So I’ve been thinking about “The Power of Madonna” episode of Glee. I watched it, despite having some serious problems with the show.
I’ve also been thinking about how the episode continued Glee’s recent ratings surge and how the album of the episode’s songs is on track to be this week’s best-seller.
It seems to me that Glee is demonstrating that America is more comfortable with queerness than ever before.
[pause. deep breath.]
Whew! That’s a pretty big statement. Why don’t I break it down a bit?
First of all, what do I mean by “queerness”? It’s a loaded term, and it doesn’t have a fixed definition. However, before we get mired in a liberal studies debate about terminology and semiotics, let me say that for purposes of this essay (and my life) I use terms like “queerness” and “queer” to mean the following:
Any behavior, state of mind, or sense of self that violates the accepted “norm” of sexual and/or coupling behavior.
To me, the “norm” is a stern, inflexible heterosexual monogamy in which missionary-style, penis-and-vagina sex (and sometimes oral) is practiced inside a marriage. We aren’t in the America of the 1950s anymore, but there are still countless cultural signifiers that this is the “ideal” or “normal” way to live… and that anyone who lives outside those boundaries or behaves in a way that suggests those boundaries are flexible is queer. As in strange. And wrong. And lost.
By this definition, gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender people are certainly queer. But so are unmarried straight couples who live together. So are straight people who enjoy bondage or tickling or anal sex or… I don’t know… role play.
And you can be queer without having sex. This sense of the sexual norm also brings expectations of what gender is supposed to mean. Men are supposed to be “masculine” and do “masculine” things, and women are supposed to be “feminine” and do “feminine” things. So if you’re a celibate man who cries at chick flicks or a female virgin who’s really into airplane mechanics, then that makes you a little queer, too.
The big reveal, of course, is that on some level, everyone is a little queer and everyone is a little normal. We’re all a blend of the two. For instance, I am in a gay relationship, but it’s monogamous. I love girly stuff like flirtinis and kittens, but I also refuse to say I wear “earmuffs” because I think that word sounds frou-frou.
And that’s fine, you know? The problems arise when we start punishing people for not living wholly within either the “normal” or the “queer” extreme. We’ve all seen what happens when someone is forced to be “normal” or is otherwise denied the right to be queer. And sometimes, people can feel pressured to be more queer. I can clearly remember being told I wasn’t gay enough by a well-meaning friend, and that felt like an affront to my identity.
The world of Glee, however, has a balance. I know it’s tempting to say the show is totally queer, but I’d argue that just seems that way because it’s one of the few series in history to give queer elements as much play as normalized elements. But that doesn’t mean one wins over the other: These forces maintain a taut (and sometimes fraught) relationship.
It’s queer as hell, for instance, that the entire show revolves around the understanding that every ten minutes or so, someone is going to burst into song. That’s not normal: It’s not “agreeably” masculine or even agreeably “feminine” to be so boisterously expressive at all times.
From the gate, then, Glee establishes itself as a permissive environment. This is compounded by the presence of openly gay characters (Kurt), nontraditional families (Rachel and her two dads; whatever Quinn is creating with Puck), and figures like the maniacally aggressive Sue Sylvester and the sweetly sensitive Finn, who blur the edges of typical gender paradigms.
Yet on the other hand, this show about singing is set in a high school, which is our culture’s number-one signifier of the unrelenting pressure to be normal. Even on a macro level, then, you see queerness and normalcy in concert. Zoom in closer, and you see the constant desire of characters to fall in love—even Puck, who pretends to be a cad—and the endless plotlines dedicated to couplehood.
And though there are individual characters and episodes that seem to champion one extreme over the other, the large arc of the show has it both ways. No one is severely punished for wanting to be normal or to be queer, even if they do get tested from time to time.
This balance thrives in “The Power of Madonna,” though on the surface, it’s just about the queer-diddly-queerest thing ever. For instance, Will Schuester tell the glee kids they all have to sing a Madonna song to help them think about their relationship to women. And he does this after Sue manages to have Madonna’s songs blasted nonstop over the school’s p.a. system.
In other words, the songs of a woman known for pushing the limits of acceptable sexual and gender performance infiltrate every frame of the episode. No matter what happens, there is almost always a Madonna song playing somewhere, and at one point, the entire school starts dressing like Madonna in her various videos… and no one comments on it.
Can you imagine a world so fully, resolutely queer that a student dressed like the damn geisha from “Nothing Really Matters” can’t even turn a head? Even in New York City, we haven’t made it this far.
So yeah… obviously, this is my dream vision of high school, not only because life would be better if “Ray of Light” played at all times, but also because it suggests a mythical level of liberation and openness.
It’s no surprise that this episode also features three stories about characters losing their virginity (Finn, Rachel, and guidance counselor Emma), even though none of the characters are married. Hello, queer expressions of sexuality!
