Vanity Fair, the “Ladies of TV” deserve better – as do your readers

The other day Melissa Silverstein published a rant on the newly-released Katniss Barbie doll. It’s a fine rant as far as rants go. Worth a look if you’re a Hunger Games geek like me.

Today, I have my own rant. And it’s about this…

The May issue of Vanity Fair. I received it in the mail yesterday. I was psyched to hear that May would be the TV issue. And then I saw the cover. And the feature spread…

Seriously, Vanity Fair? You’re gonna talk about how awesome the women on primetime are by photographing them in lingerie and half-covered by sheets? This photo shoot sexually objectifies women. It’s insulting and offensive.

I’m in full rant mode now.

1. First of all, the cover. You’ve got The Good Wife‘s Julianna Margulies, Downton Abbey‘s Michelle Dockery, and Homeland‘s Claire Danes – three incredibly strong and compelling female characters on television right now. (I can’t comment about Modern Family‘s Sofia Vergara because I haven’t watched that particular show.) And Vanity Fair drapes them with sheets. Yes, these women are beautiful and sexy. But they have so much more to offer than their appearance and sexuality. They should not be reduced to eye-candy.

2. The same goes for the feature spread inside the magazine. You’ve got bustiers, garters and a bear-skin rug, for goodness’ sake. The actresses lounge about in provocative poses as they toss popcorn and drink alcohol. A spread like this perpetuates the slumber party fantasy that women hang out in their underwear and…whatever else people think goes on when a bunch of girlfriends stay in for an evening. I’m telling ya, the majority of women do not lounge around in lingerie. Sorry to break that myth. We unwind in sweatpants and t-shirts, drink a few glasses of wine, talk about careers and life and relationships.

As long as publications like Vanity Fair support photo shoots like this, women will continue to be misrepresented in media. (True, the actresses made the choice to participate in the shoot, so I can’t blame VF entirely. One of these days, I would love to hear of a story in which celebrities arrive to a photo shoot, note the sexism inherent within the theme/outfits/etc, and walk out. Talk about making a statement.)

Why couldn’t the photographer have had more fun with this stellar collection of actresses? It would be fabulous to stick them all in a paintball arena. Something that generates some friendly competition. If Vanity Fair wanted to stay with the “Evening in America” theme, then choose some activity that many Americans do in the evening. Workout at the gym. Walking an assortment of dogs down a city street. A poker game. Shoot, photograph them in a bar or pub somewhere, playing darts or pool. Where is the creativity?

3. As if this weren’t awful enough, the cover copy includes the words, “Admit it…you love TV more than movies.” Uh, people are admitting it. By the tweetloads. Next to this woefully ignorant and outdated subtitle is a quote by T.S. Eliot: “Television is a medium of entertainment which permits millions of people to listen to the same joke at the same time, and yet remain lonesome.” I want to find the person who wrote this copy and chose this quote. I want to ask this person if they have read a single article or post or tweet in the last year about the evolving landscape of television.

People are watching more tv than ever before. The amount of time spent on Netflix and Hulu for television continues to rise. Sure, there will always be the guilty-pleasure tv show. But we are getting higher and higher quality television with the likes of Mad Men, Breaking Bad, The Sopranos, Downton Abbey, and Revenge. Shows like HBO’s Game of Thrones garner massive cult and pop followings, usually reserved for the film franchise superheroes. With this quality programming, there isn’t the same kind of “shame” in watching television and as in the past. In fact, much of the cultural dialogue has turned away from film and towards tv. It’s “cool” to stay up to date with the latest episodes and to drop tv references into everyday conversations.

Miso, GetGlue, and Zeebox are apps specially designed for viewers to check into programs and chat about what they’re watching. Reuters recently published an article that claimed that 2012 will be the year of “must-tweet tv.” So not only are people admitting their love of tv, but they’re engaging fellow viewers – on a global scale, thanks to social media.

Vanity Fair, do your homework next time. And stop objectifying women. Okay, rant over.

 

the women of ABC’s Pan Am

I did not want to.

 

I have fought against it.

 

But the truth remains: I thoroughly enjoy watching Pan Am. It’s fun and colorful. Sure the music is grandiose and everything looks über shiny (read: fake). Some plot developments are overly predictable, and actors deliver their lines in that ‘I know I’m in a period drama’ way. Despite all its flaws—and there are many—I really like the show.

 

Why? I’m still figuring that out. I enjoy the era—it’s rich in style and fashion. Major conflicts occurred, and while I’m wary of too many shows trying to capitalize on that—and thus empty the ‘60’s of its punch—Pan Am has avoided repetitiveness by including European perspectives of American politics (via Colette) and uncommon settings (e.g. Jakarta and Haiti).

 

Pan Am's Kate Cameron (Kelli Garner)

 

And then there is the fact that Pan Am primarily follows four women. A show whose four protagonists are females, ranging from a free-spirited, scrappy feminist to an optimistic, emotionally vulnerable femme française! Recently, MissRepresentation.org promoted an article on its ‘Sexy or Sexism?’ blog, and the writer dissected each Pan Am episode for all instances of sexism. I agree that Pan Am plays into sexist stereotypes. (I was bitterly disappointed that writers decided for Kate—the undercover courier-turned-spy—to fall in love with one of her marks, rather than remain an independent, cool professional). However, the critique does not allow for Pan Am to include sexist comments or pre-feminist situations for the sake of exposing the sexist attitudes and beliefs of the time period. Nor does it acknowledge that these kinds of tensions create a space for female viewers to wrestle with contemporary issues.

 

This past Sunday’s episode, ‘Truth or Dare’, offers one such example. The episode opens by revealing the four main female characters lounging in the empty economy cabin, with free-flowing alcohol and pantyhose hanging around shoulders. The amount of girlish giggling is admittedly a bit much; they’re playing a game of Truth or Dare, during which Laura—the doe-eyed, naïve ex-beauty queen—admits that she had nude pictures taken of her. Her sister, Kate, is shocked and disapproving, to which Laura says the photos were a form of empowerment and for her eyes only. I could quickly disagree with her. Nude or pornographic photographs all too often feed into continued sexism, instead of empowerment. Yet it touches upon a current debate. How much can women exhibit, celebrate, and showcase their sexuality before it becomes taboo, sexist, or gratuitous?

 

I am certainly not claiming to have answers. My point is that Laura’s situation—which could be labelled as another ‘sexist’ instance in Pan Am—speaks to an ongoing discussion about female sexuality. The scene has the potential to open a space for dialogue and reflection; it allows for tension to be aired, examined, and debated.

 

ABC has still not ordered a full season for Pan Am. It is still working out its kinks. Thankfully Pan Am has moved away from the ‘new location per week’ pattern with which it began. Hopefully the episodes’ plots will become more sophisticated—instead of its current clunky formation. Problems need to be stretched out, rather than being resolved one episode later. I want Pan Am to find its groove and to explore women’s issues in greater depth and complexity. Let’s hope that ABC gives Pan Am that chance to further develop.

 

Have you been following Pan Am? What are your thoughts?