Watch one of the three 1980s television episodes linked below and write 400 words on the representations of class within Roseanne, LA Law, or COPS. This post will count as two blog posts.
LA LAW, s.1, ep.1
Roseanne, s.1, ep. 1
COPS, pilot (please watch all of the parts on youtube)
From the introduction of the TV show, Roseanne, we already know the show will portray class different from other sitcoms that we have watched in class. A family sits around their dinner table in sweats, acting like slobs, and having a good time. The husband plays with a football at the table, a girl is playing with her food, and there is a bit of bickering amongst the people around the table. Their house looks poorly decorated and there is clearly a lot of action that happens in the crowded room. This can be contrasted to Julia when Julia is always dressed professionally and lives in the spacious apartment with only her and her son. The first few lines of dialogue are money related as well with Roseanne telling her daughter that they have no jam, her telling her son that she sold his English book, and then telling her daughter to have the school bring some of the food from the Can Food Drive for poor people to her. The show takes on this issue of money, by lightly poking fun at the situation of the family. The family makes jokes at each other pretending to hate one another by joking about regretting their marriage along with scheduling conflicts and issues of money but their sincerity shines through their sarcasm. The settings are unglorious, the humor is deprecating, and the middle-class structures create the plot of this episode. The constantly fighting family is much more realistic than the situational humor of other sitcoms we have watched (though it is important to take into account that this is the pilot). In this episode parents, siblings, and coworkers argue over responsibility, money, and schedules, which varies greatly from the I Love Lucy episode where she tries to get onto TV or the I Remember Mama episode where a fortune-teller is pulling a scam on people. I would even say that issues of money are more integrated into Roseanne than in the episode of Good Times in which the family had to make up the money by being pool-sharks or fainting in the mall, because the topic of money comes up more in the context of the show than the plot. The plot of Roseanne is that the teacher is crazy and the family fights a lot, but the underlying context is that they struggle with money (which is seen in the setting and sarcastic humor), while Good Times addresses the issue of money more directly than an underlying context. These shows reflect on the issue of class in a way that many audiences could connect to, because of the openness about these families’ lives.
In this episode of Roseanne, the creators take a feminist approach to examining the challenges of the working class mother. It situates the mother as not only the leader and coordinator of the domestic space, but gives her a secondary job outside of the home for which she must be responsible. As we can see from this episode, Rosanne must juggle between work and family. As the female of the household, Rosanne is expected to sacrifice her time in order to make accommodations for the children and is often taken for granted by all family members, especially her partner who is not even living up to his masculine task of fixing the sink. This feminist portrayal is specifically working class-centric because it focuses on the struggle that arises when a household has limited funds, both parents must work, and there is no money for maids or plumbers to easily fix their problems. An example of contrasting Rosanne’s working class lifestyle to other lifestyles is when Rosanne visits the teacher’s classroom to discuss her daughter. At first the teacher doesn’t think that she can have the meeting any longer because Roseanne is fifteen minutes late. Roseanne refuses and then the teacher directs her to sit in one of the children desks. The teacher is very worried about Darlene’s behavior and states it may be triggered from experiences at home, and she states that Roseanne may need to spend more time with her daughter to change such behavioral problems. Roseanne tells the teacher that Darlene’s simply being a kid. This scene gives a clear contrast between the working class mother and the educated professional female. It first demonstrates the way in which the educated professional does not understand the importance of Rosanne’s time. Once again, Roseanne is treated like she’s simply a mother and not a person with her own job around which she must work. The teacher also degrades her by directing her to sit in a child seat, demonstrating that Roseanne is someone to be lectured. The teacher is younger, and possesses less life experience, but she feels her education gives her far more knowledge on children than Rosanne’s years of motherhood ever could. This is another example of the way in which the work of a working class mother is degraded as simple compared to the status of an educated professional. Basically, Rosanne’s time and challenging work is not appreciated. Another scene in which appreciation for Roseanne is missing is the argument scene before her and Dan. Rosanne argues all of the work she must do compared to the lack of work that Dan actually does around the house. Dan argues that he will take her place for making dinner, but Roseanne claims he’s incompetent. Darlene cuts herself and it calls for both arguers to nurture her. This mini-crisis relieves the tension between the parents and returns things back to normal: Roseanne cooks dinner while Dan plunges (but doesn’t fix) the sink. Later, her and Dan are resolved and have a private romantic moment. This scene demonstrates that the current working class mother does have say in her house, but often falls back to the norm of overworking out of love for the family. It places a family-centric view on the working class and displays the working class mother both hating and loving her position in the home and the exterior world. Overall, the episode demonstrates that the present working class mother must be the family member to balance working and familial responsibilities, and while she may often feel neglected herself, the stability of her family remains her ultimate goal.
Roseanne classically harkens back to the early days of television by delivering a working class family sitcom. Here we are seeing a slice of life as opposed to a sitcom that serves as a model for viewers. Not only is this show reflective of class but of gender. Roseanne as the matriarch works but also does the typical mother duties. Combining this elements proves an interesting dynamic for a sitcom. Much can be said about the set of Roseanne. It is not a pretty home but a functional one. None of the furniture matches and there is a homemade quilt on the couch. In the kitchen there is a broken sink that Dan must plunge. There are drawings on the refrigerator. This seems to provide a realism for many families. This is what a home looks like. You can gather from their possessions that they are proverbially “getting by” in life. The house is more about providing a space for a family. At the end of most episodes, that is what is important. Initially in the episode there are trivial family issues that are mentioned. Again, they don’t have a pretty life but rather have to face monotonous problems in their daily life. The sink is a prime example. It always needs fixing. Instead of hiring someone to fix it, Dan has to fix it. This shows that being of a lower class adds subtle daily problems that can interfere with the little free time they have together as a family with both working parents and kids in school. Roseanne mentions saving coupons so we know she raises a family on a budget. These are things that average working class families deal with every day so it provides some realism. I think when people watch this show they can see something of their own family life in it.Though they have a usual family structure of a mom, dad, and children, the sitcom is not like most sitcoms. It lacks glamour, but that’s what makes the show interesting. At the end of this episode the audience appreciates Roseanne as somewhat of a heroine. Though her actions very much hinge on her social class, we respect her as a woman who does it all. She provides for her family by working in the plastic factory, but finds time to make lunches, do the laundry, and meet with her childrens teachers. I know she has to work for financial reasons, but even though their working class status provides a lot of their struggle, it also helps them realize that their one main objective is having a happy family. Even though class is different than other sitcoms, it still comes to the conclusion of trying to keep the family cohesive and loving.
"Roseanne" takes a departure from the typical format of its sitcom predecessors in various ways. The first difference that comes to mind when the show starts is the standard of living. It would appear to me that Roseanne’s family is somewhere on the spectrum of upper lower class to lower middle class. They seem to have plenty of space in the house but certain appliances don’t work such as the sink. They choose to fix it themselves instead of hiring someone to do it. This could be a case of pride in fixing something themselves but it could potentially show the inability to afford someone to fix it professionally. Also, the house seems very cluttered. There is a laundry basket in the kitchen and there is a lot of junk on the table. A clean house and, a lot of times, a maid is associated with a middle class lifestyle in the earlier sitcoms. Another indication of a lower class would be the attire of the family. Many middle class families on TV had the mother in a dress and the father in business or business casual attire. Roseanne wore a sweatshirt and jeans, her husband wore an open plaid shirt with an undershirt and khakis with sneakers, and one of her daughters wore grungy athletic attire. The family roles are also quite different from classic sitcom format. In "Roseanne," Roseanne works to make ends meet while her husband is unemployed and drinks while hanging with his buddies. This is almost unheard of in previous sitcoms where the man makes most, if not all, of the income unless the story revolves around a single mother. The family’s interactions with others also present them in a lower class. An example would be Roseanne’s encounter with the teacher. Roseanne wears a sweatshirt and jeans again while the teacher is dressed in a nice shirt and skirt, Roseanne sits on top of a desk while the teacher sits behind a larger desk in an actual chair, and the teacher attempts to give Roseanne parenting and suggests there is trouble at home. All of these contrasts and incidents suggest that Roseanne is of a lower class than the teacher, or at least that is what the teacher believes. Finally, their behavior is drastically different from other sitcom families we have seen. Most of the earlier sitcoms represent the mother as a nurturing figure and all conflicts and arguments are resolved with a discussion or moral lesson of some kind. In "Roseanne," Roseanne spends most of the time complaining about how much she does for the family and is not nurturing towards her children, even going so far as to sarcastically agree that one of the kids should jump off a building and take her siblings with her. And towards the end of the episode, when Roseanne and her husband are shouting and fighting, they never resolve the conflict. It is simply pacified for the time being by their daughter’s injury. These examples do not necessarily prove that the family in "Roseanne" is lower than middle class. In fact, they could very well more accurately represent the middle class. The examples do support, however, that the family is portrayed as a lower class compared to the stereotypical families of earlier sitcoms.
