COOL DADS, MOTHERLY FATHERS, AND TYPICAL PATRIARCHS: THE MODERNITY OF MALE GENDER ROLES IN MODERN FAMILY

Maud Beljon | S4753631 | American Studies Supervisor: Prof. Dr. F. Mehring | Second reader: Dr. L. Munteán Cool Dads, Motherly Fathers, and Typical Patriarchs Beljon | S4753631 2

Abstract The ongoing discussion surrounding the modernity of Modern Family focusses on inter- gender relationships, whereas my thesis will focus on the modernity in the portrayal of masculinity in the adult male characters of the TV-series Modern Family. In this thesis, the question is asked whether the depictions of masculinity in Modern Family’s characters Jay Pritchett, Phil Dunphy, Mitchell Pritchett, and Cameron Tucker are to be called ‘modern’, as the title of the series implies, when placed in the context of the American sitcom genre and its common features. This is important because of the lack of discussion of male gender roles in the pre-existing discussion surrounding Modern Family’s modernity. I will answer the question by analyzing the mise-en-scene of selected episodes with respect to wealth and sexuality, concluding that Modern Family is not ‘modern’ in this respect.

Keywords: Modern Family, masculinity, sitcom, male gender roles, sexual expression, wealth, patriarchy

Cool Dads, Motherly Fathers, and Typical Patriarchs Beljon | S4753631 3

Table of Contents Abstract ...... 2 Chapter 1 Introduction ...... 5 1.1 Modernity and Masculinity ...... 5 1.2 Relevance to the Discourse ...... 6 1.3 Hypothesis ...... 6 1.4 Methods ...... 6 1.5 Expected Findings ...... 7 Chapter 2 Outlining the American Sitcom Genre ...... 9 2.1 Secondary Literature Review ...... 9 2.2 The American Sitcom as a Genre ...... 10 2.3 Mise-en-scene as a Tool to Discuss Wealth and Sexual Expression ...... 11 2.3.1 Traditional Portrayal of Wealth Through Mise-en-scene ...... 11 2.3.2 Traditional Portrayal of Sexuality Through Mise-en-scene ...... 13 Chapter 3 Wealth and Class ...... 17 3.1 Framing Wealth and Class through Mise-en-scene in Jay’s home ...... 17 3.1.1 Exterior Mise-en-scene ...... 17 3.1.2 Interior Mise-en-scene ...... 17 3.1.3 Striving to Provide for the Entire Family ...... 18 3.2 Framing Wealth and Class through Mise-en-scene in Phil’s Home ...... 18 3.2.1 Exterior Mise-en-scene ...... 19 3.2.2 Interior Mise-en-scene ...... 19 3.3 Framing of Wealth through Mise-en-scene in Cameron & Mitchell’s House ...... 19 3.3.1 Exterior Mise-en-scene ...... 20 3.3.2 Interior Mise-en-scene ...... 20 3.4 Comparison of Wealth between the Characters ...... 20 Chapter 4 Sexual Expression ...... 23 4.1 Gendered Representation of Cameron & Mitchell ...... 23 4.1.1 Feminine men ...... 23 4.1.2 Visibility of affection ...... 25 4.2 Gendered Representation of Jay ...... 26 4.2.1 Fatherly Love and Romantic Affection ...... 26 4.3 Gendered Representation of Phil ...... 27 4.3.1 Funny Phil ...... 28 4.3.2 Silly but Sexy ...... 29 4.4 Comparison of Sexuality between the Characters ...... 30 Cool Dads, Motherly Fathers, and Typical Patriarchs Beljon | S4753631 4

Chapter 5 Conclusion ...... 31 Work Cited ...... 34 Primary sources ...... 34 Secondary sources ...... 34 Appendix ...... 36

Cool Dads, Motherly Fathers, and Typical Patriarchs Beljon | S4753631 5

Chapter 1 Introduction The American sitcom has continuously been important in popular culture studies over the last few decades, as it has been used to analyze the American nuclear family tradition. The Cambridge Dictionary describes a nuclear family as “a unit of two parents and their children” that traditionally consists of a mother, a father, and their children (“Nuclear family”). Modern Family, which premiered in 2009, has been one of the most successful sitcoms of the twenty- first century and has won several Emmys and Golden Globes. The title suggests that their aim is to be modern, and that is why it is interesting to look deeper into the concept of gender roles as portrayed in the series. The series revolves around patriarch Jay Pritchett, his trophy wife Gloria, their son Joe, his stepson Manny, and his adult children from his first marriage, daughter Claire and son Mitchell, who each have formed their own families. Claire’s family is a nuclear family, with husband Phil Dunphy and children Haley, Alex, and Luke. Mitchell and his partner Cameron have an adopted Vietnamese daughter named Lily. The three families interact with each other a lot and are often featured together as one group or as subgroups, with different members from the three families. The series differs from the regular sitcom genre in the sense that it is filmed as a mockumentary, which is parody form of documentary film style (Bishop 62). It does, however, still contain many traditional sitcom elements, which will be explained in the next chapter of this thesis. In academic research that has been done on Modern Family, the focus has mostly been put on racial aspects or issues of gender. I think the issue of gender roles and modernity, especially the role of masculinity, is not discussed in depth and that is why my main focus will be on gender roles. These relations have previously been discussed in terms of male versus female power, but this thesis will provide a new angle to the discourse by discussing gender relations between the different adult males, as this was missing from the pre-existing literature. This will be done by asking the following question: Are the depictions of masculinity in Modern Family’s characters Jay, Phil, Mitchell, and Cameron to be called ‘modern’, as the title of the series implies, when placed in the context of the American sitcom genre and its common features? 1.1 Modernity and Masculinity It is, of course, important to specify what is understood as modern for the rest of this thesis. The online version of The Cambridge Dictionary describes the term ‘modern’ as “existing in the present or a recent time, or using or based on recently developed ideas, methods, or styles” (“Modern”). In the context of the framework that this thesis will use, this explanation Cool Dads, Motherly Fathers, and Typical Patriarchs Beljon | S4753631 6

of the term is translated to a notion of modernity in the sense of difference or change in Modern Family’s concept of masculinity from the traditional aspects of the American sitcom as described in academic literature, which will be elaborately discussed in chapter two of this thesis. This analysis of differences in masculinity will focus mainly on the concept of wealth and the concept of sexuality that the fathers of these three different families portray. 1.2 Relevance to the Discourse I consider this question to be relevant because much of the previous discourse surrounding the modernity of Modern Family has focused on racial, interracial, and inter-gender relations and depictions. By adding research on adult male roles and relationships, I will offer a new perspective on the discussion of gender roles in the series. 1.3 Hypothesis I expect to find that the portrayal of masculinity in the different adult men in Modern Family does not differ to a great extent from the traditional portrayal of men in the American sitcom genre, regarding their position in the household, its décor and the wealth this represents, and the portrayal of their sexual expressions. 1.4 Methods To test the hypothesis, I will use the concept of mise-en-scene and the representation of the domestic sphere in sitcoms, as well as an analysis of sexual expression. This analysis will, on the one hand, focus on the expression of wealth in the different family homes and the job description of the fathers. On the other hand, I will also use academic texts on physical and vocal expressions of sexuality in TV and film and relate this to the different characters that are in focus. I will compare whether Modern Family’s representation of these concepts differs significantly from the genre’s ongoing trend. To be able to relate these texts to the characters, it is necessary to conduct a visual and textual analysis of Modern Family, for which I will use scenes from various episodes. Screenshots from these episodes, which can be found in the appendix of this thesis, and an analysis of dialog, storyline, and musical background are in order. I will use the “Pilot” because this episode sets the tone for the entire series. The characters' personalities are clearly established, and their houses are distinctly brought into view. This allows for an analysis of wealth. “My Funky Valentine”, episode 15 of season one, shows many different instances of sexual interest in the different characters. “The Kiss”, episode 2 of season two, will allow for a thorough analysis of the sexualities of the different characters. “Mother’s Day”, episode 21 of season two, plays with the concept of gender roles, which is interesting especially in a homosexual relationship. In season five, episode 5 and 18, Cool Dads, Motherly Fathers, and Typical Patriarchs Beljon | S4753631 7

“The Late Show” and “Las Vegas” respectively, show clear expressions of wealth and interaction between the different families. Episode 6, “The Help”, is interesting to use in the analysis of sexuality as the homosexual couple’s sexual expression is channeled through a non- sexual relationship they have with a friend. In addition to these expected scenes of interest, I expect to find many more useful scenes. 1.5 Expected Findings I expect to find that the expressions of masculinity in the four characters do not differ significantly from the norm that has been set in the American sitcom genre. The portrayal of wealth and the position of the man in the family will likely not differ. The patriarch, Jay, is still the wealthiest and most serious man in the series. In addition to this, Phil, Cam, and Mitchell, who have less money to spend, will be portrayed as more foolish. This is in tune with the general features of masculinity as has been tradition since the 1960s. This will be further explained in the next chapter of this thesis. When it comes to the portrayal of sexuality, the most interesting finding will probably be the change in behavior that Jay has towards his son throughout the first few seasons, as he comes to accept his son's homosexuality. I expect to find that the representation of non- heteronormative and heteronormative sexualities in all of these characters individually will not be controversial or modern. It will, however, be interesting to discover whether or not the intercommunication is modern in some way or another. These expected findings confirm the hypothesis and show that Modern Family cannot be regarded as modern in the sense that it deviates in features of masculinity from sitcoms that have preceded it. However, it does suggest that there is some form of modernity in the ways in which the men relate to each other. It could also be possible that I find that there is no modernity in the way in which masculinity is portrayed in the different characters. This means that I can close any further discussion on the subject or I could suggest how modernity in this sense could be implemented in the American sitcom genre in the future. I will look for characteristics of the previously mentioned elements in the literature and compare these to the visual and textual content of Modern Family. The criterium I will apply with regard to ‘modernity’ is whether or not a representation in the series that is discussed diverts from the traditional representation that can be found in the literature. First, I will ask in what ways the mise-en-scene that is used shows the wealth of the different fathers and families when the domestic sphere is presented. I will then compare these three homes to each other. Cool Dads, Motherly Fathers, and Typical Patriarchs Beljon | S4753631 8

Second, I will compare the previous literature on visual and vocal expressions of sexuality in TV and film to the different characters. I will conclude how these expressions are important in the character's relationships with each other.

