The New Yorker review of GLOW asked of lady wrestlers: "Is it O.K. to act out a crass stereotype if it makes you a star? How about if you get paid a ton? What if your performance is genuinely funny? Is it subversive -- or cathartic, or even therapeutic -- to expose the ugliest ways people see you? Or is that just an excuse you make because it's better than being ignored?"
How do you respond to this? What is the core question being asked here?
10 comments:
The New Yorker review of “Glow” poses the question: At what point does portraying a false version of yourself in order to act out a stereotype problematic?
The series “Glow” portrays a world full of roles and stereotypes. At first, the director, Sam, designs a far-fetched script that gives the actresses unique personalities, but the producer instead encourages the women to embrace their own stereotypes by trying on costumes at his party. The stereotypes, most of which are based on ethnicity, can be viewed as extremely offensive, but sadly, most of them are true. “Glow” uses the fact that our society attributes certain beliefs and feelings to unknown people and things based on our experiences and social learning.
Stereotypes aren’t the only central issue seen in “Glow;” we also see examples of conformity in order to be successful. Ruth does not seem like she is a bad person, despite her mistake, but she is made out to be the villain in the episodes we watched. She seems visibly distressed to be given the role she does, yet she seems willing to portray this insincere version of herself in order to stay on the show. When asked at the end of episode three who she was, she couldn’t answer, and when someone feels that they have lost their identity, this is when I believe that conformity becomes problematic.
The central issue of the review is how women are seen and how women work to be seen. The quote specifically looks at the lengths at which the women on the show are willing to go to be seen, recognized, and acknowledged.
GLOW uses a variety of personas and characters through each of the women. Each woman becomes a narrative and fits a role regardless of the level of honesty behind it because this is what society wants to see, what men want to see. GLOW plays on the idea of catering to a male audience because it will be successful and is what society wants to see.
The desperation to be noticed is clear in all the characters and this is okay because for the most part they are all secure in who they are. However, Ruth’s desperation is problematic because she does not know who she is. She is willing to play the “Homewrecker” because it was the ugliest way people see her; this is an issue because she does not know who she is beyond that narrative. The show looks at how women work to be recognized and how they conform to the narratives society places on them. GLOW and the article probe the work women put in to be recognized, and both question if it is enough or too much.
The show and article focus on how women are seen by both society and themselves. It looks at the roles women are put into and how willingly women go into these roles and situations.
The central issue which the questions posed by the New Yorker orbit around is the issue of stereotyping. In our society, people have a tendency to make assumptions about other people based solely on appearances and how others with those same appearances act. This perpetuates stereotypes, which are often harmful. In the case of "GLOW," the women are subjected to acting out the most basic stereotypes because the producer and promoter think it will work better, and that they'll become more popular because of it. This circles back to the central theme of all of the New Yorker's questions: how far is too far for money?
The producer in "GLOW" is quite insistent that the women act out their basic stereotypes, labeling them exactly how he sees them based on skin color, body size, and general appearance. The women seem to just go along with it, likely because they're being paid to do so. They actively allow themselves to be stereotyped so they can get paid and get some screen time. Apparently, the women don't see this negative stereotyping as too far.
Although the women all have different attitudes toward their position in a start-up wrestling promotion, they all stay involved in order to achieve their goals. The perpetuation of negative stereotypes in media like professional wrestling, however, can make its way down into the common society. At one point, Bash mentions the "Iron Sheik," who was a real-life professional wrestler who encouraged negative stereotypes against people of Middle Eastern descent. This real-life example shows how these stereotypes in the media can negatively affect different people.
The fact that the women go along with their stereotypes (albeit begrudgingly) for a little money and screen time shows a lack of foresight into how these stereotypes can affect not only themselves, but also the people who these stereotypes will be propagated against.
The core question being asked here is if it's acceptable to succumb to stereotypes for the sake of financial gain, and whether doing so can have any redeeming value or not.
The New Yorker’s review of GLOW, a television series about female wrestlers, raises ethical questions about the portrayal of stereotypes, specifically in women’s entertainment. While it's true that performers may be able to achieve success and recognition by embodying certain stereotypes, such as the "dumb blonde" or the "angry black woman," the question is whether this is morally justifiable.
