Tuesday, October 15, 2013
Responses to Julia
Discuss the range of viewer responses to Julia described by Bodrohkozy's article. Based on your viewing of the pilot and our discussion of television and race in the 1960s, why do you think the show was interpreted so many different ways? Why, for example, would some critics refer to the show or the character Julia as “white?”
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
In lecture we disussed the Cosby and Nash approach to best friendship. Nash recalls Cosby and him having only one conversation about the controversial nature of the show and how the biggest statement that they can make is through the use of a nonstatement. I believe that Julia uses the same methodology of making a statement through nonstatement. The Baker’s relationship with the Waggedorn’s addresses race in a nonchalant way for example when the Waggedorn’s son meets Julia for the first time. He turns to Corey Baker and says, “Your mom is colored,” and Corey responds, “Yeah, so am I” and then they laugh and jump on a couch. They acknowledge race and move past it making the statement that the color of one’s skin should not be a separating factor. As Bodroghkozy says, “tolerance and colorblindness prevailed on Julia” (144) referencing the success of the show in a time period of inequality.
ReplyDeleteJulia, however, had other discrepancies that made this statement less clear. The show directly confronts issues of feminism with the character dealing with misogyny in the work place and struggling as a single mother. Even economically there were issues with the single mother working as a nurse to pay for the expensive apartment that she lives in. For a show that makes as grande of a statement about these issues it was strange that Julia used the Cosby/Nash method of the nonstatement to talk about race in America.
Many critics referred to the character of Julia as white, because she did conform to white culture in many aspects. Her home for example contained no African American influences in its decorations. Her apartment is very similar to the Waggedorn’s, so although the character Julia is African American her culture seems misrepresented. Even though Julia may not represent black culture in an overt way, there is also the alternative that must be considered. Many critics, viewers, and magazines (such as Time) would criticize the show for not representing black culture as ‘ghetto’ (Bodroghkozy 150). I personally believe that if given the option to create an acultural situation or an offensive ghetto one that the acultural situation (in combination with the idea of integration) is more appropriate. I also believe that this choice helped make the show as popular as it was and even though it wasn’t perfect it did bring up a lot of conversation through the nonstatement that it makes.
A curious number of critics slammed Julia for not, “telling it like it is.” That is, they disapproved of Julia because it did not depict “black people as they really lived.” Perhaps critics were hoping that Julia would play into the tropes of the ethnic working-class family sitcoms like Mama and The Honeymooners. However, this so-called black reality that critics such as Robert Lewis Shayton would have had Julia portray, was not one that made one inclined to laugh. Shayton’s view of the black experience was of ghettos defined as “crime-ridden, violence-prone, and poverty stricken.” Perhaps Shayton had a point. That is a dangerous world that could have been portrayed on television, and perhaps was in dire need of it. But injecting the bullet ridden corpse of a tragic and impoverished heroin addict into a sketch tends to make it a bit heavy for the family-friend style Julia was going for. Perhaps this would be appropriate for a television drama series, but not for a sitcom. Not for Julia.
ReplyDeleteOn the other hand, Julia did have a set of fans who were enthused enough with the show to write letters to its producers voicing their support for the program. Admittedly, in those letters written by those identifying as white, there was an issue self-consciousness. “I’m white and I like the show!” seems to be the main gist of the matter. But, in addition to this, many letters indicate a view, self-evident though it is, that “African-Americans are people too.” In this sense, Julia was a powerful force. It removed the sense of otherness that up until that point had permeated the portrayal of African-Americans in the media.
After the viewing of the Julia episode, I can see the progressions made in the portrayals of black characters in television since Beulah and Amos n Andy. One main aspect that stood out was the language and grammar that Julia was able to articulate. Compared to the negative stereotypes of African-Americans prior to this show, Julia’s speech was that of an educated Caucasian. However, that portrayal in itself caused critiques in how the character was played, especially with the mannerisms of a white person. “The characters were either demeaning ghetto stereotypes or they were upper-class “white-Negros,” a term used by critics to describe Julia” (Bodroghkozy 145). The level of spectrum Julia played was the “educated, colored woman”; this type of character even received different levels of criticism by people of her own race. For example, there would be a scorn towards African-Americans who “acted” like white people simply by the way they dress or higher level of education. On another side of the argument, others saw this show as progressive to moving away from the negative racial stereotypes and set a new tone for the next generation. Just like the episode shown in class, there appeared to be no divide between the children based off their skin color; they saw each other as simply other people to get to know and get along with. Instead, they saw themselves as equals and played along with each other without any type of prejudice. This situation in many ways presented an ideal situation to occur in America where children and adults alike could get along despite the color of their skin.