Cool Dads, Motherly Fathers, and Typical Patriarchs Beljon | S4753631 9

Chapter 2 Outlining the American Sitcom Genre

2.1 Secondary Literature Review Previous discourse about the portrayal of men in Modern Family has focused on two main areas, namely the representation of the gay couple in a heteronormative fashion and the foolishness that is portrayed by the fathers of lower-class families in American sitcoms. Discussion of racial representation has also been discussed. The scope of my thesis will not be large enough to include this issue, and it will, therefore, be left to another realm of discussion. Erica Scharrer coins the idea of foolishness in her paper “From Wise to Foolish: The Portrayal of the Sitcom Father, 1950s-1990s”. She claims that the wise sitcom father as was known in the early days of the genre has “given way to a modern scenario in which the sitcom father is the target of a growing number of jokes and is portrayed in situations that make him look increasingly foolish” (Scharrer 23). She has studied this foolishness and she claims that the lower the male character is in class, the more foolish he is portrayed (Scharrer 28). This is how Jay and Phil’s relationship would typically be described. Another thing that could be seen as foolishness in this sense is the way in which the men deal with their children. While Jay tries to teach his children everything he has learned in his first attempt to be a good father, Phil tries to befriend his children and could even be seen as childish himself. Cam and Mitch get completely overruled by their child, which makes them seem foolish and maybe even incompetent (LaVecchia). The three main households of Modern Family, however, would typically not be described as families of the lower-class. This conforms to the ongoing sitcom tradition since the 1950s. Networks broadcasted sitcoms about middle-class families in the 1950s as those would attract an audience that was interested in buying advertised products from the show. A shift occurred by the mid-1960s when rural sitcoms became increasingly more popular. The audiences that watched these shows were, however, not the kind of clientele the networks sought. Higher and middle-class characters were again the standard after a change in broadcasting, as this increased sales for the advertised products, but there were still some shows that revolved around working-class people (Benshoff and Griffin 196). Modern Family thus fits perfectly in this tradition and is an example of the perfect middle/upper-class extended family. As aforementioned, sexuality and heteronormativity are other key aspects of the discourse that has been going on about Modern Family. When it comes to the expression of sexuality, Sylvia Henneberg argues that the gay couple’s parenting adheres to the set of nuclear family values which are now represented by gay men (Henneberg 4; Staricek). Andre Cool Dads, Motherly Fathers, and Typical Patriarchs Beljon | S4753631 10

Cavalcante elaborates on this discourse by adding that this hetero-normative stereotype that is forced on the gay couple is even more standardized by surrounding these characters with friends and family members that portray extremities in different ways. In the case of Cam and Mitch, their gay friend group fulfills this purpose, as they all possess extremely stereotypical features of homosexuality (Cavalcante 460). Much of the research has thus been done on the different characters individually, but not in relation to each other. Sexual expression by Phil or Jay has not been explicitly researched. It is, therefore, interesting to delve deeper into this subject and compare all four characters to the features that the general American sitcom portrays regarding these subjects. An elaborate description of these key features will be the subject of chapter four of this research. 2.2 The American Sitcom as a Genre The term ‘American sitcom genre’ has already been used a few times now and it is important to get a deeper understanding of what this genre is in relation to the aspects that are of key importance in answering the research question. Jonathan Bignell describes the term ‘genre’ as “the conventions and key features which distinguish one kind of work from another (…) it allows theorists to link the conventions and norms found in a group of texts with the expectations and understandings of audiences" (Bignell 116). This latter part of his description is especially interesting when keeping in mind that the comparison that this analysis tries to make will be influenced by these expectations and understandings of the audience that the producers have to keep in mind as well. Bignell describes that there is some difficulty in determining what the distinct characteristics of the sitcom genre are, as there is a lot of overlap with different other genres. The first of the characteristics of the sitcom is, obviously, that it is funny. The comical moments are oftentimes highlighted by laughter on a soundtrack or by a studio audience. Comical effect is oftentimes constructed through differences in what characters say and what they do, through a misunderstanding between different characters, or through physical or slapstick comedy (Bignell 124). Many of these characteristics overlap with other genres, such as cartoons, for example, making it difficult to claim that the sitcom genre has distinct characteristics. It can already be recognized that Modern Family does not completely adhere to these sitcom characteristics either, as it does not use a studio audience or a laughter soundtrack. The series does, however, adhere exactly to Bignell’s description of television comedy. He says that “television comedy depends more than most kinds of television on the self-consciousness of performance, and the willingness of the audience to engage with the excessive speech and Cool Dads, Motherly Fathers, and Typical Patriarchs Beljon | S4753631 11

behavior of characters that are designed to cue the recognition of a social norm and to surpass it in a manner which becomes funny” (Bignell 125). In Modern Family, this is achieved through the mockumentary style in which it is filmed, leaving moments for laughter as the characters look into the camera to create a moment of engagement with the audience (“Christopher Lloyd On Modern Family’s Mockumentary Style”). This mockumentary style might seem revolutionary in the sense that it does not incorporate an audience directly by laughter, however, this not a new concept. Bignell recognizes this concept as a built-in acknowledgment of the audience's desire to become part of the story (Bignell 125). 2.3 Mise-en-scene as a Tool to Discuss Wealth and Sexual Expression Now that it is clear what exactly this term ‘American sitcom’ is, it is necessary to set out the tools that are needed to analyze this genre. This thesis will use typical mise-en-scene elements from the sitcom in comparison to Modern Family. Mise-en-scene is what David Bordwell and Kristin Thompson describe as “the director’s control over what appears in the film frame” in their book Film Art: An Introduction (Bordwell and Thompson169). Among these things that are controlled by the director are setting, lighting, costume, and the behavior of the characters (Bordwell and Thompson 169). Bordwell and Thompson draw attention to the fact that it is impossible to determine the realism of the mise-en-scene, as the notion of realism differs in cultures and different periods of time. They advise the reader to analyze the function of the mise-en-scene, rather than make a comparison to the conception they have of realism (Bordwell and Thompson 170). This is also of key importance to the analysis of Modern Family that this thesis will conduct. 2.3.1 Traditional Portrayal of Wealth Through Mise-en-scene Wealth and the portrayal of class is an essential element to sitcoms as a genre. In the case of Modern Family, the families are white, middle and upper-class and that is why this thesis will only focus on these two socioeconomic statuses. Mitchell and Cameron’s family and Phil’s family are framed as middle and upper-middle class respectively. Jay’s close family is framed as upper-class. 2.3.1.1 Portrayal of the Middle-class Depictions of middle-class values were popularized in the 1950s and 1960s, when television emerged as a popular medium and started portraying suburbs as the utopia of racial serenity and the place to raise children. This was done primarily through domestic sitcoms such as The Adventures of Ozzie and Harriet, Father Knows Best, and Leave it to Beaver, in which families and their household were the center of attention. The families idealized middle-class Cool Dads, Motherly Fathers, and Typical Patriarchs Beljon | S4753631 12

values and the nuclear family as an institution that provided these values for their children. These values included honesty, integrity, and hard work, which were mostly taught by the patriarch of the family (Kendall 179; Haralovich 69). Diana Kendall, author of Framing Class: Media Representation of Wealth and Poverty in America, describes this clearly when she says “Usually, middle-class fathers, such as Jim Anderson (…) in Father Knows Best, demonstrated wisdom and good judgment, never losing their patience with their families or raising their voices when correcting the children. Middle-class status was clearly established through dialogue that made viewers aware of the father’s professional position (Anderson managed an insurance company) or visual cues such as clothing (Anderson wore a suit to work each day and replaced his suit coat with a pull-over sweater when he came home in the evening)” (Kendall 180). These elements of clothing and mentioning of careers are of key importance in the analysis that will be done on mise-en-scene of wealth in Modern Family. The Family’s residence and their clothing often had a deeper significance than just creating a setting for the story. These visuals portrayed an ideological basis for middle-class family values. Kendall describes it as "respect for … parents and teachers, remorse for wrongdoings, and willingness to ‘shake hands and make up' formed not only a part of the storyline and a significant proportion of the characters' dialogue but communicated an ideological code about middle-class values" (Kendall 180; Haralovich 71). The teaching of these values was intertwined with the notion of necessity of buying the products that were advertised in the series. Such framing gave a marginalized impression of the dominant culture, which led the audience to think this was what a normal middle-class family should adhere to (Kendall 180; Miller 70). These middle-class values were often paired with the portrayal of traditional gender roles. The husband as the main provider and the wife as the homemaker, which is traditionally described by the term ‘separate spheres' (Mittell 331; Haralovich 69). Toby Miller says in his book Television Studies: The Basics that “television has become an alembic for understanding society” (Miller 145). This claim embodies this crucial notion of broadcaster’s desire to portray contemporary society as all-encompassing as possible. Family values can also be contested or even ridiculed in sitcoms, which was for example the case in Malcolm in the Middle (Kendall 187). The father in this sitcom is said to have been described as “the antithesis of the traditional sitcom dad, bonding with his sons in wonderfully unwholesome ways and in effect becoming one of them instead of maintaining the paternal distance and the platitudes typical of the rest of TV’s patriarchs” (as quoted in Kendall 188). This description is in line with the aforementioned portrayal of a foolish father as described by Erica Scharrer as previously mentioned in the previous literature section. Cool Dads, Motherly Fathers, and Typical Patriarchs Beljon | S4753631 13

