & Mary Law Review 51(2):513. Tushnet, R. 2009b. I Put You There: User-Generated Content and Anticircumvention. Vand. J. Ent. & Tech. L. 12:889. Tushnet, R. 2011. Scary Monsters: Hybrids, Mashups, and Other Illegitimate Children. Notre Dame L. Rev. 86:2133. United States Copyright Act of 1976, 17 U.S.C. § 107 (1976).

Watercooler Journal

3.5 (2015)

George Carlin in the Big Club Embracing the System He Condemns Brandon Beaderstadt Columbia College Chicago (2015)

Tommy Hilfiger once said, “The road to success is not easy to navigate, but with hard work, drive and passion, it’s possible to achieve the American dream.” Despite Hilfiger’s success, not everyone believes in the American dream. Comedian George Carlin is one of those people: In short, he thinks the dream is dead and that Americans have “sold out very cheaply, for sneakers and cheeseburgers.” However, a cultural analysis of Carlin’s special It’s Bad For Ya (2008) shows that the comic greatly benefited from the exact system he condemns. George Carlin has a history of having problems with authority. His stand-up routine has long been a dissection of the power structures in our society, intended to take them down a peg. As much as Carlin hates religion, military, and big government, he also despises the illusion of the American

Watercooler Journal

3.5 (2015)

dream. He claims to believe that the delusion is perpetuated by big business. In his final special he says, “They want obedient workers. Obedient workers, people who are just smart enough to run the machines and do the paperwork. And just dumb enough to passively accept all these increasingly shitty jobs with the lower pay…”. Carlin claims to think that America doesn’t want hardworking individuals, but rather quiet cogs in the machine. Carlin often focuses on the facade of the American dream. He claims that Americans are under the illusion of such things because they are perpetuated by lies from those in power: “Sooner or later, the people of this country are going to find out the government doesn’t give a fuck about them. Government doesn’t care about you. All they are interested in, is keeping and expanding their own power.” “I have certain rules I live by… My first rule, I don’t believe anything the government tells me.” The one common theme Carlin reiterates about big government, business, and religion is how little they care about Americans and how much they take advantage of them. Carlin is constantly separating America into two different categories. One category is the evil people in our country that have all the money and don’t care about the other group of poor stupid Americans, like the ones watching his show. In his special when he’s talking about our retirement money and pensions he says, “They’ll get it all from you sooner or later cause they own this fucking place! It’s a big club, and you ain’t in it! You, and I, are not in the big club.” He really emphasizes the exclusivity and apathy of theses systems throughout his standup. This may have gone over great, but Carlin is worth over ten million dollars. That is more than enough money for me to consider him part of the club that I am not. Although he makes a compelling argument, it falls apart when remembering that he was so successful for condemning the same system he succeeded in. His final album won an Emmy and hit #2 on the comedy charts. His claims fall apart even more when we look at Carlin’s humble beginnings. In his last interview he explains just how long he’s been working at this and where he started, “I eventually started doing routines when I was about 14, 15, 16. I would do routines on the street corner for my buddies on the stoop.” Carlin’s hard work brought him lots of success that was pretty consistent through his almost 50-year career. He was nominated for five Primetime Emmys and won three American Comedy Awards with 14 comedy specials for HBO and 19 total. Carlin needs the empathy of his audience to connect with them on social issues that he based his act Watercooler Journal

3.5 (2015)

around. If Carlin really believed all of the things that he said in his set then he wouldn’t have been such a hardworking and prolific writer, actor, and producer (over 75 credits on IMDB) and he wouldn’t have been so successful. In Carlin’s special Life is Worth Losing (2006) he says, “...the owners of this country know the truth: It’s called the American dream because you have to be asleep to believe it.” If this were true, then I think it’s safe to say that George Carlin must have spent most of his life sleepwalking.

image credits © HBO works cited Carlin, George. “George Carlin’s Last Interview.” Interview by Jay Dixit. Pyschology Today 23 June 2008: n. pag. Print. Carlin, George. “It’s Bad For Ya.” George Carlin. HBO. 1 Mar. 2008. Television. Carlin, George. “Life Is Worth Losing.” George Carlin. HBO. 10 Jan. 2006. Television. “George Carlin.” IMDb. IMDb.com, n.d. Web. 01 Dec. 2014. “George Carlin Net Worth.” RSS. N.p., n.d. Web. 01 Dec. 2014. Hilfiger, Tommy. “Tommy Hilfiger Quote.” BrainyQuote. Xplore, n.d. Web. 02 Dec. 2014. “Quora.” How Practical and True Is This Quote by George Carlin? Does It Applies to All the Government around the Planet? -. N.p., n.d. Web. 02 Dec. 2014.

Watercooler Journal

3.5 (2015)

How I Met Your Mother...

and All the Other Women I Mistreated Over the Years Rayna McKinley Columbia College Chicago (2017)

Feminist media explores ways in which both men and women are disempowered by living in a patriarchal society. In the media today, the bar is so low for the presence of feminist themes that a female character simply having a job seems to be enough to claim that she is strong and independent. One show that is guilty of this false feminism is the CBS sitcom How I Met Your Mother. In fact, in many ways, How I Met Your Mother is practically the opposite of feminist. In this paper, I will discuss How I Met Your Motherâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s patriarchal storylines, perpetuation of gender stereotypes, and essentialist ideologies. The storylines and arcs of individual characters are patriarchal. Interests of female characters are

Watercooler Journal

3.5 (2015)

econdary to interests of male characters (Ott and Mack, 195). Robin is a prime example. In the article “How I Met, Impregnated, and Promptly Disregarded Your Mother,” Sady Doyle says Robin is “bent every which way in the service of the boys’ plots.” She begins the series as Ted’s supposed soul mate, and then serves as Barney’s inspiration to respect women (by proving how “manly” she is). Robin has said she never wanted to get married, but the final season of the series in centered on her wedding. Very little attention is paid to the fact that this goes against everything she believes in. However, we are constantly reminded that Barney used to be a playboy and that Robin motivated him to “settle down.” Even after she and Barney got divorced, she’s still a romantic prospect, despite distancing herself completely from the group (Doyle). Robin’s desires are set aside for the desires of the male characters. Even the central mother gets hurt the patriarchal framework. Ted meets Tracy in the last season, a moment millions of viewers had waited for. She’s present for a few episodes before it’s revealed that she is dead. After her death, Ted gets back together with Robin. Tracy was there to give Ted the things he wanted that Robin wouldn’t give him (Doyle). Robin was the love of Ted’s life, but he

“At the end of the day, she has a vagina... gender essentialism at its finest.” also wanted children. Because Robin is barren and did not want children, this wouldn’t have been an option for Ted if they had stayed together. Tracy is essentially there to give Ted the babies he has always wanted, and then leave to make room for the woman he really loved all along. Worse yet, nobody questions his choice. His children are actually supportive. When it comes to the perpetuation of gender stereotypes, every character can be examined. No article illustrates this better than the Gender, Race, and Pop Culture article entitled “Gender Norms and ‘How I Met Your Mother’.” The author describes the various ways in which each character perpetuates gender stereotypes (two-dimensional depictions of members of a social group) (Ott and Mack, 196). Barney is the most obvious. He presents an “ideal” for the male physique. He is also insatiably power hungry and capitalistic. He has slept with over 200 women (and counting), perpetuating the stereotype that men are not inclined to settle down and would rather sleep with as many women as possible (implying that this is somehow manly). Marshall is in touch with his emotions, but, rather than celebrating this, it is a source of comedy and ridicule. He is “manly” in the sense that he is the primary “breadwinner” who abandons his dreams

Watercooler Journal

3.5 (2015)

to support his family. Ted is sensitive and wants true love. The show pokes fun at this by having Barney step in to show him how it’s done. His friends make jokes about him being “the woman in a relationship” because of his desire for commitment and family. It is in the women on How I Met Your Mother that the gender stereotypes become more prevalent. Lily’s a nurturing kindergarten teacher who wants to be an artist, but needs a way to pay off her crippling shopping addiction. Everything listed here is a stereotype. She is the occasionally ditzy, charmingly motherly woman who, despite her implied feelings for Robin, is happy in a monogamous, heterosexual relationship that is never questioned. Robin, on the other hand, would seem less stereotypical. However, she is simply a different kind of stereotype. She’s the “strong female character” that draws her power from her perceived masculinity. That is, the things that make her strong are things that are usually associated with men (a love of hard alcohol, hunting, an aversion to marriage, and a career-driven lifestyle). Robin’s masculinity also relates to the essentialism (thinking gender is “innate and natural”) present on How I Met Your Mother (Ott and Mack, 195). In their article entitled “4 ‘Strong Female Characters’ That Are Hurting The Feminist Movement,” author Janes analyzes Robin’s upbringing as a boy. As Janes says, “a more sophisticated show would have had her explore the effects of her upbringing on her expression of her gender… [But they] instead just portrayed her as the ultimate love interest… because she didn’t act like a ‘typical,’ needy, emotional woman.” Later in the series, her idealism is played up while her masculinity is played down. She becomes more emotional, screaming at coworkers and needing validation. These traits are “natural” because she is a woman. Even though she was raised as a boy, it is implied many times that she preferred to be girly and feminine. While this could have been an interesting exploration of gender, it is instead overlooked. At the end of the day, she has a vagina. This attitude of one’s gender being inherently linked to one’s sex is gender essentialism at its finest. On the surface, How I Met Your Mother is a sitcom about friends in New York. However, it has roots in patriarchy, gender stereotypes, and essentialism. The presence of these elements makes the show an anti-feminist text. While it may be fun to watch, it does not do any justice to the potentially great female characters it features.

Watercooler Journal

3.5 (2015)

image credits © CBS works cited Bays, Carter, and Carig Thomas, prods. How I Met Your Mother. CBS. Television. Doyle, Sady. “How I Met, Impregnated and Promptly Disregarded Your Mother.” InThese Times. N.p., 1 Apr. 2014. Web. 08 Apr. 2015. <http://inthesetimes.com/article/16502/how_I_met_your_mother_series_finale>. “Gender Norms and “How I Met Your Mother”” Gender Race and Popular Culture. Wordpress, 31 Jan. 2013. Web. 08 Apr. 2015. <https://genderraceandpopculture.wordpress.com/2013/01/31/gender-norms-and-how-i-met-yourmother/>. Janes. “4 ‘Strong Female Characters’ That Are Hurting the Feminist Movement.” Overanalyze That Wordpress, 12 May 2014. Web. 08 Apr. 2015. <https://overanalyzethat.wordpress.com/2014/05/12/4-strong-female-characters-that-are-hurtingthe-feminist-movement/comment-page-1/>.