ReplyDeleteThe character Julia could almost be described as white because of the way that the writers chose to approach the topic of race within the show. Although Julia was in fact black, the writers sought to avoid controversy that may have resulted from depicting her in a stereotypical manner; rather than creating a realistic character, they essentially made Julia the opposite of many stereotypes. In avoiding the stereotypes, they did not even depict Julia encountering many of the common problems faced by African Americans at the time. In doing so, the writers lost the majority of what made Julia "black".
ReplyDeleteAs a result of the decisions that essentially made Julia "white", there were a wide variety of reactions to and interpretations of the show. As Julia was the first black female lead role in a television show in fifteen years, it is understandable that African Americans were dissatisfied with her inaccurate portrayal of their culture. However, since this was a significant step forward in the cultural prevalence of African Americans, to some it did not matter that she was essentially white in action. Many white Americans that were supportive of African Americans were also very happy to see this step forward in representation on television. However, the show also received some negative responses from white housewives because they saw the depiction of Julia's neighbor as offensive and demeaning solely for the purpose of making Julia look better.
When it first aired Julia was met with many different viewer responses. This show became very popular, and ran longer than initially expected, though it did not go on without a hitch. Many criticized the show for being an inaccurate portrayal of the experience of the black individual. Where as a large portion of the black population in these times found themselves in poverty or urban ghettos, Julia portrayed an ideal middle class life its female lead.
ReplyDeleteJulia’s life on the show is seemingly untroubled, aside from the few problems that seemed to be solved simply within the span of an episode. For example, in the pilot we saw, the central issue is Julia’s struggle finding a job. The only obstacle she encounters is the discrimination she experiences coming from her potential employers. This problem is solved almost as soon as it is presented when the man in charge expresses that race is not an issue, and that he wants her to come interview.
She barely has to struggle, and in this way the show does not accurately portray the struggles of the black community at the time. The ease at which she lives her life, and her high-class apartment do not accurately portray the trials of the black population during this time, and therefore many simply refer to the character of Julia as “white”.
While I appreciate what the writers of Julia were attempting to do by making Julia seem “white” despite the darkness of her skin, I feel as though it actually had negative consequences. The show presented the idea that “black people were ‘just people’ to the extent that they conformed to an unexamined white norm of representation” (150). By not addressing the issues facing African Americans at that time, they were essentially making them invisible. I can understand why this angered so many black Americans. It is difficult though to find a middle ground between the racial stereotypes shown in Amos and Andy and the total erasure of blackness in Julia. This is what happens in a “single story” situation, or at least where representations of a minority group are limited: viewers use the representation shown to make assumptions about the entire group. Julia was the only African American female lead character on television at the time so people looked to her as a representation of all black females. This is probably why there was such a dichotomy between different reactions, as listed above by my peers. As flawed as the portrayal of Julia may have been, I do believe it was a step in the right direction. Both the portrayals in Julia and Amos and Andy were necessary to get to the more balanced and realistic interpretations today.
ReplyDeleteViewers interpreted Julia in many different ways because the show refused to be bold and instead slid more towards safe. White audiences noticed the idea of black people as “just people,” meaning, “they conformed to an unexamined white norm of representation” (150). People also accurately accused the creators of Julia of not being relevant to current social issues surrounding race since racial difference were substituted with sexist differences in order to relieve anxiety. Where shows like Amos ‘n’ Andy and Beulah preferred to portray African Americans as adhering to their negative stereotypes, Julia went in the complete opposite direction and made those African Americans “white.” The problem with this portrayal as a stark contrast to the negatively stereotyped African American of before is that it suggests that race is dualistic meaning that you either go completely against what you are “supposed to be” according to stereotypes or you completely adhere to it. At the same time, Julia had a lot of pressure on it since it was the only show to put an African American women in the position of lead so of course they were going to give this character, who was really a pioneer, all of the features that go against negative stereotypes.
ReplyDeleteThe time period that Julia came out in made it very hard for the show to have no stand in the racial debate that was swirling about the country. In the modern age, Julia seemed like a very standard sitcom, but it debuted in a time where race was at the forefront of American conversation. For a show that does very little to make statements for or against racism, there was more than enough debate about its racial stand because of its nearly complete lack of a stand. Unlike previous black-dominated television shows like Amos n Andy, Julia has no terrible stereotypes about African Americans. America was looking for an excuse to force the issue, and they found one. Even if Julia was trying to be casual about having some amount of wealth, this lead to outcry that the main characters were “white Negros,” as if a middle class, suburban lifestyle was mutually exclusive from having dark skin.