Representations of the working-class can be seen within the popular television sitcom, Roseanne, which successfully depicts the realistic issues facing working class mothers and their families in the 80s. Premiering in 1988, Roseanne was one of the first situational comedies that harkened back to early, working-class sitcoms through its depictions of a working-class family.
The class status of the Conners can be easily identified within the opening credits of the program, which displays Roseanne and her family chaotically enjoying a meal at their kitchen table. Although they appear to be having a good time, the children are not seated nor are they behaving properly. Instead, the kids are teasing one another and interrupting their parents who are having a conversation with other individuals at the table. Evidently, compared to early sitcom depictions of middle-class families, the children in Roseanne are not as well behaved. Portrayals of middle-class families typically show the children as being respectful and cooperative, especially toward their parents while at the kitchen table. Therefore, the opening segment serves to foreshadow the program’s choice to no longer adhere to the early-sitcom depiction of a “perfect” family with respectable children and a utopian lifestyle; instead, Roseanne represents the true, realistic working-class family, shedding new light on the notions of gender roles and financial issues in a humoristic manner.
Roseanne and Dan successfully portray the dynamics of a realistic working-class, married couple. The depiction of their relationship and life together does not comply with the typical early depiction of gender roles within a household; instead, Roseanne defies any stereotype of being a “housewife” and Dan is anything but the ultimate “breadwinner” of the family. Roseanne is a full-time working mother, which can be easily identified in the episode, Life and Stuff. A part from the episode showing Roseanne at work, her role as a working mom can be recognized through the portrayal of their messy home and the conversation she has with her daughter’s history teacher. The Conners’ house never appears to be neat, especially the kitchen, which is generally stereotyped as the room designated for the wife and mother. Therefore, it is clear that Roseanne is not a “housewife” that stays home to clean and cook all day. Roseanne acknowledges her role as she tells her daughter’s teacher that she has “three kids and work, so no free time.” This line within the episode also works to show that Roseanne’s character does not stay home to watch TV like the “housewife” is noted to do. Furthermore, although Dan does fit the definition of a “breadwinner,” he still is portrayed to be caring and understanding. With that said, Roseanne evidently works to make up for his unemployment and unwillingness to complete house chores, such as unclogging the kitchen sink.
The kitchen sink even works as an element of the show that works to portray a working-class family. Generally, middle-class families have updated, working appliances, whereas the Conners have a sink that has broken three times in one week. Evidently, they do not have the financial ability to hire someone to come fix it or purchase a new one, therefore, casting them as a working-class family. Additionally, Roseanne and her family are portrayed as not being financially stable as Roseanne yells to Dan to “save me that detergent coupon," in the same episode, Life and Stuff. Furthermore, Roseanne tells her daughter to have her school’s food drive, “drive some of that food over here.” Obviously, these lines are made to be funny, however, they are still functioning to portray the Conners as a working-class family.
Roseanne portrays a working-class family through shrewd humor that rivaled the typical middle-class family sitcoms at the time. In the opening credits of Roseanne, the characters are sitting around a table in a kitchen that looks dated, unorganized and somewhat cluttered. The characters are all wearing sweatshirt material in all forms that reflects their lazy “no where to go” attitudes that in turn reflect their level of class and status within society. The show is centered around Roseanne, a mother of three and wife to Dan, her husband who I believe has lost his already low paying job. This particular episode showcases the role of the mother and her struggle to make ends meet while staying true to her (humorous) self and loving and supporting family. Much of the episode focus’s on Roseanne’s inability to provide everything her family wants and sometimes needs, but also shows her efforts to work with what they have.
In this particular episode, Roseanne pushes her boss to allow her to leave work an hour early but he will not give her this “lengthy” amount of time off, but eventually compromises on Roseanne leaving a half hour early, where the time off “is coming out of her paycheck.” Later, when Roseanne is “utilizing” this time off, she brings up the fact that she is losing her pay over this, further reminding the audience of her financial status. Incidents like this are continually used throughout the show to mimic the real life struggles of working-class Americans. The show proved to be so successful because of the real life story plot lines surrounding money and family issues. Furthermore, its use of humor proves that the show commemorates rather than trivializes lower- working-class family lives.
Roseanne is a show about real people and real issues that much of middle America deals with. Through the mise-en-scene, as well as character portrayals, Roseanne helped to stage working-class families on primetime television. First of all, the house where much of the show takes place, is average in respect to the fact that it has enough bedrooms to fit the family, a nice sized living room, again, with enough room to fit the family, and a somewhat dated, no-frills kitchen and mud room. There are no elaborate decorations in the home nor are there any “extra” or unnecessary objects: everything has a purpose and a specific function. This idea of simplicity speaks to issues of class and how the show reached its goals of portraying an average working-class family. Moreover, the language the characters use is nothing fancy, as they use a lot of slang and Roseanne herself has a particularly high pitched and sometimes annoying voice that she uses to spit out her shrewd comments. Overall, all of the elements of the show reflect working-class Americans and the socioeconomic issues they face in the real world. Through the shows unwillingness to portray anything but the truth, Roseanne proved to be a game changing show that showcases real life struggles and problems that many people face in their daily lives, while also representing the lower-class in a way that does not victimize them, but rather introduces them in a new and humorous light.
From the high-speed chases to the quaint scenes of family life in Broward County Florida, the pilot episode of Cops shows distinct representations of class in American crime. The episode itself deals mostly with the narcotic busts in this sunny county, mainly adhering to crack cocaine. The episode starts out with the seizing of a crack house. We follow the sheriff and his team as they search through a run down, grossly unsanitary house for drugs and weapons. This is our first look at the lower class. We see low-income housing where basic housing necessities, such as plumbing, cannot be afforded and the sale and use of drugs are intertwined. Drugs are sold and the money is usually put towards buying more drugs. This section of the show portrays the criminals as predominantly African American males. The cops refer to the neighborhoods as “black” and know something criminal is going on when white people are seen entering and driving through these areas. Next, there is an interesting juxtaposition of classes. We cut to the house of one of the sergeants on the force and we get a glimpse into his home life. The sergeant occupies the middle class with his wife. In these scenes, middle class problems are shown to us in the form of a husband and wife arguing over connection issues and marital problems. While we just saw the lower class fighting for their lives through the sale of narcotics, we now see the troubles of the middle class, the very people who are bringing the lower class to justice. This parallel structure makes a statement about the difference between the upper and lower class. It’s showing us the hardships of both classes in such a light that portrays a sort of hierarchy to the viewer, associating the lower class with drugs and violence and the middle class with much less important problems like a husband watching TV when he comes home instead of talking with his wife. If the episode ended here, it would show an overwhelming bias to the middle class as being more likable and more civilized, but it doesn’t. The episode then goes on to show a narcotics unit in the Fort Lauderdale International Airport. This team randomly searches pedestrians in the airport for possession of drugs or weapons. This sequence shows that it’s not only the lower class that deals in the narcotics game, but also members of the middle and upper classes. One of the female officers referenced a time when she arrested a 70-year-old man with possession of narcotics. She says that she would never have suspected a man like that to be transporting drugs but she learned that it can happen with anyone; she learned that its all about “the almighty dollar”. This idea of “the almighty dollar” ties all the classes together at the end of the episode. The show began with a clear distinction between classes and ends with a concept that ties them all together and puts them on level with each other. Humans will do crazy things just for the instant gratification of a certain sum of money.