Watercooler Journal

3.5 (2015)

Mad Men as Soap Opera Robert Herman City University of New York, Hunter College (2014)

Television shows are often thought of in terms of genres: Jeopardy! is a game show, House is a medical drama, and so forth. More recently, however, we have seen a shift in television discourse, with recent shows prized for their narrative complexity and artistic merit, but where do these shows fall in terms of genre? Mad Men is one of these shows, and it is generally considered to be a clear-cut example of a drama. However, few acknowledge Mad Men’s debt to soap operas, whose influence has often been acknowledged by Matthew Weiner and is illustrated clearly in the text of the show. The soap opera is looked down upon as lowbrow entertainment, in contrast to Mad Men’s perceived artistic merit. Therefore, many ignore the soap opera’s influence on Mad Men. What genre is Mad Men? The question seems simple enough. Most would call it a drama. The show itself deals with dramatic themes of both the advertising business and the characters’ personal lives. Watercooler Journal

3.5 (2015)

Watercooler 22 Journal

3.5 (2015)

Some of the plot points of the most recent episode of Mad Men, “The Runaways,” included Betty fighting with her husband Henry, Don and Stan butting heads with new creative director Lou, and Michael Ginsberg experiencing a mental breakdown. Clearly this is the stuff of drama, but specifically, Mad Men is a serialized drama. Serialization in television of course brings to mind the soap opera. To define soap opera, Anna McCarthy writes simply that a “soap opera is, most basically, serialized narrative in broadcasting (47).” Naturally, one would think then that Mad Men and other serialized television dramas were influenced by soap operas.

“These are not artistic differences, but ones of perception.” However, the influence of soap operas on shows like Mad Men is often denied in the greater discourse about television. Instead, what has become the prevailing dichotomy in serialized television drama is, as Jane Feuer delineated in “The Lack of Influence of thirtysomething,” between “primetime melodrama” and “quality drama.” The former she associates with “‘trash’ or ‘camp,’” citing Dallas, Dynasty and Melrose Place, three shows commonly understood to be soap operas. The latter she associates with “‘good’, ‘artsy’ and ‘classy,’” referring to HBO dramas The Sopranos and Six Feet Under (27). Considering Matthew Weiner wrote for The Sopranos and first pitched Mad Men to HBO (Witchel), it is easy to see under which camp she would put Mad Men. What is important to note here is that these are not primarily artistic differences, but ones of perception. One is classy, or highbrow, the other trashy, or lowbrow. Melodrama, which Feuer refers to, surely is an artistic element, but calling melodrama “trash” is a judgment of artistic merit. To critics such as Feuer, there are few genres more widely denigrated than soap operas. Ien Ang might describe this dichotomy that Feuer presents as an example of “ideology of mass culture.” In Watching Dallas, she solicited 42 letters from Dallas watchers in The Netherlands asking them why they liked it, and observed that many engage with Dallas in a mode she calls “ideology of mass culture.” This means people view Dallas and other American TV shows as “mass culture,” and therefore tell themselves they ought to find them bad. Implicitly, she says, this dichotomy also necessitates that somewhere out there, there is media that is judged “good (95).” Ang wrote Watching Dallas in 1982, before Mad Men, before The Sopranos, and even before Twin Peaks. Today serialized dramas such as those have filled this niche of “good” TV.

Watercooler Journal

3.5 (2015)

Watercooler 2 Journal

3.5 (2015)

Because they are considered good, and have gained artistic merit through critical praise, they would never fall under the category of soap opera. Interestingly, the dichotomy of good culture and bad culture is often seen in discourse about Mad Men itself. Negative reviews often compare it to a soap, and positive ones praise the show but distance it from soap operas, comparing it to other forms instead. A recent Salon article describes the critical split thusly: Seven years and 15 Emmys after “Mad Men” premiered, the TV-watching world seems to have split into two main camps: one claiming that the show is a probing look at how the postwar boom transitioned into the late 1960s, the other that it’s an over-costumed soap opera whose success says more about the needs of modern American viewers than any intrinsic artistic merit (Wolfson). Studying criticism of Mad Men, this dynamic is clear. A 2011 review of the series published in The New York Review of Books, itself a prestigious magazine, dismissed Mad Men as “a soap opera decked out in high-end clothes (Mendelsohn).” In contrast, Tom and Lorenzo, a popular blog which reviews each episode, opened its review of season seven episode “The Monolith” by comparing each season of Mad Men to a novel (“Mad Men: The Monolith”). Despite the review being overly critical of the episode, Tom and Lorenzo still found it necessary to compare the episode to literature, an art form seen to hold a great deal of artistic weight, rather than the oft denigrated soap. In both these reviews, either Mad Men is a respectable, quality program comparable to great literature, or merely a soap of little artistic merit. Of course both articles look at the same show, but only the overwhelming negative review concludes that it is a soap. This suggests the genre of “soap opera” itself is not an innate property, but a judgment of value. Jason Mittell makes this argument in his book Genre and Television, looking at television genres not as inherent components of television programs, but as “cultural products (1),” that “exist only through the creation, circulation, and consumption of texts in cultural contexts (11).” He compares television genres to brands of cars, citing two cars produced in the same factory with the same innards, but one sold by Toyota as the Corolla, and the other by Chevrolet as the Geo Prizm (9). The Chevrolet presumably cost more, and was seen as a “higher class” car. Just as a brand of car connotes its cultural cachet, so does a television genre. What then is the cultural context of Mad Men, what “brand”? Mad Men is highly critically acclaimed, having won 15 Emmys from 97 nominations as of the 2013 Emmys (“Mad Men”). It is also a serialized drama, which Michael Z. Newman and Elana Levine write in Legitimating Television that both the Watercooler Journal

3.5 (2015)

Watercooler 24 Journal

3.5 (2015)

popular press and intellectual circles praise serial dramas as television’s best, citing examples from both Entertainment Weekly and “highbrow journal” n+1 making this point. They also point out that no episodic television show has won the Emmy for Best Dramatic Series since Law & Order in 1997 (81), an award which Mad Men itself has won 4 times (“Mad Men”). Mad Men and its critical acclaim has also been used by AMC to increase its cultural prestige. Before producing Mad Men, AMC aired mostly old movies. Mad Men was its first original drama. In 2008, AMC Networks President Ed Carroll said that “the network was looking for distinction in launching its first original series, and we took a bet that quality would win out over formulaic mass appeal. In our view, there’s no doubt it paid off (Witchell).” This quote from Ed Carroll shows that the network knew that to reach critical acclaim and the increased revenue stream they desired, AMC would need a serialized drama. It is thanks to Mad Men that AMC has forged “a new identity as a purveyor of sophisticated, dark television drama.” As a result of the growing critical acclaim and audience, the network has greatly increased advertising sales. (“With 2 Hit Series Ending”).”

“The show manipulates the viewer to root for the couple.” One might contrast Mad Men with AMC’s other popular show, The Walking Dead. Unlike Mad Men, it has won only two Emmys from seven nominations. The two wins were for “Outstanding Prosthetic Makeup for A Series, Miniseries, Movie or a Special,” and the other five nominations were for either Prosthetic Makeup, Sound Editing or Special Visual Effects (“The Walking Dead”). Presumably, the Television Academy does not look highly upon The Walking Dead. The Walking Dead is also much more popular than Mad Men. It has a huge audience, its most recent season premiere, season four, had 16.1 million viewers (Kelly). In contrast, Mad Men’s recent season seven premiere had just 2.3 million (“Steep Drop in Ratings”). Andrew Wallenstein, in an article published in Variety, wrote “‘Mad Men’ or ‘Breaking Bad’ somehow achieve far more cultural cachet and critical acclaim with nowhere near ‘Walking’s’ average audience.” Just as soap operas are seen as lowbrow, The Walking Dead is lowbrow relative to Mad Men, and in turn with a greater, mass appeal. Because Mad Men is looked highly upon, it has a different audience than The Walking Dead or soap Watercooler Journal

3.5 (2015)

Watercooler 4 Journal

3.5 (2015)

operas; to return to Mittel’s automotive metaphor, if Mad Men were a car it would be a MercedesBenz. In 2009, Forbes reported that Mad Men has “the most upscale audience on cable TV,” with half of its viewers between the ages of 25 and 54 having a household income of over $100,000 a year (Rose). Mad Men’s wealthy audience is a reflection of its critical popularity, and would likely not exist were it commonly labeled a soap. The viewership of soap operas is highly associated with women. Ien Ang found that of her 42 responses, only three were written by boys or men (10). In contrast, an analysis of Twitter concerning the show’s season seven premiere revealed that a slight majority, 53.9%, of tweets about the show were by men (“Who is Tweeting About Mad Men?”). While one can only extrapolate from this data, it is safe to say that the audience of Mad Men is not overwhelmingly female like a soap opera’s is generally thought to be. Lastly, Ien Ang found that many viewers engaged with Dallas ironically. These viewers, she argues, believe they should not like Dallas due to the ideology of mass culture, but enjoy it anyway (96). To rectify this contradiction, they tell themselves “I find Dallas amusing because it’s so bad (99),” and hence watch it “ironically.” It would be hard to imagine someone watching Mad Men ironically. As opposed to Dallas and other soaps, Mad Men is already thought of as “good culture,” and thus no viewer has the contradiction Ien Ang found Dallas viewers had. So finding it bad is merely criticism, or they find they have to temper the feeling the show’s “gone bad” with praise, as Tom and Lorenzo did in their “The Monolith” review by comparing the show to literature (“Mad Men: The Monolith”). That said, despite how audiences interpret the show, there is no denial that Mad Men is influenced by soap operas. Matthew Weiner, Mad Men’s showrunner, executive producer and head writer, has never denied that the show borrows elements from soap operas. In a 2008 interview with blogger Alan Sepinwall, Weiner said.”I felt that it was a way for me to defuse the kind of soap opera--and when I say soap opera, I know a lot of the show is a soap opera, I’m not judging it.” He made this point again in a 2012 interview in The Telegraph, where writer Celia Walden noted: And while Julian Fellowes may look askance at anyone who describes Downton Abbey as a soap opera, Weiner doesn’t feel that the term necessarily denigrates his own writing. ‘The show’s about the issues of everyday life for regular people: divorce, marriage, love, beauty, jealousy.’ Not only does Weiner make it clear that the show is influenced by soap operas, but in both quotes he clarifies that he does not look down upon the genre either. While for Feuer, Mendelsohn and other critics calling Mad Men or any other show a soap is merely an insult, Weiner suggests that the soap opera is just another genre he is influenced by. Unlike his critics, when Weiner compares Mad Watercooler Journal

3.5 (2015)

Watercooler 26 Journal

3.5 (2015)

Men to a soap, he calls upon not its cultural perception, which I have already described, but the genre’s artistic elements. What then are the elements of soap operas that Mad Men borrows? Already I have mentioned seriality; however, this is something that all serialized dramas share. In addition, many (though not all) showrunners of serialized dramas deny their programs’ connections to soaps. Some differences are obvious: Mad Men has 13-episode seasons, while soap operas are aired daily, and some have been aired for decades. Newman and Levine write that one way serialized dramas distinguish themselves from soaps is by giving a definitive ending. In contrast, they write, “the narrative pleasure of a soap is not so much in the lack of an ending, rather it is in the reveals and complications along the way that provide insight into the characters and their world (91).” For this reason, soap operas can (and have) last for decades. Mad Men is currently in its final season, and will end next year in 2015. However, unlike many other shows, Mad Men has no greater narrative question to answer, it could easily go on forever. As Weiner said in his The Telegraph interview, “The show’s about the issues of everyday life for regular people: divorce, marriage, love, beauty, jealousy (Walden).” That is the show’s main appeal: the characters, not the minutiae of wooing advertising clients. Even after the show will end, Mad Men could still continue. Though I am sure Matthew Weiner has an ending in store, I doubt he’s planning to kill all the characters off, and therefore the show, its world and its characters could go on, just like a soap opera does.