2.3.1.2 Portrayal of the Upper-class The portrayal of wealthy people in television can take different approaches, which either reinforce or contradict previously conceived notions about them. This is done by using mental shortcuts, meaning “sets of related concepts that allow us to make inferences about new information based on already organized prior knowledge” (Kendall 22). This means that the portrayal of these wealthy people is standardized and fits into a model or scheme. Due to constraints of space and time, this chapter will focus on the consensus frame as described by Diana Kendall, which overlaps most prominently with Modern Family’s patriarch, Jay Pritchett. Kendall describes the consensus frame as a portrayal of the wealthy as if they are like everyone else. Key differences are downplayed and similarities between all humans are highlighted (Kendall 29). It is ignored that the wealthy have different life opportunities. A key aspect in this is that they are hardly ever shown working, even though their wealth is often reached through hard work, as is the case for Jay Pritchett as well (Kendall 30). Note that Jay is the provider of the family, showing clear gender roles in the acquiring of their wealth (Mittell 331). The consensus frame is therefore often aligned with the ideological perspective of scholars who preach that class is no longer important in analyzing the United States. Modern Family, as a network television show, tries to reach an audience that is as large as possible, by trying to be recognizable to as many people as possible. The thing that sets Jay’s family apart from the other two is the fact that he is the most powerful. Kendall describes this as “one technique of consensus framing presents extremely wealthy people as basically like people in other classes but then sets them apart from others by emphasizing their wealth or ‘ruling-class’ social position … [their] down-home image is juxtaposed with an elaborate description of the person’s material possessions or net worth, clearly setting the wealthy subject apart from ordinary people” (qtd. in Kendall 33). Note that this fits into Miller’s claim of television being alembic for understanding society (Miller 145). This statement supports the thought that the richer the character, the more powerful social position this character has, which is emphasized through materialism, for example, showing the material possessions such as cars, houses, or expensive clothing. It is thus necessary to look deeper into this part of mise-en-scene. 2.3.2 Traditional Portrayal of Sexuality Through Mise-en-scene Issues of sexual representation in TV and film have traditionally always been discussed in terms of non-heteronormativity. Discussion of heterosexual representation has thus only recently become part of the discourse. For the discussion of modernity of masculinity in the Cool Dads, Motherly Fathers, and Typical Patriarchs Beljon | S4753631 14

men of Modern Family, sexuality is of key importance. That is why the following outline of important concepts is needed to be able to analyze Modern Family’s men. 2.3.2.1 Portrayal of Heteronormativity Harry M. Benshoff and Sean Griffin use a clear description of the position of heteronormativity in TV in their book America on Film. They state “like whiteness or masculinity, heterosexuality has often been hard to ‘see’ because it has been naturalized by patriarchal ideologies as being the ‘normal’ state of affairs” (Benshoff and Griffin 309). They continue to say that sexuality has to be ‘performed’ in order to be visible, meaning that visual display of affection or desire is needed to emphasize the sexual aspect of a heterosexual character. In non-heterosexual characters, however, the sexual aspect is what forms their personality, making it very vividly present (Benshoff and Griffin 310). Patriarchal codes of gender are also often used to indicate a character's heteronormativity (Mittell 330). This is done through the use of hair, makeup, costume, and performance, in which men are portrayed as "tough, bold, and assertive, and wear short hair and pants", and women are "meek, quiet, and subservient, and to wear long hair and skirts" (Benshoff and Griffin 310). These representations were, again, often paired with notions of gender roles, with the man as the main provider and the woman as the homemaker (Mittell 331). Early American cinema constructed “effeminate men” and “mannish women” to be homosexual (Benshoff and Griffin 310). This, once again, shows that the visibility of sexuality is something that needs to be constructed through non-heteronormativity in order to be seen by the public (Mittell 329). Contemporary representation of heterosexuality has changed in the sense that its expression has become more overt and less taboo. Pre-marital sex, public displace of affection, and child-rearing are no longer sensitive subjects and have become an intricate part of heterosexual representation in TV series and movies. Metrosexuality, which means that there is possible flexibility between gender roles despite heterosexuality in a character is an increasingly more popular phenomenon in characters (Benshoff and Griffin 352). 2.3.2.2 Portrayal of Non-heteronormativity Studies about non-heteronormativity can be found in great numbers. For this research on the modernity of masculinity in Modern Family's Cameron and Mitchell, it is important to look at sexual expression as represented in the series and portrayal of masculinity in homosexuality. The first of which will be done through the use of an analysis by Denis M. Provencher about the sitcom Will & Grace. The latter will make use of Benshoff and Griffin’s America on Film. Cool Dads, Motherly Fathers, and Typical Patriarchs Beljon | S4753631 15

It is necessary to establish what is perceived as the standard portrayal of homosexual men in TV series or Hollywood film before anything can be suggested about the representation of the sexual desire of these homosexual men. Homosexual characters were depicted as effeminate men in early Hollywood cinema, suggesting that they were “failed” men. This type of character was coined “the pansy character” (Benshoff and Griffin 312). This image was perceived as innately comic and moved many performers to cross-dress or use this style, which communicated a construct of homosexuals as “men who act like women” (Benshoff and Griffin 312). This concept is called the gender inversion model, which means that the concept of homosexuality is put on a par with gender identity (Benshoff and Griffin 312). Over time, the portrayal of homosexual characters in movies and television has changed. This led to the popularity of a gay male best friend theme in movies in the 1990s. In this genre, the depiction of homosexual characters in general was not shied away from. It was, however, still the case that these men were portrayed as effeminate, and their relationship to their female companion was of a friendly but physically tense sort (Benshoff and Griffin 348). Benshoff and Griffin continue to state that the realm of Hollywood film is less accepting of non- heteronormative narrative structures than theater or television, but it is still a format that is highly recognizable in TV, which is important for this research. Denis M. Provencher has written an article about heteronormative narrative strategies in the sitcom Will & Grace named “Sealed with a Kiss”. His main argument is that the portrayal of the main characters appears to be heteronormative, as if they are a married couple that lives together. They include on-screen kisses and show ‘normal' things married couples do, such as watching TV together or holding hands while walking down the street (Provencher 178). Will & Grace is perceived as the first openly gay network television program, and that is why it is important to mention in this part of the research. It is often used in an analysis to illustrate the start of a tradition of heterosexual or heteronormative narratives surrounding gay couples in sitcoms since its airing in September 1998 (Provencher 178). Following a heteronormative narrative strategy means that there is virtually no homosexual public display of affection that is apparent in the series. Provencher says “In essence, virtually no visual display of same-sex affection takes place and certainly no suggestive hugging or kissing appears on the small screen for either of the show’s two “gay” characters” (Provencher 180). He claims that this is because of an attempt to not upset the "viewing American majority" (qtd. in Provencher 180). Andre Cavalcante introduces the notion of anxious displacement to introduce this topic of non-expression to Modern Family. Anxious displacement is “the overloading of negatively Cool Dads, Motherly Fathers, and Typical Patriarchs Beljon | S4753631 16

codified social differences and symbolic excess onto figures and relationships that surround LGBT (…) characters. This symbolic intervention manages the cultural anxiety generated by LGBT issues and themes by normalizing gay characters and channeling cultural anxiety away from them” (Cavalcante 455). We see this in the non-expression of sexual desire between Cameron and Mitchell as partners, and this term will, therefore, be used in chapter four’s analysis of sexuality in these characters. In the following chapters, I will first use scenes from different aforementioned episodes to construct an overview of the character's wealth and sexual orientation and expressions. Chapter three will provide an insight into gender relations through screenshots of the character's houses and the hierarchy of wealth as portrayed in the series. Chapter four will use screenshots and vocal expressions of sexual orientation and desires to put forth a hierarchy through this concept. As previously mentioned, these screenshots can be found in the appendix at the end of this thesis. These two different aspects will be combined in the final chapter, in which a conclusion will be drawn on whether or not the gender roles of men in Modern Family should be regarded modern in the sense of innovation in their portrayal. This means that the question will be answered whether or not Modern Family conforms to the traditional portrayal of gender roles in sitcoms as has happened from the 1950s onwards.

