Picking Apart the Golden Globes: The Glee Problem
NYCPenpusher’s overview of the Golden Globe nominations for television yesterday noted the same thing I did when I first saw the list, namely, ‘damn, Glee sure showed up a lot.’ The show nabbed noms for Best Television Series (Comedy or Musical), Best Actress (Lea Michele), Best Actor (Matthew Morrison), Best Supporting Actress (Jane Lynch), and Best Supporting Actor (Chris Colfer), putting it at the top of the list in terms of numbers of nominations. Is all this critical pantycreaming deserved?
I think it’s been established that I have been a Glee hater from the get-go. In fact, you might think of me as a bit of a professional Glee hater, since I write all over the damn Internet about how I hate this show with a burning, fiery passion. (For all your Glee rage needs, here’s a complete archive of my frothing at this ain’t livin’.) To say that I hate this show may actually be an understatement; more accurately, I think that Glee is a deep reflection of pretty much everything that is wrong with society, in addition to just being bad. This does not make me an unbiased authority for talking about it, which you should know going in to this, people.
Let’s talk about it all below the cut, darlings.
Everyone’s favourite heap of -ism fail has been a critical darling since the start, and it was real damn popular with fans too…until recently. Now, the show’s fans are turning against it, critiques of the show’s depictions of -isms are starting to gain some serious traction, critics are souring, and it looks like the issuers of awards are not getting the memo. Along with the Golden Globes noms this week, it was also announced that Glee is being included in the American Film Institute’s top 10 best television programs of the year. The show’s been raking up slathering accolades from advocacy groups too for its depiction of disability and gay issues, despite vociferous protest from members of the groups Glee is allegedly depicting with such sensitivity.
Glee’s viewers have been split almost since the start, when some people pushed back on the depiction of Artie, Mercedes, and Tina, while others claimed to just adore the show for the musical numbers ‘even if it does have some race and disability problems.’ As time rolled on, people started questioning the handling of Kurt, challenging the handling of fat characters on the show, and wondering if the show really was all that and a bag of chips. Turns out there is an -ism tipping point and apparently that point is sno-cones made from parking lot slush.
It’s not just the -isms that are starting to stick in the craw of viewers. From the beginning, people have been mocking the excessive autotuning on the show, and now they’re starting to wonder why it’s starting to feel more after school special and less musical fun times. For a show billing itself as comedy, the self righteousness is starting to feel, well, dour. Some viewers might not be angry about how the show’s Very Special Episodes handle social issues, but they’re pissed at the way these episodes contribute to the show’s increasingly uneven and increasingly irritating tone, especially after last week’s Tiny Tim Christmas Special.
And now just the proletariat: Critics are also starting to speak up.
You delight one minute and disturb the next. You intoxicate us with she-man football coaches and grilled Cheesuses, then torture us with Afterschool Special fare about hurt feelings and religion and daddies on their deathbeds. You juggle snark and melodrama, raps and ballads, bisexual cheerleaders and earnest pillow-lipped quarterbacks with the restraint and grace of a cocaine-addled musical theater major trying to hold down a job as a host at Applebee’s. (Heather Havrilesky at Salon)
The roller coaster is being noticed by critics, and they aren’t liking it.
What’s the story, “Glee’’? Or, more accurately, where is the story? Fox’s Tuesday night musical hit has all but chucked out story line this year, in favor of weekly lessons in tolerance, love, God, and big-time pop-artist promotion. The creators have turned their show from a sweet, twisted teen melodrama honoring the power of music into a slick soapbox-jukebox with one eye on TV ratings and the other on record sales. (Matthew Gilbert at The Boston Globe)
The critics, once busy tongue-bathing Ryan Murphy for this masterful piece of modern art, have turned on their beloved Glee, and with good reason; -ism fail aside, the first season was dynamic, plot driven, and interesting, although it left some things to be desired. The second season? Has turned into a hot, steamy, quivering mess. The bloom is off the rose and critics are getting increasingly impatient and frustrated with the show, because it’s growing increasingly unfocused and shitty.
So, does Glee deserve this much attention from the Golden Globes and other awards? I’d say that’s a pretty resounding ‘no.’ These organisations aren’t in the business of handing out cookies for the deft depiction of -isms and related issues, but they are in the business of rewarding and recognising high quality television, which Glee is demonstrably not. I know the pickings were slim this year because pretty much everything on the broadcast schedule blows chunder, but, seriously, they could have done a lot better than Glee. I’m pretty sure one of the CSIs turned in better scripts this season.
There is one nomination I think might be justly deserved, though, in all fairness to Glee, and that’s Chris Colfer as Kurt. I don’t like the characterisation very much, but he’s been nailing it, including in some pretty ridiculous scenes that would have left lesser actors struggling to control their smirks and eyerolls.
Oh how I agree with your calling out the -ism tipping point. Glee was find and defensible when it was just PWD and POCs who were getting dunked in a smelly trope bath, but suddenly there’s hot bags of, “no thanks” now that Glee has turned its “we’re not mocking you; we’re being ironic” toward fat NWLs, oh the fight was on.