Roseanne portrays a blue collar, working class family of five. Both the patriarch (Dan) and matriarch (Roseanne) of the family work, one as a construction contractor and the other as a line worker at a plastic factory. They serve as the main characters of the show and are portrayed as lazy, messy, overweight, and simple. The family is always dressed casually in sweats or flannel. The house is always a mess. The family takes meals at a dining room/kitchen where food consists of simple meals like pasta, food is always spilled or played with, and family members have their feet on the table or are messing around with one another. The children have no respect for their parents, always talking back or doing the opposite of what they’re told (eating pie). In addition, when the children do something wrong, Roseanne is very passive aggressive about disciplining the children, such as not punishing her son for eating the pie when she told him not to. Roseanne has to do everything house and family related, taking the extra time out of her schedule to get other chores and appointments done. This is done while Dan essentially takes the day off drinking beer with his friends after a job fell through. The parents are always sarcastic and joking around with each other or otherwise fighting about parental roles. In reference to a food drive one of the children is having at school, Roseanne tells her daughter to bring a couple cans back if a half-joking sort of way. This coupled with the two jobs the parent’s work, displays how the show portrays the working class as eternally struggling to get by financially. In the meet-the-teacher scene, the teacher referenced the “psychological problems” of Roseanne’s daughter’s barking in class taking root in family problems. This flew over Roseanne’s head consequently portraying the working-class as simple-minded and unable to see dysfunctions in their home life. Roseanne’s friend referenced her husband’s tendency to treat the kids badly, screwing around on her, and being unhygienic portraying further stereotypes of the working class. Another of Roseanne’s friends tells of a seminar that she went to in which you visualize what you want in order to attain it. This echoes the fortune-teller in Mama, where working class people look to unconventional means in order to attain what they don’t have. This is further affirmed when both friends of Roseanne’s seem interested in doing the seminar, regardless of the ridiculousness Roseanne sees in it. Roseanne paints a portrait of the middle class as lazy, messy, dysfunctional, struggling financially, fighting, overweight, and perpetually busy.
At the very beginning of the pilot episode of the television show COPS we are told that “COPS is about real people and real crime. It was filmed entirely on location, with the men and women who work in low enforcement.” Moreover, we learn that this particular episode is set in a county of Florida that is a well-known location for drug smuggling. Here we see part of the reason why COPS is a show that is so interesting—it claims to directly capture the reality of law enforcement for home audiences. However, the show is also interesting for the way that it portrays class, and in the pilot episode in particular, the lower class is quite obviously linked to race and crime.
In one of the first scenes of the show, a sheriff takes the camera on a tour of a drug seller’s house, calling it “disgusting” and spitting out the words “crack house” with apparent disdain. The camera shows us a cluttered, junk-riddled apartment, complete with a plastic bin in the center of the bedroom that was being used as a toilet. Here we have our first example of the way that lower class living and drug crimes are so closely associated. Another scene shows an officer referring to “white guys” who are apparently so out of place in a black neighborhood that the officer knows immediately that they are there to purchase drugs. The implication is that the white men would only be in such a “black” area if they are there to do something illegal, a fact that is driven home when the officer asks, “Don’t you know what happens here to white guys like you?” This scene, coupled with numerous scenes showing African Americans being arrested, clearly associates drug crimes with African Americans. And not only are drugs, lower class life, and “blackness” linked together, but they are also associated in this episode with a fractured family, as evidenced in a scene were an officer tries to make a suspect feel guilty by questioning why he would sell drugs out of his parent’s home.
In contrast, the law enforcement is associated with “whiteness,” middle class living, and good family values. At one point, one of the officers states, “I am the only white face in this area, besides other cops.” And indeed, most, if not all of the cops that we see are white. Additionally, the show gives us a glimpse in to the homes of these cops, and what we see is completely different from the lower class “crack houses.” Instead, the cop’s homes are quite firmly of the middle class, complete with clean interiors, mowed lawns, and wives in the midst of dinner preparations. Even a fight that we see between a cop and his wife seems to be portrayed in a positive light, as the wife is simply expressing a wish for better communication between them. Further, many of the cops are raising children, a fact that seems to further uphold their emphasis on family values. This representation is obviously very far removed from the one discussed in the previous paragraph.
However, as a someone above pointed out, the show could not quite be called biased, because other scenes reveal that other crimes (like drug smuggling and prostitution) are often carried out by people other than African American males. Thus, COPS seems to be a show that is true to its word about its representation of reality, though its framing techniques (the fact that it so obviously contrasts lower class “black” life with middle “white” class life) could probably stand to be adjusted to be more equal.
“Roseanne” acts differently as a situational comedy in that it uses the financial status of the family as its main source of humor. The episode starts with Roseanne’s family at their breakfast table. Simply from the set you can tell that they are not well off. Most of the dialogue in the show consists of the family bickering. Most of the problems that drive the show’s plot relate to the family’s financial status. For example, the driving conflict of the pilot is Roseanne trying to figure out how to take off time from work so that she can speak with her daughter’s teacher after she was acting up in class. She then has to coordinate with her husband, which one of them can afford to miss work for that day and how they will be getting to school. “Roseanne” reminded me of “The Honeymooners” in that both highlight a family that is just making ends meet. However, “The Honeymooners” featured Jackie Gleason as the realistic half of a couple that wanted to be better off. Alternatively, in “Roseanne” it seems as if the family understands their stance financially. While “Roseanne” works her shift at the factory, she spends her break time with her female colleagues discussing their husbands and how the women do all of the work at home. In the workplace, Roseanne discusses her flawed home life and how she does all of the work, while at home, Roseanne argues with her husband over her missing work. Even when she goes to meet with her daughter’s teacher, the teacher proposes that her daughter is acting up due to trouble at home. Roseanne proceeds to laugh it off as a trivial matter, agreeing that there are problems at home but that she has bigger problems to deal with. While throughout the entire episode, the sink is never fixed. Even though no aspect, home or work, is ever completely under control for Roseanne, the main feature of the show is that she can somewhat manage both lives as well as that of her husband and three children. It recasts the typical “American housewife” as a workingwoman and the leader of the house, yet not someone who has everything under control. The show is relatable as almost every aspect of Roseanne’s life is in constant flux and she is responsible to make sure that it all comes together, not that it would all work out on its own.
Critically analyzing the first two shows of the 1980s to directly address the concept of “yuppiedom” – L.A. Law and thirtysomething – author Jane Feuer argues that these televisual representations tend to emphasize the “guilt and self-loathing” of a grown baby boomer generation that has abandoned the hippie commune for a house in the suburbs. Noting “the spectator was supposed to experience both envy and guilt at the same time,” she observes that L.A. Law, particularly, played on this principle through visual representation, in which the “visual codes” of the mise-en-scène are juxtaposed with the “narrational codes” of the storyline (62, Yuppie Envy and Yuppie Guilt).
Nowhere is this interpretation more apt than the pilot episode of the series. Opening on a typical Los Angeles traffic jam, the audience is introduced to attorney Arnie Becker as he sits behind the wheel of a Porsche convertible, the camera lingering on the vanity license plate “LITIG8R” before panning up and over the front of the vehicle. Indeed, when he arrives at the law firm, his personal secretary soon reminds him that they’re “picking up your car for detailing today.” Any doubt that this man’s morals have been tainted by conspicuous consumption are quickly assuaged when, after the woman discovers a senior partner lying dead at his desk, Becker responds, “I got dibs on his office.”
