Login

Register

Member List

RSS Feed

Amanda | Contact

Auguste | Contact

Jesse | Contact

Pam | Contact

Next entry: The total and obvious non-sexism of Penn Jillette Previous entry: This was about values, not money

Nope to Knope

Spoilers, for people who struggle maintaining the maturity levels not to hold the entire internet responsible for your inability to work through what's saved on your DVR.

Last week, I published a piece where I adopted the role of the bearer of bad news: TV's silly-but-loveable feminist Leslie Knope is getting defanged by NBC, probably in a last-ditch attempt to get the ratings up. Since the show is a spin-off of "The Office", which started off as a sharp satire of ordinary American work life but devolved into an unfunny but typical sitcom about the glories of the patriarchal family, I wasn't particularly surprised. Americans love the comfort of unfunny sitcoms that romanticize this stuff. It's our comfort food. Applying sharp comedy to gender role-playing is especially unwelcome; we don't want to come home after a hard day's work and have some snooty TV writers make us all uncomfortable with the sexism we perpetuate and rationalize by wrapping it in a blanket of romance. "Parks and Recreation" has shitty ratings, and as I've pointed out before, they clearly have no desire to blow a raspberry at the almost-inevitable helpful network suggestions that they dumb it down a little like "Community" did, so seeing them move in the direction of "The Office" isn't surprising. 

However, my article, which came out the same day that the Valentine's Day episode came out, was controversial, with Maya at Feministing offering a rebuttal. This didn't surprise me, so I wasn't upset. The evidence that the show had taken a turn was far from conclusive, and my hope in writing the piece was to start dialogue, not offer the final word about it. At the time I wrote it, the show's direction was ambiguous enough to really allow for multiple readings, as it were.

But the episode that aired on the same date that my piece was published, titled "Operation Ann", removed all doubt. That episode was a fundamental betrayal of both the characters of Leslie and Ann, and of the show's quiet but persistent feminism they're now selling down the river in a desperate bid for ratings. 

Since when is Ann Perkins one of those women who has so little going on in her life that the mere idea of being single sends her into a spiral of self-loathing? As far as I remember, Ann has never once suggested that being single is such an awful thing that one should seriously consider lowering your standards to rectify the situation. As recently as last year, in fact, Ann was having a fun time tearing through every dude in Pawnee, having fun sleeping with them but refusing to settle down. Nor was Leslie ever Ms. Everyone Should Have A Boyfriend. Sure, both characters like having boyfriends, but they've never considered it more important than having a full life with lots of friends or meaningful work. Nor have they ever thought that having a boyfriend is so important that considerations like compatibility or attraction should be shoved aside. Old Leslie, if Ann had been in a funk about being single, would have bucked her up like she did to Chris in this very same episode: reminded her that she has a lot going on and there's no rush. But now the show has a double standard. If Chris is sad about his single status, he needs to just cheer up and remember life goes on. Ann, however, should hurry up and settle down with the first person that she can have a halfway reasonable conversation with. Who turns out to be Tom. You know, the resident douchebag of Pawnee. I love Aziz Ansari, of course, but the whole point of Tom's character is that he's an insufferable douchebag. 

Maybe the show will right itself. But right now, I'm skeptical. While I doubt that they're going to capture a bigger audience by abandoning the feminist subversion for more mainstream sexist romantic cliches, I can see that it might seem like the only hope of getting ratings up. 

By the way, it's just telling that we live in a world where Zooey Deschanel has her own show, but no one can ever figure out what to do with the beautiful and talented Rashida Jones.

------

Registration is now required! We're still in the process of getting it all squared away, so for the moment don't forget to Login or Register using the links in the upper left menu before starting to write your comment.

Posted by Amanda Marcotte on 10:03 AM • (39) Comments

I haven’t seen it yet (and I don’t feel betrayed by your spoilers) but I have really noticed a problem with character arcs on the show.  Ron Swanson is now some kind of hero, and not an ironic one.  Andy is cool in his doofiness.  Ben is the heartthrob. 

In contrast, Ann is getting dumped on constantly especially by April, which is a huge turnaround from Ann being a successful nurse who kicks a do-nothing boyfriend to the curb.  Leslie says mean stuff even outside of her overweening ambition.

It’s like they decided to do the usual “let’s show the soft side of hated/silly character X” with the men, and “let’s make us hate the loved character X” with the women.