“The show’s main appeal is its characters, not the minutiae of wooing advertising clients.” This focus on characters is what Mad Men holds in common with soaps. In her study of soap operas Women and Soap Opera, Christine Geraghty indicated that soap operas play upon “the way in which the audience becomes familiar with the history of certain characters and has access to knowledge which is well beyond that given in a particular episode (14).” The same is true in Mad Men. For example, in, “The Monolith,” Don is assigned to an account and, for the first time, is expected to work under Peggy. He responds in anger, first throwing his typewriter against the wall and then refusing to do any work for her. First time viewers might not understand Don’s behavior, but long time viewers would recall that Don mentored Peggy in advertising and she worked under him

Watercooler Journal

3.5 (2015)

Watercooler 6 Journal

3.5 (2015)

for years. The structure of the episodes is also somewhat similar. Ang writes that a soap opera “consists of various narratives running parallel. In every episode one of these narratives gets the greatest emphasis, but the other narratives keep ‘simmering’ in the background, to reach a climax in some subsequent episode (56).” She also says that Dallas and most other soap operas have no main character (57). While episodes of Mad Men follow the structure she describes, Don is clearly the main character. Other characters are important in most episodes, but the narrative with the greatest emphasis is usually his. Mad Men is Don’s story, no question. For example, in the most recent episode, “The Runaways,” there are multiple plots, about Ginsberg’s mental breakdown, Betty fighting with Henry, and so forth, but the main plot is about Don traveling to California to see Anna Draper’s niece, and Megan’s reaction to this situation. One would be hard pressed to find an episode where Don is not the focus. Ang writes that in Dallas, the community is the main character (58). In Mad Men, this can be compared to the advertising agency, its employees, and their families. However, Mad Men also has the centrality of Don, and though the other characters are important and fully fleshed out, he is the focus. In this way, Mad Men is a hybrid, taking the world of a soap opera, but focusing on one character specifically at times, making him not the sole important character, but the brightest star in a constellation. Soap operas are also known for their melodramatic, outlandish plot points. Ien Ang writes that Dallas has seen the following: “murder, suspicion of murder, marital crisis, adultery, alcoholism, rare disease, miscarriage, rape, airplane accident, car accident, kidnapping, corruption, psychiatric treatment, and so on (60).” On Mad Men we’ve yet to see some of these, but any Mad Men fan could tell you about Don’s alcoholism, Betty’s psychiatric treatment or Joan’s rape, and it would probably be easier to count the episodes without adultery. I also doubt Dallas featured, as seen in Mad Men’s most recent episode, a character experiencing a mental breakdown, slicing off his own nipple and presenting it as a gift. Ang defines melodrama as having the “main effect of stirring up of the emotions (61),” but she argues that melodrama has greater significance than that. Ang argues that melodrama serves for metaphors for “life’s torments.” She gives the example of the character Sue Ellen’s alcoholism, which she says reveals her psychological state (65). Melodrama has the same significance in Mad Men, Don’s drinking has been shown to be increasingly problematic. In the finale of season six, Don gives an alcohol-fueled outburst in a meeting with Hershey, revealing he was raised in a brothel. In this case, his drinking reveals his growing uneasiness with his facade as Don Draper which propelled his Watercooler Journal

3.5 (2015)

career in advertising, and increasing acceptance of his upbringing. Another appeal of Dallas, Ang noticed, was its sense of glamor. She cites people finding the glamorous clothes, make¬up and homes appealing (47). For Mad Men, its setting in 1960s New York City fills a similar function. Tom and Lorenzo’s popular Mad Style blog analyzes the show’s fashion in close detail (“Posts tagged ‘Mad Style”), and is often credited for bringing 60s fashions and trends to the forefront of popular culture (Winter). Lastly, if there is anywhere Mad Men differs with soap operas, it is with its visual style. Mad Men is shot on film, single camera, whereas most soap operas are shot on video with multiple cameras. It is shot with a visual and artistic flourish that soap operas simply are not, and most episodes have a budget of around $2.3 million (Witchel). While the greater discourse of Mad Men only uses the term soap opera to denigrate the show, Mad Men without a doubt owes a great deal of debt to the genre. Not only has Matthew Weiner admitted this, but the show holds much in common with the genre and relies on many of the same narrative pleasures. Instead of being held to lofty comparisons to Dickens, Mad Men’s soap opera elements should be not just acknowledged, but celebrated. It’s a good show, it’s entertaining, and at times it is soapy--and there is nothing wrong with that.

Watercooler Journal

3.5 (2015)

image credits © AMC works cited Ang, Ien. Watching Dallas. Trans. Della Couling. London: Metheun, 1985. Print. Carter, Bill. “Steep Drop in Ratings as ‘Mad Men’ Begins its Final Season.” The New York Times. The New York Times, 14 April 2014. 13 May 2014. Carter, Bill. “With 2 Hit Series Ending, a Transformed AMC Is at a Crossroads.” The New York Times. The New York Times, 4 August 2013. Web. 13 May 2014. Feuer, Jane. “The Lack of Influence of thirtysomething.” The Contemporary Television Series. Ed. Michael Hammond and Lucy Mazdon. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press Ltd, 2005. 27-36. Print. Geraghty, Christine. Women and Soap Opera. Cambridge: Polity Press, 1991. Print. Kelly, Erica. “The Walking Dead Season 4 Premier Breaks Series Record with 16.1 Million Viewers.” The Walking Dead Blog. AMC Networks. 14 Oct. 2013. Web. 13 May 2014. “Mad Men.” Television Academy. Academy Of Television Arts & Sciences, n.d. Web. 8 May 2014. “Mad Men: The Monolith.” Tom and Lorenzo. Tomandlorenzo LLC, 5 May 2014. Web. 13 May 2014. McCarthy, Anna. “Studying Soap Opera.” The Television Genre Book. Ed. Glen Creeber. London:

Watercooler Journal

3.5 (2015)

BFI Publishing, 2001. 47-9. Print. Mendelsohn, Daniel. “The Mad Men Account.” The New York Review of Books. The New York Review of Books, 24 Feb. 2011. Web. 13 April 2014. Mittell, Jason. Genre and Television: From Cop Shows to Cartoons in American Culture. New York: Routledge, 2004. Print. Newman, Michael Z. and Elana Levine. Legitimating Television. New York: Routledge. 2012. Print. “Posts Tagged ‘Mad Style.’” Tom and Lorenzo. Tomandlorenzo LLC, n.d. Web. 13 May 2014. Rose, Lacey. “‘Mad Men’ Scores Where it Counts.” Forbes. Forbes, 17 Aug. 2009. Web. 13 April 2014. Sepinwall, Alan. “Mad Men: Matthew Weiner’s Q&A for Season Two.” What’s Alan Watching?. Blogspot, 26 Oct. 2008. Web. 13 April 2014. “The Walking Dead.” Television Academy. Academy Of Television Arts & Sciences, n.d. Web. 8 May 2014. Walden, Celia. “Matthew Weiner, The Man Behind Mad Men.” The Telegraph. Telegraph Media Group. 18 March 2012. Web. 13 May 2014. Wallenstein, Andrew. “How the Walking Dead Breaks Every Rule We Know About TV Hits.” Variety. Variety Media, 10 Feb. 2014. Web. 13 May 2014. “Who is Tweeting About ‘Mad Men’?.” Demographics Pro For Twitter. Schmap Inc. 21 April 2014. Web. 13 May 2014. Winter, Katey. “Return of the Swinging Sixties! Sales of Lava Lamps, Drinks Trolleys and Decanters Soar as Brits Recreate Mad Men Style in their Homes.” Daily Mail. Associated Newspapers Ltd. 13 May 2014. Web. 13 May 2014. Witchel, Alex. “‘Mad Men’ Has its Moment.” The New York Times Magazine. The New York Times, 22 June 2008. Web. 13 May 2014. Wolfson, Brandon Matthew. Salon. Salon Media Group, 27 April 2014. Web. 13 May 2014. Watercooler Journal

3.5 (2015)

Pretty Little Bi-ers Freddy-May AbiSamra Columbia College Chicago (2017)

“Representation” is a word we hear over and over again when discussing television through a queer lens. Does this show have enough lesbians, is this a “good” portrayal of a trans character, what is the media landscape saying about gays—all questions that come up, and rightfully so. But beyond just how many LGBT characters a show has, the specific choices made in what kind of sexualities to show can represent a model framework that can be harmful even in a show with “good” or plentiful representation of one LGBT group. As a former queer child and a hopeful television writer, a passion of mine is giving representation, in both teen and adult oriented shows, that teens and kids can look up to and think, “I’m not alone.” Teen shows have tended to lead the way in terms of LGBT representation, with Faking It having an intersex character, all iterations of Degrassi having several LGBT characters, and the ABC Family show Pretty Little Liars starring a gay character as one of its four leads. I want to be critical of the show’s framework while at the same time being careful not to step too far into the territory of being more critical of shows that are making strides than those that make none at all. To be clear, Pretty Little Liars has excellent lesbian representation. However, its bisexual representation is lacking, and even moreso than the lack of representation of bisexual characters, there is a framework created within the show that sets up a false dichotomy of sexualities, Watercooler Journal

3.5 (2015)

alienating bisexual fans and leaving a whole swath of the show’s many female fans out of that warm feeling of recognizing oneself. The importance of representation cannot be denied. Representation in general is important. As Troian Bellisario, an actress on the show, pointed out in an article she wrote, teens watching these shows “see a version of their truth, their struggle to feel safe in high school, their loyalty to their best friend, their fear of their first broken heart.” And representation for queer teens, who may be especially struggling with their identities and fitting in, is especially important. Every gay person I know has a character in media that they identified with that helped them through their adolescence. Not every bisexual person does. TV writers often avoid explicitly using the word or identifying those characters, and as a young bisexual teen, it was alienating.

