“Sexy Unique” Reality: A Close Reading of Vanderpump Rules

Sophia Vilensky

Submitted under the supervision of Qadri Ismail to the University Honors Program at the University of Minnesota-Twin Cities in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Bachelor of Arts, summa cum laude in English.

May 15, 2019 Abstract

Vanderpump Rules is a reality television show. Similar to literature, a reality television show can be close read. To closely read Vanderpump Rules, however, one must observe aspects of the program besides dialogue — the framing of shots, background music, outfits, the story’s serialization. This essay looks at the interplay between modern ideology and the reality staged on

Vanderpump Rules. The show, which is set in modern day America, stages a reality where bad behavior engenders attention. This attention is critical for the characters on Vanderpump Rules, as it equates success in the world of the show. Besides discussing the fictionalized aspects of reality television, one notes that this depiction of “reality” parallels actual problems existing in the modern world. These problems are staged through the show’s characters, in particular titular character Lisa Vanderpump, cardinal character Stassi Schroeder, and the resident paragon of mischief James Kennedy. Linking the problems staged through these individuals’ subjectivities with the aspects of reality television as an institution, one elucidates what is “real” in reality television.

Vilensky 1

“Sexy Unique” Reality: A Close Reading of Vanderpump Rules Introduction

To begin this essay: a clarification and a caveat. One may argue that there is a difference between the naive television viewer and someone closely and critically reading a television show. As this essay seeks to closely read the television program Vanderpump Rules, the subject watching and analyzing the show will be referred to as the reader. Still, both the reader and the naive viewer should be similarly conscious in their consumption of reality television. To use terminology theorized by Louis Althusser, one may view Vanderpump Rules as an ideological

(mis)representation of reality, ultimately designed to reproduce certain norms dominant in modern society. On Vanderpump Rules, the reality presented is ultimately connected to the reader’s own perception of the world.

Vanderpump Rules is a reality television show. Like any piece of literature, reality television shows can be closely read. The reader must, however, pay attention to and read aspects of the show besides dialogue. These aspects include how shots are framed, a character’s physical appearance, a character’s time spent on-screen, and diegetic and non-diegetic sound, among others. The overarching plot of Vanderpump Rules is simple: a number of beautiful people work in a Hollywood restaurant, SUR, owned and run by Lisa Vanderpump. The series follows these characters and their networked relationships both in and outside of the restaurant. Vanderpump

Rules is set in West Hollywood, California, located in the United States of America. On the show, characters talk about the neighborhoods they live in, street signs are shown and sunsets over recognizable Hollywood sights provide regular imagery. In this attention to locale and the show’s host of American-identified characters, Vanderpump Rules is an explicitly American show. The reality it stages and broadcasts helps to interpellate American ideology. “Working at Vilensky 2

SUR is different from working at any other restaurant. The servers all want to be models, actors, writers, singers. The servers at other Hollywood restaurants just want to be waiters at SUR,” says waitress Kristen Doute in the first episode of the series. If servers within Hollywood want to work at SUR, then the actions of the Vanderpump Rules characters must be emulated.

On Vanderpump Rules, namesake character Lisa Vanderpump is largely understood in relation to other characters who work in her restaurant. Intrinsically and in her relationship to these other characters, her character signifies the lack of power actually awarded to female leaders in American society. Lisa is older than other characters. Her rules, while acknowledged, are not strictly abided. It is the younger, misbehaving characters who instead hold the reader’s interest and the plot’s focus. The more these characters (especially male) do not adhere to the rules, the better off they are in terms of attention lavished on them. On the show, success does not come from working hard and making strides in one’s career. Success and power are instead awarded to those who flagrantly misbehave. Characters awarded power on the show fight with loved ones and act inappropriately at work. Though Vanderpump is understood as the show’s ruler in places as evident as the program’s title, the true cardinal character of Vanderpump Rules is Stassi Schroeder. Young, white, straight, and American (her birthplace is often brought up), she is the character on whom the show — and thus the reader — lavishes the most attention.

Similarly, character James Kennedy is afforded attention on the show through his consistent misbehavior. The more often he is fired from the restaurant, the more he is cared for. Through its characters, Vanderpump Rules stages problems that mirror modern American culture. The main problem staged on Vanderpump Rules is that of attention equating success. Three character studies — focused on Lisa Vanderpump, Stassi Schroeder, and James Kennedy — will help to illustrate this problem. Vilensky 3

Understanding Reality Television

It is difficult to identify a “beginning” of reality television. The genre has roots in early documentary (one may look into, for example, 1922’s scripted “documentary” Nanook of the

North). Then came 1973’s An American Family, a 12-episode “television documentary” following an upper-class California family. Intending to showcase the family’s daily life, the series instead chronicled the break-up of the parental characters and, ultimately, household. Soon after, early 2000s challenge-based game shows sought to display reality by way of on-screen endurance tests and bug-eating contests. Keeping up with the Kardashians, which recently celebrated its tenth anniversary, was first pitched as a show about familial antics. Released during the recession, it showed a well-off family that included tabloid star Kimberly Kardashian and her sisters going about their everyday tasks, which included Playboy shoots and talk show interviews.

Analyzing the name reality television is a first step in understanding what these shows do. The Oxford English Dictionary includes three entries related to reality television: reality programming, reality show, and reality television. For each definition, the entry’s origin is given as the United States of America. While reality television shows are filmed and broadcast around the world and adapted to regional audiences, there is something distinctly patriotic about

American reality television programming. In American reality television shows, setting and characters’ American backgrounds are regularly mentioned. The titles of these shows may specify their place of origin, as is the case with American Idol (many other countries have simply

Idol) and The Real Housewives of New York City. While this point is important for the analysis of Vanderpump Rules, both the words reality and television must also be defined to understand reality television. Vilensky 4

The first listed Oxford English Dictionary definition for television reads: “A system used for transmitting and viewing images and (typically) sound; the action of transmitting and viewing images using such a system.” Television is a form of media often used for entertainment and education; its background and its connections can be traced to the theater, radio, and film.

Television is also considered an accessible media form. While first and foremost viewed on a television set, television programming today is also available via a computer or cell phone.

Shows do not have to be programmed live or broadcast at any certain time. They can be viewed later on any number of streaming platforms, at any time the consumer chooses to watch. The

OED lists the first known usage of the word television as 1900 when Century Magazine wrote,

“Through television and telephone we shall see and hear one another as though we were face to face.” On many reality television shows, characters talk to the camera as if they are talking to another person. The reader of a reality television show may feel connected and thus more understanding of the characters and world of the series because of this intimate viewing style.

Reality, the other half of the name reality television is a more complex concept.

According to the first listed OED definition, reality is “the quality or state of being real.”

Following the mention of the phrase’s American origins, the definition of reality television offered is “television programmes that focus on non-fictional subject matter, primarily with the aim of providing entertainment rather than information.” Here, the emphasis is on entertainment rather than education. Setting concerns with entertainment aside, one can recognize that the base- word of reality is real. The real, and with that realism, is what reality television concerns itself with. Vilensky 5

Raymond Williams elucidates the term realism in Keywords. In this text, Williams dedicates pages to the concept, outlining at one point an objection to “realistic” art and literature, especially with the interpretation of realistic as lifelike. Williams writes:

The medium in which this representation occurs, whether language or stone or paint or

film, is radically different from the objects represented in it, so that the effect of “lifelike

representation,” “the reproduction of reality,” is at best a particular artistic convention, at

worst a falsification making us take the forms of representation as real. [ . . . ] To see it as

reality or as the faithful copying of reality is to exclude this active element and in extreme

cases to pass off a fiction or a convention as the real world.

As Williams argues, a “true” reality is impossible to capture through any medium; the captured reality will always be a representation. However, the appearance of these representations is lifelike. One may argue that the representations presented through reality television shows are realistic in their own intrinsic and aesthetic qualities. In this, these representations do contain traces of the thing they are attempting to represent. Though only a representation, these traces of the real may allow for better analyzation of actual reality; the falsehoods presented may aid in one’s understanding of how the real world functions, as well as the problems present throughout it.

Reality television attempts to stage reality by showcasing situations and people that exist in real life. While these situations had to occur to be recorded, outside (and inside) apparatuses morph these recorded “real events” for the reader’s pleasure. Lyrical or melody-based music is added, the movement of time is shown through fast-forwarded images and timestamps, and cameras remain close to character’s faces. Through a number of calculated techniques, the viewer of a reality television show is made to feel as though they understand the complexities of Vilensky 6

what is going on in these showcased scenarios; through these manufactured insights the viewer is sutured into the show. They become a quasi-participant in the reality and situation at hand and can empathize with what they see. In order to explain how this staging occurs and is accepted, the form of reality television must be critically examined further.

“Reality television is not a genre but a label that can usefully be given to programs that adopt a certain attitude to the functions of television,” writes Jonathan Bignell in “Realism and

Reality Formats” (114). The Oxford English Dictionary defines genre as “a particular style or category of works of art,” and label as “something serving to provide information about a person or thing.” Bignell stresses that reality television cannot be put into a discrete artistic category.