American sitcoms just can’t stand to let curmudgeons remain curmudgeons, but it’s fun to take down nice people, especially nice women (the exception is of course Chris who is male).  Only the shitheads are nice down deep. 

But you know what?  Sometimes when you judge a book by its cover, the contents really are just what you’d expect.  More often than otherwise in fact. 

Truly nice people don’t act like shitheads.  It’s the dream of the Nice Guy (tm) that they be “discovered” to not be a shithead after all but a sensitive guy who just needs love and attention from the prettiest girl in the class.

Comment #1: oldfeminist  on  02/06  at  11:37 AM

I saw a tweet that said something like “Parks & Rec is the best sci-fi/comedy on TV with that ‘nobody wants to date Rashida Jones’ plot line.”

Comment #2: keirdubois  on  02/06  at  11:51 AM

oldfeminist, Marc has a lot of those complaints, too. He particularly doesn’t like the cleaning up of Ron. You’re right; the character is more fun as a curmudgeon. The actor continues to kill in the role, but increasingly it’s only his performance that is holding up the character, not the writing.

Comment #3: Amanda Marcotte  on  02/06  at  11:56 AM

Also, instead of turning Chris into an asshole, what they did was make him dumb. It’s really strange. The joke about old Chris was that despite the fact that he is incredibly vain, rules-bound, and driven, he’s not unkind. In fact, his enthusiasm is infectious. But now he’s just seen as a weirdo.

Comment #4: Amanda Marcotte  on  02/06  at  11:58 AM

The dumbing down of Chris has also made it increasing implausible that he and Ann ever had a relationship to begin with.  Much less one that was so serious they lived together. 

The “Pal-entine’s” Day dinner was excruciating.  And it went downhilll from there.

Comment #5: Pansy P  on  02/06  at  12:17 PM

I think Ann’s plot line was a bit terrible, but they’ve done it before when she went speed dating. I think the show is working, over the course of this season, to get both Ann and Leslie into realistic relationships. I suspect Ann and Chris are getting back together, too. The first half of the season had a long story arc of what Ben and Leslie went through while they were broken up, and the goal was clearly to get them back together. I think the writers are handling the second half of the season in a similar way with Chris and Ann. I don’t think it’s the material that has changed a much as the writers choosing to focus on relationship plot lines and take a ‘Jim and Pam’ approach to the show’s story. I, too, wish the story were more about Leslie’s election and other dealings in Pawnee, like the third season was, but I think the problem is not that the show is anti-feminist or dumbing down plot lines. They’ve chosen to focus on relationships and play up what has always been a less interesting aspect of the show, and it’s not the part of Parks and Rec that the fan base loves.

Comment #6: hlynn117  on  02/06  at  12:25 PM

By the way, it’s just telling that we live in a world where Zooey Deschanel has her own show

Zooey Deschanel, Kate Perry, and a few other raven-haired 20-somethings are basically just clones of each other that popped into existence five or six years ago.  And Hollywood loves nothing like it loves clones.  So that’s not a terrible shock.

And I don’t know why everyone is hating on Ron Swanson’s character for getting humanized.  They humanized April’s character, too, and turned her from eye-rolling mega-bitch from hell into an actual relate-able character with more plot than insult one-liners.  I genuinely appreciated that.

Honestly, I think the show has improved a great deal from the first season, when everyone (except Ann, actually, who was the stock ‘normal’) was a massive ball of cliched stereotypes.  Some of the plots are a bit vanilla and lame, but P&R has been on my watch list for the last two seasons and I’ll be happy to wade through a bit of generic RomCom to get to the good stuff.

Comment #7: Zifnab  on  02/06  at  01:01 PM

Yes. I didn’t agree with your previous assessment of the show, but I absolutely agree with this assessment. I didn’t spend much time analyzing the episode, but I did think it was worse than previous episodes. And while I love it when Ron gets excited about things, he was a little too excited for my taste and I definitely prefer the curmudgeon.

However, the character of Ron has always been written as someone who’s mostly curmudgeonly, but has a soft spot underneath it all. He and Leslie have always had a subtly affectionate relationship and it’s clear that they both like and respect each other, even when they don’t agree on issues. Although I do think he and Chris have been written kind of horribly this season.