“Is a bisexual main character less acceptable or palatable?” Pretty Little Liars is a teen show about four girls—Aria, Emily, Spencer, and Hanna—who are tormented by an anonymous person while trying to solve the mystery of their friend Alison’s death. One of the four main characters, Emily, is gay. Throughout the show, Emily has several important relationships with women, most notably Maya and Paige. In addition, there are a few secondary lesbians, most notably Shana. There are three notable characters who do have some sort of relationship with both men and women: First, we have Maya, Emily’s first girlfriend. When Emily and Maya break up for a while, Maya dates a guy—who later tries to kill Emily’s next girlfriend—which Emily is upset about until she shuts it down. Maya describes herself as “fluid.” This storyline could be indicative of a “punishment”—clearly, Maya going down that road with a guy was a bad idea. Next, Alison (spoiler alert: she’s not dead), a manipulative person who loves to mess with all of her friends’ insecurities, leads Emily on, though this suggests an extension of her enjoyment of manipulation rather than attraction to women. Lastly, Jenna Marshall dates several men—and rapes one—and then is implied to be dating Shana, though this is never confirmed explicitly. These three examples are vague at best. Pretty Little Liars has gained a large queer following. There are weekly recaps on Autostraddle, a “girl-on-girl culture” website, and it has plenty of queer fans on Tumblr. An incredibly popular ship in the queer Pretty Little Liars fandom is Hanna and Emily, or Hemily / Hannily. Hanna has a relationship with Caleb on and off for most of the show, but there are several hints that she could

Watercooler Journal

3.5 (2015)

be interested in women, perhaps due to the writers being aware of their large queer audience. Hanna has been shown to be the most accepting of queerness. While that may not mean she is queer herself, it is evidence in favor. Hanna was the first friend that Emily came out to, and she immediately accepted her without question. Hanna has asked Emily the most questions about her sexuality and coming out. One example of Hanna’s interest in women is in the season 3 episode, “Out of the Frying Pan, Into the Inferno,” in which Hanna goes to a gay bar to spy on Emily’s girlfriend Paige, who she worries is cheating on Emily. While at the bar, Hanna gets hit on by a girl and dances with her. In addition, several women in the bar stare at her. This scene is an explicit acknowledgement of the queer audience’s attraction towards Hanna. In another episode, Hanna is offended that Shana, another character, is flirting with every girl but her. When asked why she cares, she brushes it off. This kind of thing happens more than once. The question is whether this is just a recurring joke, or whether it’s something that could be explored more on the show. There are also many tender moments between Hanna and Emily that suggest a deeper relationship. Pretty Little Liars is an adaptation of the book series by the same name by Sara Shepard. In the books, Emily is bisexual. While many changes are often made when adapting books into shows, each choice is made for a reason. For example, the time of Alison’s disappearance was moved from seventh grade to a few years later, likely to make flashbacks more plausible with the older actresses. So one change that baffles many fans is the change of Emily’s sexuality from bisexual to gay. Is it because a bisexual main character is less acceptable or palatable? Many people make assumptions that bisexuals are promiscuous or cheaters or greedy, and all of these could affect people’s perception of a main character. By changing Emily from bisexual to gay, the show suggests that its characters can’t be bisexual, which in turn puts a cloud over the Hemily possibility. Like many shows, it creates a pattern of assumptions that once someone has dated one gender, they will only date people of that gender. This turns the Hemily teasing from a hopeful possibility into insulting pandering, with the knowledge that it’s not likely to come to fruition. This issue is certainly not isolated to Pretty Little Liars, but as a show that often panders to women who like women, it has a large bisexual fanbase, and it could serve them better by not upholding this harmful dichotomous framework.

Watercooler Journal

3.5 (2015)

image credits © ABC Family works cited Bellisario, Troian. “Emmys: ‘Pretty Little Liars’ Star Urges Voters Not to Ignore Teen Shows (Guest Column).” The Hollywood Reporter. 12 Jun 2014. http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/ emmys-pretty-little-liars-star-710501. “Out of the Frying Pan, Into the Inferno.” Pretty Little Liars. ABC Family. 29 Jan 2013.

Watercooler Journal

3.5 (2015)

Real Husbands of Hollywood Black and Irrelevant

Aisha Musa Columbia College Chicago (2015)

Kevin Hart gained recognition for his pseudo macho yet self-deprecating comedy style; his boasts about being rich and tough are a staple of current black pop culture. However, his show, Real Husbands of Hollywood (2013-) is said to be a “commentary on the death of the black male romantic lead” (Caramanica) and makes it a polysemic text that explores different facets of being black in Hollywood. The first way Real Husbands of Hollywood is a polysemic text is in the way it mocks current popular television. Real Husbands achieves its goal in “satirizing reality show ‘ratchedness’” (Lindsey), and takes great pleasure in doling out great acts of “mitchiness”, the male form of the bitchiness that often troubles the women of the Real Housewives series (2006-). In the episode “It’s Gettin’ Hot in Herrre” (1.3), Kevin Hart gets into what most people would call a “bitch-fight” with Robin Thicke. While on the surface this scene could be compared to the numerous fights seen across reality show Watercooler Journal

3.5 (2015)

television, there is a more serious undercurrent. After Kevin slaps Robin, the scene shifts to Kevin telling the audience why he felt the need to assault his cast mate. His reasoning is simple: no snitches allowed in the hood. It’s important to note that the show is being filmed in Hollywood and in mansions occupied by its stars; the men aren’t in the hood and have even fallen into a role of domesticity while riding on the coattails of their wives, exemplified when actor Boris Kodjoe opens the door to Kevin wearing an apron. Still, Hart felt the need to defend this stereotypical aspect of black culture. The scene is both funny and sour. Funny because Boris Kodjoe is impersonating a zealous German commander, and sour because that is what black men have been reduced to: stereotypes. By exaggerating Hart’s reaction to Thicke, the show is commenting on how stereotypes have shaped black men in Hollywood. Another way Real Husbands can be seen as a polysemic text is how it approaches the position black men fall into when pitted against another race. The addition of Robin Thicke to the first season’s cast made him a “pale-skinned presence” (Lindsey), and demonstrated race relations in Hollywood.

“The show reveals the struggle that black male stars face when joining a tough business like Hollywood.” Thicke appears as some sort of god to the other men at times, despite his newcomer status not changing. Hart constantly tries to one-up Thicke but is reminded often that he, at least, “socially undermines [Thicke]” (Caramanica), whether it’s in relation to how many famous people he knows or if Kevin is invited to Nelly’s video shoot. But Real Husbands takes its polysemic ambitions a step further by parodying the lack of black male leads in Hollywood. It features a cast entirely made up of black males who are constantly trying to stay relevant. Boris Kodjoe’s character is always plugging his products to the audience; Duane Martin schemes up get rich quick ideas like the six-piece breakaway suit (he had illegal workers manufacturing the suit for less pay); and Kevin Hart lives above his means to show that he’s famousbuying a mansion that is mostly empty because he can’t afford the furniture, spending money on girls at the club, and buying million dollar cars. These actions reveal the struggle that black male stars face when joining a tough business like Hollywood that, for the most part, ignores them (Lindsey). Jon Caramanica of the New York Times writes that, “Real Husbands makes the most sense when

Watercooler Journal

3.5 (2015)

read against the almost total vacuum of black male lead characters on network and cable television.â&#x20AC;? In reading this, I tried to think of what other current television shows featured black males leads and, unsurprisingly, never even left the fingers of my first hand. Shows like Scandal (2012-) and Deception (2013), which feature strong, black female leads, are gradually replacing the empty space left by black male stars of early years, e.g., Bill Cosby of The Cosby Show (1984-1992) or Will Smith from The Fresh Prince of Bel-Air (1990-1996) (Caramanica). Real Husbands is a funny parody of reality television and continuously offers stereotypical behavior and silly, frivolous characters. But beyond that, it satirizes Hollywood and the role black men play in it and also the need for those same men to stay relevant.

Watercooler Journal

3.5 (2015)

Watercooler Journal

3.5 (2015)

Roger Sterling

The Has-Been Who Still Is Mark Nadeau Columbia College Chicago (2017)

Mad Men is no stranger to having complex characters, and Roger Sterling is certainly no exception. This undeniably charming and suave co-owner of Sterling Cooper has a lot more depth to him than his acquaintances give him credit for. His daily struggles include trying to stay relevant around the office, trying to form a true bond with a woman he loves, and maintaining the respect of his peers. This proves to be more difficult than his confident stride lets on, as we see him bounce back and forth between likeable and pathetic throughout the series. Roger Sterling represents the showâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s recurring theme of trying to fit in with the times and maintaining relevancy. From season to season as we follow Donâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s triumphs and downfalls, we catch a glimpse of Rogerâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s climb (or descent) from the corporate ladder as well. Although Roger never technically loses his job or gets promoted/demoted, we do see him lose what matters most: his influence. After season 3, Watercooler Journal

3.5 (2015)

once SCDP is created, Sterling gets put in an unwanted position; he maintains the partner status he’s always had, but now Price and Draper are added to the mix. Lane isn’t a threat to Roger necessarily, but Don has been since before he even became a partner, and now he has the title to prove it. Throughout the following seasons Roger begins to question what he really brings to the table at the company. He butts heads with Pete throughout about how he doesn’t actually really do anything for the company, and that he’s only a name now. Sterling finds some solace when he teaches Lane Price how to properly sweet-talk the guy from Jaguar in season 5’s “Signal 30”, but even though he knows he’s a great people person, that’s short-lived. Roger, in a somewhat skewed way, also represents the hopeless romantic in all of us. He ends up stuck in two loveless marriages, knowing that he truly only cares for Joan throughout both of them. Joan is someone he can’t have, and whether or not he even knows that is up for debate. Mad Men is all about the ambition of the 60’s, and Roger’s want (or need, rather) for Joan is expertly displayed throughout the series with all of his failed attempts to woo her, and with the flashbacks we see of their relationship. Another one of Sterling’s many issues is the kind of limbo he’s caught up in given his age. Throughout Mad Men we draw parallels to the lifestyles and upbringing of younger characters like Pete, older ones like Don, and even older ones like Bert. But Roger is wedged in between these generations, being one of the few characters that are a WWII veteran. We see this come into play in season 4’s “The Chrysanthemum And The Sword”, when Roger has an unexpected and seemingly out of character outburst of hatred towards a Japanese client. It’s understandable given his history, but at the same time we catch a glimpse of just how passionate of a person Roger is. Under the surface he’s a man who strongly holds beliefs and ideals close, which certainly explains why he’s maintained his status for so long. Despite Roger’s upbringing and his issues fitting in, he still finds a way to be the cheery, quick-witted businessman we all know and love. Even when he’s at his worst (after his second divorce, once he finds out Joan is engaged, etc.) he still cracks his jokes and pokes fun at everyone. And in a way, he’s a perfect representation of one of Mad Men’s central themes; he puts on a façade in front of everyone in order to maintain his position in society when he’s struggling on the inside. We see a Roger that nobody else sees (besides Joan, possibly), and it makes us want to root for him, even when he is being an ass. Roger Sterling is the lovable and crotchety comic relief of the show with quite a bit of character development added in, and Mad Men certainly wouldn’t be the same without him. image credits © AMC

Watercooler Journal

3.5 (2015)

Sarah Silverman

A Character in Progress Danny Goltz Columbia College Chicago (2015)

“If [Sarah Silverman] really thinks saying ‘cunt’ repeatedly is a form of artistic expression, more power to her, but in commercial terms, indulging those impulses comes at a price.” writes Variety columnist Brian Lowry about Silverman’s HBO special We Are Miracles (2013). Lowry is not alone in his opinion, as Silverman’s style has polarized critics from the start (Anderson, Bialik, Aoki). But perhaps Lowry is neglecting to take a rhetorical reading of said style, which has evolved and grown along as the comedian’s career has progressed. Onstage, Sarah Silverman is a character, a lie that allows her to voice her truth. In 2005, Silverman released Sarah Silverman: Jesus Is Magic, a concert film that would serve to vault the comic from the obscurity of comic’s-comic status, blending Silverman’s stand-up with several

Watercooler Journal

3.5 (2015)

of her original songs and short sketches. The subject matter in the special is a foray into what audiences would come to expect from the comic: controversial issues like race, sex, and religion were mercilessly trotted out of the barn to mixed reviews from critics. Throughout the film, she’s a self-obsessed, unlikeable diva, and she ironically begs the audience with her eyes to side with her. This is how Sarah Silverman operates. By creating a character – a highly nuanced, obliviously offensive butt-of-her-own-joke that happens to share her real name – she has put up a veil that allows her to vocalize the opposite of her actual opinion. It gives Silverman the ability to broadcast her truth in an effort to change greater social stigmas. Which brings us to her 2013 HBO special We Are Miracles. Following the initial applause of the audience members (all 39 of them), Silverman opens: “I very rarely… occasionally… obsessively watch porn on my phone.” And we’re off. Over the next hour, Silverman riffs on male insecurity, the futility of mankind, the miracle of life, and then some, including her aforementioned ode to the “c-word.”