Cool Dads, Motherly Fathers, and Typical Patriarchs Beljon | S4753631 17

Chapter 3 Wealth and Class This chapter will bring the mise-en-scene elements of wealth and class into focus. First, this chapter will deal with the interior and exterior of the three different homes in the series, which will provide an indication of the wealth and the social class of the different characters. A comparison will follow, allowing for a discussion on the portrayal of male gender roles in Modern Family. Jay Pritchett’s house will be the first to be examined, after which Phil Dunphy’s and Cameron and Mitchell’s houses will follow respectively. 3.1 Framing Wealth and Class through Mise-en-scene in Jay’s home Jay, the family patriarch, is the wealthiest figure in Modern Family. He is the CEO of a closet company called Pritchett’s Closets and Blinds, to which references are made throughout the series (Kendall 180). His economic status is portrayed in more obvious ways than that of the other two families, which becomes apparent in the interior and exterior of his house, his position as the CEO of a large company, and the ways in which he provides expensive things for his family, such as diamond jewelry as a present for his wife (screenshot 12 and 23). However, the producers chose the same framework for the portrayal of his house, his work, and his relationships to his wife, children, and grandchildren. This is the main way in which the aforementioned consensus frame by Diana Kendall is implemented (Kendall 29). Kendall’s framework establishes that the differences between the different families are shown, but that the same struggles as in middle-class characters are recognized, which makes the more affluent characters more relatable.

3.1.1 Exterior Mise-en-scene Jay lives in a large white mansion, situated in a suburban environment. Entrance to the property is only possible through a gate, which is electronically operated, and it leads to a large driveway with the front door situated at the end. The garden is filled with exotic plants that look luxurious and healthy, indicating that he has the time and money to take care of these plants or to let a gardener do it for him. There is also a pool area in the backyard of the house (screenshot 41). The house itself is white and has lots of high windows spanning over more than one floor, which makes it look expensive and luxurious. The house is privately owned and only Jay and his family live there, they do not share the property with anyone outside the family (screenshot 10). 3.1.2 Interior Mise-en-scene Jay’s house is the most modern looking house out of the three that will be discussed. The furniture is darker in color and touches of red are used throughout the house, making it less Cool Dads, Motherly Fathers, and Typical Patriarchs Beljon | S4753631 18

neutral than when only brown tints are used. The kitchen is filled with appliances that make cooking easier and there is a large fridge that always seems to be filled (screenshot 9, 16, and 25). The kitchen is one of the main areas that are filmed that are filmed, it is a central area in which most social interaction takes place. Jay’s wife Gloria is often cooking or doing preparational work there, but we hardly ever see Jay cook, except for in the Mother’s Day episode (screenshot 25 and 27). These mise-en-scene elements suggest that the Pritchett household assumes traditional gender roles in which the spheres of the man and woman are kept separate (Kendall 180; Haralovich 69). 3.1.3 Striving to Provide for the Entire Family The clearest and most typical portrayal of Jay’s relationship to his wealth through mise- en-scene is his personal necessity to provide for his family, which becomes apparent in episodes “Las Vegas” and “The Late Show”. In the episode “Las Vegas”, Jay is obsessed with the fact that he got his family ‘Excelsior’ passes to the hotel, thinking that this is the most luxurious level of the hotel. When he hears that there is another level, which is even more luxurious, he becomes obsessed with getting an upgrade. He does not want to lose face to his family or to any other people at the hotel (“Las Vegas”). The same concept of losing face is of key importance in “The Late Show”. Jay has made a reservation at a fancy new restaurant in town for him and all the other adults of the family. He is very keen on arriving on time as he is the one who organized this event. He keeps talking about his reservation and about the expensive steak he is going to eat (“The Late Show”). This element of mise-en-scene, in the form of character portrayal, gives the viewer the impression that Jay is keen on being the main provider for the entire family, as he wants to experience this luxurious event in their company. To use a quote by Susan Faludi as used in a text by Chris Barker about sex, subjectivity and representation, “[men are] acculturated to value as being useful at work, to his family and to the community at large. A man was expected to be in control, the master of his destiny, a person who could make things happen.” (Barker, 315). This is exactly what Jay does in this episode, as a man who is the CEO of a large company that he set up himself. He is a self-made man who wants to share his wealth with his family. 3.2 Framing Wealth and Class through Mise-en-scene in Phil’s Home Phil Dunphy is a middle-aged man of middle-class status. He works as a realtor, which is a freelance job. He is the father of three children, and he forms a nuclear family with these children and his wife, Claire. A discussion of the tokens of this middle-class status will follow below through a discussion of the mise-en-scene elements in his house. Cool Dads, Motherly Fathers, and Typical Patriarchs Beljon | S4753631 19

3.2.1 Exterior Mise-en-scene Phil and his family live in a two-story suburban home in Los Angeles. The house is surrounded by a low white picket fence, with an open part for entrance and a small lane leading to the front door. The front yard is filled with plants that do not necessarily look exotic, as was the case in Jay’s garden, but they fit into the surroundings of the neighborhood. This suggests a steady income that enables him to afford many plants, but the plants are not necessarily individually expensive. The beige wood and roof of the house give a neutral impression, as if anyone could live in this house. On the right side of the house, there is a driveway where the family parks their car. These mise-en-scene elements suggest that they can afford a car and a detached house with a driveway on only one income. The family of five lives here by themselves, they do not share the property with anyone that is not part of the family. A backyard is spoken of in the series but is never shown in its entirety, but it does suggest an opportunity to have a refined outdoor life where they can relax or let the children play (screenshot 1 and 15). 3.2.2 Interior Mise-en-scene Phil’s family is most often shown in their large kitchen. It is a large area with lots of counter space. This counter space is covered with miscellaneous items, such as fruit bowls, kitchen utensils, and an occasional laptop. There is a large fridge that is filled with groceries. The kitchen has neutral colors, just like the outside of the house. This, again, gives the impression of a relatable family. Claire, Phil's wife, is a stay at home mom in the first few seasons of the sitcom. The kitchen area is where she is shown most often. This is in line with the traditional portrayal of gender roles in the American sitcom (Kendall, 180). Phil is hardly ever the one cooking or cleaning in the kitchen (screenshot 2). Phil’s living room, as shown in screenshot 3, is again filled with neutral colors. The room gives a cozy yet spacious impression, which suggests close family relations. The family pictures on the back wall around the staircase show the centrality of family values that are common for sitcoms (Kendall 180; Haralovich 69). Claire and Phil’s body language in screenshot 3 also shows these values. They sit together as equals, yet they discuss their own duties in the household in this scene. 3.3 Framing of Wealth through Mise-en-scene in Cameron & Mitchell’s House Cameron and Mitchell are the homosexual couple in the series. They live together in an apartment with their adopted daughter Lily. Note that a discussion of their wealth is necessarily a combined discussion of the two of them, as they form a household of two men. A separate discussion is not necessary and might even exceed its worth. In the first season, Cameron is a Cool Dads, Motherly Fathers, and Typical Patriarchs Beljon | S4753631 20

stay at home father and Mitchell works as a lawyer. They switch careers when Lily goes to school, when Cameron becomes a teacher and Mitchell gets a position as an environmental lawyer. 3.3.1 Exterior Mise-en-scene Cameron and Mitchell live in an apartment that is situated in a suburban environment. The outside of the apartment complex does not suggest four different households living in there. However, the house numbers on the front of the building, as shown in screenshot 11 and the two different numbers near the door in screenshot 5 show that there are actually four apartments. The exterior of the house itself looks cozy due to the ivy growing on the walls. The suburban environment, again, makes this way of living seem approachable and relatable. 3.3.2 Interior Mise-en-scene The interior of Cam and Mitchell’s house is also filled with neutral colors. The furniture does not differ that much from what can be seen in Claire and Phil’s house. However, the division of space is quite different. The apartment is significantly smaller and that is especially visible in screenshot 8. The entire extended family is sitting in the living room in this shot, while they look at Mitchell talking. It gives the viewer an insight into the division of space of the apartment. The living room, dining room, and a small hallway to which two bedrooms are attached are all quite small, but they do not look cramped. This creates an image of a middle- class family, but you can still notice the difference between the mise-en-scene in Cameron and Mitchell’s house and in that of Claire and Phil in terms of wealth. Even though, in the first season, both families consist of main provider with a well-paying job and a stay-at-home caretaker. 3.4 Comparison of Wealth between the Characters Based on this analysis of mise-en-scene, we see that Jay's wealth is portrayed quite obviously. However, he as a character is not highlighted differently from the other characters. We see him talking about his thoughts and feelings in the same way as the other three men, usually in separate mockumentary style commentaries. He struggles with the same personal and family-related issues and he comes across as a ‘normal' and approachable character despite his wealth. You would aspect that the most affluent character is the least approachable because of his wealth and different lifestyle, however, Jay’s feelings and struggles are portrayed similarly to the other characters which makes him come across as approachable. This conforms exactly to consensus model that has been mentioned several times before (Kendall 29). The same family values and instances of patriarchal division of gender roles remain apparent in Jay’s character. He is the often the one that brings forth what is the valuable lesson the family has learned at the Cool Dads, Motherly Fathers, and Typical Patriarchs Beljon | S4753631 21