Though the lawyers may possess questionable morals, their clientele is far worse. Cutting from the skyscraper that houses the contemporary, glass-walled offices of the law firm to the lobby of a police precinct, the editing presents the viewer with an abrupt shift in social and cultural milieu. Leaving the lofty environs in which the high-powered attorneys dwell – literally and figuratively – above the inhabitants of the city below, the viewers now find themselves amidst working-class officers and criminals waiting to be booked. The client in question, a trust fund kid accused of rape, exemplifies the capitalist ethos of the firm. Arrogantly claiming to have only solicited a prostitute, the young man displays little concern or sympathy for the victim, even after learning that she suffers from leukemia. Instead, he insists that the woman has pinned a crime on him in order to extort money, smarmily asserting, “For a thousand bucks she’ll fold like a deck chair.” Refusing to accept the fact that he must remain in jail overnight, he is confident that his father’s relationship with the judge will surely grant him a ticket out of there that evening, a statement that eventually proves true.
Moving on to a firm meeting convened to assess pending cases, the narrative shifts to another thread of the conservative, every-man-for-himself ideology that pervaded 1980s Reagan-era America, this time concerning a pro bono case concerning a woman who has been given the “runaround” by her insurance agency, and is thus being sued by her doctor over an unpaid $750 bill. Scornfully dismissing this as a “collection matter,” the man running the meeting reminds Ann Kelsey and Abby Perkins – the women proposing the case – that “lawyers clad in polyester suits soliciting for clients” deal with this sort of thing, while their esteemed firm cannot be bothered with such trivial matters. After he condescendingly inquires as to whether it is her “belief that they are running a welfare state,” the disagreement quickly escalates, with Kelsey vehemently asserting that if she can do something to “keep some poor working woman from getting screwed over by the system” she will do so. With this confrontation, the program not only comments on the growing inequality between the upper and lower classes perpetuated by the decade’s laissez faire principles, but also presents an interesting visual statement, decisively depicting two of the very few female attorneys in the firm as championing the rights of the disadvantaged, these sympathies drawing undisputable parallels between the working-class woman and these well-educated lawyers as marginalized members of their respective social spheres.
Returning to the rape case, the codefendants arrive in court donning prison jumpsuits, their inability to hire a lawyer necessitating their representation by a public defender. Receiving none of the preferential treatment that the wealthy young man’s money has bought him, the striking visual juxtaposition between these two men and the trust fund kid in expensive street clothes forces the viewer to confront the fact that, despite being accused of the same crime, the socioeconomic status that divides these men has obviously resulted in unequal treatment. Indeed, while the affluent young man is able to walk out of the courtroom, the others, unable to post bail, must continue to languish in prison cells.
The next day, as the preliminary hearing commences, the audience is introduced to the victim, a young black woman from a lower-class neighborhood. Bombarded with defamatory insinuations that she is an alcoholic and a drug abuser, she is forced to admit that she had indeed been smoking marijuana that evening, but only to alleviate the nausea caused by chemotherapy. Painted as a dope smoking deviant with nothing to lose, it is even suggested that she was in fact the aggressor in the incident. Breaking down in tears, she lashes out, her actions forcing the judge to place her in a holding cell. Thus, although the victim of a heinous sexual assault, this young woman essentially finds the tables turned against her, her marginal social standing somehow justifying the attorney’s questioning of her character.
In an ironic twist of fate, $4200 in unpaid parking tickets find Michael Kuzak – the lawyer representing the rich young man – in the cell next to her, his social status as a wealthy, white high-powered attorney, which had previously allowed him to circumvent the law, no longer exempting him from the consequences of his actions. Apologizing for what occurred in the courtroom, he nevertheless stresses his client’s right to the “best legal representation that he can obtain.” After affirming his belief in the system, he comments that he personally “wouldn’t lose any sleep” over her taking justice into her own hands, as she had implied she might do during her outburst. After considering this, the woman solemnly responds, “That’s the difference between us, Mr. Kuzak. I would.” With this last statement, the true nature of the yuppie ethos is effectively driven home, demonstrating what actually separates these disparate classes of people. Having sacrificed progressive social values in return for wealth and status, Kuzak has made a “deal with the devil,” while, despite being dealt a miserable hand in life, this young woman nevertheless still possesses the one thing that alludes him – a conscience.
Class is very much at the center of the show Roseanne. It ran from 1988 to 1997 and was extremely popular, becoming the most watched show in the United States from 1989 to 1990. I think it’s an unusual show in that it depicts a low income, working class family and seems to have a matriarchal, female dominated household. The issue of money is frequently mocked on the show. In the pilot, Roseanne jokes to her oldest daughter Becky about her desire to take cans of food from their house to school for the food drive. Roseanne quips, “Well tell ‘em to drive some of that food over here.” The family clearly has serious issues with money and their financial standing, but Roseanne and her husband Dan make light of it.
Although Roseanne ends up in the traditional housewife role at the conclusion of the pilot episode, there is a lot of tension between her and her husband as they bicker over household responsibilities. There is some resistance on Roseanne’s part to fill the role of housewife, but there is also some deviation from the completely traditional role. This is shown in the fact that she also works outside of the home at a factory and appears to be the de facto leader of her family and the household. Even the name of the show implies that Roseanne is in charge. Her husband, if not slightly submissive towards her, is at least very respectful towards her. There is definitely an implication that the two of them need each other and are working as a team to keep their family afloat.
Another thing that drives the representation of class on the show is the characters’ manner of speech. They don’t speak like the upper class characters shown on television. They shorten words, use double negatives, and stereotypically lower class words like “ain’t.” Nothing is sugarcoated on the show. There’s a definite attempt to depict the reality of blue collar life. Frequently television shows claim to be centered around a low income character or family, but come up with money out of nowhere. For example, on Julia, the main character starts out jobless and yet she lives in a luxurious apartment that she couldn’t have inherited from her husband who died in the military. Roseanne, with all of its irreverent, sarcastic humor is all about painting a realistic portrait of a working class family in the late ‘80s and ‘90s.
The L.A. Law pilot showcases the life of upper class lawyer yuppies. The show seems to portray them as generally morally vein, and the lower class as people being stomped upon by capitalism and the corruption of the lawyers.
The show opens with partner Norman Cheney being found dead in his office. The thoughts of the characters are not about Norman or his family, but on how his death effects the business. Arnie, when he first discovers Norman's body says that he's taking Norman's office now. Characters are seen talking about a future audit as the people taking the body out accidentally drop it. The firm in LA Law is not exactly about close emotional ties.
The court cases of the episode exhibit an "anything it takes to win" type of mentality. Michael Kuzak defends a group of wealthy men who are accused of rape by a leukemia patient. The defense team attacks the patient, claiming that due to her poor prognosis she decided to try things she wouldn't otherwise - such as have sex with the three defendants. Her outburst in response leads to her being charged with contempt of court. When the judge finds Kuzak with $4,000 in parking/traffic violation tickets, she throws him into jail with her. A conversation ensues where Kuzak states that he believes in the system and the woman asks "what do I have to believe in?" The system works for the desires of the upper class, but not the needs of the lower class. The difference between the upper and lower class is perhaps best exhibited when Kuzak tells her he wouldn't lose sleep if she attempted to kill the defendant and she replies with "That's the difference between you and me. I would lose sleep over it." The morality of the upper class is shaky at best, whereas the morality of the lower class is held intact.
At a firm meeting, Abby Perkins brings up a case where an insurance company is refusing to pay insurance claims for a woman. Brackman, a boss in the firm, warns Abby about taking on the case because it is not profitable. This profit-motivated approach shows how the upper class lawyers are not in it for the lower class, and how the lower class is pushed around by the system. In spite of this, Abby Perks and Ann Kelsey pursue the case, eventually storming in to the insurance company and asserting themselves until the head of the company agrees to pay the claim. Abby and Ann are the exceptions to the rule when it comes to upper class vs. lower class.