“By creating a character, she has put up a veil that allows her to vocalize the opposite of her actual opinion.”

What Lowry missed in his article – beside the fact that most sophisticated HBO audiences of our modern age might appreciate a woman who refuses to censor herself lest she be perceived as “unladylike” – is the evident growth as a stand-up comedian that Silverman displays in We Are Miracles. Gone are the days when she fills the uncomfortable air after a brutal punch line with “and uh” or “so…” She embraces the silent moments, trading in her eager, begging eyes for some that dare, “Go ahead – try me.” She keeps a piece of her dissociated persona, while also allowing in rays of the Sarah that the medialiterate of America has grown to appreciate in the almost-decade since Jesus Is Magic to shine through. This time, some of her anecdotes and jokes are truly believable, and the routine takes on the tone of a conversation. Her stoner soliloquies waft over the audience to a hush - normally the sound of failure in the world of stand-up. But the audience isn’t bored silent; they’re enraptured, clinging to each word. She even reaches out to a man seated in the front row while adjusting her guitar. “Is this in tune? Are you a musician? Oh, you should get a haircut.”

Watercooler Journal

3.5 (2015)

Silverman even deconstructs her own comedy in the middle of it all. Following her delivery of the “fact” that a University of North Carolina study found that 9/11 widows give great handjobs, she goes on the defensive. “Don’t shoot the messenger,” Silverman says. “This would be terrible if I just made it up. I didn’t.” Only after several quiet beats, she admits, “I made that up, I’m sorry. I thought of it and it made me giggle … and I still needed to say it to you … I wanted to say it. … and so I built a frame around it that forced you not to be able to blame me for saying it.” She follows with, “But, you know what? I feel like you should take some of the blame, honestly. Because you decided to believe that the University of North Carolina would spend money on a study of what… trauma-based handjobs? That’s crazy. You’re crazy.” This pretty much defines what Silverman makes of her own comedy at this point: she makes jokes, and while they can be perceived as offensive, the responsibility must be shared with the consumer. It’s the gem of the show and it’s only greeted with light chuckles, so she laments her audience by casually saying, “I need more rape jokes.” The comedian also curtails her scripted sketches, including only an opening bit and a short closer. It’s an indicator of the way audience tastes have evolved in the decade since Magic, as consumers have become overwhelmed with and desensitized by the comedic short that can be found in multitude on the internet. A car full of Latino men chat with Silverman outside the Largo in the opener, berating her for the tiny crowd awaiting her inside (“It’s called intimate, fuckface!”). She takes a few healthy hits off of the driver’s blunt containing “a bunch of stuff,” again taking the chance to rationalize and discredit the jokes ahead to the viewer. It’s not really Sarah Silverman as we know her, but rather an altered state, built inside the frame of comedy. We have reached a new era of Silverman’s style. From politically correct brick-wall-style zingers to spacey, esthetic multimedia headiness to id-tickling fart joke, the comic has subtly reinvented herself time and time again while staying true to her integrity. Now, she’s some combination of the three, a winning mixture that afforded her an Emmy in 2014 for her work writing We Are Miracles. By “letting her audience in” just enough, and by daring to be dirty, Sarah Silverman wound up being more memorable than any male comic in 2013.

Watercooler Journal

3.5 (2015)

image credits © HBO works cited Lowry, Brian. “Sarah Silverman’s Bad Career Move: Being as Dirty as the Guys.” Variety. 20 Nov. 2013. Anderson, Sam. “Irony Maiden: How Sarah Silverman is Raping American Comedy.” Slate Magazine. Slate, 10 Nov. 2005. Bialik, Mayim. “What I Told My Inner Child Before Going on The Howard Stern Show.” The Official Mayim Bialik Blog at Kveller. Kveller, 27 Feb. 2014. Aoki, Guy. “Appearing on Politically Incorrect in August 2001.” MANAA. Media Action Network for Asian Americans, 21 Apr. 2009. Sarah Silverman: Jesus Is Magic. Dir. Liam Lynch. By Liam Lynch, Sarah Silverman. Roadside Attractions, 2005. Westbrook, Bruce. “Review - Sarah Silverman: Jesus Is Magic.” Houston Chronicle. Houston Chronicle, 9 Dec. 2005. Sarah Silverman: We Are Miracles. Dir. Liam Lynch. By Sarah Silverman. Home Box Office. 2013.

Watercooler Journal

3.5 (2015)

Death as a Reset Katelyn McGaw Columbia College Chicago (2017)

Mad Men is a series that hinges on its use of subtle theme and steady progression. As we approach the conclusion of the series, the mid-season finale stands out to viewers. “Waterloo” has a reminiscent feeling that often comes with the nostalgia associated with Mad Men. However, this nostalgia is not for the time period; it’s due to the themes explored in the episode. Mad Men has always been aware of death and change, that’s why this episode’s material feels so familiar. “Waterloo” also shares several similarities with the pilot episode “Smoke Gets in Your Eyes,” drawing attention to the fact that although much has changed, everything is cyclical. This episode (as well as most mid-season and season finales) was directed by Matthew Weiner and written by Weiner and Carly Wray. Throughout this episode there is a clear juxtaposition of new beginnings and death that is displayed through Peggy and Don. Season seven of Mad Men aired during the spring of 2014; the second half of the season will air Watercooler Journal

3.5 (2015)

during the spring of 2015. The first half of the season was marketed separately from the second, and is known as “The Beginning,” whereas the second half is titled “The End of an Era.” Obviously this is the beginning of the seventh season, so “The Beginning” makes sense as a title, but throughout these seven episodes the stories and relationships almost revert back to what they were when the show first started. Many of the themes displayed in this episode are evident in the first season. This shows that although much has changed, some things never will. The second half of the season is appropriately titled “The End of an Era” due to the fact that it will literally be focusing on the end of 1969 and the end of an era. In “The Beginning” the characters face the issues in their lives, but

“Although much has changed, some things never will.” finally they will be able to start a new trend in their lives because they have already been through similar circumstances and (hopefully) have learned from their mistakes. This refreshing beginning and new start will lead way for “The End of an Era” where we will most likely gain insight into where the characters are going to be in the seventies. Titling the two halves of the season is appropriate because it makes them both distinct. They both have arcs that start and conclude within them, but also allows us to understand the progression of the show so far and what note it will end on. Part of the reason why the title “The Beginning” works so well, especially for “Waterloo,” is because it is so similar to the literal beginning of the series. The pilot episode, “Smoke Gets In Your Eyes” aired in summer of 2007 and was written by Matthew Weiner. Although so much has changed in the show, there is still a trace of the pilot episode tethered throughout the series. First of all, death is mentioned throughout both episodes. More specifically, Pete mentions it. In the pilot episode he steals the medical report out of Don’s trashcan, he then presents this information at the Lucky Strike pitch and claims that smokers have a Freudian death wish. Roger, Don, Lee Garner and the rest of the folks in the meeting immediately shoot him down and tell him the clients do not want to die. In the opening scene of “Waterloo,” Ted shuts off the plane and expresses to the clients that he no longer wants to be alive. Later, when Pete is yelling at him, he says “The clients don’t want to die, Ted!” Pete has finally learned from his mistakes. What makes this comparison unique, is a lot of characters between season one and season seven are still in the same bad habits, but Pete has evolved (although that might just be because he was yelled at). There is always a glimpse at the next generation(s) in Mad Men, whether it is with Peggy or Sally. We have seen Sally grow throughout the years and we are finally seeing the effects of the older generation on hers. For example, in “Waterloo” Sally goes outside to smoke after the moon

Watercooler Journal

3.5 (2015)

landing. She is doing this either because of her parental influence or because of something that Don has often said in pitches: the younger generation is nostalgic for things that they haven’t even experienced. Sally thinks that this is what she should be doing and is following in her parent’s footsteps. Neil, the nerdy family friend, immediately tells her “smoking kills” when she lights up. This presents the different ends of the spectrum for this new generation, the ones who go with nostalgia and feeling, and those who rely on science and facts. This interaction also ties into the pilot episode because the whole episode is about smoking and even Lucky Strike is unsure of the future of tobacco because they are losing their influence on the younger generation.

Throughout the pilot episode we are immediately intrigued and perplexed by the enigma that is Don Draper. We spend the whole episode wondering about his relationship status. He has a midday fling with Midge, so we are under the impression that she is his girlfriend. At the end of the episode when he goes home we has a wife and two kids. Who is this guy? He has the perfect nuclear family and he lets it slip away and he is alone. In “Waterloo” Megan and Don agree that they should get divorced. Once again, Don is alone. Additionally, he is losing his connection with the younger generation. Megan was basically his proxy to the youth and her leaving severs his ties and makes him realize that time is slipping away from him.

Watercooler Journal

3.5 (2015)

There is a clear theme of death throughout “Waterloo.” The most obvious example is Bert’s death. But there are several more mentions of death. For example, in the opening scene Ted wants to die and almost kills his clients. Later in the episode he wants out of the company and says that he “wants to do something else, somewhere else.” He doesn’t exactly want to end his life, but he does want to end his relationship with advertising because it is literally going to be the death of him. He tries to leave the company twice in the episode and eventually is persuaded by Don to stay. Don is not concerned with Ted’s mental state, but rather the money that goes along with this deal with McCann Erickson. After Bert passes away he visits Don from beyond the grave in the form of a musical number. Matthew Weiner said in an interview with Variety from May 2014 that “the message from Bert to Don is that life and death are bigger than money.” Hopefully this and many other signs make Don reevaluate what is important in his life. Although Don does not wish to die, death hangs around him. In season seven there is the potential death of his career that comes with the looming threat of unemployment as the partners attempt to oust him from the company. Megan asks for a divorce over the phone, leaving his marriage dead. Bert literally dies, but then is resurrected to leave some wisdom with Don. Peggy is moving up in the company and he sees her pitch for the first time ever. She no longer needs his assistance in business

“With every change, they lose something.” and therefore his relationship with her is dying (at least the mentor relationship). So much is dying in his life, but is also just resetting back to what it was season one. With every change, they lose something and can never be fully happy. “Waterloo” is grounded in history with the moon landing event that happens in the episode. There are several mentions of death by Peggy, but they are all about the astronauts. She is hoping that something tragic happens in the world that overshadows her pitch because she is nervous. Peggy even asks her neighbor Julio (who is ten years old) “What about if they [the astronauts] die?” This absolutely shocks him. The moon landing was such a historical event because of the technological advancements and discoveries that had been made. There was an obvious chance of death with the mission, but it would devastate the entire country if that were to happen. The mention of death is so evident in this episode because in order to move on to the next chapter or era, something needs to die and in this case it is the older generation, bad relationships and toxic habits. Mad Men seems to have always been obsessed with death, but I think that it allows the characters Watercooler Journal

3.5 (2015)

to face new beginnings by experiencing harsh endings. These characters can sometimes be bad, but they should be offered new chances in order to redeem their actions. After the first seven episodes of season seven, the show has reset itself. Part two of season seven will be interesting because it not only caps off the series; it has the ability to go where the show has never gone. The characters are now back in a similar situation like when we first met them. The second chapter of this season could also potentially involve a time jump and display these characters in the seventies. Throughout the series all of the characters have undergone deliberate change, but did anything really change? These characters have now been reset and offered the chance of a new future and opportunities.