end of the episode, showing a take on the traditional concept of the family patriarch being the one that teaches the children about what is right and wrong (Kendall 180). What is interesting, however, is the fact that his actions during the episode are partly the reason that lesson is learned. In the pilot, for example, he excuses himself to Mitchell for criticizing his wish to adopt a baby at first, he then tells the family that he has always tried to be the best father he can be, even though he struggles with that sometimes (“Pilot”). Jay's desire to provide for his family is much more apparent than it is in the other three characters. I suggest that this has to do with the fact that he is the family patriarch. He feels the need to be the main provider for the family, and this is what becomes most clear in "The Late Show" and "Las Vegas" (Haralovich 69). The other three men just undergo this provision, and they do not seem to feel bad about it in any way (“The Late Show”; “Las Vegas”). Phil, Mitchell, and Cameron do not seem to think as provision as a token of masculinity for themselves, which suggests that they do not feel emasculated by Jay’s provision but they do adhere to it, leading to confirmation of Jay’s own idea of masculine identity. In a sense, a hierarchy in masculinity can be recognized. The difference in class between realtor Phil and lawyer Mitch is unexpected. These two professions would suggest that they are both of the same socioeconomic status: the middle- class. In text, this is the case, however, looking at the mise-en-scene regarding their homes, there is a clear and obvious difference in the two households. Phil is clearly more fortunate than Cameron and Mitchell. Both of their families consist of a homemaker and a single breadwinner who are both involved in high paying jobs. Where Phil has three children, Mitchell and Cameron only have one, which suggests fewer expenses when it comes to education and food. A conclusion on this issue cannot be reached within the scope of this chapter, and my suggestion is that this is because of the differences in their sexual orientation. This concept will, therefore, be discussed in more detail in the next chapter and in the conclusion of this thesis. This leaves the question: what does this say about the modernity of gender relations in Modern Family? The fact that the traditional family values of the middle-class as described by Kendall, Haralovich, and Barker play such an important role in the series suggests a traditional take on gender roles and the importance of the male character. In this respect, Modern Family's take on the father as the leader of the household and family is in line with traditional sitcoms such as Leave it to Beaver, Father Knows Best, and The Adventures of Ozzie and Harriet (Kendall 179; Haralovich 69). The fact that Kendall’s consensus model is such an apparent phenomenon in the character of Jay clarifies these traditional values to an even greater extent, making all the characters fit into the traditional scheme of families with middle-class values Cool Dads, Motherly Fathers, and Typical Patriarchs Beljon | S4753631 22

and problems. The interesting thing to note, however, is the fact that Jay, and the other male characters as well, are often times partly the creator of a problem themselves. This is traditionally never really the case. The patriarch is mostly the one to solve problems and provide a voice of reason, but the men of Modern Family often are not so reasonable themselves (Kendall 180). This can definitely be seen as a more modern take on the traditional family sitcom. The next chapter will provide an argument against this notion. It is also interesting to note that this traditional division of gender roles stays apparent when looking at the entire family. Jay, as the patriarch, is still the most providing character and he is the one that most often brings the family together in his house or to sit by his pool. These cases of provision of luxurious dinners and trips to Las Vegas seem to be normal. They are at least normalized in their portrayal to the viewer. Phil, Cameron, and Mitchell do not seem to find this family structure problematic or undermining of their own masculinity, even though it might suggest a hierarchy in masculinity, as has been mentioned before in this chapter. Another reason for this supposed hierarchy in masculinity has to do with the sexual expression of the different characters. Phil, Cameron, and Mitchell are often times portrayed as more effeminate men than Jay, and this is in relation to this concept of hierarchy. In this sense, it seems as if the traditional gender roles are still upheld, but through different male relationships rather than through relationships between men and women. This is a paradigm that will be discussed extensively in the next chapter. The conclusion of this thesis will combine the portrayal of wealth to this previously mentioned concept of the portrayal of effeminate men and how this relates to the modernity or non-modernity of the portrayal of gender roles in Modern Family.

Cool Dads, Motherly Fathers, and Typical Patriarchs Beljon | S4753631 23

Chapter 4 Sexual Expression Sexual expression and masculinity are extensively intertwined in Modern Family, as will become clear in this chapter. It is, therefore, that this chapter will address the question of how sexual expression, sexuality, and gender roles are crucial for the portrayal of masculinity in the series. The order in which this chapter about sexual expression is organized is slightly different from the previous chapter. The representation of homosexuality in Modern Family, as represented in the characters Cameron and Mitchell, is the most controversial in the sense that it does, at first glance, not adhere to traditional patriarchal gender roles. Jay's character is traditionally the most masculine character, and it is therefore that I will use a description of his sexual expressions as a link between Cameron, Mitchell, Phil, and the traditional patriarchal gender roles that I argue to be apparent in Modern Family. In order to discuss sexual expression, it is necessary to touch upon the roles of the spouses of the men in question, as they are married and most of the sexual expressions are between the partners. Claire and Gloria will thus also be part of this discussion, however, extensive research on these women and their expression of sexual desire is beyond the scope of this thesis. To avoid confusion on the concepts of sexuality, sexual expression, and sexual desire a short explanation is in order. Sexuality is described by the Cambridge Dictionary as “someone’s ability to experience or express sexual feelings” (“Sexuality”). Sexual expression refers to this part of sharing these feelings specifically, while sexual desire refers to the experience of those feelings in particular. 4.1 Gendered Representation of Cameron & Mitchell In this chapter, it is, again, the logical choice to take the characters Cameron and Mitchell under the same subchapter. Their homosexual relationship in particular is at the center of this discussion and I, therefore, find it necessary to discuss them as a unit as well as touch upon their individual differences. The main focus is on the way in which their ‘gayness’ is portrayed and how their displays of affection and sexual desire towards each other are far less visible than in the heteronormative characters, namely Jay and Phil. 4.1.1 Feminine men The aforementioned discussion about the representation of gay men as effeminate is of crucial importance for the characters Mitchell and Cameron. The gender inversion model, which has been discussed and linked to Cameron and Mitchell in chapter one, can be recognized in many different scenes over different episodes (Benshoff and Griffin 312; Porfido 60). In this subchapter, an analysis of different sequences will be conducted. The first screenshot that will be discussed is number 29, in which Cameron runs after a football he has just thrown to prove his masculinity to Mitchell, and ultimately himself. He hits a man on a bike with this ball, after Cool Dads, Motherly Fathers, and Typical Patriarchs Beljon | S4753631 24

which he runs towards the man screaming in panic. The screenshot shows his hands flapping in the air as he runs, which gives an unathletic and clumsy impression (screenshot 29). This is in contrast to the athletic masculinity he was trying to prove by throwing the ball in the first place, showing he is “tough, bold, and assertive”, as Benshoff and Griffin would describe typical masculinity (Benshoff and Griffin310). The gender inversion model becomes especially apparent in screenshot 32 and 33. Cameron and Mitchell are having a fight over who gets to wear a certain outfit because they both feel they look the best in it and they do not want to change clothes again as it would save them time. Cameron says: "Okay Lily, it's time to play who wore it best", and the men both pose in the same manner, as if this sort of thing happens often ("The Late Show"). Their obsession with how they look is a typical example of an effeminate construction of masculinity (Benshoff and Griffin 310). As Mittell suggests, homosexuality as a personality trait is only recognized and understood by the public when it is channeled through traditional gender roles and traits (Mittell 329; Wlodarz 89). In this case, these traits are the extensive amount of time spend on choosing an outfit. A traditional division of male and female gender roles when it comes to investment in one's clothing is also visible in Cameron and Mitchell's relationship. In screenshot 31, we see that Mitchell is irritated because Cameron takes a lot of time to do his hair while he sings along to some music, which is in contrast to Cameron just having denied he does this (“The Late Show”). Cameron is presented in a gendered role traditionally ascribed to women, which is often times referred to literally or contextually throughout the episode. The episode “Mother’s Day” is about this issue of gender inversion specifically (Henneberg 4; Staricek). Cameron and Mitchell’s storyline in the Mother’s Day episode revolves around how gay couples are forced into a traditional patriarchal framework when it comes to parenting. Simply put, one of the two is presented as the mother and the other is presented as the father of the child. Screenshot 24 shows a scene in which Mitchell brings Cameron breakfast in bed on Mother’s Day, which leads to Cameron thinking that Mitchell sees him as a wife rather than a husband. When Cameron and Mitchell take Lily to a playgroup, to which Cameron usually takes her by himself, this traditional framework is put on him again when the mothers of the group refer to him as a ‘mom’ as well, while Mitchell is immediately accepted as a father. These events upset Cameron (screenshot 26). The two men point to this gender inversion when they say that gays hate to be treated like women (“Mother’s Day”). The critique the characters have on this issue appears to be ‘modern’ because they highlight and criticize a traditional gendered concept. This critique happens jokingly, as you would expect in a comedy series, but the undertone is serious. The episode continues, however, with Cameron Cool Dads, Motherly Fathers, and Typical Patriarchs Beljon | S4753631 25

