Given the potentially vast spread of media representations, a pragmatic decision had to be made about sampling. Although some representations were not available to us, or only partially accessible, there was still a considerable body of potential data. For example, a single mention of Roseanne corresponds with 222 episodes. Even if we randomly sampled a few it would be possible to entirely miss . the representation since the gay friend was not a principle character, so a more purposeful sampling strategy was devised. Prominence of the friendship within the media form was considered as indicating potentially richer data. On this basis Will &
Grace and Gimme, Gimme, Gimme were prioritised because their principal characters are pairs of heterosexual women and gay men. This still represented a very large body of data (194 episodes of Will & Grace constitute nearly 72 hours of coverage) so episode guides were used to help identify particular narratives focusing
explicitly on friendship and these episodes were identified for analysis. To help ensure this selection process did not unintentionally exclude other themes, a further six episodes were randomly sampled and transcriptions produced.
7.6 The Sitcom Genre
Although, a primary focus on two sitcoms excludes other representations, it also permitted an analysis that focuses on a more homogeneous body of data.
Television comedy suffers from being overlooked in comparison with its cinematic equivalent, frequently being written off as ‘only sitcom’ (Mills, 2005: 3). Perhaps it is the relatively cheap production or the large number of episodes that implies a lack of quality (especially in the US where one series may contain over twenty episodes, compared with typically six in the UK). Whatever the reason, it is often assumed sitcoms have little to say about culture and society because their main purpose is to be funny. Yet sitcoms are always engaged in representation and generally rely on representations that are easily understood by large groups of people (Mills).
Consequently sitcoms are heavily reliant on normalised social conventions. These have sometimes been controversial when those representations legitimise
problematic or oppressive discourses (Spangler, 2003).
Sitcom can overlap with other genres such as comedy drama and the sketch show. However key elements are recurrent characters within the same premise (i.e.
the ‘situation’) and the normally audible presence of a live audience (Mintz, 1985).
Unlike soap operas, sitcoms tend to operate with few concurrent plot-lines and, rather than continually deferring narrative resolution, episodes are generally self- contained. Consequently an isolated episode of Will & Grace is arguably more comprehensible than a single episode of Eastenders.
Although the genre owes much to theatre, it first emerged in its modem form on the radio. Like the soap operas the transition from radio to television took place during the 1950s. Unlike soaps which almost universally had domestic settings,.
sitcoms were more frequently located in work environments (e.g. The Phil Silvers Show was set in a US Army post) (Mills, 2005). Although the characters and settings of sitcoms are diverse, the basic structure of the plot is familiar:
‘Domestic harmony is threatened when a character develops a desire that runs counter to the group’s welfare, or misunderstands a situation because of poor communication, or contacts a disruptive outside element. The voice of the group [...] tries to restore harmony but fails.
The dissenter grabs at an easy, often unilateral solution. The solution fails, and the dissenter must surrender to the group for rescue. The problem turns out to be not very serious after all, once everyone remembers to communicate and surrender his or her selfish goals [...]
Everyone, including the dissenter, is happier than at the outset.’
Jones (1992: 3-4)
This very simple narrative structure is open to almost endless reinterpretation.
Unlike some forms of storytelling, the sitcom plot is not necessarily the most important aspect of each episode. Jokes and set piece, comedic exchanges (e.g. the witty banter between Will & Grace) could stand alone (Mills, 2005). Conversely the story, when stripped back to the bare narrative need not be that compelling.
Therefore it can be understood as a framework which allows the rest (e.g. jokes) to take place. Furthermore the emphasis on jokes means that the narrative as a whole and the individual comic elements are not necessarily congruent. Mills argues that in The Simpsons many jokes focus on Homer’s selfishness and lack of concern for his wife Marge, yet the storylines frequently show him caring for his wife. One might attribute this variability to the large number of episodes and teams of writers used for long-running American programmes. However the apparent inconsistency is best explored by reading the jokes and the narrative in a multifaceted way, rather than attempting to prioritise one over the other in order to determine a ‘true’ meaning.
Similar seeming contradictions are present in many sitcoms and so it is necessary to attend to alternative readings where appropriate to the data.