image credits ÂŠ AMC works cited http://variety.com/2014/tv/news/mad-men-qa-with-matthew-weiner-life-and-death-are-bigger-thanmoney-1201193163/ Watercooler Journal

3.5 (2015)

Sleeping with the Enemy The Antihero in The Americans

Liron Cohen City University of New York, Hunter College (2016) Contributor of the Month

“Car won’t start; we have to take a bus to the Metro,” says Philip, as he comes in from the garage, where he has a Russian spy locked in the trunk of his car. “Dad, Valenzuela pitched a one-hitter last night,” his son, Henry, tells him as he finishes his breakfast. “Do you know what they paid that asshole? Three million dollars,” whispers Phillip as he approaches his wife Elizabeth in the kitchen. She puts the dishes in the sink and responds: “Henry was looking for his skateboard. It’s not in the garage, is it?” The couple looks incredulously at their teenage daughter, Paige, who is pouring herself a cup of coffee. They say goodbye to her, still not sure how to react to the coffee, tease their younger son about having coffee too, and swiftly go back to discussing the fate of the spy in their garage: “We have to get him out of here tonight,” says Elizabeth. “I just coded the message, I’ll drop it on Watercooler Journal

3.5 (2015)

the way to work, get instructions back this afternoon, hand him off after the kids go to sleep. You don’t have to stay home. He’s secure in there,” says Phillip. Elizabeth looks worried. “There were witnesses. If they put it together, they could be looking for him in a few hours. I’m gonna stay.” Phillip: “I told you we should have built that secret underground chamber in the basement, with the dual air vents and the weather-proof walls.” Elizabeth: “You mean that wine cellar you wanted to put in under the laundry room?” Phillip: “I said it could have other uses. Anyway, three million dollars he got.” Elizabeth pours herself coffee, ignoring Phillip, who is holding his cup up: “He can buy himself a diamond-plated coffin.” End scene.

“The Americans takes on an ambitious task: to make us root not only for the antihero, but for the literal enemy.” This is a typical scene in the FX show The Americans, and a typical morning in the lives of KGB agents Phillip (Matthew Rhys) and Elizabeth (Keri Russell), who are raising a completely assimilated family in Washington DC while spying on the United States for the Russian government. While shows that focus on the antihero have proliferated on the television landscape in the last few years, this show, which takes place during the Cold War era, revolves around two characters who should undoubtedly be considered enemies to American audiences. Yet, through storytelling devices and character construction, The Americans takes on an ambitious task: to make us root not only for the antihero, but for the literal enemy. Phillip and Elizabeth are unusual antiheroes. “The key feature of an antihero is a character who is our primary point of ongoing narrative alignment, but whose behavior and beliefs provoke ambiguous, conflicted, or negative moral allegiance” (Mittell, “Character”). Phillip’s and Elizabeth’s morals and values contradict the ones of most of the American population. But as opposed to the serial killer, the drug lord, or the dysfunctional narcissist in shows like Dexter, Breaking Bad, or Mad Men, respectively, whose actions are unjustifiable, no matter how hard they try to convince us of the purity of their motives, “These guys are leading their double life and doing the things they are doing because they have a value system that supports it. Phillip and Elizabeth are not doing it for money or because they are narcissists or for selfish reason. Now, it may be that their value system or political system isn’t one that we agree with, or were brought up in ourselves, but it doesn’t mean we can’t understand the idea of making sacrifices for a value system. In a weird way these guys are relatable,” says Joseph Weisberg, creator and showrunner of The Americans. Even though we cannot relate to Phillip and Elizabeth’s specific value system, we can identify with Watercooler Journal

3.5 (2015)

their patriotism, their loyalty to their county and their willingness to put their own lives second to “the mission.” As a society, we do not reward murder or drug dealing or philandering, but we reward patriotism on a daily basis. We give medals to our soldiers and honor our own spies. Philip and Elizabeth’s morals might seem wrong to us – not because we consider them intrinsically wrong, but only because they are serving the wrong country. And while the relationship between the US and Russia is still tense, these events, which took place three decades ago, might be long ago enough for them to be removed from our reality. “They’re fighting for a system that they believe in. But in 2013 we all know that repressive socialism was an utter failure. We know that system is not going to work,” says another The Americans showrunner Joel Fields.

Furthermore, this anti-Reagan sentiment might correspond with the target audience of the show. Reagan’s unpopularity with the affluent and educated during his time of presidency might make the target audience of a prime time cable network show, the affluent and educated audience who is willing to invest in a sophisticated, complex show, ideal for these kinds of notions. By dividing our antihero into two, the show thus puts forth the conflict within the leading characters and makes relatability easier on the viewer in a “divide and conquer” kind of technique. At times we can sympathize more with Phillip, who seems to like America more and does not seem to be too tortured to sing the national anthem with his son at the space show at school (season 1, episode Watercooler Journal

3.5 (2015)

1), and at times we can sympathize more with Elizabeth, who is devastated by the murder of her friends and is truly grasping the consequences her life choices might have on her children (season 2, episode 1). While our allegiances can move from one to the other, the two can never be truly separated; if they are to succeed and survive, they need to rely on each other. Phillip and Elizabeth are a unit, working in concert to help their country, but they are also a marital unit, fighting to keep their relationship solid. We learn very early on that Elizabeth and Phillip’s marriage is not based in love, but rather in their mission. We learn primarily from flashbacks, which provide us the backstory to their first encounter and their first years together in the US. Having been matched to work together as a team, we see that they didn’t even know anything about their personal histories besides their made up American ones (“It will be easier to believe in the Elizabeth who grew up in Columbus, Ohio, Phillip, if you don’t know any other story. Elizabeth, you will be less likely to make a slip one day, if there is no other version of this man that you are hiding away in the back of your mind,” Colonel Zhukov tells them when he introduces them to each other in a flashback in the pilot episode). But we also learn that from their interactions with each other, starting in the pilot, where we can sense a discomfort, a “down to business” attitude, especially from Elizabeth, and culminating in their break up toward the end of the first season.

“The show manipulates the viewer to root for the couple.” Making our antiheroes a married couple places the viewer in a relatable position to them. At its core, this show revolves around the couple as a team. Their ability to work well together, to rely on each other to maintain their cover on the one hand, while surviving their missions and attacks on their safety on the other, depends on the solidity of their relationship. Bringing the story down to that of a couple who struggles to keep its marriage strong makes it relatable to many viewers who understand these marital struggles in their own lives. The couple’s moments of “togetherness” are often framed within 80s long songs. Those songs cue the viewers’ emotions and make them involuntarily apply all the notions, expectations and desires that they would normally apply to a romantic movie. Furthermore, in depicting the struggles in their married life through a separation and a reunion, the show manipulates the viewer to root for the couple. We want them to get back together, we want their marriage to be successful, so that it reaffirms the validity of our own relationships. And while we root for Phillip and Elizabeth on the personal level, it is nearly impossible not to root for them on a “professional” level, since the two are entangled and inseparable. When Phillip and Elizabeth break up in episode nine of the first season, it is the young agents who are separating, the ones who were Watercooler Journal

3.5 (2015)

forced into an arranged marriage in order to successfully assimilate into American society. But when their lives are in danger, they come to truly appreciate each other in their own right. Their reunion is that of Elizabeth and Phillip as individuals, who this time choose to be with each other, thus restoring our belief in relationships and the power of marriage and fate. Expanding on the power of marriage is the power of family. Phillip and Elizabeth, we see in a flashback in the pilot episode, know that they are expected to have children in order to be totally credible as an American family. It is hard to believe that Elizabeth, who is devoted to her mission to the bone, would choose to have children if she did not have to. Their children are like “anchor babies,” except not for immigration purposes. Henry and Paige being raised entirely as Americans, in order to keep the cover believable, represents the conflict within the couple that has, for all intents and purposes, been living the American Dream. While it is true that Elizabeth cringes when her daughter tells her she is writing a paper on “how the Russians cheat on arms control,” and Phillip shows discomfort when his son takes pride in the American race to space (season 1, episode 1), it is clear that the couple, and especially Phillip, does not feel as strongly against America as they did when they first got here. “America’s not really so bad. We’ve been here a long time, what’s so bad about it? The… the electricity works all the time, the food, the… the closet space…” Phillip says to Elizabeth in the pilot episode, as he is trying to convince her that they should defect. Phillip’s justification is that the family comes before the mission. And while Elizabeth does not give in and is even appalled at his suggestion, her main argument as to why they should not do it is that the KGB would kill them, just like they are about to kill the traitor spy Timoshev whom they kidnapped in the beginning of the episode. Their family is a main source of sympathy for the viewer, but it is also the double-edged sword that keeps Elizabeth and Phillip from being able to choose a normal life. In the first episode of the second season, the Jennings family goes to the amusement park in order for Phillip and Elizabeth to be able to “pass by” old friends of theirs. The couple, we learn, was their friends a long time ago, and now that they have met each other again, the two couples cannot resist the desire to see the other’s children. Since the children can never be involved in their “other life,” Elizabeth and Phillip arrange to be at the park on the same day so that they could see what their friends’ family looks like. The episode culminates in a narrative spectacle that shocks the viewer with an assassination of the other couple and their daughter. In this unexpected turn of events, the viewer is now truly afraid for the Jennings family’s lives. No one is safe anymore, and the fact that eight episodes into the second season, we still do not know who was responsible for the murder shakes up the entire system of expectations we have built for the show. But the viewers are not the only ones who are shocked. Phillip and Elizabeth, who started a family Watercooler Journal

3.5 (2015)

so that it could be their “beard,” now realize just how much danger they are putting their children in simply by association. In the following episodes, we watch them struggle with their deep fear for their family’s safety, and we expect them to have to finally choose between that and their mission. Before, Elizabeth and Phillip’s concern for the children was mainly what would happen to them if they went to jail or got killed. Now that their children could be in real danger, does the mission still come first? The plot gets complicated even further when in episode three of the second season, Elizabeth needs to fulfill a promise she had made to her deceased friend that in case she and her husband died, she’d tell her children the truth about who their parents were. The couple’s son, traumatized and depressed, is staying with friends. Elizabeth comes to visit him, carrying a letter from his parents, which she retrieved from a hiding place they had agreed upon in advance. But upon seeing the pain and devastation on the boy’s face, Elizabeth decides not to give him the letter, knowing that revealing the truth about his parents would only break his heart and complicate his own relationship with the only place he has left to call home: not his family or his childhood house, but his country. In this montage of stylistic exhibitionism, Elizabeth takes the letter and burns it while an evocative song is playing in the background. The viewer cannot help but wonder how Elizabeth’s realization makes her feel about her relationship with her own children.

