The newest season of the popular show, Orange is the New Black, was released last week on Netflix. The show has been creating waves in the media due to its depictions of female relationships, portrayal of the U.S prison-industrial complex, and exploration of sensitive topics such as race, LGBTQ rights, and gender. What hasn't been discussed is the use of the Litchfield Corrections Facility as a microcosm for the greater society. The prison full of female inmates represents the victimization of women in society, and the mostly male correctional officers their oppressors and enforcers. How do the struggles of the women in the prison serve as a representation for a patriarchal society? How is intersectional feminism addressed as a solution to this problem? And are there any solutions offered, or is OITNB simply an unbiased glimpse into the lives of women? These are all topics that could be explored in an in-depth analysis of the show and its overarching themes.
Someone write this topic immediately! What a fantastic premise! – Jeffrey MacCormack9 years ago
Interesting topic, I think something important about the show that should be addressed is the depiction of the male guards vs the female guards. The females are in my opinion portrayed as reasonable and there to help their fellow females (like the newly introduced councilor) while most of the male guards... don't function well in outside's society at all, and seem to have gotten jobs in the prison as the only way they can have control over women in their lives. "Pornstache" is obviously delusional and drastic, the male councilor has obvious women issues with his mail order Russian bride and how he doesn't actually GET the women prisoner's problems, the newly recruited guy who rapes Doget, and even the ex-military guard who knocks up Dia(?) and runs away. Why are the male guards so much more troubled than the female ones and what does that say about our society? – Slaidey9 years ago
Orange is the New Black I thought it was a Trojan horse show to talk about the stories of minority inmates, that white society wouldn't have watched if they had known the real premise from the start. – fchery9 years ago
An interesting point to note here would be the firing (or stepping down) of Fig, Susan and Berdie. Each of these women, in their own way, are strong female characters yet they are let go, mainly because they pose a threat to different men in the show. – Visenya9 years ago
Recently there has been some great new relationships on TV. Television writers used to pair of a stoic white male lead and a brainy yet empowered female lead together, and no one else really mattered. This still happens, but there has certainly been a shift on how televised relationships are considered. Agents of Shield has a strong female lead who falls in love with the stereotypical stoic white male, but because of obviously spoilers, doesn't work. More importantly, the "nerds" of the show are given significant air time to work out their own relationship.
This article could explore some of the new ways TV is recognizing diverse and real relationships beyond its boring and overdone cookie cutter couples.
A few examples which come to mind is: Claire and Frank Underwood (House of Cards), Jaime and Cersei Lannister (Game of Thrones). While I personally have not watched any television shows which display the relationships of homosexual relationships, that may be another topic which this could discuss. – Matthew Sims9 years ago
In 1990s, Seinfeld was a show generally about nothing. No overarching plotline to drive it or predictable scenarios. Regular Show has the same thing and the only difference is it's a cartoon. Was Regular Show inspired by Seinfeld, what differences does it hold, and why are its themes borderline adult on a cartoon kid's channel?
Regular show seems to be about finding greatness (or awesomeness) in an otherwise boring world. The characters aren't well educated, work and live in their low-skilled place of employment, and obsess over their childhoods. The Seinfeld cast for the most part had white collar jobs with separate personal and private spheres. They also didn't find their lives that unsatisfying. But the real difference is Regular Show is about learning to be mature despite who you are at the moment. At its start, Moredecai couldn't talk to a girl, Muscleman was just a jerk, and Benson had no concept of empathy. Compare that to who they are now. – rj2n9 years ago
As good as Friends was it still portrayed its wonderful characters as gender stereotypes, as most sit-coms do, of course, but they very cleverly split these steroetypical traits and spread them across the six main characters.
The girls: a cook, a compulsive cleaner, essentially the housewife (Monica), an avid shopper, emotional, (Rachel), the ditzy, promiscuous blonde (Phoebe).
The boys: a misogynistic, chauvinist who is somewhat lazy (Joey), the funny one, who uses humour as a shield (Chandler) and a nerd with a love for science (Ross). Plus the objectification of women.
Do these stereotypes make up the ultimate stereotype for each gender? Is there anything that's been missed out? Is this, quite possibly, a load of rubbish? And has the variety of stereotypes been replicated in any other shows?
I think there definitely is a lot to say about gender and how its portrayed in friends. On top of how heteronormative the show is. Part of it most likely is a product of the times. The show began airing in 1994, and things were definitely very different. I think it would be interesting to compare it to Will and Grace to a certain extent. While Will and Grace still has problems, it came out when Friends was in the middle of its 10 year run, and was handling Gender much differently. Both were vary successful. I think we can see these stereotypes played out in many sitcoms. – Talcon9 years ago
Can we get an example of mysogyny on friend. I think that word is so overused and its meaning is changing with is usage. I don't think that I saw any hatred or dislike of women in friends, though their definitely wad some objectification. I do think that their were definitely sterotypival gender roles in friends but misogyny, no. Even objectification through sexualization is debatable, as the idea of objectification changed to state that men who are able to gaze at a woman only sexually at first glance but then be able to relate to her as a person, this omits the idea of objectification as their ideas of the person are not completely based on her looks. – fchery9 years ago
Fchery, that's a fair point and my mistake. You are right the word's meaning has become confusing and, as you said, overused. But that could be taken as part of the topic. How in some ways the stereotypes are enforced and how certain stigmas in the show are misplaced. – Jamie9 years ago
Comedy in television has changed drastically since the early days of "I Love Lucy". Through the changes of society and what is more acceptable, comes the more daring jokes and humour being explored on sitcoms of today. How has comedy changed and is it actually for the better? Furthermore, are the risks taken to make jokes in sitcom working for society, or is it becoming a bad thing?