7.7 M edia Discourses and Representation '
The issue of variability in sitcoms (described above) shares some
commonalities with the discourse analysis of interview data in preceding chapters. In both cases there is no expectation that objective ‘truth’ be directly accessible.
Therefore rather than regarding conflicting discourses as contradictory they can sometimes help identify ideological dilemmas and processes of resistance (Willig, 1999).
It might be tempting to regard the interview data as somehow more real and less artificially constructed (certainly not by a team of writers and script editors).
However this fails to recognise the ways in which interviewees were engaged in co
construction and furthermore mistakes the analytic focus as being on the person(s) rather than discourse(s). While it may be contended that, unlike the interviewees, characters like Will and Grace are not ‘real’ it is the discourse that speaks them which forms the object of analysis. Consequently analysis of sitcoms or other media formats need not mean an epistemological shift.
Discourse analysis is most commonly applied to speech and written text;
however ‘discourse may be studied wherever there is meaning’ (Parker, 1999: 1). In the case of television and film, the decision was made to focus on transcriptions of the spoken word and minimal stage directions (enough to make sense of spoken words, but not generally descriptive). Although scholars in disciplines like media studies would doubtless interpret much of the visual material on screen, the emphasis here is on discourse as spoken utterances.
One major difference between media discourse and that which occurs in interviews is the extent to which the former is considered public and in some way influential. One of the most important theories of the relationship between media and audience was the so-called hypodermic syringe model (sometimes attributed to Packard, 1957) which described the influence of film and television on society. This model conceptualised the viewer as the entirely passive recipient of media ideology.
In the 1960s the idea that television and film might be socially harmful strongly influenced religious groups like Mary Whitehouse’s National Viewers’ and Listeners’ Association and some anti-pornography feminists (Dyer, 1987).
It is perhaps significant that although the story of representation tends to suggest blanket invisibility of minorities there have been notable exceptions. The first US family sitcom was The Rise o f the Goldbergs (starting on the radio in 1929 and moving to television in 1949) which centred on the character of Molly, a Jewish mother (Antler, 2007). Despite the anti-Semitism rife during that period, Molly Goldberg was a significant success indicating that occasionally a popular programme can represent identities that would otherwise be ignored or disliked.
More recently the theoretical relationship between audience and media has been reconceptualised. No longer was the media seen as injecting its values into a
compliant audience but instead there was seen to be a bidirectional relationship between media and society with them (re)presenting each other (Gauntlett, 1999).
There is some evidence of this going on with the interviewees who talked about Will
& Grace, if only to reject elements of the representation. However television reflects society selectively rather than in totality (Russell, 1999). Even where minority groups are represented, questions must be asked about who it is that represents a particular population and whether they in turn conceal other identities. Despite television being increasingly diverse in whom it includes, those representations can reflect a society as we might like it to be rather than as it is experienced.
7 .8 ‘Will & Grace’
Given the frequency with which Will & Grace is cited by interviewees, internet respondents and in scholarship on gay representation, it has been taken to be the prime media representation of gay men and heterosexual women. This may be because the gay/straight alliance is pivotal to the programme whereas other media forms approach the issue tangentially or as part of a larger mix of characters (e.g. the soap operas). The timing of the programme may also add to its memorability since it began on NBC in 1998 and continued production until 2006. In the UK it was
initially shown by Channel 4 with frequent repeats on both this channel and Living : TV. Furthermore the programme was subject to considerable media analysis and debate when it debuted, further raising its profile.
The series spans eight seasons, totalling 194 episodes. It has received Emmy Awards for Outstanding Comedy Series, Outstanding Supporting Actress and Outstanding Supporting Actor. (Arguably this reveals the sense in which the supporting characters, Karen and Jack, eclipse the title characters.) The series occupied a comedy slot (both in the US and the UK) associated with shows like Friends and Frasier and has arguably been one of the most popular gay-themed television shows of all time (Cooper, 2003). This was particularly notable in America where many liberal commentators were surprised that a show treating homosexuality and heterosexuality as morally equivalent (Kaveny, 2002) was not criticised by right- wing Christian groups or boycotted by advertisers (Cooper).