Oh, and I stopped enjoying the Office several years ago (probably around the time Jim and Pam got married), but I’ve seen the last two episodes and they were absolutely ridiculous compared to the first 3 seasons. I mean, really, why can’t they go back to that awkward humor when the Jim/Pam situation was one of many side plots rather than the whole freakin’ focus of the show?!

Comment #8: Godless H  on  02/06  at  01:05 PM

By the way, it’s just telling that we live in a world where Zooey Deschanel has her own show

What this says is that having family in showbiz helps make it in showbiz and growing up amoung the HJollywood folks helps one stay amid them, same as always.

Comment #9: helen w. h.  on  02/06  at  01:23 PM

Posts like this help me to avoid regretting having our cable disconnected year before last.

Hey, we’re within walking distance of a public library with a zilliard DVDs . . . .

Comment #10: John M. Burt  on  02/06  at  01:26 PM

Totally agreed that it’s a shame Ron Swanson seems to have become a non-ironic object of admiration. I mean, he’s a great character for so many reasons, but the writers have gone beyond giving him depth to just making him some kind of Real American Hero. Also, April and Andy are past the point of no return. It was funny at first, when they got married and had no clue how to live like grownups and Ben had to help them out, but the last episode (the one before Valentine’s Day) was just too far, with the whole insurance thing. I think we’re not supposed to remember that Andy and Ann were together for what seemed like awhile when the show began, and that they lived together. I’m willing to buy that Andy doesn’t understand how health insurance works, but that he doesn’t even know what it is?

I feel like at this point Parks is doing what so many shows have done, which is that some of the characters are becoming weird exaggerated versions of themselves and other characters are given weird and out of character plotlines like this whole Valentine’s Day nonsense, because the writers are just out of ideas. I love Parks, but I think it may have told the story it was designed to tell, like the Office did after 3 or 4 seasons and it’s just going to continue on life support until the talent starts jumping ship. 

Comment #11: chareth cutestory  on  02/06  at  01:45 PM

And I don’t know why everyone is hating on Ron Swanson’s character for getting humanized.  They humanized April’s character, too, and turned her from eye-rolling mega-bitch from hell into an actual relate-able character with more plot than insult one-liners.  I genuinely appreciated that.
Comment #7: Zifnab on 02/06 at 01:01 PM

Because the people I know who are like Ron Swanson are actually kind of despicable.

Comment #12: oldfeminist  on  02/06  at  01:55 PM

Interestingly, the past two episodes were some of the better Ron ones, because it was all about how his vanity is in conflict with his inner dork. But I’m with oldfeminist; I don’t appreciate the de-fanging of the anti-government fanatic. His character should often leave you with a shudder.

Comment #13: Amanda Marcotte  on  02/06  at  01:58 PM

Comment #9: helen w. h. - Rashida Jones certainly has family in show business.

Comment #14: Livi  on  02/06  at  02:07 PM

It has no bearing on this discussion at all, but I am compelled to share the fact that both Rashida Jones’s and Zooey Deschanel’s mothers were in Twin Peaks.

Comment #15: Fatman  on  02/06  at  02:26 PM

In contrast, Ann is getting dumped on constantly especially by April, which is a huge turnaround from Ann being a successful nurse who kicks a do-nothing boyfriend to the curb.

I have to admit I don’t remember seeing Ann that way. Kickass nurse, yes, but my memories of the first season has me getting repeatedly frustrated at what Ann was willing to take from Chris, especially as most of his problems were of his own creation. I remember thinking of her as a woman who is strong in her career but hasn’t learned to translate those qualities to her personal life.

As for Ron, I think the problem is that they created the character in the first place. There’s no way a long-running sitcom is going to keep up an anti-government curmudgeon, the nature of American sitcoms are to soften a character over time and play to the moments that get the fans excited (like Ron Swanson loves breakfast) so that was an idea for a character that shouldn’t have been attempted. I knew early-on that that aspect of the character would go nowhere.

I recall Deadline printing some early criticism of the show (before the premiere) complaining that none of the male characters were datable. I’m still not sure how I feel about that criticism but it does bother me that none of the guys are as young and good-looking as Amy Poehler, Aubrey Plaza and Rashida Jones. I totally crush on Adam Scott but he’s not a conventionally goodlooking as his co-stars.