coming to comfort Jay when he starts crying while reminiscing about his mother (screenshot 30). Cameron’s sensible, nurturing, and soft feminine traits appear again, and the other characters seem to accept this more than Cameron’s previous desire to appear masculine (“Mother’s Day”). Traditional gender concepts are thus criticized to some extent, but they are nevertheless reinforced in the characters throughout the series. 4.1.2 Visibility of affection An analysis of the visual aspects of affection between Cameron and Mitchell is important in a discussion on the modernity of the representation of gay masculinity and its modern representation. Sylvia Henneberg notes that this is a topic that has been extensively researched and discussed in the ongoing discourse about Modern Family’s modernity. It should, therefore, not be left out of this discussion (Henneberg 3). Kisses shared between Cameron and Mitchell seem to be a controversial subject in the series. It is, namely, avoided altogether in the first season, and later on in the series, it is only scarcely visible. In the pilot episode, Mitchell says that Jay announces he is going to enter a room he and Cameron are in before entering it “so he doesn’t ever have to see us kiss” (“Pilot”). The audience sees Cameron and Mitchell kiss for the first time in the second episode of season two, appropriately called “The Kiss”. Cameron is upset because Mitchell does not want to kiss him in public. The drama unfolds when Cameron tries to kiss Mitchell when the entire family is present, but Mitchell pulls away (screenshot 17). The family concludes that Mitchell has this issue because his father, Jay, never kissed him. Soon, the attention is diverted from the kiss between Cameron and Mitchell to a kiss between Mitchell and Jay (screenshot 18). Jay goes on to kiss his daughter, while the audience sees Cameron and Mitchell kiss in the background (screenshot 19). Two things are apparent when looking at these scenes. The first is that the writers of the series are cautious with the display of affection in gay characters in order to not upset any of the viewers (Provencher 180). The second is that this is clearly a form of anxious displacement as explained in chapter one (Cavalcante 460). At first, the tension between two gay lovers is subverted to a father and son affection (screenshot 18). Later, when Cameron and Mitchell do kiss, it is in the background of another event that is happening which receives more attention (screenshot 19). The camera’s attention shifts to a father and daughter moment between Jay and Claire, taking the tension and suspension off Cameron and Mitchell’s kiss. The hug between Jay and Claire is not controversial, and thus softens the tension that the gay kiss might ignite. An extreme instance of anxious displacement happens in the episode "The Help" when Mitchell and Cameron hire their gay friend Pepper to plan their wedding with them. Pepper has Cool Dads, Motherly Fathers, and Typical Patriarchs Beljon | S4753631 26

an assistant whose taste is more to Cameron and Mitchell's liking (screenshot 38). As the episode unfolds, a few scenes hint at an affair between Mitchell, Cameron, and Pepper’s assistant, who is helping them plan their wedding using his ideas behind Pepper’s back. The extremity of these scenes regarding the insinuation of sexual desire is exactly what Cavalcante means when he says: “Although queerness is generally anxiously displaced away from Mitch and Cam’s relationship, it nonetheless gets piled onto their friends, who refreshingly appear to inhabit a vibrant queer subculture. With whimsical names such as “Longinus,” “Pepper,” and “Crispin,” Mitch and Cam’s friends are inscribed with queer characteristics and affect.” (Cavalcante 464). At the end of the episode, a final instance of anxious displacement is touched upon when Mitchell kisses Cameron on the cheek (screenshot 39), where after the camera immediately cuts away to a scene of Pepper and his assistant feeding each other grapes in bathrobes somewhere on a romantic get-away (screenshot 40). This cutaway immediately diverts the attention from the innocent peck on the cheek between the two main characters, in a typical cozy household setting, to an extravagant vacation with luxurious romance between their friends. This makes Cameron and Mitchell seem more approachable and ‘normal’ (Cavalcante 455). 4.2 Gendered Representation of Jay One would expect Jay, as the patriarch of the family, to be the most dominantly visible in terms of sexual expression as has been discussed in chapter one. This is, however, not necessarily the case. Henneberg claims that “scenes reaching beyond the most timid or silly allusions to sexuality are studiously kept out of all three households” (Henneberg 4). I argue that there are different reasons for this, which will now be discussed. 4.2.1 Fatherly Love and Romantic Affection There are some clear expressions of love and affection in the examined episodes in contrast to the previous claim by Henneberg. These expressions are two-fold. On the one hand, there is expression of romantic and sexual attraction to his wife Gloria. On the other hand, there are instances of fatherly affection to be recognized. In screenshot 4 and 14, Jay and Gloria are holding hands, touching each other, and smiling. The situation in screenshot 4 and the dating situation in screenshot 14 show respectively that the two of them have affection for each other and their eye contact expresses that, too. “The Late Show” episode shows the three couples fighting, and in contrast to Phil and Claire, Jay and Gloria do not share a kiss when they make up. Instead, we see them tilting their heads together and smiling with closed eyes, indicating love and comfort while remaining innocent (screenshot 37). Jay and Gloria do not touch each Cool Dads, Motherly Fathers, and Typical Patriarchs Beljon | S4753631 27

other’s bodies when they do kiss on screen. Their kisses on the lips are brought into full frame, but their bodies stay separated (screenshot 22). The plot of “The Kiss” episode has already been described in Cameron and Mitchell’s part of this chapter, but a description from Jay’s perspective of the story is necessary to get an insight in how his fatherly affection is portrayed in the series. Gloria accuses Jay of not showing enough affection and appreciation to his children. The family encourages him to kiss Mitchell, which has not happened in a long time. Jay tries to prove that he is affectionate enough to kiss his own son and thus he eventually kisses him as shown in screenshot 18. He wants to show his affection to his daughter Claire as well, and hugs her tightly as shown in screenshot 19 (“The Kiss”). This storyline shows the Modern Family writers' intention for Jay is to be the role model for the entire family, as he is portrayed to be the one to form his children's ability to show affection to their loved ones ("The Kiss"). He does not completely live up to this role, but in the end, he resolves the issue by showing the traditional middle-class family value of appreciation of your loved ones (Kendall 179; Haralovich 69). Another instance of this fatherly affection is apparent in “The Late Show”, as the family eats at a food truck together and has some family fun. Mitchell hugs Jay from aside while they both smile and enjoy their food (screenshot 36). The music in the background, namely Midnight Train to Georgia by Gladys Knight and The Pips, provides a happy and loving mise-en-scene induced scenery, at first with only instruments and later some playful singing by the characters. Jay does a voiceover of the scene telling the audience that he “had the best meal of his life” and this sets the scene for these family values that Jay’s fatherly affection portrays (“The Late Show”; Kendall 179; Haralovich 69). The previous discussion about fatherly affection might seem redundant in a larger overarching discussion of sexual expression. A discussion about Phil and Jay’s relationship, however, is the bridge between these two subjects. The “Mother’s Day” episode provides some clear examples. Phil tries to comfort Jay as he cries over his late mother. In doing so, he hugs Jay awkwardly from behind (screenshot 28). Jay rejects him, but he does accept Cam’s hug at the end of the episode. I suggest that this has to do with Phil’s effeminacy, which will be discussed in the next part of this chapter. 4.3 Gendered Representation of Phil Sylvia Henneberg gives a very clear and nuanced description of Phil’s masculinity in her article “Rewriting the How-To of Parenting: What Is Really Modern about ABC’s Modern Family”. She says “[He] hardly stretches traditional ideals of manhood to the breaking point. Despite his effeminate episodes, he is the principal breadwinner; despite his goofy gestures, he looks masculine and dresses in conventionally male ways.” (Henneberg 22). She goes on to say Cool Dads, Motherly Fathers, and Typical Patriarchs Beljon | S4753631 28

that Phil is clearly attracted to the opposite sex and uses conventional and established gender scripts to flirt with women (Henneberg 22). Although Henneberg does not touch upon the connection between the view of the other male characters on Phil, his clumsiness, his effeminacy, and what this says about his masculinity, I will attempt to unveil a deeper connection between these four elements. 4.3.1 Funny Phil The concept of silliness in the portrayal of modern-day sitcom fathers has been previously introduced in this thesis. To provide a clear overview, however, this concept will be reintroduced here. Erica Scharrer says "family-oriented sitcoms [show] modern television fathers and working-class television fathers [as more foolish] than fathers of the past or fathers of higher socioeconomic classes." (Scharrer 23). This suggests a reason for this silliness that can be recognized in Phil's character. However, Phil's silliness and the relationship to his wealth will be left open for discussion in the conclusion of this thesis. This chapter will focus on his silliness and how that affects his masculine position in the inter-male relationships of the family. Scharrer thinks that silliness as an action makes the sitcom father look “inept, silly, or incompetent” or that makes him seem irresponsible (Scharrer 27). This happens to Phil’s character very often in the series. He describes himself in the pilot episode by saying “I’m the cool dad, that’s ma thing” (“Pilot”). He goes on to say he knows all the dances to High School Musical. Screenshot 6 shows Phil trying to act on this alleged coolness by attempting to befriend his daughter’s new boyfriend, Dylan. In doing so, Phil makes a fool of himself and his daughter is annoyed by this (screenshot 6). This action exactly makes Phil come across as an irresponsible father that is actually a child himself, completely cohering to Scharrer’s description of silliness (Scharrer 27; Henneberg 19). Phil's silliness gets intertwined with his sexual expression when he is brought into contact with Jay. The Mother's Day episode of season two gives a clear insight into the point that I try to make in this chapter. Phil and Jay are cooking dinner for their wives and the rest of the family as a Mother's Day gift. Phil is excited to cook with Jay, so he turns on some music and starts singing in order to make it an even more fun activity. Jay, however, is not amused and tells Phil off. Phil is disappointed, but still tries to make the best of the rest of the afternoon and is still happy to spend it with Jay (screenshot 25). When the two of them start chopping onions, Phil tells Jay about his onion goggles that prevent his eyes from watering when chopping onions. He is deliberately made to look silly wearing the goggles which is asserted through Jay’s mocking of Phil in the scene (screenshot 27). Phil excitedly says to Jay “You Cool Dads, Motherly Fathers, and Typical Patriarchs Beljon | S4753631 29

