Will and Grace and the Situation Comedy Genre
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
Critical Studies in Media Communication Vol. 19, No. 1, March 2002, pp. 87–105 Gay Characters in Conventional Spaces: Will and Grace and the Situation Comedy Genre Kathleen Battles and Wendy Hilton-Morrow ᮀ—This paper explores how Will & Grace, which has been heralded in the popular press for its positive representations of gay men, situates the potentially controversial issue of homosexuality within safe and familiar popular culture conventions, particularly those of the situation comedy genre. This paper draws on feminist and queer theory to examine the liabilities of relying on these familiar situation comedy conventions, demonstrating how the program equates gayness with a lack of masculinity, relies on sexual tension and delayed consummation, infantilizes the program’s most potentially subversive characters, and emphasisizes characters’ interpersonal relationships rather than the characters’ connection to the larger social world. Additionally it argues that by inviting mainstream audiences to read the program within familiar televisual frames, Will & Grace can be read as reinforcing heterosexism and, thus, can be seen as heteronormative. hen Will & Grace took to the tion, 2000). Since its premiere, Will & Wairwaves in September 1998, it Grace has won numerous awards, in- broke new ground, offering the first cluding a People’s Choice Award as gay male lead on U.S. broadcast televi- Favorite New Comedy Series, a Golden sion. By its third season, the situation Globe nomination for Best Comedy comedy was one of 22 shows that por- Series, an American Comedy Award trayed gay or lesbian characters in lead- nomination for Funniest Television Se- ing, supporting or recurring roles (Gay ries, two GLAAD (Gay and Lesbian and Lesbian Alliance Against Defama- Alliance Against Defamation) Media Awards for Outstanding TV Comedy Series and a Founders Award from the Wendy Hilton-Morrow is a doctoral student Viewers for Quality Television. And and Kathleen Battles a Ph.D. candidate in the during the 52nd annual Emmy Awards, Department of Communication Studies at the Will & Grace was nominated in 11 University of Iowa. An earlier version of this categories, taking home awards for Out- paper was completed as part of the Gay and standing Comedy Series, Outstanding Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation Center Supporting Actress, and Outstanding for the Study of Media and Society Research Supporting Actor. Initiative on Will and Grace. The authors wish to thank Bruce Gronbeck, the two anony- The program follows the lives of mous reviewers, and Bonnie J. Dow for their Will Truman, a successful, attractive, many helpful comments and suggestions. The Manhattan lawyer, and his best friend authors further wish to thank GLAAD for their Grace Adler, a beautiful, self-employed, financial support in completion of this project. interior decorator. The two would Copyright 2002, National Communication Association 88 GAY CHARACTERS IN CONVENTIONAL SPACES MARCH 2002 make a perfect couple—and in fact, were rich (1993) predicted, “A regular net- college sweethearts—except for one bar- work program with gay or lesbian main rier: Will is gay and Grace is straight. characters is far in the future” (p. 402).1 The two are in a constant search for At that time gay characters appeared lifelong mates, but the search has never only occasionally and generally in sec- turned up a relationship as special as ondary roles. Later in the decade some the one that they share with each other. were left wondering if ABC’s 1998 can- Their lives are complicated by two cellation of Ellen, whose character and supporting characters, who are any- actor simultaneously came out, would thing but typical. Karen Walker is a mean the death of gay characters in straight, wealthy socialite and alco- leading television roles (Sullivan, 1998). holic who works for Grace as her assis- Instead of playing it safe after the con- tant because her life of leisure leaves troversies surrounding Ellen, NBC pre- her bored. Karen offers an appropriate miered Will & Grace the following fall. counterpart for Will’s friend, Jack. Jack GLAAD applauded the show for pre- is a flamboyantly gay, continually un- senting two different, yet likable, repre- employed, self-described actor/dancer/ sentations of gay men and for present- choreographer. ing their sexuality “simply as a part of As Will & Grace has found commer- who [Will and Jack] are as individu- cial success and critical acclaim, the als.” (1998). Other critics praised the U.S. remains embroiled in a number of show for dealing with gay subject mat- struggles demonstrating the continued ter and including explicit gay refer- contentiousness of gay and lesbian is- ences. “[T]his was the first example of sues within our heterosexist society. gay subject matter going totally main- Three years after Congress passed the stream, for there is nothing so main- Defense of Marriage Act in 1996, the stream—not Broadway, not movies, not Vermont legislature passed