Comment #16: pepperlad  on  02/06  at  02:53 PM

Comment #16: Good points about Ann. She has always been a character who was kickass in her work, but lacked a bit in self confidence regarding her personal life. It’s usually Leslie who tells her how awesome she is and how she can do X. When she was have sex with multiple men, it was Donna who told her to go for it. As for April dumping on her, that’s more April than Ann. April dumps on everybody, and we’ve seen this season how it’s mostly a cover for her not being comfortable sharing how much she actually cares for everyone else.

Comment #17: Livi  on  02/06  at  03:08 PM

You of all people should know that not everyone has a DVR.

There’s no reason to be such a jerk about spoiler tags.  It’s seriously one word that you put at the top of your post.  For god’s sake.

Comment #18: Cola82  on  02/06  at  03:18 PM

Livi - Music producer vs cinemitogropher/director parent as a leg up for an actress may be debatable, but still, the likely reason Zooey Deschanel has the career she does is because of family connections, especially the show as her sister has been a money maker for Fox (who gave her “her own show”).

Comment #19: helen w. h.  on  02/06  at  03:32 PM

Comment #16: Good point. I was thinking that I knew who Zooey was before I knew her sister Emily, so it almost seems like their careers started off around the same time.

Comment #20: Livi  on  02/06  at  04:04 PM

Comment #16: So Zooey having her own show has more to do with her inexplicably loved “tweeness” and less to do with family connections.

Comment #21: Livi  on  02/06  at  04:07 PM

Leslie has never had it together, and she’s really really immature.  Think of her disastrous sorta-relationship with the city planner guy.  She hasn’t gotten past being a precocious child - her ambitions have been fossilized in Pawnee since before she had any idea what else is out there, including the nuts and bolts of an adult’s personal life.  All she’s been doing in her life is rising to her level of incompetence.  That’s the beauty of her relationship with Ben - he coasted into that mayorship, where fulfilling his childish dreams was a huge disaster, and he’s recovered by evolving a little. 

Comment #22: saraeanderson  on  02/06  at  04:10 PM

Oh, and I stopped enjoying the Office several years ago (probably around the time Jim and Pam got married), but I’ve seen the last two episodes and they were absolutely ridiculous compared to the first 3 seasons. I mean, really, why can’t they go back to that awkward humor when the Jim/Pam situation was one of many side plots rather than the whole freakin’ focus of the show?!

I checked out on the show around that time. I think Amanda said in a bamboo review at some point that the show’s concept was getting muddled because the characters were starting to behave like friends and not coworkers. I think that was right. In the original concept, you’d believe that these people had lives outside the show that were hinted at, but we only saw them as they related to work. The fact that people were just waiting to go home to their lives made the fact that they had to sit through Michael doing something insane and embarrassing made it funnier. But making everyone friends outside of work makes it less fun. The wedding was sorta the culmination of that. Maybe you can’t do seven seasons of awkward, I don’t know.

I also hated the humanizing of Michael Scott. The show was better before they rounded his edges off. Before that, he could be pretty monstrous to people.

Comment #23: witless chum  on  02/06  at  04:45 PM

[T]hey clearly have no desire to blow a raspberry at the almost-inevitable helpful network suggestions that they dumb it down a little like “Community” did[.]

I assume this is supposed to read in the sense that Community actually did blow a figurative raspberry at the network and refused to dumb it down?  Or did I miss a memo about Community having dumbed down? Remedial Chaos Theory alone would justify the entire series.

Comment #24: Felix Culpa  on  02/06  at  05:32 PM

I assume this is supposed to read in the sense that Community actually did blow a figurative raspberry at the network and refused to dumb it down?

http://pandagon.net/index.php/site/comments/nbc_please_stop_ruining_funny_shows._kthnxbai
Notable quote

But instead I got this:
http://www.hulu.com/watch/281760/communitys-song-and-dance
If that’s not a “fuck you” to NBC executives telling them to tone it down, I don’t know what is.

Comment #25: BenYitzhak  on  02/06  at  06:31 PM

Molto grazie, BenYitzhak.

Comment #26: Felix Culpa  on  02/06  at  06:40 PM

I don’t appreciate the de-fanging of the anti-government fanatic. His character should often leave you with a shudder.