Watercooler Journal

3.5 (2015)

Their children provide Elizabeth and Phillip with a weakness, a vulnerability to which we can relate and which endears them to us. But the show uses other, more unusual devices to humanize the couple to the viewers as well. As opposed to other spy shows or movies, where the spies are oftentimes unbeatable, super-human entities, Phillip and Elizabeth oftentimes accomplish their missions perfectly, being great chameleons who can manipulate almost anybody into doing what they want him or her to do; but their weakness, their humanity, is revealed in the detail. Phillip and Elizabeth might easily slip into every role they need to play, but only when they’re assisted by ridiculous looking wigs. The viewers, who have come to expect the couple to be changing wigs for different missions or for “recurring roles,” like Phillip’s Clark, who has to maintain a complete second life married to Martha of the counter-intelligence unit, have also come to expect them to be somewhat of a comic relief. And though partly to be explained by the decade (80s hair was bad in every way) and by the need to be “camouflaged” as ordinary people, it seems like the wigs are intentionally made ludicrous in order to both endear the characters to the viewers and in order to provide them with a flaw: they are not super-human spies; they are somewhat inadequate. This comic relief also helps distract the viewer from the severity of our characters’ actions against Americans. In addition to the comic aspect provided by the wigs, we are also given a reason to feel sad and sorry for Phillip and Elizabeth, who use their sexuality in almost every episode to get their missions done. Elizabeth sleeps with men on a regular basis in order to get information, and Phillip, as Clark, marries Martha in order to get information on the goings on in the counter-intelligence unit. And although creator Weisberg says that “People in a lot of way (sic) have responded, I think very understandably, more strongly to Philip marrying Martha than any of the people they killed, like it’s a much worse crime and more horrible thing to do” (Salon), it is ultimately a pathetic way of living, especially since we know that Phillip loves his family very much. The way they prostitute their bodies for their jobs makes their lives quite sad to us. Moreover, when we find out about Phillip’s and Elizabeth’s old flames, we really get a sense of how much they sacrificed for their mission. In episode seven of the first season, we see Phillip reunited with his former Russian girlfriend Irina, who tells him she had had his child. Torn, Phillip decides to stay in America and work on his distressed relationship with Elizabeth. Elizabeth, on her part, has also had an ongoing affair with an American militant. Gregory, who has been loyal to “the cause,” appears to be Elizabeth’s true love. Seeing her relationship with him until his death reveals again just how much the two spies, who were joined together to serve Mother Russia, have given up in their personal lives for the sake of the mission. Gender is as essential as sex to the successful relationship between viewer and leading couple. Watercooler Journal

3.5 (2015)

While Phillip and Elizabeth are both equally good spies, one of them is softer, more family-oriented and more easily distracted by “goods,” and one is more hard-core, devoted to the cause, and focused on the endgame. The viewer might more easily associate the former with feminine qualities and the latter with masculine ones, but it is Phillip who says the family comes before the mission, who is willing to defect, and who enjoys shopping for boots in the nice American mall. Elizabeth, on the other hand, says that the mission comes first, is a rather removed mother, and disdains capitalism. This “gender bending” works well with the style of the show, which mixes elements of the feminineconsidered melodrama to offset the more masculine-associated spy business. “Melodrama should be construed as a narrative mode that uses suspense to portray ‘moral legibility,’ offering an engaging emotional response to feel the difference between competing moral sides as manifested through forward-moving storytelling” (Mittell, “Serial Melodrama”). While melodramatic elements help us care about the characters and relate to them in a way that makes their moral ambiguity less distressing to us, they also mix the gender expectations in a way that allows us to enjoy the actionoriented, puzzle-solving style of the show, while developing a connection with the characters. Our connection to the characters is formed in a primal way in the first few minutes of the pilot episode. “The beginning of a narrative is an essential moment, establishing much of what will follow” (Mittell, “Beginnings”). When we first see Elizabeth, she is having sex with a man from the Department of Justice. We then see Phillip with a younger man, following and chasing down a third man with a thick Russian accent. It is easy to assume that our characters, who manage to seem completely American by having no accents whatsoever, are the “good guys,” chasing a bad guy. Furthermore, Phillip yells “Immigration” as he pursues the Russian. Having no reason to assume he is lying, we are still under the impression he is the good guy. When he catches the Russian, there is a struggle. Thinking that Phillip is the right guy to support, we root for him, forming a quick bond. We are happy when he catches the Russian, and when Elizabeth brings over the car, she pretends to be the police, so far as they even read him his Miranda rights. The pilot must “introduce a cast of characters via shorthand, such that their personalities and relationships are clear within moments, but in original enough ways that they do not seem like stereotypes or overly-familiar clones of conventional characters” (Mittell, “Beginnings”). We feel a little confused when we see Phillip change his license plate, and become further confused when Elizabeth does not want to make the detour to the hospital to save their partner who got hurt. But order is restored when they do drop him off at the hospital, even though it makes them miss the drop and fail their mission. In those first few minutes, we “imprint” on our protagonists, learning to love them despite the confusion and ambiguity revolving their actions, in accordance with Mittell’s idea that “pilots must orient viewers to the intrinsic norms that the series will employ, presenting its Watercooler Journal

3.5 (2015)

narrative strategies so we can attune ourselves to its storytelling style” (Mittell, “Beginnings”). This will inevitably become the primal way in which we see Elizabeth and Phillip due to the cognitive heuristic processing method of anchoring and adjustment. Heuristics are “mental shortcuts in processing information about others” (Cottam, Dietz-Uhler, Mastors, and Preson 39). Individuals need to use heuristics in order to efficiently organize the copious amounts of information to which they are exposed on a daily level. According to the authors, anchoring and adjustment is a type of heuristic which happens “when individuals make estimates by starting from an initial value that is adjusted to yield the final answer” (40). According to these findings, the nature of the human cognition will lead to adjustments that will usually be biased toward the initial assessment. Even when we start questioning the couple’s morals, our worries are alleviated by the discovery that Timoshev, the Russian spy, raped Elizabeth years ago (figure 12). Pitting her against a villain at once makes us root for her, makes her seem less “bad,” and gives us sufficient justification for her actions, at least for now. When Phillip kills Timoshev, he does so out of revenge for his wife’s honor, and that brings them back together, which gives us relief and satisfaction. Similarly in the pilot episode, Phillip is pitted against a perverse older man who tries to hit on his teenage daughter (figure 13). Phillip’s cruelty toward the man seems justified, even heroic, because he is the better man out of the two. Spying can be justified between countries, but trying to molest a young girl is off bounds.

“Alignment and elaboration are key components of our allegiance to an antihero.” This positioning of the couple among characters who are worse than them helps to put them in a better light. “Alignment and elaboration are key components of our allegiance to an antihero— the more we know about a character through revelations of backstory, relationships, and interior thoughts, the more likely we will come to regard them as an ally in our journey through the storyworld” (Mittell, “Character”). The show furthers our attachment to Phillip and Elizabeth as our heroes by presenting the other main characters in a less favorable light. Stan, the FBI agent who is both their neighbor and nemesis (unbeknownst to him), is a cheater, who treats his wife and son badly and is having an affair with a Russian double agent. Nina, the double agent, is a sympathetic character, but she is broken and pathetic and we are not sure of her real motives as she goes back and forth between Stan and the KGB.

Watercooler Journal

3.5 (2015)

We never see Elizabeth and Phillip directly communicating with the KGB, allowing us to keep a mental distance between the two, and the only communication they do have is through their hideous handler Claudia, who is so ruthless she even kidnaps Phillip and Elizabeth, tortures them and threatens their children’s safety (episode 1, episode 13). At the end of season one, Elizabeth is even shot by Stan, bringing our sympathies in alignment with her, rather than with the American who is supposed to save our country from Russia. Ultimately, storyworld, storylines, and personality traits all boil down to the actor who embodies the character. By casting all-American Keri Russell, popularly known for her portrayal of young romantic sweetheart Felicity on the show Felicity, as Elizabeth, and Matthew Rhys, popularly known as nice guy Kevin on Brothers and Sisters, the creators of the show already set the viewers up to like them. Exhibiting superb acting skills, these two actors give such layered performances, that they are never truly hateful or one-dimensional. The best example is perhaps a more recent one, in which Phillip returns a Russian scientist to Russia, despite his pleas. “Please! You’re a monster! You’re not a man! Whoever you once were, whatever you were, they trained it out of you. No feeling, no humanity, you may as well be dead!” he tells him (season 2, episode 5). As the words pierce through him like a knife, we see Phillip’s lips quiver as he tries to maintain his cool composure. Are Phillip and Elizabeth monsters? Do they have no souls? Or were they taken in young and vulnerable, hoping to give their lives meaning by serving their country? Are they still the same people they were when they just came to America, or are they just another couple who wants to live the American dream? Through complex and clever storyline devices and character construction, the show seems to be successful so far in maintaining our loyal connection to the leading couple, creating an ironic situation in which American audiences root for the people who aspire to destroy their country. It does seem, however, that in the midst of the second season we have reached a pivotal point in which Elizabeth and Phillip, devastated by grief and terrified for the safety of their family, confused by their own roles in their own lives, and unsure of who they can trust, are more and more treading the lines between antihero, enemy, and victim.

Watercooler Journal

3.5 (2015)

image credits © FX works cited Cottam, Martha L., Beth Dietz-Uhler, Elena Mastors, and Thomas Preston. Introduction to Political Psychology. 2nd ed. New York: Psychology Press, 2010. Print. Mittell, Jason. “Beginnings.” Complex TV - The Poetics of Contemporary Television Storytelling by Jason Mittell. Media Commons Press, Apr. 2012. Web. 7 Apr. 2014. Mittell, Jason. “Character.” Complex TV - The Poetics of Contemporary Television Storytelling by Jason Mittell. Media Commons Press. Web. 7 Apr. 2014. Mittell, Jason. “Serial Melodrama.” Complex TV - The Poetics of Contemporary Television Storytelling by Jason Mittell. Media Commons Press. Web. 7 Apr. 2014. Paskin, Willa. “”The Americans” Creators Discuss Season Finale.” Salon. Salon Media Group, 1 May 2013. Web. 7 Apr. 2014. Thomas, June. “A Conversation with The Americans Showrunners Joe Weisberg and Joel Fields.” Slate. Ed. David Plotz. The Slate Group, 31 Jan. 2013. Web. 7 Apr. 2014. episodes of The Americans cited “Pilot.” Season 1, episode 1. “Duty and Honor.” Season 1, episode 7. “Safe House.” Season 1, episode 9. “The Colonel.” Season 1, episode 13. “Comrades.” Season 2, episode 1. “The Walk In.” Season 2, episode 3. “The Deal.” Season 2, episode 5.