Instead, the label reality television applies to shows that utilize the functions of television in a certain way. Like other series, reality television shows employ both image and audio. Plotlines may move in a predictable way and themes may be similar across television programs. In their embrace of television’s commonalities, reality television programs are networked with other works both obviously similar and far removed from what the reader understands reality television programming to entail today. Exploring connections to shows in these other genres — soap, romance, drama, documentary, etc. — can aid in analysis, but may also add difficulty to one’s attempt of defining “reality television” itself. A list of reality television shows may offer hundreds of titles in categories ranging from biographical to history and travel-based. A wide range of programming with differing connections to and ways of showcasing the real world may be considered reality television.

Reality television attempts a lifelike representation of the lives and events of its broadcast subjects and situations. “There has been a persistent concern with issues of realism in television: with the gap between fact and fiction in drama and drama documentary; with actuality and the Vilensky 7

construction of reality in documentary; and with the performative ‘reality’ of reality television,” writes John Caughie in “Mourning Television” (419). Ultimately, reality television hopes to televise and present reality, both ordinary and abnormal. Because these concepts both fit under the umbrella of “reality,” they become one and the same. The ordinary becomes interesting and the abnormal is showcased as ordinary. As a form of media entertainment, reality television’s connections to other forms of entertainment must not be overlooked. Subtly or not, these connections inform the reader’s own analysis of reality television. These programs contain elements of documentary in their filming style and promise to capture and portray “real” events and subjects engaging with both outstanding and trivial matters. Their settings are (for the most part) impromptu. Further, reality television’s themes are often similar to those found in a traditional scripted show or novel — friendship, the quest for fame, quests in general, workplace drama, love. Reality television shows are often serialized and can also air for years at a time, their character arcs reminiscent of another form of scripted television: soap opera.

In “Presumption as Theory,” John Corner writes that the problem with theorizing television “realism” has much to do with the medium’s connections to other forms. “In a poststructuralist universe, [television theory includes] an increasingly marooned assembly of ideas, stuck with the awkwardness of being at once more ‘social’ than cinema studies, more

‘aesthetic’ than media sociology, yet lacking the critical mass to break free of dependency on both,” he writes. With its multitudes of connections, television theory is difficult to grasp.

Because of its slippery connections to many forms of theory, it can be analyzed in a number of ways. “Clearly, film and television’s capacities to render recorded visual-likenesses of the physical world and to move a viewpoint through space mark the distinctive semantics of their

‘realism.’ They also serve to widen the gap between two different kinds of realist project. These Vilensky 8

might be called Realism 1 – the project of verisimilitude (of being like the real) and Realism 2 – the project of reference (of being about the real)” (Corner 98). Television theories of realism,

Corner says, tend to focus on verisimilitude. Still, what precisely the word reality communicates about a program is never made clear. One may argue that reality television encapsulates and obfuscates both forms. These series are both like the real and about the real. The inability to distinguish between these different facets creates an enigma.

Helping to explain what reality television does, Corner’s readings of reality are two among many related to the topic. Also in “Realism and Reality Formats,” Bignell further discusses the stakes of using the term “reality” in describing reality television. Bignell assigns three more possible meanings to the term “realism” in regards to the media form: “actual” scenes, places and people; “recognizable” scenes and events; and “access to the real.” Reality television pursues each of these definitions of realism. These definitions are then contradicted by the inner (and outer) workings of producing reality television. In a reality television show, raw video is edited, the order of events and reactions often switched from their original chronologies.

Sound is polished, music added, and vocals changed to appear louder or softer depending on the attempted mood of the show. The raw video, in and of itself, is also problematic to classify as

“real.” Televised plots and situations are often set up by producers and because actors know they are being filmed they may act differently than what is natural for them. Lighting is orchestrated, clothes are specifically chosen to amplify traits of certain characters, and situations can be filmed out of their portrayed-on-screen order. Time does not function in a reality television show as it does in the real world. Due to the limits of the format, days at a time are not broadcast. A short clip may encapsulate an entire encounter or conversation.

The function of reality television is best grasped when the reader chooses to incorporate Vilensky 9

the many definitions and ideas related to reality. Like other cultural texts, a reality television show does not differentiate its own realism from the reality of the world at large. A program is never discussed as existing apart from the real world; the reality presented within is the only reality the show knows. It must be noted that because each and every person has different experiences, one person’s reality may differ from another’s. While never as poignant as the conflicting realities shown in Akira Kurosawa’s film Rashomon, the labels of fiction and reality may exist in tandem. Instead of showcasing an overarching reality — befitting the world at large

— it can be argued that reality television showcases a singular reality, a performed reality created and maintained through outside understanding. This reality, opposed to another, may appear as fiction, a manufactured verisimilitude: a “lifelike representation” or “reproduction” to use Williams’ words, as opposed to the thing itself. As a “lifelike representation,” a reality television show serves as a caricature — an exaggerated re-imagination — of the reality which it attempts to capture. In the case of Vanderpump Rules, this reality is that of young, white and straight people living in America. While one can discuss the fictionalized aspects of reality television, it must be recognized that this reproduction of reality stages and amplifies problems that exist in the real world. It is through its characters that a reality television program stages these problems.

“Reality television as an entertainment form has been most successful when it promises to reveal character,” writes Bignell (108). This revelation is pursued through characterization

(clothing, names and dialogue all impacting and furthering these), cinematic practices (zooming techniques, angles), music (different characters are offered different melodic themes) and editing, among other things. “This form of realism relies on a program adopting a familiar code or set of conventions for representing its reality,” writes Bignell. The “success” Bignell mentions Vilensky 10

here may have to do with entertainment, and it may have to do with reality television’s ability to interpellate to the reader its ideology. It is through its characters that a show’s reality is staged; the reality presented on the show is the character’s only reality, and in this it is “real.” By staging problems though characters, reality television interpellates the reader in the specific reality staged — all that is presented is part of the only reality of the show, the reader has no impact and cannot argue otherwise. The characters immersed in this reality serve as vessels for the show’s ideology; they are present in the show’s only reality.

What is Vanderpump Rules?

Vanderpump Rules premiered in January 2013 on the American television network

Bravo. Today, the show regularly generates millions of live viewers per episode (not counting those who view it later on streaming platforms). Not the first, not the last, and definitely not the least of its kind, Vanderpump Rules epitomizes what someone familiar with the genre would expect a reality show to be. The series features character hierarchies, alcohol binges, fights, and love affairs. The plot advances slowly, with each 42-minute episode revolving mostly around characters justifying their often minimal actions. Text message exchanges are read out loud and sometimes characters throw drinks on each other.

Now in its seventh season, the premise of Vanderpump Rules has remained the same in the six years since the series’ premiere episode. The show follows the lives of a number of 20 to

40-year-olds living in Los Angeles, California. Many of these characters work at the restaurant

SUR (an acronym for “Sexy Unique Restaurant”) in West Hollywood, a neighborhood, it is often mentioned, famous for its LGBTQ+ population. However, almost all of the main characters on

Vanderpump Rules identify as straight. SUR is owned by Lisa Vanderpump, a wealthy British woman with an affinity for the color pink and small dogs. Lisa Vanderpump is one of the Vilensky 11

original cast members of The Real Housewives of Beverly Hills, another Bravo reality show.

While The Real Housewives features Vanderpump’s character interacting with friends,

Vanderpump Rules showcases a different facet of Lisa’s life — here she is an employer, not a peer.

On Vanderpump Rules, all characters are American besides the British Lisa Vanderpump, her husband Ken Todd, and off and on SUR employee James Kennedy. Set in a city filled with classic American signifiers, the show emphasizes its American identity as is the norm in

American reality television. Characters talk about the states they are from (Louisiana, Utah,

Kentucky, Michigan, Florida), and often travel to these states. However, their home states do not factor into their identities further. While the few aforementioned characters were not born in

America, all characters are understood as citizens of the country. With characters’ actions taking place in and relating to the shared identity of American citizenship, the ideology interpellated through the show can be seen as relating to American problems.

The characters on Vanderpump Rules are split into three categories: main characters, recurring characters, and guests. Considering how often restaurant staffs rotate, and how ephemeral, here today, gone tomorrow, restaurants often are, it is surprising that throughout its six seasons, the lineup of characters on Vanderpump Rules has not changed, nor have these characters’ personality traits. There is the maternal “boss” Lisa Vanderpump, the “bitch” Stassi

Schroeder and the “clueless” Scheana Marie. Katie Maloney and Kristen Doute, who date Tom

Schwartz and Tom Sandoval respectfully when the show begins, are both first introduced as

Stassi’s friends, though they are characters in their own right. Other characters include Jax

Taylor (real name Jason, serial monogamist), Brittany Cartwright (very kind), Ariana Madix

(enjoys sketch comedy), James Kennedy (British, DJ, the youngest), Lala Kent (“feminist,” dates Vilensky 12

an older man), and a number of other workers who are introduced once and quickly forgotten.