ReplyDeleteJulia is a well meaning, intelligent, well-kept woman. This happened during that time period, but it was so different that the previous portrayals of blacks on television that people thought something was up. The sample size of African Americans was virtually non-existent (Bulah and Amos n Andy), and the previous examples had both been negative. This places producers in a predicament because portraying Julia as blacks had previously been displayed as lead to negative heat from the public, but ignoring black culture lead to outcry that the producers were being overly ignorant of its existence. Although they had these conflicts, Julia balanced on the tight rope and survived surprisingly well for the racial storm it was immersed in.
Julia may seem as progressive compared to other black programming of the past; however, in the act of making Julia's character a respectable independent woman, she is stripped of culture completely. The show did not portray a black single mother family sitcom but portrayed just a single mother. Racially her character is neutral, so her character is criticized as being white. I think the show demonstrates a very interesting type of family where the mother raises her child as well as being a breadwinner for her family. The show definitely has some feminist threads. That is a modern interpretation of a family which provides some variety to the family sitcom. Given the context of the 1960s, the writers have much more fodder with her character being black. It would be even more progressive if they portrayed her having issues that black Americans faced at the time to send a message to audiences. This show is a black sitcom merely because the main family is black but not because they have a black lifestyle or black struggle.
ReplyDeleteI think this show faces the criticism so fiercely because television is dominated by reflections of white families. As minority programming, it is expected to represent all African American families. This is impossible just as not all white sitcoms reflect all white people and so on. So if it is expected to represent all, it will seem unrealistic to some of the viewers because it will not be correct to their interpretation. This show holds lots of weight and pressure to reflect African Americans during an era filled with Civil Rights, thus putting it under America's microscope.
The reason as to why the show was interpreted in many different ways is clearly articulated in "Is this What You Mean By Color TV." As stated, the reason behind these many different interpretations was the fact that a text (in this case the show) cannot embed an interpretation into an audience because an interpretation itself is the way an individual mind with its specific background processes the text using said background and then makes it own meaning.
ReplyDeleteJulia was a definite victim of this law of interpretation because it was the one show to represent all blacks. For instance, no "white" show at the time was spurring audiences to ask "what is this show saying about white folk?" Because white television was the norm, diverse presentations of whiteness were supplied and thus no one looked to the show to provide a singular interpretation on the white race. Because Julia was the only show with a black lead for quite some time, Julia was expected to give a specific interpretation of the black race because it was the only fictional lens through which a mass audience could access a lead black character.
Thus, with many different groups that naturally carry diverse interpretations look to one text to represent an entire race, the interpretations created will be extremely disparate. Some critics stated Julia was too "white"--living a lavish lifestyle outside of the ghettos, speaking with no "black" intonations, and not having a trace of african or black roots to decorate her house or lifestyle. Some praised the fact that she could be seen as "just another person"--meaning her assimilation allowed white audiences to feel unthreatened. Some, black and white, were outraged by the lack of a man in her life.
In my personal opinion, all of these interpretations are not dependent upon the show, but upon the context of the show. If there would have been a more lead blacks on TV, maybe people could have accepted Julia as just a character.
According to Bodrohkozy's article there was wide range of viewer responses to Julia: both positive and negative, from both blacks and whites. While "[Hal] Kanter and his production team struggled to construct images of African Americans in the context of the civil rights movement," (p. 145) it can only be expected that there would be major differences in the way the show was received by viewers. On one hand, some saw the show as a step forward in the portrayal of blacks on television in that many of the stereotypes were not even addressed in the show. On the other hand, some viewed the show as extremely negative in the sense that Julia was too "white" and not representative of the black population.
ReplyDeleteBased on our viewing of the pilot of the show, and our discussion of television and race in the 1960s, I think the show was interpreted so many different ways, because: 1) there were both black and white characters on the show and 2) many of the characters did not take on the typical stereotypical role according to gender and/or race. I believe that some critics would refer to the show or the character Julia as "white" because she did not take on any of the stereotypical roles that blacks usually portrayed in television at the time. While shows like Amos 'n' Andy, portrayed its black characters with a sense of ignorance and stupidity, Julia was an independent brilliant and determined to get a paying job in a field that was predominately white. Differences like this, set 'Julia' apart from the characteristic, stereotypical roles blacks played on television, which noted the looming progression of the times and advancement for black actors.