Will & Grace is set in New York featuring Will Truman, a white gay lawyer, and Grace Adler, a heterosexual white Jewish interior designer. Much of the
programme takes place within an apartment they share on the affluent Upper West Side of Manhattan. The sitcom reveals some of their prior history, most notably that they dated (and were engaged to be married) prior to Will ‘coming out’. After a year they were reconciled and became best friends. Mirroring this relationship is the friendship between gay (generally out of work) actor/performer Jack McFarland and rich heterosexual Karen Walker who ostensibly works for Grace. Although
notionally supporting characters, Jack and Karen are more comedic and positioned as more excessive and flamboyant. While Grace and Will are shown to agonise over moral dilemmas, Karen and Jack completely disregard such issues and the format allows them to act insensitively with apparent impunity.
Cooper (2003) reports a study indicating that heterosexual viewers found Jack the funniest character (49.2%), closely followed by Karen (30%), and another 8.5% seeing ihom collectively as the funniest character. In contrast only Will (6.9%) and Grace (5.4%) were seldom rated as the funniest characters. This indicates an asymmetry in where the comedic value is perceived; but despite finding Jack the most amusing, viewers regarded him as the ‘frequent butt of humor (sic)’ (p. 525) and when asked who they would prefer to be friends with, Will (70%) was preferred over Jack (26%).
The apparent success of Will & Grace came in marked contrast to the originally successful Ellen which declined in ratings after the title character ‘came out’ as lesbian (Mills, 2005). Commentary focused on whether Will & Grace had finally broken into the mainstream and made gay characters acceptable. ‘How on earth did Will and Grace, a sitcom with such overtly gay characters, manage to win over middle America?’ asked Smith (2003: 18). More critical voices noted that a particular version of gay identity was at work and hinted that this was implicated in the show’s apparent acceptability:
'Will and Grace are friend and flatmates, and Will is gay. That's gay as in sensitive, caring, in touch with his emotions, not as in KY1.'
(Watson, 2001:1|6)
This ‘neutered’ (Smith, 2003:18) version of the gay man arguably led to Will
& Grace’s mass appeal. Mills (2005) suggests the show is visually very conventional
and that this provides a level of assurance. Unlike other ‘modem’ sitcoms like Scrubs it is clearly set in a television studio in front of an audience. The brilliantly lit scenes eschew wobbly vérité handheld cameras for smooth conventional framing and continuity editing. Consequently Will & Grace is not a naturalistic depiction of friendship but a stylised account that falls firmly within the conventions of the sitcom genre.
Despite criticism for being so conventional, Will & Grace occasionally landed a political punch. During the second series Will and Jack protested about a TV station not showing a same-sex kiss on screen, thus referencing their own constricted status on NBC. Furthermore the show attracted many guest stars (e.g.
Cher, Joan Collins, Sandra Bernhard, Madonna, Matt Damon and Ellen DeGeneres) that lend the programme status through their association and play to a gay audience.
Consequently it can convincingly be argued either that Will & Grace sanitises gay identity stripping it of its sexuality, or that by first winning over a mainstream
audience it ultimately brought gay issues into the open. In this respect it echoes some of the debates between liberal politics (wishing to be accommodated within the status quo) and a more radical critique of gender politics that rejects the legitimacy of the mainstream (See Chapter 2).
7.9 Analysis
Analysis of the sampled media sources produced many themes that
potentially merited further analysis. For example, Will & Grace and Gimme, Gimme, Gimme were rich in examples of materialism, references to aesthetics, fashion and popular (gay) culture. Sharing of gossip and articulation of gay vs. heterosexual norms were also identifiable threads in the data set. Connections between thematic areas were in some cases discernible, e.g. one of the ways normative gay identity was constructed was through discourse about fashion, clothing and appearance. This seemed to echo elements of the interview based research and its prevalence indicated a fruitful area for further analysis. Whilst wishing to connect the media
representations with interviewees’ constructions, an important aim of this second study was to consider where discourses might diverge and whether certain culturally available ways of constructing these friendships were missing from the interviews. In
the latter case there were more potentially heterosexist and explicitly sexist discourse within the media analysed than was evidenced in the interview data.