The review asks whether there is any value in exposing the ugliest ways people see you, whether it's subversive or cathartic to do so, or whether it's simply a way to avoid being ignored. The answer depends on the individual performer and the context in which the performance takes place. Some may argue that there is value in challenging stereotypes by exposing them, while others may see it as having a more harmful effect that allows these stereotypes to continue to grow and be used.
Overall, the question of whether it's acceptable to act out insensitive stereotypes for the sake of fame and financial gain is complex, and there is no one correct answer. It's a question that has to take into account the performer's intentions, the impact on the audience, and the broader cultural and social context in which the performance takes place.
GLOW tackles the topic of women stereotypes and how society portrays them. However, the show takes it to the extreme, placing women in a 1980’s wrestling reality television show and, many of which are social outcasts. To reach their aspirations of success, these women are encouraged to lean into the stereotypes that society would typically place on them. This, in turn, raises the question of whether leaning into these stereotypes okay? To take it one step further, the core question is whether or not there is a moral standard that “caps” when a stereotype is taken too far?
As shown in GLOW, stereotypes tend to be offensive in nature, such as with the Indian woman being told to play a terrorist or with Ruth being told to play an unlikable homewrecker. The director and producer encourage all the women in to take on these derogatory portrayals for the show to succeed which the women do, some more hesitant than others. Overall, the show delivers the message that being successful sometimes means conforming to society’s wishes. Going back to the question stated previously, how drastically should one conform to reach this success depends on the individual. In my eyes, there is a line, albeit very blurred, between being morally correct vs. going all out for success. In the case of the GLOW women, their willingness to take on these stereotypes illustrates how little they value being morally correct in order to for the show to be a hit.
The New Yorker review of GLOW praises the show for its plot and immersive 80’s setting but raises valid questions about the lengths these women will go to in order to get a job.
The women selected to act in GLOW are all the ‘outcasts’ of Hollywood beauty standards and are all aware of how lucky they are to have this job, even if it means acting out Sam’s, the director, post-apocalyptical sex dream. Sam does attempt to give these women roles with real personalities, albeit focused mainly on sex, but the producer decides it's too much and holds a costume party to find their wrestling personas. Unfortunately, these new personas the women take on are very harmful stereotypes based on their looks. These women do not want to be put into these stereotypes but know that to keep this job; they must embrace it.
The article asks, “Is it O.K. to act out a crass stereotype if it makes you a star?” To these women, the answer is yes. These women can get a job and fulfill their acting goals by perpetuating a stereotype based on their ethnicity or body type. Still, they must sacrifice their morals, as many know acting in their new personas is wrong. GLOW shows that in society, women are viewed as no more than sex objects and their stereotypes, and as terrible as it is, women are willing to act this out because they have been integrated into these social constructs that they are no more than what they appear to be on the outside, and if acting that out for a TV show gets them money and fame, they are more than happy to do it.
I interpreted the question at the heart of the New Yorker review of “Glow” as asking the following: is it morally acceptable to explore the most insensitive stereotypes through the vehicle of a fictitious portrayal?
Each of the characters in “Glow” play a different role in the narrative, and the candidates all span different physical characteristics, such as race and body type. The producer, in the third episode, is hell bent on giving each of the characters a gimmick to go along with their respective physical characteristics. I think it is also worth noting the way that Sam, the director of the show in “Glow”, is almost used to make a meta-commentary on the presence of the stereotypes. His comments to the women throughout the two episodes, as well as giving in to the producer’s demands, seemed to propagate and enable the stereotypes, while simultaneously pointing out their ridiculousness and harm.
There isn’t really an objective answer to the question posed by the article. I think it’s clear that the writers of “Glow” do not intend harm by employing the use of stereotypes, but there is something to be said about their inclusion to begin with. You could argue that the show provides valuable critique by discussing and questioning societal stereotypes, but also that their very inclusion is regressive on its face and harmful to the cause it is trying to advocate.