a “civil novels—as The Box” (Holleran, 2000, unions” law, which legally recognized p. 65). committed same-sex relationships. Indeed, Will & Grace’s appeal went However, 34 states have enacted laws beyond the small, niche gay market, denying recognition of same-sex mar- attracting larger, mainstream2 audi- riages in other states (George, 2001). ences. By the program’s fourth week, it After the Supreme Court ruled in a ranked number one in its timeslot in split 5-to-4 decision that the boy scouts the highly lucrative 18– 49 demo- did not have to accept gays or lesbians graphic (Jacobs, 1998). In its second as employees or leaders, gay rights season the show ranked among the groups began pressuring sponsors and 1999–2000 season’s top 20 series the government to withdraw funding (NBC, 2000). When Will & Grace went from the organization. And three years head-to-head with ABC’s Dharma & after Matthew Shepard was brutally Greg, a sitcom about a quirky hetero- murdered by two men solely because sexual couple, the two networks found of his sexuality, gays and lesbians are themselves competing for the same de- more visible in the media than ever mographics and the same advertisers before (Wyatt, 2000). (Frankel, 2000). “All this mainstream Given this cultural climate it is not success suggests that it appeals to view- surprising that just five years before ers who might not ordinarily be in- Will & Grace debuted, Fejes and Pet- clined to watch a “queer” show” 89 CSMC BATTLES AND HILTON-MORROW (Gairola, 2001). This increased visibil- form textual analysis of Will & Grace ity is, for some, a sign of society’s grow- episodes from the 2000–2001 season ing acceptance of the gay community. to explore the liabilities of relying on In an issue of Entertainment Weekly de- familiar sitcom conventions. We will voted to “Gay Hollywood,” Benjamin draw upon feminist and queer theory Svetkey (2000) made this equation: to demonstrate how the program con- tinually positions gayness in opposi- [T]oday, in 2000 A.D. (After DeGeneres), tion to masculinity, pairs its characters gay characters are so common on televi- in familiar opposite-sex dyads, defuses sion, so unexotic, that their sexual orienta- tion has become all but invisible to most the most outrageous characters’ threats viewers. It is, in a sense, the ultimate sign to heteronormativity, and emphasizes of acceptance ...” (p. 26). interpersonal relationships at the ex- pense of gay politics. Implicit in these statements is that greater visibility equals greater social acceptance. However to say that Will Will the Tru-Man Please & Grace’s large audience, comprised of Stand Up: Gayness both gay and straight viewers, signals a and Masculinity cultural acceptance of the gay and les- bian lifestyle is premature. As Dow Before Will & Grace first premiered, (2001) similarly points out in her analy- GLAAD (1998) applauded the repre- sis of Ellen, “saying the success of Ellen’s sentations of Will and his more flam- initial coming out means the end of boyant sidekick, Jack, as “different prejudice against gays and lesbians is types of gay men—both of which are like saying that the success of The Cosby valued within the community.” Given Show in the 1980s signaled the end of the negative stereotypes of gay men racism” (p. 128; see also Gray, 1994; that have been a part of television since Lewis, 1991). its earliest years (Fejes & Petrich, 1993), This paper takes a critical approach the two gay characters on Will & Grace to examining portrayals of gay charac- can be considered progressive. How- ters on television, rejecting the assump- ever, these two characters are posi- tion that the mere representation of tioned within a narrative space that gay men in primetime television neces- relies on familiar comedic conventions sarily reflects a huge shift in societal for addressing homosexuality—equat- attitudes towards gays and lesbians in ing gayness with a lack of masculinity. America. Instead, we will argue that In Hollywood, homosexuality histori- Will & Grace makes the topic of homo- cally has been defined in opposition to sexuality more palatable to a large, masculinity; gayness is that which is mainstream television audience by situ- not masculine (Russo, 1985, Epstein & ating it within safe and familiar popu- Friedman, 1996). Comedic conven- lar culture conventions, particularly tions of film and television have histori- those of the situation comedy genre. cally reinforced and poked fun at this Additionally, we will argue that by in- stereotype of the gay man (Fejes & viting viewers to read the program Petrich, 1993; Dow, 2001). By relying within familiar televisual frames, Will on this conventional representational & Grace can be read as reinforcing strategy, Will & Grace fails to challenge heterosexism and, thus, can be seen as the heterosexist equation between ho- heteronormative.3 Our paper will per- mosexuality and that which is “not 90 GAY CHARACTERS IN CONVENTIONAL SPACES MARCH 2002 masculine,” and in the process allows acter for “not being gay enough” enough space in the narrative for view- ( Jacobs, 1998).