Except they haven’t really set Ron up as the show’s “villain”.  At some point, Ron has to actually come into conflict with other characters in the show, and he rarely does that well.  Chris, with his obsession over bureaucratic rules and appearance, has been a significantly nastier villain than Ron.  Chris cancels projects.  Chris reports people and fires people.  Chris callously treads all over peoples’ emotions trying to get what he wants.  And he does it all with frank sincerity and innocence that you want to punch him in the face.  That’s the guy that leaves me shuddering, not the generally toothless anti-government self-admitted sloth.

Then you’ve got Leslie’s rival for City Council, the self-entitled punk who practically screams “Parody of Mitt Romney”.  There are so many love-to-hate characters in P&R, I just don’t see the need to cling to Ron as a bad guy.

I mean, I think Ron is comparable to Pierce in Community (now that everyone else is bringing that awesome show up).  Yeah, he’s an asshole in certain episodes.  But he plays a lot of other roles - dysfunctional father figure, hapless sucker, Grampa Simpson your-new-culture-scares-me old guy - that don’t require him to be totally evil all the time.

At some point, you have to recognize that the actor isn’t going to disappear, so the writers have to accommodate his presence on the show somehow.  He can’t always be in conflict with the rest of the cast (any more than Michael Scott could be in the office), so he eventually has to be mellowed out so that the other characters appear rational for tolerating his presence.  If Community keeps going back to the “kick Pierce out of the group” well, you’ll know it has peaked.

Comment #27: Zifnab  on  02/06  at  07:46 PM

Since the show is a spin-off of “The Office”, which started off as a sharp satire of ordinary American work life but devolved into an unfunny but typical sitcom about the glories of the patriarchal family, I wasn’t particularly surprised.

Newbie here. Would someone be so kind as to point out when did the show go wrong, just to I can save some money by buying only the good seasons?

Comment #28: Baruk  on  02/06  at  08:58 PM

Ugh.  Amanda and her annoying TV rants.  I sincerely enjoy almost any post she does, but when she veers into her TV rants AND blogs about it everywhere, I roll my eyes. 

I don’t recall P&R ever being the Gold Standard for feminism or identifying themselves as such. 

We first met Ann as Andy’s girlfriend and a citizen wanting to get a hole filled.  She was sucked into Leslie’s orbit.  Then, she dated some men.  Dated Chris.  Had a hard time dating.  Bummed about Christ, etc. 

If you’ve ever been a chick w/o a date on the commercialized Valentine’s Day, it can be bumming.  But, in contrast, did you see Donna wallowing?  No.  Jerry/Gary’s daughter Millie?  No.  April wallowing pre-Andy infatuation?  No.  Does Tammy I or Tammy II seem to be spineless sad women who only need a man?  Uh, no.

Leslie, bless her, has always been trying to “fix” things and now that she’s happy and in love, she wants her beloved/perfect Ann to be happy.  Because real chicks *never* do that.  Never.  Not even feminist ones.  ((rolls eyes))  Leslie’s schtick is always about helping, regardless of whether it is welcome or not.  This seemed completely within her character.

By the end did Ann seem like someone defeated?  Sad?  Um, no.  She immediately set some ground rules for Tom and it seemed clear it wasn’t heading to any nookie.

I think it’s naive/pointless to think modern shows are going to always have an amazing feminist spin considering the dumbing down of TV in general.  Give America an intelligent show and watch the general populace flee.  Regardless of whether those of us on this site like New Girl is immaterial since its viewership does.  Even my personal beloved bestie.

(And, I would say that Zooey has been on radars as an indie girl significantly longer than her no-acting range sister, Emily, has).

I’d rather Amanda break up with P&R (cuz she likes to break up with stuff for like 1200+ words) than sh*t it on it. 

Because, Amanda, I challenge you to name 3 other shows on non-pay TV (no SHO, HBO, Starz) that has as much to offer as P&R in terms of people/heart/quality.

 

Comment #29: avoidswork  on  02/06  at  09:54 PM

@28

It didn’t go wrong.  Season 1 is uneven (but very short).  Season 2 gets its legs.  Season 3 is a delight.  As is Season 4.

JMHO.

Comment #30: avoidswork  on  02/06  at  09:55 PM

I’m sorry, but Rashida Jones has been bland and uninteresting in everything she’s ever been in. She’s a little better here, but still a step below the other characters. It’s not Gerry who ruins everything, it’s Ann.