It might be tempting simply to construct the interviewees as politically more progressive. Another possibility (whilst noting that discourse analysis attempts to be agnostic about intentionality, Edwards & Potter, 1992) is the demand characteristics of interviews, where the implicit goal is a coherent and agreed account of friendship.
By contrast, media forms like sitcoms require conflict to produce drama and comedy (Mills, 2005). However, even were we to accept these propositions a more useful and theoretically engaging analysis might look at the positions made available by the media and consider the political implications for heterosexual women and gay men.
The following analysis will focus on the production of gay subjectivity using an episode where Will and Grace attempt to discern the sexual identity of a man they are mutually sexually interested in. This narrative structure produced a series of accounts that will be subjected to analysis.
In Yours, Mine or Ours both Will and Grace independently meet an attractive but sexually ambiguous man (Peter) who is moving into their apartment building. In separate encounters Peter invites each of them to his apartment for what appears to be a dinner date. Thus in the sitcom tradition (Mills, 2005), this narrative set up allows a series of misunderstandings or ambiguities to follow. Firstly, in an instance of dramatic irony (Abrams, 1985) neither Grace nor Will know their ‘dates’ are to be with the same person:
Will has just entered and pre-emptively dismisses anything Grace might say (‘no time to talk’). The vagueness of having ‘something’ to do (‘what was it again?’)
might be read as playful because it implies the date is temporarily forgettable. He toys with Grace by momentarily withholding the information and his casual
construction is juxtaposed against the date as a dramatic event (note the emphasis on the word ‘date’ and repetition, ‘I have a date’). Grace takes this up as an exciting event (‘Oh my God’) and goes on to articulate her enthusiasm (‘I’m so excited’).
Despite asking to ‘hear all about him [Will’s date]’ she mirrors his earlier manoeuvre and pre-emptively cuts off any description in order to announce ‘I have a date too.’
This is a rather fateful conversation because were they to talk more then it might emerge their ‘dates’ were both with Peter. However they continue articulating surprise and excitement in a repeated no/yes exchange. Will then summarises by saying ‘We have a date’ after which they dance in apparent celebration. However, Will’s slightly unusual articulation, pairing the first person plural ‘we’ against the singular ‘a date’ is funny because he unwittingly describes the events to follow; they have ‘a date’ not plural dates. Again, this is part of the dramatic irony, where an audience would have knowledge (from previous scenes) that the characters have yet to piece together. However, ‘we have a date’ also connotes their connectedness which is further reinforced as they rapidly prepare for their date, swap advice on clothing and mirror each other’s speech patterns.
Extract 3
After agreeing on how to dress Grace deems it socially appropriate to take a bottle of wine to her date and Will asks her to ‘grab me one’ meaning that at this point they both have identical bottles of wine (‘Merlot’) to give to their date.
Although the scene shows hasty preparation and Will’s use of the word ‘grab’
implies urgency the matching bottles of wine can be seen as again constructing their similarity.
One issue that perhaps should not be overlooked is Grace’s account of the wine’s provenance, i.e. stolen by Jack from a restaurant ‘after they fired him for stealing the Cabernet’. Whilst this provides a plausible account of why they have multiple bottles of apparently good wine readily accessible in the apartment, it is also a small but not insignificant moment where Jack is positioned as unprofessional or lacking morals. Furthermore he is constructed as incapable or unwilling to learn, change or develop since he repeats the crime by stealing more wine. Perhaps the character could rationalise the decision as revenge for being dismissed or as having nothing to lose, but it is one of many examples where Jack is infantilised or
constructed as a childish character. This is not treated problematically within the programme and neither Grace nor Will articulate any moral qualms about taking the stolen wine.
The scene continues to emphasise their similarity with a return to the first person plural in ‘How do we look?’ This in isolation might be read as concern rather than a more self-interested ‘How do / look?’ Yet there are many alternative
articulations that would achieve this effect, for example ‘How do we both look?’
accomplishes concern for the other whilst keeping their identities separate.
Furthermore, Grace’s tautological response T d sit with us’ and Will’s agreement further underscores their similarity and potentially coupled positioning.
The initial misunderstanding is uncovered when they leave for their ‘date’
and almost immediately end up outside the same apartment door. This is immediately
and almost immediately end up outside the same apartment door. This is immediately