Though most characters are featured in each episode of Vanderpump Rules, the main focuses of plotlines vary. However, there is always someone behaving badly on the show. Watching

Vanderpump Rules, this is what the reader comes to expect.

“I remember Lisa telling me that working at SUR is not what she wants for any of us. She wants us to use it as a stepping stone to get wherever she wants us to be,” says a character in an early episode. When first introduced, almost every Vanderpump Rules character discusses their desire to “not be in the restaurant business forever.” They each hold hopes of becoming a celebrity — as an actress, a model, a DJ. Six years later, they have not yet reached this goal: many work in the same restaurant and hold relationships with the same people. Moreover, these characters appear content in their static livelihoods; they do not try to get ahead. Mostly, episode to episode, characters take turns behaving badly. This bad behavior is rarely punished. They physically and voluminously fight, lie to loved ones, and disobey their boss, Lisa Vanderpump.

Through displayed bad behavior and its disregard, the reader gains a sense of the problems central to the show. Vanderpump Rules stages a reality where bad behavior results in success. To put it differently: bad behavior does not result in failure. The reality of Vanderpump Rules is one where success comes to those who are attractive, young, white, and straight. The bad behavior of characters exemplifying these characteristics does not matter because they have the reader’s attention. They are already successful enough.

A hierarchy of characters is established early on through the show’s title. The words

Vanderpump Rules offer no hint at the series’ focus on a restaurant environment. The title instead refers to Lisa Vanderpump, the only Vanderpump on the show (her husband’s surname is Todd).

“I look for a really different energy in the characters that work here and that’s what makes them Vilensky 13

a great server at SUR. It’s not necessarily the best table-waiting skills. [ . . . ] It’s the characters all put together — that’s what makes SUR unique,” says Lisa in episode one. Here, in the first few minutes of the series, Lisa refers to her employees as characters. She knows exactly what they are and what their purpose in the story is. In saying this, she exhibits an insight that carries her own character through the entirety of Vanderpump Rules. Although she appears in every episode of the show, Vanderpump is not a character in the same way others are. Her personal narrative never unfolds in front of the camera, and she stays above the dramatics that the show’s plotlines entail.

Before a sneak preview of a new scene, Vanderpump will say “coming up” in voiceover.

She also regularly offers the “previously on Vanderpump Rules” at the beginning of every episode and the “visit our website to see more” at the end. This reminds the reader that there is always more going on with these characters than what is shown in a single episode. Their story is serialized. It is long, interconnected and complicated. A sort of omniscient narrator, Lisa establishes that the people who work in her restaurant are not necessarily ideal industry help, but that they are characters. They are characters that can be analyzed, and through which problems can be staged. Though Vanderpump’s own character is distanced, she is still a character who interacts with others and intervenes with their storylines. The show’s ideology is interpellated through her as well. On Vanderpump Rules, Lisa supposedly makes the rules and doles out the punishments — she can fire characters from her restaurant and make them hand out apologies.

Still, fired characters remain on the show. Bad behavior brings no real ruin or banishment.

In the show’s opening sequence, several characters pour drinks, flip bottles, and light candles in slow motion. They wear fancy outfits, their first names illuminated next to them. The final character in every introductory sequence is Lisa, who bounces into the frame through an Vilensky 14

open door and tosses her purse off-screen. Her first name is displayed before the image cuts to the title of the show: “Lisa” . . . “Vanderpump Rules.” In the season one opening sequence, all employees besides Lisa wear SUR uniforms. In season six, only three of twenty-five do. This shows growth in character arcs — these characters have become more than simply restaurant employees, and have perhaps gained some power. Still, all characters are present at SUR in this shot, filmed within the restaurant. Though their clothing symbolizes growth, they have not left

SUR and the world of Vanderpump Rules. The reality of Vanderpump Rules remains the same whether they are in uniform or designer wear.

The song in the background of the opening montage, Dena Deadly’s “Raise Your Glass,” has not changed throughout the series’ run. “You know that it’s our time. These are the best days of our lives. Just raise your glasses high. This one’s for you tonight.” sings Deadly. The timeline of each episode is rarely certain — some last multiple days and some last one evening. Deadly’s use of these specifies the timeline of the episodes as the best days of the characters,’ and by extension our — Deadly and the reader’s too — lives. “This one’s for you” points directly outside the show. The reader is offered this look at the best days of the characters’ lives. They should take part in the festivities, raising a glass of their own in celebration. In this, the reader is imbued with the reality articulated through the show.

The importance of drinking in Vanderpump Rules is also showcased here: through

Deadly’s lyrics and as characters pour champagne and flip bottles. Vanderpump Rules characters seem to constantly sip alcohol: Lisa’s eponymous Vanderpump Rosé, Stassi’s favorite Pinot

Grigio, the Toms’ Coors’ Lights, Brittany’s Jell-O shots. Alcohol is an ever-present part of the world of Vanderpump Rules — a central part, the reader learns early on. Alcohol serves as a way for characters to excuse their bad behavior. If a character does not remember what has happened Vilensky 15

due to intoxication, their personal recollection of reality may be different than that of another, less impaired, character. Still, both of these realities play into the overarching reality of the show.

How can one’s truth be argued if it is what they recollect and posit? The prominence of alcohol on the show also relates to an overarching problem of Vanderpump Rules: characters can drink and act inappropriately, yet get away with it. Alcoholism is less a struggle than it is an excuse for characters’ actions. No one on Vanderpump Rules needs to be held accountable.

Though the show is based in SUR, scenes are filmed at characters’ apartments, in their cars, all over the city of Los Angeles, and, once a season when cast members go on vacation, elsewhere in the world. On Vanderpump Rules, characters are shown as they move through the motions of their lives. They are seen going to bed, waking up, going to work and simply spending time together. Regardless of the particular setting for a scene, every episode of

Vanderpump Rules features a number of “confessionals.” In these scenes, characters are filmed one at a time talking directly to the camera. They talk about the events of the episode and the scenes that have just unfolded, giving their “real” perspective on the events the reader has just seen and heard. Though every main character and some recurring characters have a confessional, only select characters’ s confessional scenes are featured in any particular episode. This is so not to overwhelm the reader — only a few first-person character perspectives are offered at a time. It must be noted that characters wear special outfits in their confessional scenes, usually more elaborate than their regular wear. This is perhaps to accentuate the this-is-my-individual- perspective approach — characters choose how they are portrayed and what they say in these scenes, and no other character is immediately around to negate this perspective. The inability of most other employees to reply to these confessionals adds another element to the individual truths and realities presented. Vilensky 16

After a character’s confessional, Lisa Vanderpump will sometimes appear in one of her own. In her confessionals, Lisa gives her perspective on what the other character was talking about. In early confessionals, Lisa Vanderpump rarely looks at the camera. She stares off-screen, as if talking directly to the cast-member and punishing them then and there. It matters not where the events have taken place, Vanderpump knows everything about them. She knows more than the reader, and she already has the situation under control. In this and her omniscient narration,

Vanderpump has a godlike role. She is who the reader shares overarching truths with, and is a force other characters must reckon with for their wrongdoings. She has built the place other characters spend their time in; she speaks to both the show’s characters and the reader. However, other characters’ disregard for her rules showcase the limits of Lisa’s character’s power. Lisa is involved in the lives of her employees. Other characters, on the other hand, only discuss their own happenings and situations they are directly involved in. Characters go to Lisa for advice, yet usually do not listen when she gives it to them — furthering the reader’s understanding of the show’s lack of respect for those in charge. If Lisa is indeed godlike, characters have either renounced or have never believed in her powers. They follow their own path to fulfillment.

Because of its wide array of characters, settings, and plotlines, the goings on of a particular Vanderpump Rules scene is best understood when watched together with other scenes.

Scenes are designed to be watched as part of a whole episode, season, or as part of the show in its entirety. Scenes and clips can stand alone in their plot progression, but this background exposition is how the reader understands the network of characters, places, and plotlines.

Knowing the background of character relationships, previous wrongdoings, and fights allows the reader to make sense of the situations at play in a particular scene. In order to understand relationship dynamics and furthermore what problems the show is staging as a whole, the reader Vilensky 17

must first understand a singular character and what they personally signify. The reader’s first — and perhaps most important — foray into the problems staged through Vanderpump Rules comes not from Lisa Vanderpump, but from Stassi Schroeder. Lisa rules, one may assume, but it is

Stassi — the younger, misbehaving foil to the older, respectable Lisa — who is the cardinal character on Vanderpump Rules. Lisa may rule, but Stassi holds court.

Stassi Schroeder

Stassi Schroeder is introduced in the first episode of season one of Vanderpump Rules.