The review asks the question “is it okay to act out a crass stereotype if it makes you a star?” However, I believe that this question is hinting at the morality behind the idea of conforming to a stereotype based on your appearance. In the show “GLOW,” the producer of the new TV show wants the girls to act out their stereotype based on how they look. These stereotypes are based off what society in the 1980’s would view these women as at first glance. The reason the producer chooses this route to the TV show is because he believes that is what most people will want to see, specifically the male audience.
The women in the show go along with the stereotypes because they need the job, and they are desperate for the money. The main person it causes a problem with is Ruth who is seen as a “homewrecker.” Ruth does not know who she truly is; therefore, when she is assigned this stereotype, she starts to conform to it even though it is the ugliest way people see her. This is harmful to herself and her self-growth. The other women in the TV show do not seem to have as big of a problem with the stereotypes because they are more comfortable with who they are, and they do not let the stereotypes get to them as much as Ruth.
The question asked in the review is a loaded question, and I do not believe there is one direct answer. It is very situational. If the stereotypes do not harm the person and their mentality about themselves then it is more morally acceptable because they are playing a role instead of being the stereotype. However, in the case of Ruth, it is causing more harm than good to be labeled as a “homewrecker” for the money. However, I do think as audiences view these stereotypes played out in the show, it adds further emphasis on the stereotypes and makes them stronger within society. That in itself can make it harmful to act out these "crass stereotypes" because instead of defying them and breaking them, they are further enforcing them.
“The New Yorker” review of “GLOW” asks the core question: “Should a lady wrestler act out a crass stereotype if the world agrees with those stereotypes, and does this act eventually become a message of reaching for the spotlight in hopes of not being ignored?” Episode three of “GLOW” highlights how producer “Bash” believes wrestling is full of stereotypes, even going to the point of assigning each of the women to various stereotypical characters with a plan to sell these images to viewers. At Bash’s party, he tells the women to choose clothing and accessories that express themselves, yet when they finish dressing, he assigns them offensive personas based on their costumes. The women are confused as those stereotypes are not how they see themselves, but Bash responds by stating it’s just what he and the entire world see, thus reinforcing Bash’s idea of stereotype usage being okay if the world agrees with those stereotypes. “The New Yorker” states how Ruth, before joining GLOW, actually read the man’s part at an audition for a network drama in hopes of getting noticed. Once Ruth joins GLOW, she is actually so delighted to receive a part in Sam’s script that she looks past the embarrassing role, all due to fear of not being noticed. And when Bash assigns everyone personas, Ruth gets assigned the “Homewrecker” part, and even though this is another embarrassing role depicting Ruth as the villain, Ruth gladly accepts it.
"GLOW" presents a dilemma that is not only a central topic of how female sports are viewed, but how females who are outside of the stereotypes put forth for them are viewed. The Post review of the show explains how the girls are acting out "crass" messages in order to be recognized in the world that they are portrayed in. From a director who could best be described as "handsy" and a group of women who are all hoping to be a superstar, chaos and discord is bound to ensue. However, the show does show reflective moments as for how these people are still human in their own right.
Today, many female athletes are still often primarily highlighted by metrics of their own beauty rather than their innate athletic abilities. These displays are heavily highlighted by portrayals on sports broadcasts and other analytical forms of sports coverage, where these broadcasters, often older white males, will comment on aspects of players that have nothing to do with the game. While this is beginning to change, due to the increased diversity of broadcasters in women sports, this still remains how many female athletes are seen today.
What the show displays is how these women are launching themselves into these portrayals head on, leading to "crass" displays meant to entertain audiences of a particular demographic. While it is ethically ambiguous to debate whether this is right or wrong, the main item the show seeks to suggest is how far women in these roles tend to go to achieve the same level of attention as their male counterparts. Even today, women sports coverage is grossly disproportionate to mens coverage. Thus, women have had to find ways, in the past, to get the sort of attention they believed they deserved, which may have sometimes evolved into a type of greed for fame and power amongst their peers. While the narrative is changing for the better, this type of mentality is on full display during "Glow"
Post a Comment