I have seen three episodes of CSI NY that made me wonder why I didn’t watch the show, ignoring the fact I don’t enjoy watching Gary Sinise overact. I think Glee’s moment in the sun is over and Globes tend to be johnny-come-latelys in that regard. That said, Glee’s glossy mediocrity is exactly the stuff of dreams as far as the Globes are concerned, which is pretty chilling when you think about it.
This was a fantastic analysis, as always.
An aside: One of the things that make your Glee analysis so refreshing is that it’s so clear to me that you really wanted to like this show. Most people analyzing pop culture that’s problematic never give a sense they were hoping for a win, but instead tend to act like vultures on a carcass.
I think one of the big problems with awards is that this stuff gets decided long before nominations come out, and then there’s the lag between nominations and announcements of winners. The Globes are about what was hot, like, six months ago, and when they finally issue the awards it’s going to be even more dated. There’s not an obvious way to address this problem but in a way I’m reminded of how everyone slacks off in the second half of senior year, knowing full well colleges have already made up their minds so it doesn’t matter if you just phone it in from there on out.
‘Glossy mediocrity’ is a great way to put it not just with Glee but with television in general this year. I’ve been really disappointed by pretty much everything on air–seems like we’re in a bit of a television recession.
And yeah, my thing with critique is that I critique things I like (or wanted to like). Taking pot shots at a show I think is crappy is like shooting fish in a barrel.
“I think one of the big problems with awards is that this stuff gets decided long before nominations come out, and then there’s the lag between nominations and announcements of winners.”
This is an excellent point. Award shows tend to spotlight shows that have received so much buzz and coverage, that they are undeniable. TV fans are upset their favorite shows haven’t received nods, but could you imagine if Glee was shut out? There’s a certain large segment of the population that would go nuts.
This is a really great analysis, and I agree with snarkysmachine that its nice to read a critique that isn’t just about how terrible it is, because I think the show could be awesome, if it just treated its characters and storylines with care and respect.
Save for Chris Colfer’s Kurt, no moments of sentiment or emotion on this show feel earned. Sue Sylvester showing up to throw Mr. Schue a Christmas is pretty meaningless, since she’s going to start hating on him again when the show comes back from hiatus. There’s just no rhyme or reason to anything that happens, which makes it hard to invest in. And when people keep throwing nominations and awards at it, the writers won’t care either.
My only thought about how the Globes slathered on the praise for Glee is that maybe they don’t see or understand the problems we see as US Citizens? I mean, they do live in the United States and work as correspondents for their media outlets back in whatever country of origin they’re from, but you can be pretty dense about elements that don’t concern you (and that’s true for a whole lot of US Citizens as well, as we know all too clearly).
On one hand, the show is clever in the blending of storyline and music, and certainly the most successful of that sort in television history (Pushing Daisies also had this element and I wonder if that show had held it together for a longer time, would Glee have been more focused?) but on the other, the storylines now seem like an afterthought, or worse running counterpoint to the messages of the music and when that happens the audience has to notice… but why didn’t the HFPA?
It’s hard to assume benevolence on the part of the HFPA given their inexplicable acting nomination for Piper Perabo, who like Gretchen Mol and Claire Forlani, had buzz that far exceeded her actual talent and acting capabilities.
I’m so glad you write articulately about this, so I can crib it in conversations when people will not let it drop that I don’t watch Glee.
@snarkysmachine: you said Claire Forlani.
I’m so glad you write articulately about this, so I can crib it in conversations when people will not let it drop that I don’t watch Glee.
Hear, hear! I use frybutt for this purpose all the time. Thanks s.e. for taking it easy for all us sinners.
Taking one for the team!
Critical point there, popscribblings, about how awards tend to award work more for buzz than actual content. It’s about who has the most aggressive promotional campaigns, not who is making the best product. Glee has really leveraged social networking, cross-platform promotions, etc.
There are so many similarities between Glee’s second season and Popular’s second season–also created by Ryan Murphy. If you watch Popular, it’s not surprising at all what’s going on. If only Glee had Mary Cherry!
You had me at tongue bathing Ryan Murphy. I stopped watching Glee after the third episode this season. I figured the writers had left the building, so what was there to watch? And really? Britney videos a la dental narcotics? Is there even a bit of sense in that, not to mention awful context?
Hit it out of the park on this one, s.e.!
I used to love Glee, until the isms got so intentionally bad that I couldn’t watch it. Using the slur tranny? Really? Thanks, Glee. Calling a gay man a woman? Thanks, Glee. The way they handled fat…just. No. I can’t. I wanted to. I really wanted to like this show. But the -isms got so horrible that I could not do it anymore. It got triggering for personal issues when fat people were on the show, it so encouraged self-hatred. I just…I couldn’t do it. It’s so hateful it’s pathetic and people seem to think that they are the good guys due to their ‘that’s so gay’ after school special when that was just PR. i wonder what horrible thing it’s going to be to make the masses wake up. I woke up after one season of absolutely loving the show. It went to shit after that.