Her character has been a fixture of the series ever since, save for a brief break during season four when she only made guest appearances. Stassi is introduced less than a minute into the premiere episode, becoming the first SUR employee whose name the reader learns. This early introduction of Stassi’s character frames the reader’s understanding of Vanderpump Rules as a whole. Stassi’s subjectivity provides an initiation to the show’s ideology.

Although Stassi is a SUR employee at the beginning of Vanderpump Rules, she quits and leaves the restaurant in an early season. Even so, her storyline continues outside the restaurant environment as she helps Lisa Vanderpump with event planning and spends time with friends who are employed at SUR. The character of Stassi, then, is understood to be autonomous. While she is not completely set apart from the others, Stassi is understood as separate from the rest of the characters — she enjoys occupational “growth” while others remain employed by the restaurant. New gigs, such as a self-hosted popular podcast and an autobiographical book deal, confirm both Stassi’s self-sufficient occupational prowess and likeability. She can get ahead in life. In her first scene, set in SUR, Stassi sips a pink drink while on the clock. Stassi’s boss, Lisa

Vanderpump, tries to grab the drink from her with a firm “no.” This serves as an attempt to prove

Vanderpump’s dominance over Stassi. “Stassi, stop it. Get to work,” Vanderpump says. Stassi Vilensky 18

releases her lips, smiling. Lisa is the boss and Stassi respects her ruling, but she knows she can continue misbehaving if she so pleases. As this scene unfolds, the reader sees clips of another character, Stassi’s current boyfriend and SUR bartender Jax Taylor. Jax appears to watch the action, a smile on his face as he mixes drinks. Stassi is inappropriate and non-professional upon the reader’s first impression of her, yet she is not reprimanded. Her boss engages with her and her boyfriend looks on lovingly. This sets a precedent for her character. Stassi can, and does, get away with bad behavior. She is awarded for it.

Stassi’s first line is “my name is Stassi.” As she says this, “S-T-A-S-S-I” appears as a caption on the screen below her. While names are also offered onscreen next to other characters, this joint audial and visual confirmation alerts the reader that Stassi’s name — and thus character

— are of importance. “Stassi” is short for Nastassia. Nastassia is not a common name in

America, and especially stands out when juxtaposed with other early cast members’ more common monikers: Lisa, Ken, Kristen, Katie, Tom, Tom. However, Stassi is not “othered.” Her name is of European origin and all characters, including her, are white. All are straight and around the same age. These commonalities are never directly referenced and are instead understood as the standard of the show. “As long as race is something only applied to non-white peoples, as long as white people are not racially seen and named, they/we function as a human norm. Other people are raced, we are just people,” writes Richard Dyer in the book White (1).

Stassi’s “otherness,” then, relies on her same-ness. The show fixates on her; she is the best at being the same.

According to Dyer, backlighting (used in early Hollywood films) was initially designed in part so blonde hair appeared blonde on screen. “Idealized white women are bathed in and permeated by light. It streams through them and falls on to them from above. In short, they Vilensky 19

glow” (122). Vanderpump Rules figuratively puts Stassi in the spotlight. In her first few minutes of screen time, Stassi — blonde and blue-eyed — tells the camera she went to an all-girls private school in New Orleans and that her mom always told her she is descended from Swedish royalty, further underscoring her whiteness. The “descended from royalty” comment accentuates Stassi’s belief that she is above the “common folk,” which includes her co-workers. Stassi is younger than the show’s current “queen,” the British Lisa Vanderpump. Stassi, then, is next in line for the title of ruling character. In the pool of her peers — who, as opposed to the overseeing

Vanderpump, are the focus of the show’s many plotlines — Stassi is in charge. Because of her enhanced status, other characters follow Stassi’s lead in the hopes of gaining some of the notoriety she possesses.

In his one-star review of the 2004 film Sleepover, Roger Ebert writes, "I take it as a rule of nature that all American high schools are ruled by a pack of snobs, led by a supremely confident young woman who is blonde, superficial, catty, and ripe for public humiliation. This character is followed by two friends who worship her and are a little bit shorter.” In many fairy tales and myths, the princess — and thus the focus of the reader’s attention — is blonde. This is the case for Cinderella, Rapunzel, Norse mythology’s Freya, Camelot’s Guinevere. It must be mentioned, too, that blondeness typifies whiteness. “Blondeness emerges from a general cinematic preoccupation with ethereal white femininity,” writes David Greven. Vanderpump

Rules does not take place in a high school or follow the format of a fairytale, but it does employ several of the character tropes and symbolism found in stories that do. Stassi Schroeder, the reader learns early on, is Vanderpump Rules’ resident mean girl. Because she is given extra attention, the reader understands early on that her mode of behavior is not punished. Vilensky 20

Stassi’s two sidekicks throughout the series are Kristen and Katie, both brunettes who work at SUR when the show begins. At this point, both are dating men named Tom — further equating their characters. Kristen and Katie fit Ebert’s suggested trope of “two friends who worship [the lead snob].” They help Stassi establish a hierarchy of the Vanderpump Rules cast members by referencing the same genre conventions Ebert satirizes. Coming off of his stint as

“laughing bartender,” Jax identifies himself as “Stassi’s boyfriend.” This phrasing gives Stassi ownership of his character; he is understood as important to the show because of his relationship to her. “Me and Jax bring everyone together,” says Stassi about her boyfriend. “The guys are drawn to him and the girls are drawn to me. We lead the pack.” Because he was introduced as

“Stassi’s boyfriend,” the reader understands Stassi’s rule over Jax. Stassi ultimately leads everyone — men and women, and on the show no one identifies otherwise.

A list of characteristics for Stassi: female, blonde, heterosexual, in her 20s, American of

Swedish ancestry, white, girlfriend, friend, employee, daughter, sister, waitress, writer, model, event planner. Stassi is subjectified as the show’s — and in its strongly American identity,

America’s — ideal woman to focus on: someone young and white. In season one, another fact about Stassi is offered: her birthday is June 24th. A birthday signifies the ending of one year and the beginning of a new one. While other characters’ birthdays are celebrated (with parties, dinners, etc.), the show’s timeline is anchored to Stassi’s birthday. Her birthday is celebrated once a season, so the reader understands a year has passed in the lives of the characters. This particular birthday, Stassi’s birthday, invites the reader to mark her character’s growth in a discrete amount of time. Because it is her growth and milestones that are celebrated, Stassi further stakes her place as the show’s ideal character. She is understood as the most interesting and worthy of celebration. In the celebration of her birthday, she is also humanized. A birth date Vilensky 21

is an intimate detail to know about someone, and the reader is reminded of Stassi’s birth date once a season. “As a day-to-day ideal, the image of the glowingly pure white woman no longer has the currency it once had: neither sex expects women to conform to this ideal and few think it would be a good thing if they did,” writes Dyer (137). “Yet the language of this image remains powerful, and particularly at those moments of adoration.” The yearly celebration of Stassi’s birthday affords the show — and reader — a moment of adoration.

Stassi’s first on-screen birthday comes in season one, episode four. In this episode, selected characters head to Las Vegas to celebrate Stassi’s 24th year. The first celebration in this episode, however, does not belong to Stassi. An early scene shows character Scheana putting a candle in a cupcake. The candle reads “Happy 25th birthday.” Scheana brings the cupcake to her husband, Shay, wishing him a happy birthday. While still pushing the ideology of birthday as cause for celebration, Shay’s calm birthday scene juxtaposed with the excitement of Stassi’s upcoming celebration shows the importance of Stassi’s birthday. Shay gets a cupcake; Stassi and her friends get a vacation. Later in the episode, Stassi climbs into a limousine. Her friends are already seated, waiting for her. Stassi wears a sequin dress, glittering next to everyone else’s drab fashions. “Happy birthday to princess Stassi,” says Katie. “Now, everyone say, ‘Hail princess Stassi,’” says Stassi. This call for everyone to hail does not only apply to Stassi’s friends. The reader is included in this statement, directed to “hail princess Stassi” like everyone else. The final line of the episode, said by Stassi in another sequin dress, is “it’s my birthday, what I say goes.” No matter the drama within, the episode begins and ends with Stassi’s birthday. Vanderpump Rules is framed around her.

In the show’s first few episodes, coworkers call Stassi both a bully and a leader. As the show goes on, she becomes less of each: her character role evens out to “friend.” This semi- Vilensky 22

redemptive arc encourages the reader to like Stassi better. However, part of the intrigue of her character is her mean-girl attitude. She cannot, and does not, lose this completely. Certain character traits and tropes are kept season after season both for familiarity and because they work for entertainment. As birthdays pass, Stassi grows older but does not necessarily grow up.

Besides providing entertainment value, this trajectory says something about the privileged role of pretty, young, white women in American society. Stassi continues to get rewarded throughout the show despite her behavior. By season seven— the most recent in Vanderpump Rules’ catalogue — Stassi has found a nice boyfriend (she cries when talking about how much she loves him in confessional) who puts up with her antics. She has a popular podcast and a book deal.

Everyone shows up to her birthday party.