I am not sure that we can assess whether comedy has become better or worse so much as we can look at the dominant types of jokes that present in modern comedy. I think a lot of this can be traced through the study of inappropriate jokes as you mention that comedy is taking more "risks." That is not to say that all jokes on contemporary T.V. are risqué but it certainly is symptomatic of what much of sitcom comedy is based on – DClarke9 years ago
Many of today's comics have started the opposite of this thesis. Jerry Sienfeld, Bill Maher ave Kat Williams have all commented on how their jokes have landed them into campaigns calling then hate miners or have commented on comedians having to apologize for jokes. Recently Jaime Foxx had to back pedal from his joke about Bruce Jenner singing a duet by himself. Many comedians have said that the PC police are hurting their craft. – fchery9 years ago
I agree with fchery. When I think of blatantly offensive (and genuinely hilarious) jokes in "All in the Family" or "Married... With Children" in comparison with today's sitcoms, I don't see these new shows as daring at all. The content may be different, e.g. nerds and gay couples, but the jokes are PC. – Simon9 years ago
I think, also, there is a widening market for more "adult" sitcoms, especially ones which are animated. An example which comes to mind is FX's "Archer" or even something like "Arrested Development" which broach risky topics like incestual relationships, sadism. Whether or not these risks are worth it is debatable, but I do think it is an interesting topic. Also, shows like Archer require actual knowledge for the jokes and knowledge of the show so far, and this might be another aspect of modern comedies to discuss, therefore, a shift towards more serialisation. Another example which comes to mind is "Bojack Horseman". – Matthew Sims9 years ago
Analyse the position of women and their control within period dramas such as The White Queen, Northanger Abbey, and North & South. Especially in The White Queen, with characters like Margaret Beaufort, the position of women is a unique one because they are capable of making tactical moves by which everything changes in court.
This should be narrowed down. The position of women is very broad. Do you mean upper class women, lower class women? – Hanan9 years ago
This topic add it is now confuses me as to the point. I think this topic could go many directions. If we are looking at the rules ibn period dramas and want to be accurate to the period, there had to be an acceptance of the limiting factors of the day. – fchery9 years ago
While we can barely last 30 seconds before clicking a different video on YouTube, film/television universes are expanding. With DC (Arrow/Flash/Legends of Tomorrow) and Marvel (All Films/Agents of Shield/DareDevil/etc!) crossovers, the hope is that we not only remain invested enough to continue with each new film/show, but we remember all of Thanos' little teases though a year or two apart! Along side this, 'House of Cards' style filming where it is meant to be devoured as a whole rather than once a week is gaining momentum as well (Sense 8). With the convenient, automatic play of each 'next episode' and the marathon encouraged set up of Netflix, we are clearly in love with binge-watching. What does this say about our short attention span? Are the two even related?
I definitely think binge watching and short attention spans can go hand in hand but strangely I've not had that correlate in my life. I love long complicated movies and binge watch often while on the other hand my friend who can't sit through something more than ten minutes without an explosion does not absorb herself in convenient Netlfix shows. Binge watching takes dedication and the patience to sit down, people with short attention spans can't always handle that commitment. That being said, the genre of thing being watched would also affect it, action is more appealing than slow paced dramas! I'd love to know to what extent certain genres get binge watched over others. – Slaidey9 years ago
This is a very interesting notion, and I like the idea that short attention span and binge-watching can be synonymous. For myself personally, I have had two cases of binge watching over my years as a TV addict ( Game of Thrones, and Breaking Bad). In the case of Game of Thrones, I have now had the experience of devouring the first three seasons in one sitting, and then the 4th through weekly instalments. I think an interesting approach to your article would be to look at the difference. While I cannot answer the questions explicitly, it would be cool to see whether I gained more from the experience of binge watching ( one long segment) or through the serialized period. Did I remember more because I watched it all at once? Was I more aware of the subtle hints left my the creators through single lines, or one shots of a certain item that would later become crucial to the plot? All in all, very interesting topic. – AntNicoletti9 years ago
Interesting! I think humans love stories and we can't get enough. Perhaps it's our nature. And we are capable of waiting - but when we don't have to, why should we? We are also in an era of instant gratification. We are addicts. – yase9 years ago
Really interesting take on this topic, I've been fascinated by this myself as I have a short attention span yet continually binge watch series. My theory is that maybe binge watching exists in our short attention span culture because we can absorb ourselves in the universe of the show but all the while knowing we have the freedom to experience it in the shorter 20 and 40 minute increments. Whereas movies require commitment to sit down and watch and in addition we only get to experience the universe for that two hours. It might interesting to explore how binge watching actually satisfies our short attention span culture, because we can watch everything all at once rather than the drawn out version of watching TV shows as weekly instalments. – emihurst9 years ago
It was recently pointed out to me that books would make much better TV show adaptations than movie adaptations. There's more time for character development, producers wouldn't necessarily need to cut any content die hard fans would be hoping for, and writers could be more faithful to the original canon. However dragging a story out too long could lose the audience. Discuss the pros and cons of both.
There is also the factor that some things in books are hard to recreate in film and in TV. Film don't just leave scenes out of a book just because of the running time; It is also because there are parts of books that just don't translate well in to film. Just look the Shining mini-series for example. The book is filled with disturbing and creepy scenes, but when you try to translate it into TV, it just comes of as silly. What readers imagine in their head is usually 10 times scarier that when it is depicted on screen. – Aaron Hatch9 years ago
