TV stuffs

I'm stealing the idea for this post form Sita's post on crap tv.

I've been watching endless reruns of Frasier. That show is hilarious - and always surprises me in so many ways. It is shockingly conservative in some ways (largely heterosexual plots, surprisingly pro-life in Roz, that sort of thing), but also delightfully subversive in others. The writers and a good portion of the cast was *not* heterosexual (Seth macfarlene takes his pot shots at this, I will post links when I'm at a computer).

The lead characters are rich, patently non-middle class snobs. We all know from Arrested Development and Better off Ted that in American TV this is not a good recipe for running more than one season, or three). I'm guessing that the tempering of the snobs with a good ole working class ex-cop father and a quirky British physiotherapist helps offset the perceived snob value of the show making it infinitely more relatable and friendly.

The first time I saw the show (actually, the first time I watched both this and arrested development) I hated it and made fun of my sister for watching this tv crap even - this Is a recurring theme of my childhood. She's awesome for dealing with it.)

But tv I truly hate - Sony tv and Ekta kapoor serials which despite their new packaging, have the most ridiculous plots.

So the shows that I've recent watched and hated intensely - Parvarish and Kya Hua Tera
Vada. So painful!
Parvarish, I have to admit, was a guilty pleasure for a while there. Despite its upholding of traditional middle class values, that show seemed like it was treading an interesting line between thoughtful parenting and "traditional" values. But all that went to hell when they introduced the "American" educated desi mother who is Wrong Because She Gives Her Children Too Much Freedom and Doesn't Understand What They Really Need is Parents Who Will Make Their Decisions For Them Until A Certain Age.


In case I haven't made my self clear, I loathed that turn of events.
It is that kind of rubbish that ratifies the self-righteous predisposition of middle class (Indian) parents to judge everyone who is not toeing the invisible line of Good Indian Values. By equating art (the pursuit and appreciation of), vine (or any taste for alcohol) and any interest in seemingly foreign culture with elitism, irresponsible parenting and neglect of the family, the show glibly reinforces traditional Indian values and, of course, heteronormativity.

So, for instance, saying "why the fuck is it wrong to let your husband have a life independent of yours" is met with with the extreme argument that "your teenage son will get roofied and drunk and have a life threatening accident all in one night".
It posits that if you're an independent woman, you're the product of Terrible Foreign Value Systems which will ruin your children's lives. And let's not forget the implicit "Mother is responsible for the way her children turn out" logic here.
That kind of logic is silly at best and misogynistic and xenophobic at worst.

Bah. I am irked by that show. But I watched it for two months there. So there's that.

Dreams, running

I was going to say something
about forgetting
to dream.
And then I read this, from Sita - which is quite different from everything I was going to say. But, it is beautiful. And you must go read it.

On a somewhat related note,
I'm seized again
By the impulse
to run.

Also, while I'm on the fence about How I met your mother, I think I quite like the Kevin / Robin development. Sappy, eh?

In which we talk about Outsourced, Race, Culture and Asians

Pavani on Sepia Mutiny brought up the NBC sitcom, Outsourced asking (among other things) if Lizardi's article changed your mind about the show.


And what with the recent obnoxiousnesses about Asians, I've been thinking about my answer to this question.


First, a disclaimer. I haven't watched Outsourced since the first few (five, maybe six) episodes. Everything I say here is based only on these few episodes.


At the time, I remember thinking it was vastly better than the eponymous film* but the jokes, the style, the plying of the Indian stereotype were way too vaudevillian (I was going to bring up a comparison to Shahrukh Khan's terrible, terrible minstrel-show-portrayal of African-Americans but that's a post for a different day.)**


I can't bring myself to return to the show (although it is somewhat funny, I guess) - because I don't find it funny. And no, Lizardi's article did not change my mind. At All.


Although I buy into her justification of needing to use "character types" to derive humor, I find this whole race-bashing-in-the-disguise-of-humor very, um, unappealing. Even if there are five South Asian characters on the show telling stories that often come straight from (their) personal experiences (LAT). 


And as for the speculation that "perhaps they (non-fans of the show) don't believe (South Asians) should make fun of themselves" - well, I'm South Asian, I've worked in an offshore set up and I don't think I'm fairly capable of making fun of myself***. Why then am I so uncomfortable with the show?


I'm going with the reasoning of the wise and wonderful a.b. with whom I had this conversation earlier today. The show presents the white American male as the norm and the South Asians, inevitably, as The Other - different, ridiculous, funny. Given that Tandon Lizardi is American, and that the show is an American show, this is inevitable - I get that.


(And I'm actually not that angry with this show.)
But it is this Othering that bothers the bludgeons out of me.


I feel like I've said this a gazillion times before: I don't want to be seen as a cultural stereotype, an educational experience, an oddity, an Other. (And with my brown skin, I have enough trouble fending this off, thank you very much.) I don't need a show like Outsourced adding to, what Lizardi "consider(s) to be Indian stereotypes: doctors, engineers, spelling bee champs, Kwik-E-Mart owners".


And I haven't watched the show recently, but going by Lizardi's article, why is she saying "the characters in "Outsourced" care about each other and learn from one another"? 


(Daisy, I know you watch and like the show. So I'm hoping you're reading this and will answer these questions)


Okay, more specifically, why does she follow it up with examples of Todd rescuing  positively influencing Indian people who are bound by culture tighter than Kate Winslet's corset in the Titanic? Besides learning about fabricated, exaggerated, grotesquely simplified Indian Culture, what exactly is Todd learning from the other characters?


In a recent class conversation with M. Butterfly****, one of my better students referred to the entire phenomenon of outsourcing as "those jobs being given off to those people". And the rhetoric itself is not problematic, it is the reasoning behind the rhetoric, the unsaid ("given", "those") Othering that makes me anxious. I'm worried, I guess, that the show has the potential to undermine all our class-conversations about race and culture and David Henry Hwang in subtle, insidious ways. 


That said, meaning is always a process of negotiation. (The Indian student in my class, for instance, does not find the show offensive in any way.) And maybe the lady worrieth too much. 


*Shrug*. I'm with Tandon Lizardi's notion that there is the possibility of a more cohesive diversity. I just don't think exaggerating random, stereotypical "quirks" is the way to it. 


* Really Ayesha Dharker, I want to know what made you accept the role.
** Admittedly, Shah Rukh Khan's incredible ignorance and crassness makes me throw up. It is, in so many ways, MUCH worse. Maybe Shahrukh Khan can write for Outsourced?
*** The sibling will agree that I'm no longer that person, yeah?
**** Which my students are handling brilliantly!


Footnote: Another reaction to the UCLA video