In season seven, Stassi decides to celebrate her birthday in a new way. She hosts a joint party with Ariana Madix, the other blonde character with whom she shares a birthday and has held competing parties with in past seasons. This sharing nature is new to Stassi’s character. The reader is to believe she has grown up, happy to share the spotlight with another blonde. This year, it is Stassi’s thirtieth birthday. “Listen, I’m excited about being thirty. I feel like I’m now a woman,” she says. “Turning thirty is a milestone and honestly I feel really proud.” Because it is

Stassi’s “growth” that the reader is following, Ariana’s age is not mentioned. At the party, characters mingle and engage in small talk. Breaking from the crowd, Katie makes an announcement: “Nastariana” is arriving. This blend of the two birthday girls’ names seeks to equalize them. However, “Nastassia” still comes first. The show cuts to a shot from above, a bird’s eye view that allows the reader to take in the scene in its entirety. In their matching (white) costumes, crowns and (blonde) hairstyles, Stassi and Ariana enter the party. A song plays over the scene: “This is my kingdom I built it,” the lyrics repeat. “Call me your queen I deserve it.” Vilensky 23

Here again, my is used instead of our, I as opposed to we. Though Lisa Vanderpump is supposed to be the ruler, she is nowhere to be found. Stassi is again the royalty in this situation.

As the party goes on, Stassi is shown every so often drinking. These clips ease the reader into accepting her extreme drunkenness later in the episode. “I’m thirty,” she giggles to boyfriend Beau, hugging him. Though the camera is positioned far away from the couple and they stand surrounded by party guests, only Stassi and Beau are audible; they are the focus.

“Happy birthday,” Beau says to Stassi — not Stassi and Ariana, and for a second the screen fades to black. When the show fades back in, a clock on the bottom left of the screen alerts the reader that it is now late in the night. Party guests, Beau among them, mingle drunkenly. The episode ends with a drunk Stassi alone in a bathroom. She has an outburst, calling Beau over and over and finally smashing her cell phone when he does not answer her texts or calls. Stassi is mad that Beau is not physically with her at the end of the party. Like the reader’s, Beau’s focus should begin and end with Stassi. While he is not with her, the reader is. This framing of Stassi’s story as the most important also helps inform the reader of the behavioral problems staged through the show. Though she has misbehaved, Stassi’s character is cardinal. She has done nothing significant but simply exist, yet she must be celebrated and rewarded.

Lisa Vanderpump

Though the show’s cardinal character is Stassi Schroeder, a different name officially frames the entirety of Vanderpump Rules: Vanderpump. So, what can the reader understand about Vanderpump Rules from its title? Perhaps someone named Vanderpump rules in an influential and overseeing sense of the word: “to direct, guide, manage” (OED). It could be, too, that someone named Vanderpump rules in an informal and exclamatory they are the best sense, or someone named Vanderpump has total authoritative rule over a not-yet-defined domain or Vilensky 24

group of people. Maybe there is a set of regulations titled the “Vanderpump Rules” or perhaps someone named Vanderpump engages in the process of ruling in the sense defined by the Oxford

English Dictionary as “to decide or settle” — that is to say this Vanderpump has the final word.

While all of these interpretations may be applied to Vanderpump Rules, the lack of explicit interpretation of the title obscures the reader’s understanding of Lisa Vanderpump, the only, and thus ruling, Vanderpump. All of these possible rules or forms of ruling play into Vanderpump’s character. Lisa Vanderpump is in her fifties, with long brown hair and tight, usually glossed lips.

She is female, white, heterosexual, British, and wealthy. She is a friend, mother, wife and boss.

Because she is supposed to do and be so much, her character’s subjectivity — that of the idealized feminine ruler — becomes overwhelmed. The reader does not see her impact, and understands Lisa to have no power.

As the owner of SUR, Vanderpump is someone that all characters hold a relationship with in common; she is their boss. However, her stable relationship with all cast members limits her character’s importance. While other characters fight and engage in love affairs, Vanderpump stays out of the dramatics. Storylines rarely directly involve her; she appears only to offer commentary or criticism about other characters. As the boss and ruler of Vanderpump Rules,

Lisa is theoretically at the top of the character hierarchy. Lisa is older than the other characters

(in her late fifties as opposed to twenties and thirties), which gives her an “older and wiser” air.

She is on top professionally and is wealthier than any other character. Still, though Lisa is the show’s “ruler,” she has no actual control over anything plotline or character-related. Her placement at the top of the character hierarchy is for show; it does not signify anything. Lisa

Vanderpump is the show’s “queen” — the female, ruling Vanderpump of the title. Because her character signifies an ideal of feminine power, the actual falsity of her power says something Vilensky 25

about how the show accords power to women, no matter how exalted their role. Though Lisa is technically in charge, no one listens to her. Because she has no actual power, the reader is to believe that the reality represented in Vanderpump Rules, which reflects their own, disregards feminine command. Lisa’s character — standing in for all other older female characters — is here for ornamentation.

Lisa Vanderpump is the last to show up in the show’s opening credits and is allotted a solo shot before the theme song’s final image, a group shot of the entire cast of characters posing together. Here, Lisa is shown, physically, as the absolute focus of the cast. She sits on a chair front and center. All other characters surround her. Although Vanderpump Rules characters come and go from the theme song’s imagery as seasons pass, Lisa’s placement as last in the individual lineup and front and center in the group shot always remains the same. She always sits in her chair. The chair can symbolize a throne, an explicit symbol of rule and royalty. As the “ruling”

Vanderpump, Lisa’s British-ness comes into play. The reader understands that Lisa is British early on because of her accent, Still, she hints at her background every so often. (Lest the reader become accustomed to her voice and forget.) She has some successful restaurants in London, she will mention, or she knows this or that person from her time in England. Due to these explicit hints and the American reader’s common connection of Britishness with royalty, Lisa is further understood as the ruler.

As she rests on her throne, Lisa holds her dog, Giggy, in her lap. In another scene, she is shown nursing a baby bird back to health. “It seems I was put on this earth to help every little wounded bird that comes my way,” says Lisa in season seven episode five. A few moments later, she relates character James Kennedy to a broken bird. It is her duty to nurse him. Alongside her role as the ruler, Lisa Vanderpump is the show’s mother figure. The protective aspect of her Vilensky 26

mothering role is illustrated here and throughout the show through her care of other characters and animals. As the oldest character, Vanderpump is framed as matronly and protective of her young employees. This is shown first and foremost in her clothing style. In most Vanderpump

Rules opening sequences, female characters wear cleavage-baring outfits in styles befitting twenty-first century Los Angeles party wear. Lisa, on the other hand, is shown in the season seven opening in a silk button up shirt. She wears a black tie around her neck, pearls in her ears, and a skirt that reaches her knees. Though feminine, Lisa’s outfit proclaims modesty. Her tie symbolizes professionalism. Known to reprimand, Lisa also often speaks of how she wants characters to succeed. When her employees go on vacations she will surprise them with room upgrades and presents, and is eager to offer input on a variety of subjects — relationships, occupations, stylistic choices.

In the first minute of the first episode of Vanderpump Rules, Lisa and her husband Ken walk into SUR, Lisa in front of Ken. “Ken and I own two restaurants in California,” Lisa says in voiceover. Her use of I and the visual placement of her leading Ken aids in the reader’s understanding of her as the main overseer of the restaurant. Ken is included in the business, certainly, but Lisa is more important. Ostensibly ruling and mothering, Lisa is believed to hold a matriarchal role. She can thus be understood as the show’s “queen.” At the time Lisa says this line, it has just been proclaimed that “Vanderpump rules,” both by way of the title’s on-screen- confirmation and Lisa’s leading of Ken and introducing the reader to the show’s setting. “The modern monarch has no political power. The Queen’s personal prerogatives — the power to appoint the Prime Minister; to summon and dissolve parliament; and to give royal assent to bills

— have been almost entirely extinguished. In exercising these powers, the monarch no longer retains any effective discretion,” write Robert Hazell and Bob Morris. As Hazell and Morris Vilensky 27

illustrate, the power of the queen in modern British society is only staged. Lisa’s role distances her from the story; her character is separated from all others. She is not directly involved in their friendships or storylines, instead serving the role of omniscient narrator and overseer. Here, she has no great effect on the actual goings-on of the show. Vanderpump Rules’ identification of Lisa as both a mother and a ruler limits her character. She does not fully succeed in either capacity.

Perhaps women cannot do all, the show says.

Lisa’s direct involvement often frames episodes: she shows up in person at the beginning and the end and in confessionals (hereby separated from the actual events) throughout. “Lisa isn’t at SUR twelve hours a day like some of the managers are, but she always seems to hear every little thing,” says SUR bartender Tom Sandoval in an early episode. Here, Tom implies that other managers are around more than Lisa. There are people who hold equally important roles that are more visible in the story. On Vanderpump Rules, there is no story with Lisa

Vanderpump. Though she holds a place of power in the character hierarchy, Lisa is not understood as a character entirely involved in the show’s narratives. Because of this, Lisa loses her place in the hierarchy. How can she rule if she is cut off from the lives of those she is supposed to oversee?