should get a pair”, but Jay responds mockingly “I was gonna suggest the same thing” (“Mother’s Day”). These two scenes do not only show that the writers of Modern Family want Phil to look effeminate, by enjoying cooking and typical traditional feminine activities, but also that Jay believes Phil to be effeminate by telling him to grow a pair (Mittell 329; Henneberg 19). Phil is thus not only portrayed as a man who likes traditionally feminine activities, but he is also criticized in doing so. 4.3.2 Silly but Sexy As has been previously discussed, Phil is a man who is clearly attracted to the opposite sex and his ways of flirting are often shown in the series (Henneberg 22). Screenshot 7 shows Phil trying to touch Gloria's dress because he thinks she said ‘feel' instead of ‘Phil' when he complimented her. This miscommunication makes him look silly, but still in touch with his sexual side. The same goes for what happens in screenshot 34. Phil tries to impress his wife Claire by wearing a trendy, tight suit to a dinner with the rest of the family. The suit is so tight, however, that when he drops something on the floor he has to hold onto the stairs to be able to pick it up. He is dedicated to being sexy to his wife, but he looks silly in doing so. Despite this silly expression of his sexual desires in some cases, Phil and Claire’s sex life is the most clearly expressed out of all of the characters. In the series’ Valentine’s Day episodes, of which episode 15 of season 1 is the first, Claire and Phil use roleplaying in order to spice up their sex life. They are explicit in language about sex in these episodes and the audience can recognize passion and desire in their conversations. The first time they do this roleplaying game, Phil approaches his wife in a hotel bar as seen in screenshot 13. The mise- en-scene in this scene is quite dark, which creates a sexy effect. Soft jazz music is playing in the background to set the scene even more. These scenes are in sharp contrast to the previously mentioned instances of Phil being silly while trying to come across as sexy. Claire is impressed with his sex-appeal in this scene and his way of seduction works out quite well (“My Funky Valentine”). Phil and Claire are also shown to kiss each other on the mouth after they apologize to each other for arguing, as is screenshot 35. “The Late Show” episode, which this screenshot is retrieved from, does not show the other couples kissing while they consolidate their arguments. I think that this is due to the white nuclear family status of Phil and his wife. Kissing your first wife, who is white, middle-class, and who you have three children with is hardly ever perceived as controversial by the American audience. Phil and Claire are the safest option for an explicit portrayal of sexual expression. Cool Dads, Motherly Fathers, and Typical Patriarchs Beljon | S4753631 30

4.4 Comparison of Sexuality between the Characters Cameron and Mitchell’s sexuality, namely their homosexuality, is often part of the plot of the series, such as in the “Mother’s Day” episode. This does not mean that this sexuality is necessarily made visible through sexual actions, such as kissing, or through textual expression on the subject, such as mentioning that they are sexually active. Their sexual expression is often portrayed by using the anxious displacement, which makes others seem so ridiculous that their kisses and other displays of affection are ‘normalized’. Mitchell and Cameron are portrayed as the feminine men of the bunch by the use of gender inversion. This leads to the conclusion that the modernity of the portrayal of masculinity in these men cannot be regarded as modern, as it is still done in traditional ways that have been recognized in countless sitcoms before. Jay's fatherly affection is one of the ways family values are put forth in the series. Jay embodies the father figure to the entire family. His sexual expression towards his wife, however, is kept to a minimum and are hardly ever spoken of. This suggests that the writers and producers of the series deem it controversial. I suggest this has to do with the fact that his family is non-nuclear and his wife is younger than his oldest child. Jay seems to cling to the concept of heterosexuality as a necessity for masculinity. This is apparent when looking at his aversion to Mitchell and Cameron kissing, or when Phil's shows his silly or effeminate character traits. Jay's character is the one that adheres perfectly to the previously described tradition of the family patriarch in terms of traits of masculinity and heterosexuality. Phil’s sexuality is portrayed in the most obvious ways in the series. Despite his silliness and the effeminate portrayal of his character that often comes with it, his heterosexuality is portrayed clearly and explicitly, as far as explicit portrayal goes for Modern Family. I suggest this is because of the white nuclear family's patriarchal status of Phil. On the one hand, this silliness and effeminacy suggest a break with tradition. Scharrer suggests, however, that this silliness fits in a relatively new tradition that can be recognized in other sitcom characters, such as the father of Malcolm in the Middle. On the other hand, the fact that Phil is a white nuclear family male suggests a clear following of tradition that has been going on since the 1950s, such as in Father Knows Best.

Cool Dads, Motherly Fathers, and Typical Patriarchs Beljon | S4753631 31

Chapter 5 Conclusion After the previous discussion and analysis of the representation of wealth and sexual expression in the men of Modern Family, this chapter will offer a conclusion regarding non- modernity in the series and after a concluding discussion of the results that were found, which will follow in this chapter, the research question can be elaborately answered. The research question that this thesis posed was: are the depictions of masculinity in Modern Family’s characters Jay, Phil, Mitchell, and Cameron to be called ‘modern’, as the title of the series implies, when placed in the context of the American sitcom genre and its common features? ‘Modernity’ in this context means that there is a sense of difference or change in Modern Family's portrayal of masculinity and gender roles with regard to the American sitcom tradition. This conclusion briefly recaps the discussion from the previous chapters, after which these different threads will be connected to be able to form an overarching conclusion. Finally, a suggestion for further research will point out in what ways this analysis might form a basis for. The previous analysis of Jay in chapter 3 and 4, his wealth and his gender portrayal in terms of sex led to a conclusion that he is the typical family patriarch. He is a self-made man, who deems it his duty to provide for his family. This provision makes him feel masculine, as the viewer gets the sense that Jay abides by traditional family values, such as the man of the house being the breadwinner. Although this self-made man image and his wealth as portrayed through the mise-en-scene indicate that he has a higher socioeconomic status than the other three men, he is presented as a ‘normal’ and approachable man. This is because of the consensus model, coined by Kendall, which states that higher-class characters are portrayed as having the same problems as middle-class people and characters (Kendall 29). Jay also finds masculinity in patriarchy. His role as the patriarchal, all-knowing father is reflected in the ways in which he shows fatherly affection to his children. His patriarchal role is emphasized in the advice he gives, and his reflection of his own faults in several episodes. For example, when he criticizes his son Mitchell for adopting a baby in the pilot episode, and then later apologizes for his behavior ("Pilot"). Or when his wife Gloria points him to the fact that his lack of affection for his children has led Mitchell to become uptight. Jay is repellent at first, but after a while, he gives in and kisses his children because he wants to be a good father ("The Kiss"). This is different for the character of Phil. He is a middle-class man who works as a realtor. His suburban house reflects his middle-class nuclear status and the neutral colors suggest that this family is ordinary and could be compared to any other, making them more relatable. Phil’s character is remarkable, however, in the sense that he is portrayed to be silly and childish. Erica Scharrer suggests that this is because of less wealth for his character. In this Cool Dads, Motherly Fathers, and Typical Patriarchs Beljon | S4753631 32

instance it is ‘less’ in relation to Jay’s wealth, making him more silly. I added to this discourse by noting that this silliness makes him not only seem childish, but it often reinforces effeminate characteristics on him. Despite this silliness and effeminacy, Phil is still the character that is most often portrayed as in touch with his sexuality, whereas Jay, Mitchell, and Cameron are not. I suggest that this is because of his middle-class nuclear status, which the other three men do not have. This status is what is traditionally portrayed in sitcoms, making the portrayal of sexual expression of a nuclear family man the least controversial. Finally, Cameron and Mitchell are men of middle-class status, too, who form a family with their adopted daughter Lily. This means that they are not a nuclear family, however, they can still be considered middle-class. They live in a suburban apartment, which is notably smaller than that of Phil, who is also of middle-class. I suggest this is because of Phil's nuclear status, which Cameron and Mitchell do not have, and that their homosexuality is in the way of full middle-class status. Cameron and Mitchell's portrayal is two-fold when it comes to the expression of their sexuality. First, there is hardly ever any visible display of affection between the two of them. They are not shown kissing until season two, and if affection is depicted, it is oftentimes diverted from or normalized through anxious displacement. Second, their gender roles are channeled through a heteronormative framework. This leads to a portrayal of either one of them as the ‘female' persona, who portrays typical feminine characteristics, even though both of them are men. It differs per scene or episode which one of them is portrayed in such a fashion. Through this depiction, Cameron and Mitchell become examples for this series which suggest that homosexuality is on par with femininity, and considered ‘non-masculine’. The portrayal of masculinity and male gender roles in Modern Family is not to be called ‘modern’ with regard to the definition of modernity that has been used throughout this thesis. The research did not find any modern portrayals of patriarchy. Jay, the richest and oldest male, and the patriarch of the family, is the one who has the most influence on the moral of his children and grandchildren. He provides the rest of the family with luxury, which reinforces his self-made man image, as is typical for the sitcom father, in accordance to the father figures of Father Knows Best, The Adventures of Ozzie and Harriet, and Leave it to Beaver. All three families contain a breadwinner and a home-maker, ensuring separate spheres for the different genders as is typical for traditional family sitcoms according to Mary Beth Haralovich. The breadwinner is in all cases the male of the household (Haralovich 69; Mittell 331). In the homosexual family, this stereotype is reinforced through gender inversion, as used by Benshoff and Griffin, leading to a suggestion of homosexuality being on a par with femininity in men (Benshoff and Griffin 312). Cool Dads, Motherly Fathers, and Typical Patriarchs Beljon | S4753631 33

