> I think what gets me about the show is that it's seen as a "gay show" when
it's anything but. There's enough heterosexual content in it to make it
palatable to the masses, which is one of the reasons why Ellen failed - it
was TOO LESBIAN for mainstream audiences. W&G is made for straight audiences
who happen to like those "quirky little gays" in the periphery of their
lives. There's just something clownish and insulting about it.

I watched W&G faithfully for the first season or two.  I really enjoyed it.
And I agree that Karen is the funniest character on the show.   However,
since Travis has started working 2nd shift, I hardly ever turn the tv on in
the evening.  The few times I have seen W&G recently it seems to me that the
running jokes have worn kinda thin.  Especially the 'you two are SO married'
shtick that we hear about Will and Grace themselves all the time and I
finally figured out that therein lies the problem with this show for me.

As long as the writers are holding that carrot in front of the noses of Mom
& Pop America, the show somehow stays within the bounds or acceptable
sit-com material.  Otis and Marlena, sitting in their livingrooms in Iowa or
wherever they are in Middle America can cling to the hope that someday Will
will 'see the light', leave behind his perverted ways and marry Grace, raise
a couple of kids and live happily ever after the life God meant him to live:
the life of a straight man.  In the meantime, he's a very likable, fairly
innocuous guy who never really does anything that offends their
sensibilities.

There is nothing wrong with Jack's character in & of itself but as a
representation of gay men (which is how I'm afraid many people probably see
him), he is a total stereotype.  Sean Hayes, whatever his orientation, is
great in the part, very funny.  Because of his outrageousness, Jack can get
away with the kind of behavior that Will can't.  He's not a threat because
he fits the expectations of what a gay guy acts like.  I've known people
like Jack and at one time struggled with the 'image' they project to the
world at large but in the end finally figured out that no-one should have to
stifle their true personality to fit an acceptable mold.  Part of it has to
do with being able to accept the effeminate part of my own personality.  But
I digress.

I agree with Andrew that Ellen was lambasted because her show was a bit too
honest for the mainstream.  I thought the coming out episode was hilarious
and very honest as were subsequent shows that actually dealt with her
struggle to come to terms with it.  Those episodes were well-done.  But then
they were interspersed with obvious attempts to win back the mainstream
audience, like the episode where she winds up on the roof of her neighbor's
house in a chicken costume.

We've made great strides and I do think 'Ellen' and 'Will and Grace' are
steps forward.  But mainstream America still ain't ready for the real thing.
And speaking of 'Six Feet Under', I think David and Keith are maybe the best
portrayals of gay characters I have yet seen on television.  Both of these
men are very believable as men who work in non-stereotypical jobs (for gays)
and just happen to be sexually attracted to other men.  I think David's
struggle with his sexuality in the first episodes was very honest and
accurate.  'Queer As Folk' is fun to watch and it is a fairly accurate
depiction of one aspect of gay society - the young men, living in the 'gay
ghetto' who, like a lot of straight guys, love to party, dance and get laid.
It is *not* however, a representation of gay people in general.

Mark E in Seattle
PS:  My favorite film on this subject is Merchant/Ivory's 'Maurice' which is
a beautifully made adaptation of E. M. Forster's very honest and accurate
novel.

Reply via email to