As a powerful mother and ruler, Lisa exemplifies feminine power. However, the reader knows there are others who “rule” that are around more often. Though technically on top, Lisa does not fit into the hierarchy. Her place is lost and her staged feminine power diminishes, uninteresting to the reader who would rather engage with happenings through engagement with characters actually involved. As Lisa offers her first monologue in episode one, a talking head confessional shot is shown, the first of the series. In this first confessional, shots of other characters are dispersed with shots of Lisa’s talking head. These other characters also talk, Vilensky 28

breaking Lisa’s narrative with discussion of unbuttoning shirts and putting limes in chardonnay.

As Lisa talks, a shot closes in on bartender Jax Taylor’s chest and waitresses Katie and Kristen doing a synchronized dance move — images the reader is told to pay attention to as opposed to

Lisa’s prim pose and discussion of her restaurant’s inner workings. Though Vanderpump is saying something, the reader is paying attention to other visuals that have little to do with her discussion.

A visit to Lisa’s house Villa Rosa is always a treat for characters, as if they are visiting a palace. Though anchored to Lisa’s life and home, the purpose of these visits is to discuss the happenings of other characters’ lives. Lisa is only shown spending time alone around her house when she is expecting a visit or telephone call from another character. When someone visits,

Lisa will be shown idling about her house before their arrival. When they arrive, she will offer wisdom and punishment in an often strongly one-sided conversation; she does not need to hear the other characters’ side of the story as she already knows what has happened (as demonstrated in her confessionals). “This is like the yellow brick road,” says SUR bartender Tom Sandoval, walking up to Lisa’s house in season seven episode five. In The Wizard of Oz, the yellow brick road was thought to lead to a wizard that could make everyone’s dreams come true. The wizard, it turned out, held no power. He knew what was happening, but could not solve any problems.

Such is also the case with Lisa. Though she may know what a character will wish to discuss when they arrive, it is unclear what effect this omniscience has. The damage has most often already been done and, though she may intervene personally, Lisa still has little impact on other characters’ behavior. Though she may call for proper behavior, Lisa negates her own rulings by supporting inappropriate actions. Vilensky 29

Lisa’s relationship with Stassi is a prime example of this. In season one, Stassi is invited to Lisa’s house to have a chat with Lisa and her daughter Pandora. Stassi has been behaving badly, harassing her ex-boyfriend’s new girlfriend with text messages and not turning in her blog posts for Pandora’s fashion website. Confronted with her boss’s knowledge of her deviant behavior, Stassi immediately begins to cry. Lisa moves to sit by her, putting her arms around her as she weeps. Here, she demonstrates her mothering role. “I’m going to give you another chance, okay? But this is it Stassi,” says Lisa, attempting to make her rule known. Stassi nods in response. Later in the episode, the reader again sees Stassi harassing her ex-boyfriend Jax’s new girlfriend at SUR. Stassi has not heeded Lisa’s advice.

During the first season’s reunion episode, reunion-host Andy Cohen asks Lisa for her thoughts on Stassi’s comments about her Swedish heritage and being “royal.” It is understood that Lisa knows Stassi did not follow her instructions, and Andy is attempting to get her to comment on this topic. “Lisa, does Stassi reek of royalty to you?” Andy asks. Here, he positions

British-born Lisa as an expert on royalty. Stassi’s behavior has been the opposite of what the queen Vanderpump preaches. “She reeks of something,” replies Lisa. “It might not be royalty.”

Still, Lisa continues to warn and forgive Stassi throughout the entirety of the series. Though

Stassi quits her job at the restaurant early on, Lisa allows her to continue working for her as an event planner. Throughout the series Stassi brings new boyfriends to Lisa for vetting (even though she dates them regardless of Lisa’s response). While Lisa can fire someone from the restaurant or stop giving them chances, they will remain a character on the show and thus worthy of attention. Furthermore, Lisa’s distaste might cause the reader’s interest in certain characters to flourish. Those who “behave badly” often have the most interesting storylines. These storylines are lavished with the reader’s attention. After the wrath of Lisa, a character’s storyline continues Vilensky 30

with Lisa’s stated impression serving only as a form of character-development. It can also be argued that Lisa is fine with bad behavior, her displayed rectitude a front for her approval of deplorable characters.

Lisa’s approval of bad behavior is also showcased in her understanding of her restaurant’s inner-workings. “Villa Blanca is where you take your wife, and SUR is where you take your mistress,” says Lisa in her first monologue. Here, Lisa has just stated that she and Ken are the owners of these restaurants. SUR is the restaurant featured in Vanderpump Rules, while

Villa Blanca is rarely mentioned. With Lisa’s monologue, the reader discovers that the environment at SUR, inappropriate as opposed to that of other establishments, is where the story lies. SUR is the chosen setting, so these transgressions must be worth paying attention to. Lisa knows that “inappropriate” behavior is commonplace in the city she has chosen to live; matrimonial rules do not always apply. Still, she willingly provides a place for adulterous behavior to ensue. Comparing her restaurants and their patrons, Lisa places females into discrete categories. There are wives, and there are mistresses; each belongs in a different West

Hollywood restaurant. It must be noted, too, that both Villa Blanca and SUR are described as places where women are taken. This language strips female characters of autonomy and thus power. Nevertheless, Lisa leads Ken in their first shot, separating herself from the rule she has just listed. Because Vanderpump Rules takes place in SUR, this discussion eliminates Lisa from much of the show’s content. While SUR is where people “take their mistress,” she is not unfaithful, nor is she being taken anywhere. Lisa is a wife at SUR, breaking another of her rules.

Furthermore, she has already established that the mistress-culture of SUR is interesting. Lisa is not part of this culture, and is thus uninteresting. Lisa herself negates the “Vanderpump Rules.” Vilensky 31

Story wise, Lisa Vanderpump neither dictates nor impacts. Inherently feminine and understood as both a mother and ruler, Vanderpump represents a multi-faceted feminine ideal.

She is a working mother and does not have to choose between adoration of her children and holding a firm stand in her business. Regardless of this optimal role and her status as the center of the characters, Vanderpump is not the center of attention. Though she knows everyone’s business, she is not directly involved in others’ lives. While Stassi serves as a cardinal character and the dictator of her friend group, Vanderpump’s ruling is performative. The rules she makes are broken, and her final words go unheeded. “So what’s the matter with fantasies of female power?” writes Susan Douglas in Enlightened Sexism. “Under the guise of escapism and pleasure, we are getting images of imagined power that mask, and even erase, how much still remains to be done for girls and women, images that make sexism seem fine, even fun, and insist that feminism is now utterly pointless — even bad for you” (6). This, writes Douglas, is the definition of enlightened sexism — powerful women presented in the media hide that there is still cultural work to be done in order for society to reach true female empowerment. Reality television, Douglas continues, is the perfect grounds for this work. On Vanderpump Rules, Lisa signifies female power. However, this power is only staged. As mentioned at the beginning of this essay, Lisa’s omniscience (in confessionals and as the boss of the restaurant) affords her character a godlike presence. As both a mother and an idol, she is neither feared nor listened to.

The respect her character is given is not honest. Not revered, Lisa is used as an instrument for characters to get what they actually want. Again, male characters make the most of this.

James Kennedy

James Kennedy helps to signify the privilege of young, white men on Vanderpump Rules.

James Kennedy is one of two main characters who were not present at the beginning of the show. Vilensky 32

Instead he appears slowly, becoming a main character in season four. The reader’s understanding of James is built on many characteristics that include his work, his age, his sexuality, his capacity to tell the truth, and his love of alcohol. When James is introduced, he is dating Kristen Doute, a

SUR waitress and older woman in her late 20s. “For the last five months James and I have been dating, says Kristen. “He’s 22. He’s British.” Onscreen, the words “James: SUR busser” appear below James’ image. These characteristics are offered right away and therefore are deemed important. James is young — the youngest cast member by a few years. He is also British, which makes him the only non-American main character besides Lisa. Alongside his job as a busser,

James is a DJ at SUR. In the show’s opening sequence, James is most often shown holding or throwing a record into the air, distancing himself from other characters who hold cocktails and

SUR-related items. Though other characters have side-jobs and interests they showcase on the show, James’ DJ career is a foremost part of his character. He mentions his passion for music when first introduced and his weekly DJ night at SUR — “See You Next Tuesday” — is a common plot point. This separates him from other characters who simply work at the restaurant, but only minimally. His DJ gigs most often take place at SUR. He is still fully involved with the restaurant, his entertainment career dependent on his day-job.

Like Stassi, James is separated from other characters. He is the youngest of the group and the only foreign main character besides Lisa. However, like every other main character, he is white. While he grew up in a different country, he comes from an English-speaking European background. Though characters often declare that James has had sex with his male friends, he dates women on the show. He is understood as normal on Vanderpump Rules: white and straight.