From the introduction of the TV show, Roseanne, we already know the show will portray class different from other sitcoms that we have watched in class. A family sits around their dinner table in sweats, acting like slobs, and having a good time. The husband plays with a football at the table, a girl is playing with her food, and there is a bit of bickering amongst the people around the table. Their house looks poorly decorated and there is clearly a lot of action that happens in the crowded room. This can be contrasted to Julia when Julia is always dressed professionally and lives in the spacious apartment with only her and her son. The first few lines of dialogue are money related as well with Roseanne telling her daughter that they have no jam, her telling her son that she sold his English book, and then telling her daughter to have the school bring some of the food from the Can Food Drive for poor people to her. The show takes on this issue of money, by lightly poking fun at the situation of the family. The family makes jokes at each other pretending to hate one another by joking about regretting their marriage along with scheduling conflicts and issues of money but their sincerity shines through their sarcasm.
ReplyDeleteThe settings are unglorious, the humor is deprecating, and the middle-class structures create the plot of this episode. The constantly fighting family is much more realistic than the situational humor of other sitcoms we have watched (though it is important to take into account that this is the pilot). In this episode parents, siblings, and coworkers argue over responsibility, money, and schedules, which varies greatly from the I Love Lucy episode where she tries to get onto TV or the I Remember Mama episode where a fortune-teller is pulling a scam on people. I would even say that issues of money are more integrated into Roseanne than in the episode of Good Times in which the family had to make up the money by being pool-sharks or fainting in the mall, because the topic of money comes up more in the context of the show than the plot. The plot of Roseanne is that the teacher is crazy and the family fights a lot, but the underlying context is that they struggle with money (which is seen in the setting and sarcastic humor), while Good Times addresses the issue of money more directly than an underlying context. These shows reflect on the issue of class in a way that many audiences could connect to, because of the openness about these families’ lives.
In this episode of Roseanne, the creators take a feminist approach to examining the challenges of the working class mother. It situates the mother as not only the leader and coordinator of the domestic space, but gives her a secondary job outside of the home for which she must be responsible. As we can see from this episode, Rosanne must juggle between work and family. As the female of the household, Rosanne is expected to sacrifice her time in order to make accommodations for the children and is often taken for granted by all family members, especially her partner who is not even living up to his masculine task of fixing the sink.
ReplyDeleteThis feminist portrayal is specifically working class-centric because it focuses on the struggle that arises when a household has limited funds, both parents must work, and there is no money for maids or plumbers to easily fix their problems. An example of contrasting Rosanne’s working class lifestyle to other lifestyles is when Rosanne visits the teacher’s classroom to discuss her daughter. At first the teacher doesn’t think that she can have the meeting any longer because Roseanne is fifteen minutes late. Roseanne refuses and then the teacher directs her to sit in one of the children desks. The teacher is very worried about Darlene’s behavior and states it may be triggered from experiences at home, and she states that Roseanne may need to spend more time with her daughter to change such behavioral problems. Roseanne tells the teacher that Darlene’s simply being a kid.
This scene gives a clear contrast between the working class mother and the educated professional female. It first demonstrates the way in which the educated professional does not understand the importance of Rosanne’s time. Once again, Roseanne is treated like she’s simply a mother and not a person with her own job around which she must work. The teacher also degrades her by directing her to sit in a child seat, demonstrating that Roseanne is someone to be lectured. The teacher is younger, and possesses less life experience, but she feels her education gives her far more knowledge on children than Rosanne’s years of motherhood ever could. This is another example of the way in which the work of a working class mother is degraded as simple compared to the status of an educated professional. Basically, Rosanne’s time and challenging work is not appreciated.
Another scene in which appreciation for Roseanne is missing is the argument scene before her and Dan. Rosanne argues all of the work she must do compared to the lack of work that Dan actually does around the house. Dan argues that he will take her place for making dinner, but Roseanne claims he’s incompetent. Darlene cuts herself and it calls for both arguers to nurture her. This mini-crisis relieves the tension between the parents and returns things back to normal: Roseanne cooks dinner while Dan plunges (but doesn’t fix) the sink. Later, her and Dan are resolved and have a private romantic moment.
This scene demonstrates that the current working class mother does have say in her house, but often falls back to the norm of overworking out of love for the family. It places a family-centric view on the working class and displays the working class mother both hating and loving her position in the home and the exterior world.
Overall, the episode demonstrates that the present working class mother must be the family member to balance working and familial responsibilities, and while she may often feel neglected herself, the stability of her family remains her ultimate goal.
Roseanne classically harkens back to the early days of television by delivering a working class family sitcom. Here we are seeing a slice of life as opposed to a sitcom that serves as a model for viewers. Not only is this show reflective of class but of gender. Roseanne as the matriarch works but also does the typical mother duties. Combining this elements proves an interesting dynamic for a sitcom.
ReplyDeleteMuch can be said about the set of Roseanne. It is not a pretty home but a functional one. None of the furniture matches and there is a homemade quilt on the couch. In the kitchen there is a broken sink that Dan must plunge. There are drawings on the refrigerator. This seems to provide a realism for many families. This is what a home looks like. You can gather from their possessions that they are proverbially “getting by” in life. The house is more about providing a space for a family. At the end of most episodes, that is what is important.
Initially in the episode there are trivial family issues that are mentioned. Again, they don’t have a pretty life but rather have to face monotonous problems in their daily life. The sink is a prime example. It always needs fixing. Instead of hiring someone to fix it, Dan has to fix it. This shows that being of a lower class adds subtle daily problems that can interfere with the little free time they have together as a family with both working parents and kids in school. Roseanne mentions saving coupons so we know she raises a family on a budget. These are things that average working class families deal with every day so it provides some realism. I think when people watch this show they can see something of their own family life in it.Though they have a usual family structure of a mom, dad, and children, the sitcom is not like most sitcoms. It lacks glamour, but that’s what makes the show interesting.
At the end of this episode the audience appreciates Roseanne as somewhat of a heroine. Though her actions very much hinge on her social class, we respect her as a woman who does it all. She provides for her family by working in the plastic factory, but finds time to make lunches, do the laundry, and meet with her childrens teachers. I know she has to work for financial reasons, but even though their working class status provides a lot of their struggle, it also helps them realize that their one main objective is having a happy family. Even though class is different than other sitcoms, it still comes to the conclusion of trying to keep the family cohesive and loving.
"Roseanne" takes a departure from the typical format of its sitcom predecessors in various ways. The first difference that comes to mind when the show starts is the standard of living. It would appear to me that Roseanne’s family is somewhere on the spectrum of upper lower class to lower middle class. They seem to have plenty of space in the house but certain appliances don’t work such as the sink. They choose to fix it themselves instead of hiring someone to do it. This could be a case of pride in fixing something themselves but it could potentially show the inability to afford someone to fix it professionally. Also, the house seems very cluttered. There is a laundry basket in the kitchen and there is a lot of junk on the table. A clean house and, a lot of times, a maid is associated with a middle class lifestyle in the earlier sitcoms.
ReplyDeleteAnother indication of a lower class would be the attire of the family. Many middle class families on TV had the mother in a dress and the father in business or business casual attire. Roseanne wore a sweatshirt and jeans, her husband wore an open plaid shirt with an undershirt and khakis with sneakers, and one of her daughters wore grungy athletic attire. The family roles are also quite different from classic sitcom format. In "Roseanne," Roseanne works to make ends meet while her husband is unemployed and drinks while hanging with his buddies. This is almost unheard of in previous sitcoms where the man makes most, if not all, of the income unless the story revolves around a single mother. The family’s interactions with others also present them in a lower class. An example would be Roseanne’s encounter with the teacher. Roseanne wears a sweatshirt and jeans again while the teacher is dressed in a nice shirt and skirt, Roseanne sits on top of a desk while the teacher sits behind a larger desk in an actual chair, and the teacher attempts to give Roseanne parenting and suggests there is trouble at home. All of these contrasts and incidents suggest that Roseanne is of a lower class than the teacher, or at least that is what the teacher believes.