When Julia first aired, “NBC executives did not expect the show to succeed,” however, the show ended up achieving great success (Bodroghkozy). That being said, Julia caused extreme controversy among African Americans and whites in the 1960s. According to Brodroghkozy, the program was contentious due to the way it portrayed African Americans along with its representation of women. However, not all individuals interpreted the show, or viewed it as controversial due to these perceived elements of the show; instead, Julia was viewed in different ways depending on the viewer.
ReplyDeleteWith that said, the reasons why people would view the show in a particular light, highlighting issues of race and gender representation, can be readily identified in the show’s pilot, “Mama’s Man.” To start, racial issues were emphasized when Julia went in for an interview; she was immediately overlooked for the position due to the interviewer’s belief that the head chief would not accept her because of her race. This part of the episode clearly portrayed racial discrimination as being prevalent in 1960s America, although blacks were beginning to gain more respect at the time. However, Julia did end up getting the job, which is why some critics may disregard the outcome of her initial interview and pay more attention to end of the episode. Therefore, it is clear why some critics may see Julia as “white,” because she was given a respected job, which was once unheard of for blacks. Furthermore, Julia was also hired due to her qualifications; before blacks did not have a high education status, however, Julia had a degree and other qualities that made her stand out. Additionally, Julia lived in the same apartment building as a middle-class white family, which portrayed her as having the same class status as whites. In terms of gender, Julia was a single mom raising her child on her own; to some viewers, this may be interpreted as sexual inequality.
There were so many different interpretations about “Julia” because, at that time, different people had different views on the progress of African Americans in the media. Some wanted African Americans to just be present in television, some were happy when African Americans were not portrayed as antagonists, some were only happy when African Americans on television were representative of the true African American community, and others still did not want African Americans on television. So “Julia,” like all shows, pleased some but not all viewers. It showed a lot of progress with an African American woman as the lead in the show. However, a lot of viewers believed that Julia looked, talked like, and acted like all of the white mothers on television. In that case, she was not representative of the African American culture.
ReplyDeleteAt the time that it aired, “Julia” was seen as being unrealistic in terms of how it portrayed the lifestyle of an African American individual at that point in time. True, Julia’s character may not have been so typical of the average African American woman in the late sixties/early seventies, I think that the show was not received as well critically as it could have been because the main focus of the show was received to be race. The show was attempting to be progressive by placing an African American woman in the role of the “everywoman” however that fact was the main focus of the public. Every aspect of Julia’s lifestyle was taken as “race-specific” while it was meant to be more general. When watching “Julia” I was thinking about a possible medium between a depiction such as “Amos ‘n’ Andy” and a progressive one like “Julia”. At that time, could you depict African Americans in a negative light without being racist, or in a positive light without it being received as “white”? I think that balance is a great reflection of what was happening at that point in time and what the network was struggling to portray.
ReplyDeleteThough critics attacked the television show Julia as white, I support the thesis initiated in discussion last week that Julia is neutral, is absent of race, due to the show’s dismissal of racial inequalities and the passive protagonist. Though races are represented in the show, the races are not discussed. For example, when Cory unveils his appearance to the neighbor, the neighbor queries, “Is that really you?” and Corey answers, “I told you I’m a boy.” Not only does the surprising line dismiss a conversation about race, but also the unfulfilled expectation gives the audience sense of guilt for assuming the neighbor’s questions would prompt such a conversation. By saying nothing, the show suggests that race isn’t worth a conversation. In the 1960’s, racial inequalities valued white as powerful. So, if Julia were “white,” then her character ought to be empowered. Julia, however, is not. While most plotlines are driven by protagonists who make a decision and suffer a consequence, secondary characters make the decisions and Julia suffers the consequences. For example, in the professional plotline, doctors determine whether Julia is fit for a position. In the domestic plotline, the son and his friend set his mother up. Julia is not an agent in her story, but a passive partaker.
ReplyDeleteDaring to portray the trials and tribulations of a widowed African American nurse and her young son in an era defined by a decided lack of diversity on prime time television, NBC’s Julia was bound to ruffle more than a few feathers. Far from unexpected, what makes this outrage most compelling are the vastly differing interpretations of the same televisual text. Indeed, most responses largely contradicted the intended goals of the show’s writers and producers, as viewers instead constructed their own meanings through the subjective prism of personal and cultural experience.