Appearance-wise, James brings to mind characters such as Disney’s Peter Pan and Shakespeare’s

Puck. He is impish and thin, with a cleft chin and a mischievous grin. His wardrobe generally Vilensky 33

consists of sleeveless shirts that showcase his thin arms. Sometimes, too, he will wear no shirt at all. This wardrobe choice plays into the reader’s understanding of James’ immaturity. His style is reminiscent of other young people in the late 2010s; James is hereby placed among peers. Of course, James bears the likeness to these characters in more ways than just physical and vocal mannerisms. He refuses to grow up, living in a world of fairytale mischief with few consequences.

James and Kristen’s relationship is shown as toxic early on. He cheats on her and lies about it before going on to talk openly about his wrongdoings in confessional and with other characters. In season four episode two, James’ transgressions have just begun to be discussed when James and Kristen meet for lunch. Kristen is shown getting out of her car alone and walking towards the building. James is already seated, wearing a gray sleeveless top that, again, shows off much of his chest and arms. He is on his cell phone and does not see Kristen enter the restaurant. “So, your behavior last night was like really embarrassing,” says Kristen to James.

Both characters are shown alone onscreen as they talk, their faces taking up most of the frame.

Their moving mouths are what the reader should focus on; what they are saying is what is important. “I’m sorry,” says James. Kristen asks James why he left a party with a girl and sent her home in the morning. She has access to his phone, and saw his taxi receipts. Kristen is insinuating James has cheated. He denies it. “Do you want me to show you the email?” says

Kristen, her expression solemn. James begins to grin, rubbing his temples. “Ugh, god damn it,” he says. He has been caught. Kristen raises her voice and ends their relationship. James listens, continuing to smile. Kristen storms out, sipping a glass of wine on her way. James sips a drink alone at the bar. Here, James proves himself unable to match his words to his facial expressions. Vilensky 34

Though he knows he has done wrong he smiles. With this, James is understood as untrustworthy

— yet perhaps also harmless. He is childlike, unaware of social cues.

Later, James enters Kristen’s apartment to apologize. He tells her that he is sorry. He had been “really drunk” the night before. “Uber dropped us off. I think I invited [the other woman] to come in,” James says. “We didn’t have sex. I know that 100 percent on my life. But I’m 100 percent sure I made out with her.” Kristen continues to press James: “What else?” He does not budge, looking down with sad eyes. “I don’t know, Kristen.” Suddenly, the shot cuts from

Kristen to James seated in confessional. The reader hears him before seeing him, as if he is already thinking these words as he sits in the room with Kristen. “At this point I’m just lying to

Kristen for her own good. I know if I tell her the entire truth it’s just gonna devastate her,” he says. Back in the scene, he kisses Kristen’s forehead. Back to confessional: “The truth is, [the other woman] and I were definitely boning.” He makes a sexual gesture and grins, his immaturity further showcased in his word choice. Back to Kristen: “I promise you I didn’t have sex with her.

I’ve never had sex with anyone but you the entire time we’ve been together.” He plays with

Kristen’s hair. Now, Kristen is shown in confessional. “James decided to have the balls to tell me the truth, which proves to me he wants to work on this [relationship],” she says. Kristen’s perceived “truth” is different than James’ and the reader’s, who understands everything James just said to Kristen to be a blatant lie. “Having the balls to tell the truth” implies that men are truthful; James is being a “man” by telling Kristen the truth. As is evident in James’ childish behavior and lying, the reader understands that Vanderpump Rules does not ask or expect honesty of its male characters. James is well aware of his actions and uses his understood subjectivity as the immature male to get away with them. Vilensky 35

In another season six scene, James, SUR hostess Lala Kent, and their friend Logan sit down for dinner and a chat at a chicken and waffle restaurant. James orders drinks: double shots of vodka and bourbon. As he does so, the camera jumps from his ordering to Lala’s reaction. She does not speak, and does not appear pleased. As James orders, the top of what appears to be a drink with a straw and lemon is shown in the lower right corner of the shot. The reader is led to believe James has already been drinking. After James orders, a clip of him in confessional is shown. James sits in a fancy room and wears a jacket over the same t-shirt he wears in the scene: he is thus understood as more professional here. He looks straight at the camera, speaking directly to the reader. “Obviously I’ve been trying to control my drinking,” he says. The next shot shows him back in the restaurant, raising a glass. “To getting drunk!” Juxtaposing these clips frames James as a liar. He says he is working on controlling his drinking, yet the reader sees him taking shots.

As James takes another shot, the reader hears him in voiceover. His onscreen lips do not move and the music that is heard during confessionals plays, signifying that he is speaking once again after the fact. “But … sometimes I have a couple drinks without thinking and something just comes over me, you know?” Now, James has regained the reader’s trust. He acknowledges that he makes mistakes. After appearing to have a few drinks (it is difficult to tell how these moments truly played out chronologically), James begins to talk nonsensically in the restaurant.

“I could stop at any time,” he is shown saying in confessional. “Easily.” Season after season, plotlines involve James’ quest for sobriety. These quests are not self-prompted. Instead they are often at the request of Lisa or another character who tells James the only way he can be involved with their activities is if he does not drink. In season four, James promises to be sober so he can come along on a group trip to Hawaii. Lisa’s son, Max, sits with him to talk about this. “You go Vilensky 36

ape-shit when you drink. But I told them you haven’t been drinking for 10, 11 days now,” says

Max. James’ sobriety is often counted in days — he cannot hold out longer. “I mean, I had a beer, but whatever,” James replies. In confessional, James talks more about his plan to convince other characters to let him join the trip. In the shot he has a beer next to him, again negating his supposed sobriety. As previously mentioned, drinking is a large part of Vanderpump Rules.

James is not the only character whose drinking is out of hand, nor is he the only character reprimanded for drinking to excess.

“What, then, is truth? A mobile army of metaphors, metonyms, and anthropomorphisms,” writes Friedrich Nietzsche. “The liar uses the valid designations, the words, to make the unreal appear as real.” Besides the discrepancies between his confessional and regular scene statements, the reader views James’ actions as negating his words. James’ character blurs truth and lie. His truths are different from episode to episode and scene to scene, leaving the reader confused about who James is and what he believes. Truth and lie use the same language, the same signifiers and signs. The reader differentiates James’ truths from his lies by viewing his actions and how they compare to his words. Captured on-screen, it seems as though one can tell the difference between truth and lie because one sees James acting differently than what he states he is doing. These inconsistencies may be chalked up to his youth or misremembrance. At some points, his lies may in fact be his truth. The reader already knows that James makes mistakes. He is young. He is learning. How can he be blamed? The other men on Vanderpump Rules, though older, are offered similar excuses.

In season seven, Kristen offers a monologue about the way the male characters on

Vanderpump Rules are treated differently than the females. “The guys in our group have fucked up more than anyone has,” she says in confessional. Flashbacks to earlier episodes are now Vilensky 37

shown: female characters talking about how Jax impregnated another woman while he was dating Stassi, Tom Schwartz admitting to cheating on his wife, Jax again admitting to cheating on another girlfriend. “Somehow these guys get more sympathy – or him-pathy. Everyone’s like,

‘It’s okay, they’re just guys. They’ll grow up someday.’” Here, Kristen’s usage of the word

“guys” must be considered. Instead of referring to these male characters as males to differentiate them from the females, she uses the colloquial “guys.” Saying “him-pathy” instead of simply commenting on how the males get more “sympathy” adds a joking tone to her argument. She is calling this discrepancy out, but her tone forgives and downplays their transgressions.

James, a male character, does get this sympathy. However, as the youngest male character by nearly ten years, James has a youthful appeal that he uses to his advantage as he often finds himself in more trouble than other characters. Though other male characters get away with bad behavior as though they are children, James — who is closer in age to an actual child

— gets in trouble the most. In an early season, James is fired from his job as a busboy at SUR for bad behavior. He soon gets his job back. In season seven, another storyline revolves around

James being fired from SUR. In this season, James is again fired for calling character Katie, a

SUR employee, “fat.” Lisa has agreed with Katie that her work environment is not comfortable, yet she feels sympathy for James and meets with him to discuss the situation. They sit across from each other at SUR, Lisa wearing a button up shirt and glossy lip and James haggard in a white t-shirt. “I’m so upset with you, I can’t even begin to tell you how upset with you I am,”

Lisa says to James. As she launches into a monologue about how he must respect women, James places his hands over his eyes as if to hide. “James,” says Lisa softly but firmly, as if talking to a child. “I cannot give you one more chance.” She officially fires him and James begins to cry, slamming his fists into the table. He is a child throwing a tantrum. Here, a shot-reverse-shot Vilensky 38

technique is used to frame the conversation and juxtapose the characters’ emotions. As tears stream down James’ face, Lisa remains calm. James storms off while she sits, cool and collected.