Finally, their behavior is drastically different from other sitcom families we have seen. Most of the earlier sitcoms represent the mother as a nurturing figure and all conflicts and arguments are resolved with a discussion or moral lesson of some kind. In "Roseanne," Roseanne spends most of the time complaining about how much she does for the family and is not nurturing towards her children, even going so far as to sarcastically agree that one of the kids should jump off a building and take her siblings with her. And towards the end of the episode, when Roseanne and her husband are shouting and fighting, they never resolve the conflict. It is simply pacified for the time being by their daughter’s injury. These examples do not necessarily prove that the family in "Roseanne" is lower than middle class. In fact, they could very well more accurately represent the middle class. The examples do support, however, that the family is portrayed as a lower class compared to the stereotypical families of earlier sitcoms.
Representations of the working-class can be seen within the popular television sitcom, Roseanne, which successfully depicts the realistic issues facing working class mothers and their families in the 80s. Premiering in 1988, Roseanne was one of the first situational comedies that harkened back to early, working-class sitcoms through its depictions of a working-class family.
ReplyDeleteThe class status of the Conners can be easily identified within the opening credits of the program, which displays Roseanne and her family chaotically enjoying a meal at their kitchen table. Although they appear to be having a good time, the children are not seated nor are they behaving properly. Instead, the kids are teasing one another and interrupting their parents who are having a conversation with other individuals at the table. Evidently, compared to early sitcom depictions of middle-class families, the children in Roseanne are not as well behaved. Portrayals of middle-class families typically show the children as being respectful and cooperative, especially toward their parents while at the kitchen table. Therefore, the opening segment serves to foreshadow the program’s choice to no longer adhere to the early-sitcom depiction of a “perfect” family with respectable children and a utopian lifestyle; instead, Roseanne represents the true, realistic working-class family, shedding new light on the notions of gender roles and financial issues in a humoristic manner.
Roseanne and Dan successfully portray the dynamics of a realistic working-class, married couple. The depiction of their relationship and life together does not comply with the typical early depiction of gender roles within a household; instead, Roseanne defies any stereotype of being a “housewife” and Dan is anything but the ultimate “breadwinner” of the family. Roseanne is a full-time working mother, which can be easily identified in the episode, Life and Stuff. A part from the episode showing Roseanne at work, her role as a working mom can be recognized through the portrayal of their messy home and the conversation she has with her daughter’s history teacher. The Conners’ house never appears to be neat, especially the kitchen, which is generally stereotyped as the room designated for the wife and mother. Therefore, it is clear that Roseanne is not a “housewife” that stays home to clean and cook all day. Roseanne acknowledges her role as she tells her daughter’s teacher that she has “three kids and work, so no free time.” This line within the episode also works to show that Roseanne’s character does not stay home to watch TV like the “housewife” is noted to do. Furthermore, although Dan does fit the definition of a “breadwinner,” he still is portrayed to be caring and understanding. With that said, Roseanne evidently works to make up for his unemployment and unwillingness to complete house chores, such as unclogging the kitchen sink.
The kitchen sink even works as an element of the show that works to portray a working-class family. Generally, middle-class families have updated, working appliances, whereas the Conners have a sink that has broken three times in one week. Evidently, they do not have the financial ability to hire someone to come fix it or purchase a new one, therefore, casting them as a working-class family. Additionally, Roseanne and her family are portrayed as not being financially stable as Roseanne yells to Dan to “save me that detergent coupon," in the same episode, Life and Stuff. Furthermore, Roseanne tells her daughter to have her school’s food drive, “drive some of that food over here.” Obviously, these lines are made to be funny, however, they are still functioning to portray the Conners as a working-class family.
Roseanne portrays a working-class family through shrewd humor that rivaled the typical middle-class family sitcoms at the time. In the opening credits of Roseanne, the characters are sitting around a table in a kitchen that looks dated, unorganized and somewhat cluttered. The characters are all wearing sweatshirt material in all forms that reflects their lazy “no where to go” attitudes that in turn reflect their level of class and status within society. The show is centered around Roseanne, a mother of three and wife to Dan, her husband who I believe has lost his already low paying job. This particular episode showcases the role of the mother and her struggle to make ends meet while staying true to her (humorous) self and loving and supporting family. Much of the episode focus’s on Roseanne’s inability to provide everything her family wants and sometimes needs, but also shows her efforts to work with what they have.
ReplyDeleteIn this particular episode, Roseanne pushes her boss to allow her to leave work an hour early but he will not give her this “lengthy” amount of time off, but eventually compromises on Roseanne leaving a half hour early, where the time off “is coming out of her paycheck.” Later, when Roseanne is “utilizing” this time off, she brings up the fact that she is losing her pay over this, further reminding the audience of her financial status. Incidents like this are continually used throughout the show to mimic the real life struggles of working-class Americans. The show proved to be so successful because of the real life story plot lines surrounding money and family issues. Furthermore, its use of humor proves that the show commemorates rather than trivializes lower- working-class family lives.
Roseanne is a show about real people and real issues that much of middle America deals with. Through the mise-en-scene, as well as character portrayals, Roseanne helped to stage working-class families on primetime television. First of all, the house where much of the show takes place, is average in respect to the fact that it has enough bedrooms to fit the family, a nice sized living room, again, with enough room to fit the family, and a somewhat dated, no-frills kitchen and mud room. There are no elaborate decorations in the home nor are there any “extra” or unnecessary objects: everything has a purpose and a specific function. This idea of simplicity speaks to issues of class and how the show reached its goals of portraying an average working-class family. Moreover, the language the characters use is nothing fancy, as they use a lot of slang and Roseanne herself has a particularly high pitched and sometimes annoying voice that she uses to spit out her shrewd comments. Overall, all of the elements of the show reflect working-class Americans and the socioeconomic issues they face in the real world. Through the shows unwillingness to portray anything but the truth, Roseanne proved to be a game changing show that showcases real life struggles and problems that many people face in their daily lives, while also representing the lower-class in a way that does not victimize them, but rather introduces them in a new and humorous light.
From the high-speed chases to the quaint scenes of family life in Broward County Florida, the pilot episode of Cops shows distinct representations of class in American crime. The episode itself deals mostly with the narcotic busts in this sunny county, mainly adhering to crack cocaine. The episode starts out with the seizing of a crack house. We follow the sheriff and his team as they search through a run down, grossly unsanitary house for drugs and weapons. This is our first look at the lower class. We see low-income housing where basic housing necessities, such as plumbing, cannot be afforded and the sale and use of drugs are intertwined. Drugs are sold and the money is usually put towards buying more drugs. This section of the show portrays the criminals as predominantly African American males. The cops refer to the neighborhoods as “black” and know something criminal is going on when white people are seen entering and driving through these areas.
ReplyDeleteNext, there is an interesting juxtaposition of classes. We cut to the house of one of the sergeants on the force and we get a glimpse into his home life. The sergeant occupies the middle class with his wife. In these scenes, middle class problems are shown to us in the form of a husband and wife arguing over connection issues and marital problems. While we just saw the lower class fighting for their lives through the sale of narcotics, we now see the troubles of the middle class, the very people who are bringing the lower class to justice. This parallel structure makes a statement about the difference between the upper and lower class. It’s showing us the hardships of both classes in such a light that portrays a sort of hierarchy to the viewer, associating the lower class with drugs and violence and the middle class with much less important problems like a husband watching TV when he comes home instead of talking with his wife.
If the episode ended here, it would show an overwhelming bias to the middle class as being more likable and more civilized, but it doesn’t. The episode then goes on to show a narcotics unit in the Fort Lauderdale International Airport. This team randomly searches pedestrians in the airport for possession of drugs or weapons. This sequence shows that it’s not only the lower class that deals in the narcotics game, but also members of the middle and upper classes. One of the female officers referenced a time when she arrested a 70-year-old man with possession of narcotics. She says that she would never have suspected a man like that to be transporting drugs but she learned that it can happen with anyone; she learned that its all about “the almighty dollar”. This idea of “the almighty dollar” ties all the classes together at the end of the episode. The show began with a clear distinction between classes and ends with a concept that ties them all together and puts them on level with each other. Humans will do crazy things just for the instant gratification of a certain sum of money.