Comment #31: Col Bat Guano  on  02/07  at  12:36 AM

I challenge you to name 3 other shows on non-pay TV (no SHO, HBO, Starz) that has as much to offer as P&R in terms of people/heart/quality.

Off the top of my head, Community (NBC) and Downton Abbey (PBS) But I don’t watch much TV.

Good lord, Downton Abbey. Wall to wall decent people (and Thomas and O’brien, who bury moments of humanity under walls of bitterness to protect themselves). You wouldn’t think the Edwardian equivalent of Paris Hilton and entourage would be such likable people.

And everyone knows that Community is calibrated as the top of any people/heart/quality scale. Goes on a scale from 1 to Community.

Comment #32: karpad  on  02/07  at  01:15 AM

I challenge you to name 3 other shows on non-pay TV (no SHO, HBO, Starz) that has as much to offer as P&R in terms of people/heart/quality.

30 Rock and Cougar Town are two, and they’re both actual-LOL comedies like P&R. Everyone knows about the Liz/Jack chemistry on 30 Rock. The cast of Cougar Town are friends off the set, and it definitely shows, especially in the excellent Ellie/Laurie dynamic.

Comment #33: LBG  on  02/07  at  03:07 AM

I’m astonished to discover that a medium that ordinary people turn on for company, rather than to be challenged, is generally poor.

Comment #34: Punditus Maximus  on  02/07  at  03:20 AM

avoidswork - indie girl cred does not get one a shot at a show on Fox, or any network.  Networks are conservative, small c, as in they do more of what they know sells most of the time.  Immediate family members that have consistently produced a sellable show can get one a consideration, though the consideration has to then sell the show. 
Network shows tend to be bland and boring for this reason.  I don’t like New Girl, but it certainly isn’t the worst of the offerings they are looking for to replace 3s Co/Seinfeld/Friends, etc.  It’s closer to the spoofy one that was set in Boston that was 5 to 8 years ago. (2 Guys,a Girl and Pizza shop, or something like that?)

Comment #35: helen w. h.  on  02/07  at  08:50 AM

Chill. It’s a TV show on a network that publishes entertainment for profit, it’s not a philosophy class.

Comment #36: dustbunny44  on  02/07  at  10:14 AM

Chill. It’s a TV show on a network that publishes entertainment for profit, it’s not a philosophy class.

Chill, it’s a post on a blog that publishes writing for profit, not a philosophy class.

Comment #37: witless chum  on  02/07  at  11:01 AM

At some point, you have to recognize that the actor isn’t going to disappear, so the writers have to accommodate his presence on the show somehow.  He can’t always be in conflict with the rest of the cast (any more than Michael Scott could be in the office), so he eventually has to be mellowed out so that the other characters appear rational for tolerating his presence.  If Community keeps going back to the “kick Pierce out of the group” well, you’ll know it has peaked.

I think The Office could have continued on longer because it has a better excuse for tolerating Michael, people need jobs.

Comment #38: witless chum  on  02/07  at  11:15 AM

@32 and @33 ~

Remember, this was in the context of Amanda’s POV re P&R, feminism, etc.  So I was also asking about quality/heart/etc. in that bubble.

As much as I *love* Community, I don’t think you can additionally argue it is a pro-feminism show based upon treatment of Britta, Annie and Shirley.  Unlike Amanda, I don’t watch shows as a feminist because I will be sorely disappointed in the general outcome. 

Cougar Town?  Again, pro-feminist? ... (http://unlockingfemininity.com/2010/10/14/from-june-cleaver-to-cougar-town-the-progression-of-feminism-in-tv/)  But not denigrating the show which is a good show.

30 Rock? ...  I’m actually not a fan, despite (hearting) Tina Fey.

I would actually argue that FRINGE has strong female leads/characters that are bad-arses and solve their own problems all of the time:  Olivia, Astrid, Nina.  Even a relevant supporting female, Elizabeth, is not portrayed as a shrinking violet.

To end rant:  It’s just TV.  We all watch what we watch with different paradigms/purposes. 

Yes, love me some Downton Abbey, but let’s not lump it with Americana TV…

Comment #39: avoidswork  on  02/07  at  02:19 PM
Page 1 of 1 pages
Commenting is not available in this channel entry.