It is only after he leaves the restaurant that Lisa begins to tear up herself. Lisa feels for James, but she must perform her role as a disciplinarian. The reader can again note that James has previously been fired from and rehired at SUR. Lisa’s rule will probably fall through and he will be back. He is not sad because he has “disrespected women,” he is sad that he has lost his job.

In the episode that follows his firing, James is already back. While no longer working at the restaurant, he is still a character the show follows. “I’m not going to stop until I get my job back,” says James in confessional. Now, James’ storyline revolves around getting sober (again) and providing for his family. The reader has sympathy towards him, regardless of how inappropriate his actions towards Katie were. In this episode, James’ mother, Jacqueline, asks

Lisa for James’ forgiveness. “If you’re defending his actions, then that’s not going to help him,” says Lisa, telling Jacqueline how to take care of her son. Jacqueline cries, begging Lisa to reconsider James’ firing. “You’re his mother figure,” Jacqueline says to Lisa. As she says this,

Lisa is immediately shown in close up with her lips pursed. “No, you’re his mother figure. And I need you to be strong for your son,” she replies. James is understood as a child in need of an adult’s guidance — so much so that he has two mother figures who care about his wellbeing.

Still, neither of these mother figures is listened to; James continues to do what he wants. James is a grown man — around age 25 at this time. As with other males on the show, his childlike behavior is tolerated. The reader does not expect much of the men on Vanderpump Rules; the men on Vanderpump Rules do not expect much of themselves.

This understanding of James’ character and his relationship with Lisa informs the problems staged on Vanderpump Rules. In order for James to get what he wants — success, Vilensky 39

power, adherence to his childlike identity — women are disrespected, fed lies, and ignored. “I’m the white Kanye,” says James multiple times throughout the show. Here, he compares himself to

Kanye West: a rapper infamous for bad behavior. As a white Kanye, James calls into account his

“normalcy” as defined by Vanderpump Rules. On the show, to be white and straight is to be normal. Calling himself the “white Kanye,” James also equates himself with all of Kanye West’s musical and popular success. Though he has been fired from his job and has not held many commonly defined successes (in his music career or otherwise), James thinks highly of himself.

James is privileged — a white, heterosexual young man living in Los Angeles, California. In the reality staged through Vanderpump Rules, this is all he needs to be.

Conclusion: What does Vanderpump Rules do?

Vanderpump Rules is a reality television show. Reality television shows attempt to capture the real world, staging problems through the show’s characters that also exist in the reader’s own reality. For these characters, the reality of the show is the only possible reality; the reader must accept it. On Vanderpump Rules, the reality presented is one where bad behavior results in attention. In this reality, power comes from youth, beauty, and impulsiveness. Beauty is intrinsically connected with whiteness, and you do not have to grow up if you do not want to.

In this reality, too, older feminine power has no real agency. Real attention, and thus power, is given to those who misbehave — especially males. Ultimately, it is better for characters not to mature and develop. They should instead remain in the perpetual state of acting out juvenile hijinks.

Most stories — regardless of medium — promise movement. They involve a developing plotline, a distinct beginning, middle, and end. In the screenwriting business, a common word of advice is to begin at the last possible moment. In reality television, too, televised plotlines often Vilensky 40

begin at a point where characters are about to embark on a journey. The action at the start propels the characters through another episode. If the show is a success it will last many years, following characters as they move throughout their lives. These characters may grow up, go to new places, and learn new things. This movement is shown through characters’ changing circumstances, people moving around and going about tasks, lives changing. As in real life, reality television show storylines can develop so slowly it is difficult to realize what took place until one looks back. Now in its seventh season, the basic premise and main characters of

Vanderpump Rules have remained largely stable since the show’s beginning.

On Vanderpump Rules, characters are not expected to develop. Persisting in one’s misbehaving persona begets attention, which begets power. Growing up and acting responsibly and with respect to one’s multiple roles, as Lisa has done (she is older, after all), results in diminishing one’s power. Instead, characters are welcome to remain in their own worlds with their own choice of truths — steeped in alcohol and not forced to examine or find meaning in their lives. As it goes, their world does in fact revolve around them, with the posited reality beginning and ending with an individual character, for example Stassi. It is fine for these characters to behave badly because their immaturity is a proxy for remaining youthful. White, straight, young, and misbehaving: the show regales these qualities with its currency — attention.

As mentioned in the first episode of Vanderpump Rules, the ultimate goal for most characters is celebrity. Attention can be translated to celebrity. The characters who possess the qualities rewarded with attention are already deemed successful.

According to the Oxford English Dictionary, the word caricature can be used as both a noun and a verb. As a verb, to caricature is “to represent or portray in caricature; to make a grotesque likeness of.” As a noun, a caricature is “a grotesque or ludicrous representation of Vilensky 41

persons or things by exaggeration of their most characteristic and striking features.” On

Vanderpump Rules, Lisa Vanderpump’s character embodies a contrived peek of feminine power.

She oversees other characters, she has a role in building the world of the show, and is described as omniscient. Judging by the show’s title, she rules. Still, even if other characters see her as ruling, they care less about her wrath than their own pursuits. Just as the reality of Vanderpump

Rules can be contested, the importance of Lisa’s word can be. Though she guards the bar in her confessional, other characters still drink; they are constantly shown consuming alcohol in every episode. Lisa does not control their truth, nor does she control the truth of the show in general.

She is expected to control the interiors of her restaurants, yet cannot control the people who populate them. Characters, such as James, beg her when they need help and ignore her when things seem fine. Similar to Stassi, they allow Lisa to “rule” . . . as long as they are actually the focus of attention. Lisa’s own character’s embodiment of feminine power — and other characters’ reactions to her — allows the show to stage the problem of America’s lack of acceptance for feminine power. On Vanderpump Rules, characters themselves are caricatures, helping to stage and magnify the problems they display

As with Lisa, reality on Vanderpump Rules is staged through these flawed characters — all young, white, and straight, most content with their persisting circumstances. Exemplified as

“normal,” they hold the power and are rewarded for their bad behavior. Though Lisa’s forthrightness may be understood by the reader as what is right overall, this righteousness is not practiced by anyone else. Lisa follows her own rules for behavior. She does not argue with friends, engages appropriately in the workplace, and treats her employees with respect.

Ultimately she cannot control if other characters’ bad behaviors persist. Characters still act badly; the reader enjoys observing their impunity and, seeing that characters are ultimately not Vilensky 42

punished, feels as though they can act in a similar manner. Lisa reacts as she deems appropriate, but the situations presented on Vanderpump Rules do not change.

In the show’s opening sequence, characters are shown one by one onscreen as Dena

Deadly sings: “You know that it’s our time. These are the best days of our lives.” Because Lisa does not enter until the end of the song, Deadly’s our first captures the younger characters of

Vanderpump Rules. Young, white, and straight Americans, it is explicitly these characters’ time.

Though they work as menial restaurant employees and are stunted in their maturation, they are celebrated amidst the best days of their lives. The reality of Vanderpump Rules is that they are already successful. They rule.

Vilensky 43

Works Cited

Althusser, Louis. “Ideology and Ideological State Apparatuses: (Notes towards an

Investigation).” Lenin and Philosophy and Other Essays. Translated by Ben Brewster.

1970. NYU Press, 2001, pp. 85-126.

Bignell, Jonathan. “Realism and Reality Formats.” A Companion to Reality Television, by Laurie

Ouellette. Wiley-Blackwell, 2014.

Caughie, John. “Mourning Television. Screen, vol. 51, no. 4, 2010, pp. 410-421.

Corner, John. “Presumption as Theory.” Screen, vol. 33, no 1, 1992, pp. 247-262.

Douglas, Susan J. Enlightened Sexism: The Seductive Message That Feminism's Work Is Done.

Times Books, 2010.

Dyer, Richard. WHITE: Essays on Race and Culture. Routledge, 1997.

Greven, David. “The Dark Side of Blondeness: Vertigo and Race.” Screen, vol. 59, no. 1, 2018,

pp. 59-79.

Hazell, Robert, and Bob Morris. “If the Queen Has No Reserve Powers Left, What Is the Modern

Monarchy For?” Review of Constitutional Studies, vol. 22, no. 1, 2017, pp. 189-220.

Mulvey, Laura. "Visual Pleasure and Narrative Cinema." Screen, vol. 16, no. 3, 1975, pp. 6-18.

Nietzsche, Friedrich. “On Truth and Lie in an Extra-Moral Sense.” Translated by Walter

Kaufmann. 1873.

Ryalls, Emily D. “Do Mean Girls Grow Up?” The Fantasy of Reality Critical Essays on The

Real Housewives. Edited by Rachel E. Silverman, Peter Lang, 2015.

Silverman, Kaja. “Suture.” The Subject of Semiotics. Oxford University Press, 1983.

The Oxford English Dictionary. Online.

Vanderpump Rules. Bravo. 2013 – Vilensky 44

Williams, Raymond. Keywords: A Vocabulary of Culture and Society. Croom Helm, 1976.