Roseanne portrays a blue collar, working class family of five. Both the patriarch (Dan) and matriarch (Roseanne) of the family work, one as a construction contractor and the other as a line worker at a plastic factory. They serve as the main characters of the show and are portrayed as lazy, messy, overweight, and simple. The family is always dressed casually in sweats or flannel. The house is always a mess. The family takes meals at a dining room/kitchen where food consists of simple meals like pasta, food is always spilled or played with, and family members have their feet on the table or are messing around with one another. The children have no respect for their parents, always talking back or doing the opposite of what they’re told (eating pie). In addition, when the children do something wrong, Roseanne is very passive aggressive about disciplining the children, such as not punishing her son for eating the pie when she told him not to. Roseanne has to do everything house and family related, taking the extra time out of her schedule to get other chores and appointments done. This is done while Dan essentially takes the day off drinking beer with his friends after a job fell through. The parents are always sarcastic and joking around with each other or otherwise fighting about parental roles.
ReplyDeleteIn reference to a food drive one of the children is having at school, Roseanne tells her daughter to bring a couple cans back if a half-joking sort of way. This coupled with the two jobs the parent’s work, displays how the show portrays the working class as eternally struggling to get by financially. In the meet-the-teacher scene, the teacher referenced the “psychological problems” of Roseanne’s daughter’s barking in class taking root in family problems. This flew over Roseanne’s head consequently portraying the working-class as simple-minded and unable to see dysfunctions in their home life. Roseanne’s friend referenced her husband’s tendency to treat the kids badly, screwing around on her, and being unhygienic portraying further stereotypes of the working class. Another of Roseanne’s friends tells of a seminar that she went to in which you visualize what you want in order to attain it. This echoes the fortune-teller in Mama, where working class people look to unconventional means in order to attain what they don’t have. This is further affirmed when both friends of Roseanne’s seem interested in doing the seminar, regardless of the ridiculousness Roseanne sees in it. Roseanne paints a portrait of the middle class as lazy, messy, dysfunctional, struggling financially, fighting, overweight, and perpetually busy.
At the very beginning of the pilot episode of the television show COPS we are told that “COPS is about real people and real crime. It was filmed entirely on location, with the men and women who work in low enforcement.” Moreover, we learn that this particular episode is set in a county of Florida that is a well-known location for drug smuggling. Here we see part of the reason why COPS is a show that is so interesting—it claims to directly capture the reality of law enforcement for home audiences. However, the show is also interesting for the way that it portrays class, and in the pilot episode in particular, the lower class is quite obviously linked to race and crime.
ReplyDeleteIn one of the first scenes of the show, a sheriff takes the camera on a tour of a drug seller’s house, calling it “disgusting” and spitting out the words “crack house” with apparent disdain. The camera shows us a cluttered, junk-riddled apartment, complete with a plastic bin in the center of the bedroom that was being used as a toilet. Here we have our first example of the way that lower class living and drug crimes are so closely associated. Another scene shows an officer referring to “white guys” who are apparently so out of place in a black neighborhood that the officer knows immediately that they are there to purchase drugs. The implication is that the white men would only be in such a “black” area if they are there to do something illegal, a fact that is driven home when the officer asks, “Don’t you know what happens here to white guys like you?” This scene, coupled with numerous scenes showing African Americans being arrested, clearly associates drug crimes with African Americans. And not only are drugs, lower class life, and “blackness” linked together, but they are also associated in this episode with a fractured family, as evidenced in a scene were an officer tries to make a suspect feel guilty by questioning why he would sell drugs out of his parent’s home.
In contrast, the law enforcement is associated with “whiteness,” middle class living, and good family values. At one point, one of the officers states, “I am the only white face in this area, besides other cops.” And indeed, most, if not all of the cops that we see are white. Additionally, the show gives us a glimpse in to the homes of these cops, and what we see is completely different from the lower class “crack houses.” Instead, the cop’s homes are quite firmly of the middle class, complete with clean interiors, mowed lawns, and wives in the midst of dinner preparations. Even a fight that we see between a cop and his wife seems to be portrayed in a positive light, as the wife is simply expressing a wish for better communication between them. Further, many of the cops are raising children, a fact that seems to further uphold their emphasis on family values. This representation is obviously very far removed from the one discussed in the previous paragraph.
However, as a someone above pointed out, the show could not quite be called biased, because other scenes reveal that other crimes (like drug smuggling and prostitution) are often carried out by people other than African American males. Thus, COPS seems to be a show that is true to its word about its representation of reality, though its framing techniques (the fact that it so obviously contrasts lower class “black” life with middle “white” class life) could probably stand to be adjusted to be more equal.
“Roseanne” acts differently as a situational comedy in that it uses the financial status of the family as its main source of humor. The episode starts with Roseanne’s family at their breakfast table. Simply from the set you can tell that they are not well off. Most of the dialogue in the show consists of the family bickering. Most of the problems that drive the show’s plot relate to the family’s financial status. For example, the driving conflict of the pilot is Roseanne trying to figure out how to take off time from work so that she can speak with her daughter’s teacher after she was acting up in class. She then has to coordinate with her husband, which one of them can afford to miss work for that day and how they will be getting to school. “Roseanne” reminded me of “The Honeymooners” in that both highlight a family that is just making ends meet. However, “The Honeymooners” featured Jackie Gleason as the realistic half of a couple that wanted to be better off. Alternatively, in “Roseanne” it seems as if the family understands their stance financially. While “Roseanne” works her shift at the factory, she spends her break time with her female colleagues discussing their husbands and how the women do all of the work at home. In the workplace, Roseanne discusses her flawed home life and how she does all of the work, while at home, Roseanne argues with her husband over her missing work. Even when she goes to meet with her daughter’s teacher, the teacher proposes that her daughter is acting up due to trouble at home. Roseanne proceeds to laugh it off as a trivial matter, agreeing that there are problems at home but that she has bigger problems to deal with. While throughout the entire episode, the sink is never fixed. Even though no aspect, home or work, is ever completely under control for Roseanne, the main feature of the show is that she can somewhat manage both lives as well as that of her husband and three children. It recasts the typical “American housewife” as a workingwoman and the leader of the house, yet not someone who has everything under control. The show is relatable as almost every aspect of Roseanne’s life is in constant flux and she is responsible to make sure that it all comes together, not that it would all work out on its own.
ReplyDeleteCritically analyzing the first two shows of the 1980s to directly address the concept of “yuppiedom” – L.A. Law and thirtysomething – author Jane Feuer argues that these televisual representations tend to emphasize the “guilt and self-loathing” of a grown baby boomer generation that has abandoned the hippie commune for a house in the suburbs. Noting “the spectator was supposed to experience both envy and guilt at the same time,” she observes that L.A. Law, particularly, played on this principle through visual representation, in which the “visual codes” of the mise-en-scène are juxtaposed with the “narrational codes” of the storyline (62, Yuppie Envy and Yuppie Guilt).
ReplyDeleteNowhere is this interpretation more apt than the pilot episode of the series. Opening on a typical Los Angeles traffic jam, the audience is introduced to attorney Arnie Becker as he sits behind the wheel of a Porsche convertible, the camera lingering on the vanity license plate “LITIG8R” before panning up and over the front of the vehicle. Indeed, when he arrives at the law firm, his personal secretary soon reminds him that they’re “picking up your car for detailing today.” Any doubt that this man’s morals have been tainted by conspicuous consumption are quickly assuaged when, after the woman discovers a senior partner lying dead at his desk, Becker responds, “I got dibs on his office.”