Watercooler Journal

3.5 (2015)

The Funny Thing About Storytelling

Examining Mike Birbiglia’s Unique Stand-Up Style Ben Roffman Columbia College Chicago (2015)

In an interview with Miami.com, comedian Mike Birbiglia says, “As I went through the years […] I started using my own life and the stories started to stretch into longer pieces.” Birbiglia’s joketelling differs from most in that it’s heavily longform, more like a hybrid of a one-man show and stand-up. What’s more, a rhetorical analysis of Birbiglia’s comedic style reveals not only its uniqueness, but also its potential to push the medium to a place that will become more common in the near future. The strength of Mike Birbiglia’s style of stand-up comes from its unique form. For example, in his Netflix special My Girlfriend’s Boyfriend (2013), the comedian opens with the line, “So about five years ago everyone I know started to get married and that was strange for me because I

Watercooler Journal

3.5 (2015)

don’t really believe in the idea of marriage.” Right off the bat the stage is set: the character of Mike Birbiglia doesn’t believe in marriage. We quickly learn the other details: he was in a serious relationship with a woman named Jenny, who did believe in marriage. We also learn that Birbiglia is adamant about sharing his beliefs on marriage with everyone and wants them to acknowledge he’s right. We then discover that one night, after an argument with Jenny, he was in a terrible car accident. Birbiglia tells this story within the first five minutes of his 75-minute special. What follows is the story of his and Jenny’s relationship, which begins long before the car accident and will serve as the climax of his story. We learn about his relationship and how difficult he is, always wanting to be right, always refusing to discuss marriage. We go through fights and loving moments between him and Jenny and eventually end up at the car accident, a turning point in Birbiglia’s life. Throughout the special, Birbiglia has been crafting a character the audience can relate to, one held back by the comedian’s own arbitrary hang-ups. Because of this, the audience wants to see him change. From the car accident on, Birbiglia begins to fulfill those audience desires. He unravels it for us: the car accident’s effect on him, his learning to let go of the need to be right, and finally, in the last few moments of his stand-up, he ties it all together: “July 7th, 2007 Jenny and I went to city hall and got married. I still didn’t believe in the idea of marriage and I still don’t, but I believe in her and I’ve given up on the idea of being right.” This is the final line of Mike Birbiglia’s set, showing off Birbiglia’s impeccable form by giving the audience exactly what we wanted: character change. We watched a character grow which is something unique to Birbiglia’s stand-up. Having a fluid narrative that allows us to attach to characters creates a deeper connection to the jokes being told. Mike Birbiglia is telling us a story, a narrative. Comedians like Louie CK, Tig Notaro, and Dave Chappelle have begun to tell multiple narratives through their sets, instead of just rapid-fire jokes. But Birbiglia finds a way to tie each joke to a small narrative story and then have that story tie to the bigger narrative that looms over his entire stand-up routine. This is why his sets have found their way onto the storytelling radio show This American Life (1995-Present) and podcast The Moth (1997-Present), because he tells cohesive stories. Mike Birbiglia even made a film out of his one-show/comedy special Sleepwalk With Me (2011). Mike Birbiglia is a storyteller. He crafts characters the audience cares about, which allows him to do interesting things with his stand-up act, such as ending on a quiet moment. This way of Watercooler Journal

3.5 (2015)

delivering jokes, by having a narrative with characters people connect with creates a deeper relationship between the audience and the jokes. This style allows comedians to create more versatile sets, instead of having to act as joke machines. It’s precisely this reason that more comedians might gravitate towards this style in the near future.

image credits © Live Nation works cited My Girlfriend’s Boyfriend. New Wave Entertainment Television. Netflix. Web. 4 Sep. 2013. Reyes, Amy. Mike Birbiglia, the master of long-form levity, heads to the Arsht Center on Nov. 20. Miami.com. 14 Nov. 2014. Web. This American Life. PRX. WBEZ, Chicago. Radio. Podcast. The Moth. N.p., n.d. Web. <themoth.org> Birbiglia, Mike. Sleepwalk With Me. Comedy Central Rec, 2011. CD.

Watercooler Journal

3.5 (2015)

The Moon Belongs to Everyone Robert Glenn Smith Columbia College Chicago (2017)

The most recent episode of Mad Men illustrates a perfect balance of symbolism, historical significance, and character progression that has become a staple of the show within the past seven seasons. The centerpiece of “Waterloo” is the July 20, 1969 Apollo 11 moon landing, which is seen by many of the characters as well as 125 million Americans. The moon represents the beginning of a new era, but as the slogan for part one of season seven recites, it is also “the beginning of the end.” Bert Cooper’s death reflects that as one door opens, another closes. “Waterloo” signs off with a musical number from the spirit of Bertram to Don, which acts as a finale saying much more than “The Best Things in Life are Free.” The episode begins with Bert telling his maid to “turn that vacuum off” as the shuttle launch is counting down. The archival footage of Apollo 11 lifting off is featured opposite Robert Morse embodying the character of a man astounded by such a technological sight. When the shuttle Watercooler Journal

3.5 (2015)

reaches the moon later in the episode, most characters are glued to their televisions. Peggy’s ten year old neighbor repeatedly begs Peggy if he can watch the landing on her TV. We see America’s youth through Julio’s passion for the astronauts. Peggy mentions that her Burger Chef pitch will have to be rescheduled if the space mission fails and Julio’s tear-filled eyes reveal that he feels a part of this momentous space expedition. When the SCDP (Sterling Cooper Draper Pryce) clan is aboard their flight to Indianapolis, their pilot wishes Neil Armstrong, Buzz Aldrin and the other astronauts a safe trip. All of America was bonded together in their passion for this important mission. When Neil Armstrong takes the first step on the moon, Peggy, Pete, Don, and Harry overhear many others rejoicing in the hotel rooms around them. Subsequently, Armstrong utters the infamous lines “That’s

“The moon landing was nothing but a step forward.” one small step for man, one giant leap for mankind.” To this, Cooper is astounded by the beauty of it all and recites his last word, “Bravo.” Bert knows a catchy line from his decades in advertising, and this was the perfect summarization of the occasion. The moon landing was one of the most momentous days in the history of the world, and millions of people celebrated its glory. Over 700 million people worldwide were estimated to have seen coverage, and this was a time when people saw something entirely good, not detrimental. Some of the most watched television broadcasts to date include the Kennedy Assassination, 9/11 and Nixon’s resignation. The moon landing was nothing but a step forward. Telescopes and televisions are two props that can be seen throughout “Waterloo.” Both are consistent with the A-Story, but they hold significant value in distinguishing theme. The episode begins with the television in Cooper’s home, and televisions can be seen in the Draper home, Olsen residence, and Indianapolis hotel room. When Don phones Megan, she sits on her balcony overlooking Los Angeles with a telescope rested behind her. Similarly, Neil, the nerdy boy, shows Sally how to look through a telescope and asks her “isn’t it better than TV?” Both characters that are featured with telescopes can be attributed to a more futuristic attitude. Megan is making a new life for herself in Los Angeles without Don. Because of this revitalized outlook, the end of her marriage to Don is evident and the telescope serves as a reminder that she will no longer be bogged down by Don’s antics. Neil is an interesting character because it seems as if he would be the boy most interested in the television documentation of the moon landing, but that is not the case. Neil’s intrigue is actually focused on the technical workings of the telescope. This is an indication to the viewer that Neil is someone who appreciates the inner-workings of an object. The spectacle and historicity of the television event is not what keeps his interest. Neil is the representation of the 1970’s youth that will become the successes of the progressive technological industry. From the

Watercooler Journal

3.5 (2015)

latter years of the 20th century to today, the tech boom has dominated society. This is mirrored when Sally kisses Neil. Neil’s brother Sean is clearly more attractive than Neil and has shown interest in Sally, but she kisses the awkward, nerdy boy with the telescope. The geeks of the world slowly move to the top of the food chain after the 1960’s and Weiner has seamlessly given Neil a glance of the future. Somehow the television conversation is added on one more time in the episode. During Peggy’s Burger Chef pitch, she hits on why Americans are longing for connection. She says that televisions have begun to dominate life and have subsequently starved Americans of conversation. How Peggy weaves the ideas of hunger, television, and conversation into one cohesive selling point speaks to the dominance she has in her field. Mad Men has somehow managed to highlight the flaws of television through television, but keep viewers watching it all unfold.

Bertram Cooper is a man of ambiguity on Mad Men and the manner of his death is no different. An expression of satisfaction passes across Cooper’s face as he watches the moon landing. Here, he represents so much more than a man who has an interest in a television special. The generation of men and women who lived through two world wars, two wars in Asia working to prevent the spread of communism, and the beginnings of social change in America look at the moon landing with a different perspective. “Waterloo” supplies its fair share of younger generations watching the first of many technological achievements that are to come, but Bert Cooper has the eyes of a man who is living out a dream. Such a concept as space exploration is magical and wondrous to an older generation that has lived through an era of such destruction. It feels as if Bert is finally able to move Watercooler Journal

3.5 (2015)

on after having seen such a beautiful step forward for humanity. The final curtain of the midseason finale is nothing short of fantastic, and as with dreams, a new level of the subconscious is revealed. Bert Cooper’s musical number manages to sum up the importance of such a magnificent event in the lives of all Americans, but also shed light on topics like the future of the firm and Don’s second failed marriage. Robert Morse is well known in the entertainment industry for starring in the original Broadway production of How to Succeed in Business Without Really Trying. Because Morse is 83, this not only feels like a curtain call for Cooper, but one for Robert Morse himself. The song he sings is called “The Best Things in Life are Free.” First heard in Good News, a 1930’s Broadway musical, the song introduces the theme of the moon and links viewers back to Morse’s Broadway roots. Mad Men has never done such a musical number on the show. When Megan sings Zou Bisou in season five, it is a live performance and not a dreamlike sequence. The interesting comparison is that both Megan and Cooper in their respective performances are singing directly to Don. Cooper sings the song’s most apropos lyric with a wistful tone: “the moon belongs to everyone, the best things in life are free.” This line can be taken in many different directions based on what this episode’s occurrences mean for the future of each character’s life. A major line of inquiry prior to the musical number is the promise of money. Here, Bert has passed on after witnessing a glorious achievement, but the remainder of the partners use this time to celebrate a new financial opportunity. As Bert sings to Don, Don gets a tear in his eye. Don is not only remembering a man who served as a father to him after growing up with a terrible paternal figure, but he is coming off a huge business deal. The question becomes, how important is money to Don? Megan just told Don that their marriage is over, yet again, money remains his primary concern. All of America witnessed this massive spectacle, and it is true: “the moon is for everyone.” This episode of Mad Men balances the end of a beloved character’s final arc, a theme that finds itself in every character’s story, and a historic worldwide event. Every major character is affected by the moon landing and what it means for their future. Interesting parallels can be seen in “Waterloo” as well, which make for interesting television. The musical number from Cooper can be related to Megan’s in season five. The various families who watch the moon landing show how far the show has come in seven seasons. Roger finally has a family he can call his own. Perhaps the most dynamic, yet sturdy family is that of Don, Peggy, Pete, and Harry. These four act like siblings most of the time. Don is the cool older brother, Peggy the sister who tries to please the oldest, Harry the one who gets left out most often, and Pete the brat. This episode serves its purpose of beginning the end of Mad Men. Clearly, storylines are closing, and a new age is becoming evident. Neil and Sally serve as a reminder of the change in American youth. Bert shows us that the older generation is beginning to pass on. Cutler and Roger are slowly being pushed out of the business, and the rest of the characters have big things coming their way. The moon landing is often referred to as a bookend. For some, it is the end of a story, and for others it is a chance for something brand new. Watercooler Journal

3.5 (2015)

image credits ÂŠ AMC Watercooler Journal

3.5 (2015)

Credits Watercooler Journal Editorial Board Will Barboza Frances Diederich Teri Koebel Rayna McKinley

Editors-in-Chief Freddy-May AbiSamra Julian Axelrod

College Supervisors Christy Lemaster Sara Livingston

Special Thanks David Jude Greene Caitlin McLean Mason Maguire Margaret Daab Anna Bresnahan Columbia College Chicago Television Department

Watercooler Journal is an online academic undergraduate publication affiliated with the TV department at Columbia College Chicago. Our multimedia issues publish monthly throughout the academic year. Our papers-only issue publishes once a year. Find calls for submissions and more issues at watercoolerjournal.com