ReplyDeleteDisplaying what Bodroghkozy describes as an implicit self-consciousness, many white viewers writing to express their favorable opinion of the show felt the necessity to identify their own race, their praise for a program that portrayed blacks “just like everyone else” signifying a conscious denial of difference in an attempt to comprehend a suddenly unstable framework of racial identity (149). Others found this very notion incredibly problematic, white critics and black viewers alike criticizing the omission of racial and cultural specificity in a character that they perceived to function as little more than a “white negro” perpetuating the racial status quo. Thus, many African American letter writers voiced their disapproval of the producers’ apparent reticence to allow Julia to “be black,” as well as the depiction of – as one viewer phrased it – the “super-Negro,” a point that even the show’s star, Diahann Carroll, openly acknowledged (152).
Evaluating these racial constructs from another angle, some white housewives expressed concern that the advancement of a black woman was occurring at the “expense” of her white counterparts. Such readings, however, can in fact be interpreted as representative of yet unvoiced anxieties about traditional gender hierarchies, the issues instead manifesting themselves in fears of social regression. Beyond these more encoded racial tensions, many white viewers did little more than compose overtly racist diatribes, their indignation ranging from a general anger at the diversification of television to the supposed – though nonexistent – threat Julia posed of miscegenation, as well as a condescending “concern” that such a disruption of established racial hierarchies could only end up “harming” the nation’s black citizens.
The above responses notwithstanding, perhaps the most intriguing aspect of this audience interpretation is the markedly different manner in which many African Americans interacted with the program. Unlike white commentators, black viewers tended to engage the text far more personally, with multiple letter writers offering their services as screenwriter or guest star. Such appeals seem to signify an overwhelming desire to establish a substantive connection with this rare piece of televisual diversity that, unfortunately, few could actually relate to. As such, these offers of assistance effectively bridged this divide, becoming a crucial means by which many sought to formulate racial constructs independent of the restrictively homogenous white middle-class paradigm.
The range in viewer responses is a consequence of the turbulent political and social time. Blacks were on the brink of a transformation from the "other" to "just people" and the anxieties and fears manifested themselves in the show from audience responses( whether white or black responses), newspaper and magazine articles. All of these mediums were used to hold a public discussion on "Julia" and the way in which black people were being represented. Many problems arose with Julia because the producers walked a tight rope trying to to offend yet trying to break through and unite people across racial lines. Unfortunately, as a result they offended both blacks and whites, and also blithely indulged in sexist and offensive remarks and behavior regarding women.
ReplyDeleteOn the black side of the spectrum, the reception was for the most part the same. Blacks felt that they couldn't identify with "Julia" and they were critical of the "comfortable image of black success...in stark juxtaposition to the images seen as local and national newspapers" (Bodroghkozy).
There was a conscious effort to move away from the racial stereotypes that plagued shows earlier in the decade like "Amos n' Andy" but they didn't find a balance and ended up on the other side of the spectrum. What I mean is, by shying away from racial constructs that depicted blacks negatively (although they carry some cultural characteristics), they created a "white negro" stripped of her heritage and culture but portrayed positively with positive characteristics (smart, loyal, beautiful, hardworking). The problem with this is, why can't Julia be black and have these characteristics? The writers had an inadequate repertoire of black images and they didn't know how to create such a character without making her white. White people often wrote in applauding the show because they represented black just like "them" or "just like people", this idea that blacks have to live up to an standard that whites can identify or feel some level of comfort with. Although this is demeaning it at least began a discussion and evoked whites to reconstruct their world's with black people apart of their reality. Instead of whites turning their back to black people, the show caused white people to at least see them as people regardless of the fact that they were issuing a white tag to be a "good" black. It was a step forward for some viewers and a war zone for others.
The white woman that had problems with the show were disappointed with the depiction of the neighbor, Mrs. Waggedorn. They felt that she was represented as a dumb and inadequate mother in contrast to Julia who was a fine mother with a good head on her shoulders. White woman didn't like that the character representing them took a backseat to this black woman, and even if it wasn't explicit the mail written in harbored this disapproval.
Also regardless of color, sexism ran rampant in "Julia". The show consciously focused on race and this effectively forced appropiate relations between men and women to the background. The show took a step back in regards to depictions and representations of women to stabilize a black woman character. In her interviews, not wanting to dwell on the fact that she was black, the writers often used the interviewer to aggressively discuss her beauty and such topics that were highly inappropiate. The producers used sexism to disguise race yet it backfired upsetting women because of the blunt and degrading language.