The outcome of my research suggests that nuclear family status is the gate ticket to portrayal of sexuality in a character. The non-nuclear family men are portrayed far less in sexual context than Phil. Nuclear family status has traditionally always been the status quo when it came to portrayal of the American family in sitcoms (Haralovich 71; Mittell 331). It is, of course, impossible to discuss the modernity of Modern Family in its entirety within the scope of this thesis. It is, therefore, that I suggest some areas for further research on this topic. The most obvious suggestion might be to investigate the modernity of femininity and the portrayal of female gender roles in Modern Family. Research on this topic has been done before, however, it is always brought into context through the male characters. An investigation into the sole female relations in the series might form an interesting addition to the discourse. Sylvia Henneberg provides an interesting insight into the parenting styles of Modern Family’s adults in her article “Rewriting the How-To of Parenting: What Is Really Modern about ABC’s Modern Family”. Delving deeper into this subject and discussing what these depicted parenting techniques say about the characters gender roles could give another interesting angle to the discussion. That angle might also provide a more inclusive answer to the question whether or not the series is to be considered ‘modern’. This angle of the discussion might, however, be even more interesting when researched by an expert on parenting and education, as this is not my area of expertise. Finally, I have touched upon the fact that there has been some research done on the portrayal of race in Modern Family. Further research in this area of the discourse might entail use of stereotypes of non-white characters. An extra dimension could also be brought into the discourse when these stereotypes are linked to gender role portrayal. These are all suggestions in the realm of gender roles, as this thesis might provide the clearest link to further discussion of this angle of the discourse. However, modernity entails many different aspects and much more research needs to be conducted on the subject to be able to provide an answer to the question whether or not Modern Family is to be called a ‘modern’ sitcom. This thesis has contributed to that field of research and provided an insight into the relationship of the male characters in Modern Family, which cannot be considered really modern. It is vital that this discussion continues and that the series’ showrunners reflect upon their decisions in the portrayal of modernity and family relations. In that way, Modern Family might let ‘being modern’ be their thing. Or as Phil Dunphy says it: “I’m the cool dad. That’s ma thing.” (“Pilot”).

Cool Dads, Motherly Fathers, and Typical Patriarchs Beljon | S4753631 34

Work Cited Primary sources “A Fair to Remember” Modern Family, written by Emily Spivey, directed by Beth McCarthy- Miller, 20th Century Fox Television, 2013. “Las Vegas” Modern Family, written by Paul Corrigan and Brad Walsh and Bill Wrubel, directed by Gail Mancuso, 20th Century Fox Television, 2014. “Mother’s Day” Modern Family, written by Dan O’Shannon and Ilana Wernick, directed by Michael Spiller, 20th Century Fox Television, 2011. “My Funky Valentine” Modern Family, written by Jerry Collins, directed by Michael Spiller, 20th Century Fox Television, 2010. “Pilot” Modern Family, written by Steven Levitan and Christopher Lloyd, directed by Jason Winer, 20th Century Fox Television, 2009. “The Help” Modern Family, written by Danny Zuker, directed by Jim Hensz, 20th Century Fox Television, 2013. “The Kiss” Modern Family, written by Abraham Higginbotham, directed by Scott Ellis, 20th Century Fox Television, 2010. “The Late Show” Modern Family, written by Abraham Higginbotham, directed by Beth McCarthy-Miller, 20th Century Fox Television, 2013. Secondary sources Barker, Chris. Cultural Studies, “Sex, Subjectivity, and Representation”, 2012. Benshoff, Harry M. and Sean Griffin. America on Film. 2nd ed., Blackwell Publishing Ltd, 2009. Bignell, Jonathan. An Introduction to Television Studies. 2nd ed., Routledge, 2008. Bishop, Ryan. Comedy and Cultural Critique in American Film. Edinburgh University Press, 2013. Bordwell, David and Kristin Thompson. Film Art: An Introduction. 5th ed., New York, The McGraw-Hill Companies, 1997. Cavalcante, Andre. "Anxious Displacements: The Representation of Gay Parenting on Modern Family and The New Normal and the Management of Cultural Anxiety." Television & New Media Vo. 16 No. 5, 2015, pp. 454 - 471. “Christopher Lloyd On Modern Family’s Mockumentary Style - EMMYTVLEGENDS” Youtube, uploaded by FoundationINTERVIEWS, 16 September 2011, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=psPUpLbaxPI. Cool Dads, Motherly Fathers, and Typical Patriarchs Beljon | S4753631 35

Haralovich, Mary Beth. “Sitcoms and Suburbs: Positioning the 1950s Homemaker” Critiquing the Sitcom, edited by Joanne Morreale, Syracuse University Press, New York, 2003, 69 – 85. Henneberg, Sylvia. "Rewriting the How-To of Parenting: What Is Really Modern about ABC’s Modern Family." Journal of Interdisciplinary Feminist Thought Vo. 9 No.1, 2016, pp. 1 – 38. Kendall, Diana. Framing Class: Media Representations of Wealth and Poverty in America. 2nd ed., Plymouth, Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc., 2011. LaVecchia, Christina M. "Of Peerenting, Trophy Wives, and Effeminate Men: Modern Family's Surprisingly Conservative Remediation of the Family Sitcom Genre." Harlot: A Revealing Look at the Arts of Persuasion Vo. 1 No. 6, 2011. Miller, Toby. Television Studies: The basics. Routledge, 2010. “Modern” Cambridge Dictionary, https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/modern. Accessed 7 April 2019. Mittell, Jason. Television and American Culture. Oxford University Press, 2010. “Nuclear family” Cambridge Dictionary, https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/nuclear-family. Accessed 12 June 2019. Porfido, Giovanni. “Queer as Folk and the Spectacularization of Gay Identity.” Queer Popular Culture: Literature, Media, Film, and Television, edited by Thomas Peele, PALGRAVE MCMILLAN, 2007, 57 – 70. Provencher, Denis M. “Sealed with a Kiss: Heteronormative Narrative Strategies in NBC’s Will & Grace.” The Sitcom Reader: America Viewed and Skewed, edited by Mary M. Dalton and Laura R. Linder, State University of New York Press, 2005, 177 - 189. Scharrer, Erica. "From wise to foolish: The portrayal of the sitcom father, 1950s-1990s." Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media Vo. 45 No. 1, 2001, pp. 23 - 40. “Sexuality” Cambridge Dictionary, https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/sexuality. Accessed 24-05-2019. Staricek, Nicole. Today's" Modern Family": A Textual Analysis of Gender in the Domestic Sitcom. Diss. 2011. Wlodarz, Joe. “We’re not all so obvious’: masculinity and queer (in)visibility in American network television of the 1970s.” Queer TV, edited by Glyn Davis and Gary Needham, Routledge, 2009, pp. 88 – 107.

Cool Dads, Motherly Fathers, and Typical Patriarchs Beljon | S4753631 36

Appendix Video Chart: “Pilot” of Modern Family S1E1 Screen Referen Corresponding Screenshot shot ce time 1 00:02

2 00:09

3 00:50

Cool Dads, Motherly Fathers, and Typical Patriarchs Beljon | S4753631 37

4 01:43

5 08:06

6 11:01

Cool Dads, Motherly Fathers, and Typical Patriarchs Beljon | S4753631 38

7 18:40

8 19:06

9 22:11

Cool Dads, Motherly Fathers, and Typical Patriarchs Beljon | S4753631 39

Video Chart: “My Funky Valentine” of Modern Family S1E15 Screen Reference Corresponding Screenshot shot time 10 00:20

11 01:47

12 00:43

Cool Dads, Motherly Fathers, and Typical Patriarchs Beljon | S4753631 40

13 08:55

14 12:21

Video Chart: “The Kiss” of Modern Family S2E2 Screen Reference Corresponding Screenshot shot time 15 03:23

Cool Dads, Motherly Fathers, and Typical Patriarchs Beljon | S4753631 41

16 08:55

17 14:08

18 17:47

Cool Dads, Motherly Fathers, and Typical Patriarchs Beljon | S4753631 42

19 18:00

20 18:05

21 19:56

Cool Dads, Motherly Fathers, and Typical Patriarchs Beljon | S4753631 43

22 20:40

Video Chart: “Mother’s Day” of Modern Family S2E21 Screensho Referenc Corresponding Screenshot t e time 23 00:50

24 01:33

Cool Dads, Motherly Fathers, and Typical Patriarchs Beljon | S4753631 44

25 03:19

26 05:54

27 07:36

Cool Dads, Motherly Fathers, and Typical Patriarchs Beljon | S4753631 45

28 12:36

29 14:25

30 19:20

Cool Dads, Motherly Fathers, and Typical Patriarchs Beljon | S4753631 46

Video Chart: “The Late Show” of Modern Family S5E5 Screensho Referenc Corresponding Screenshot t e time 31 02:38

32 05:55

33 05:59

Cool Dads, Motherly Fathers, and Typical Patriarchs Beljon | S4753631 47

34 08:14

35 18:09

36 19:28

Cool Dads, Motherly Fathers, and Typical Patriarchs Beljon | S4753631 48

37 19:38

Video Chart: “The Help” of Modern Family S5E6 Screen Reference Corresponding Screenshot shot time 38 04:56

39 20:25

Cool Dads, Motherly Fathers, and Typical Patriarchs Beljon | S4753631 49

40 20:26

Video Chart: “A Fair to Remember” of Modern Family S5E7 Screen Reference Corresponding Screenshot shot time 41 07:34