Though the lawyers may possess questionable morals, their clientele is far worse. Cutting from the skyscraper that houses the contemporary, glass-walled offices of the law firm to the lobby of a police precinct, the editing presents the viewer with an abrupt shift in social and cultural milieu. Leaving the lofty environs in which the high-powered attorneys dwell – literally and figuratively – above the inhabitants of the city below, the viewers now find themselves amidst working-class officers and criminals waiting to be booked. The client in question, a trust fund kid accused of rape, exemplifies the capitalist ethos of the firm. Arrogantly claiming to have only solicited a prostitute, the young man displays little concern or sympathy for the victim, even after learning that she suffers from leukemia. Instead, he insists that the woman has pinned a crime on him in order to extort money, smarmily asserting, “For a thousand bucks she’ll fold like a deck chair.” Refusing to accept the fact that he must remain in jail overnight, he is confident that his father’s relationship with the judge will surely grant him a ticket out of there that evening, a statement that eventually proves true.
Moving on to a firm meeting convened to assess pending cases, the narrative shifts to another thread of the conservative, every-man-for-himself ideology that pervaded 1980s Reagan-era America, this time concerning a pro bono case concerning a woman who has been given the “runaround” by her insurance agency, and is thus being sued by her doctor over an unpaid $750 bill. Scornfully dismissing this as a “collection matter,” the man running the meeting reminds Ann Kelsey and Abby Perkins – the women proposing the case – that “lawyers clad in polyester suits soliciting for clients” deal with this sort of thing, while their esteemed firm cannot be bothered with such trivial matters. After he condescendingly inquires as to whether it is her “belief that they are running a welfare state,” the disagreement quickly escalates, with Kelsey vehemently asserting that if she can do something to “keep some poor working woman from getting screwed over by the system” she will do so. With this confrontation, the program not only comments on the growing inequality between the upper and lower classes perpetuated by the decade’s laissez faire principles, but also presents an interesting visual statement, decisively depicting two of the very few female attorneys in the firm as championing the rights of the disadvantaged, these sympathies drawing undisputable parallels between the working-class woman and these well-educated lawyers as marginalized members of their respective social spheres.
Part II
ReplyDeleteReturning to the rape case, the codefendants arrive in court donning prison jumpsuits, their inability to hire a lawyer necessitating their representation by a public defender. Receiving none of the preferential treatment that the wealthy young man’s money has bought him, the striking visual juxtaposition between these two men and the trust fund kid in expensive street clothes forces the viewer to confront the fact that, despite being accused of the same crime, the socioeconomic status that divides these men has obviously resulted in unequal treatment. Indeed, while the affluent young man is able to walk out of the courtroom, the others, unable to post bail, must continue to languish in prison cells.
The next day, as the preliminary hearing commences, the audience is introduced to the victim, a young black woman from a lower-class neighborhood. Bombarded with defamatory insinuations that she is an alcoholic and a drug abuser, she is forced to admit that she had indeed been smoking marijuana that evening, but only to alleviate the nausea caused by chemotherapy. Painted as a dope smoking deviant with nothing to lose, it is even suggested that she was in fact the aggressor in the incident. Breaking down in tears, she lashes out, her actions forcing the judge to place her in a holding cell. Thus, although the victim of a heinous sexual assault, this young woman essentially finds the tables turned against her, her marginal social standing somehow justifying the attorney’s questioning of her character.
In an ironic twist of fate, $4200 in unpaid parking tickets find Michael Kuzak – the lawyer representing the rich young man – in the cell next to her, his social status as a wealthy, white high-powered attorney, which had previously allowed him to circumvent the law, no longer exempting him from the consequences of his actions. Apologizing for what occurred in the courtroom, he nevertheless stresses his client’s right to the “best legal representation that he can obtain.” After affirming his belief in the system, he comments that he personally “wouldn’t lose any sleep” over her taking justice into her own hands, as she had implied she might do during her outburst. After considering this, the woman solemnly responds, “That’s the difference between us, Mr. Kuzak. I would.” With this last statement, the true nature of the yuppie ethos is effectively driven home, demonstrating what actually separates these disparate classes of people. Having sacrificed progressive social values in return for wealth and status, Kuzak has made a “deal with the devil,” while, despite being dealt a miserable hand in life, this young woman nevertheless still possesses the one thing that alludes him – a conscience.
Class is very much at the center of the show Roseanne. It ran from 1988 to 1997 and was extremely popular, becoming the most watched show in the United States from 1989 to 1990. I think it’s an unusual show in that it depicts a low income, working class family and seems to have a matriarchal, female dominated household. The issue of money is frequently mocked on the show. In the pilot, Roseanne jokes to her oldest daughter Becky about her desire to take cans of food from their house to school for the food drive. Roseanne quips, “Well tell ‘em to drive some of that food over here.” The family clearly has serious issues with money and their financial standing, but Roseanne and her husband Dan make light of it.
ReplyDeleteAlthough Roseanne ends up in the traditional housewife role at the conclusion of the pilot episode, there is a lot of tension between her and her husband as they bicker over household responsibilities. There is some resistance on Roseanne’s part to fill the role of housewife, but there is also some deviation from the completely traditional role. This is shown in the fact that she also works outside of the home at a factory and appears to be the de facto leader of her family and the household. Even the name of the show implies that Roseanne is in charge. Her husband, if not slightly submissive towards her, is at least very respectful towards her. There is definitely an implication that the two of them need each other and are working as a team to keep their family afloat.
Another thing that drives the representation of class on the show is the characters’ manner of speech. They don’t speak like the upper class characters shown on television. They shorten words, use double negatives, and stereotypically lower class words like “ain’t.” Nothing is sugarcoated on the show. There’s a definite attempt to depict the reality of blue collar life. Frequently television shows claim to be centered around a low income character or family, but come up with money out of nowhere. For example, on Julia, the main character starts out jobless and yet she lives in a luxurious apartment that she couldn’t have inherited from her husband who died in the military. Roseanne, with all of its irreverent, sarcastic humor is all about painting a realistic portrait of a working class family in the late ‘80s and ‘90s.
The L.A. Law pilot showcases the life of upper class lawyer yuppies. The show seems to portray them as generally morally vein, and the lower class as people being stomped upon by capitalism and the corruption of the lawyers.
ReplyDeleteThe show opens with partner Norman Cheney being found dead in his office. The thoughts of the characters are not about Norman or his family, but on how his death effects the business. Arnie, when he first discovers Norman's body says that he's taking Norman's office now. Characters are seen talking about a future audit as the people taking the body out accidentally drop it. The firm in LA Law is not exactly about close emotional ties.
The court cases of the episode exhibit an "anything it takes to win" type of mentality. Michael Kuzak defends a group of wealthy men who are accused of rape by a leukemia patient. The defense team attacks the patient, claiming that due to her poor prognosis she decided to try things she wouldn't otherwise - such as have sex with the three defendants. Her outburst in response leads to her being charged with contempt of court. When the judge finds Kuzak with $4,000 in parking/traffic violation tickets, she throws him into jail with her. A conversation ensues where Kuzak states that he believes in the system and the woman asks "what do I have to believe in?" The system works for the desires of the upper class, but not the needs of the lower class. The difference between the upper and lower class is perhaps best exhibited when Kuzak tells her he wouldn't lose sleep if she attempted to kill the defendant and she replies with "That's the difference between you and me. I would lose sleep over it." The morality of the upper class is shaky at best, whereas the morality of the lower class is held intact.
At a firm meeting, Abby Perkins brings up a case where an insurance company is refusing to pay insurance claims for a woman. Brackman, a boss in the firm, warns Abby about taking on the case because it is not profitable. This profit-motivated approach shows how the upper class lawyers are not in it for the lower class, and how the lower class is pushed around by the system. In spite of this, Abby Perks and Ann Kelsey pursue the case, eventually storming in to the insurance company and asserting themselves until the head of the company agrees to pay the claim. Abby and Ann are the exceptions to the rule when it comes to upper class vs. lower class.