And yet… those stories have normalized endings. Rachel and Emma choose not to have sex, and even though Finn does, he chooses to lie about it. It’s worth noting, too, that even though Mercedes and Kurt buck the norm by becoming Madonna-singing cheerleaders, Puck very much upholds the status quo by refusing to accept the girl power theme of the week.
That balance strikes me as pretty realistic… which is weird to say about a show like this. But it’s true: There’s an honesty in the refusal to let one perspective win out over the other, and I’d say that’s a sign of liberation. Even if it’s just on a TV show, if America can accept queerness without pretending it eradicates the old quest for normalcy, then maybe we’re starting to have a valuable conversation about who and what we are in America.
16 responses so far ↓
1 InfoMofo // Apr 26, 2010 at 3:22 pm
I found this episode painful to watch.
There are certain conventions of this show that I’ve always found charming: the Broadway-aspirations of the glee kids that enable them to break out in song in the middle of a High School hallway in a way that is clearly just a fever dream; the fact that certain Emma is clearly never singing, which almost fits in with her character; the principal as a Deus ex machina device that will reset the high school’s social order every episode despite whatever was achieved in the last one. However, when the show messes with the established characterizations in an attempt to rush a weak themed episode to air, it doesn’t inspire a lot of confidence; for the most part, Sue’s sudden Madonna fever just came out of nowhere, and came with backstory baggage that didn’t fit with her characterization, in my opinion.
Though a lot of the musical numbers felt really forced and I wasn’t that into them, I thought the production of “4 minutes” was inspired
2 katy // Apr 26, 2010 at 5:33 pm
It’s almost blasphemous to say — the Facebook love for Glee alone is pretty overwhelming — but I agree with InfoMofo (and you). The show is so, so sloppy with its writing in order to get to a good moment or a good song. Sometimes it works because it’s just so campy, but other times it’s tiresome. I’d like just a LITTLE more attention to consistency in plot and character. Just a smidge. It wouldn’t hurt the show to do it, and it’d definitely make it more long-term sustainable.
Also, although I buy the queer-friendly argument to a certain extent, when is the show going to drop its unremitting obsession with the boring-ass straight love lives of Finn, Rachel, Will and Emma? It’s abundantly clear to me that the show’s most interesting moments have been with its less-focused on cast members. We constantly wallow in the damn white heterosexual drama no matter what. I SO wish the show would realize its potential as an ensemble show. Stop forcing Kurt and Mercedes to play second fiddle and beef up some of the other minor characters’ story lines.
Kurt and Mercedes are, by the way, the most prominent characters on the show who don’t fall as neatly into the “men are dumb but basically sweet” and “women are strident, pushy and manipulative” categories. Maybe Emma, but they’re freaking me out with that weird virginity story arc for her.
I did like Kurt’s “we make culture” line in the last episode.
3 InfoMofo // Apr 26, 2010 at 6:21 pm
Yeah, as much as I bitch, I used the “we make culture” line probably 5 times over the weekend.
And was that a devirgining for Emma? I totally missed that- I thought that was just being nervous about *their* first time. Although with her condition I guess it makes sense.
4 Michael // Apr 26, 2010 at 8:13 pm
As one who pretty much hates jukebox musicals, this series goes far to demonstrate the problems of the form: in traditional musicals (yes, I mean the Hammerstein-through-Kander-and-Ebb ones) the songs are devised to fit the characters and milieu; in a jukebox musical, the characters and milieu are devised and manipulated to fit the songs. Hence Katy’s complaints. The students I know who love the show love it in that uncritical “That was awesome” way that responds to pop songs by shutting off their minds and going with the familiar beat. Ugh.
5 Mark Blankenship // Apr 26, 2010 at 8:47 pm
Hi InfoMofo and Katy and Michael …. I cannot disagree with you about the structural problems of “Glee.” Hell, I’ve written about them over and over. And I don’t think the two most recent episodes have made those problems go away, even if the fake pregnancy plotline is mercifully over.
However, don’t you think there’s something valuable in the show? For all its flaws, it still connecting with a lot of people very deeply, and it still reaches me on a certain level. I feel like the presence of this queerness/normalcy balance is part of its appeal and its value.
6 katy // Apr 26, 2010 at 11:00 pm
Mark, I’m definitely still watching it. I still like the musical numbers, for one.
And I keep hoping they’ll start thinking of the show as more of an ensemble, which would solve a lot of the problems in my eyes. If they didn’t feel this weird pressure to keep coming back to Rachel/Finn and Will/Emma, they could find more diverse material to dig into … and manipulate into song opportunities. I mean, how many more times is Rachel going to sing a song about how much she secretly loves / is mad at / is hot for Finn?
I guess I feel that the repetitive emphasis on these not-especially-interesting romantic story lines represents an overriding insistence on “normalcy” in a show that seems to be straining to embrace a more queer-friendly vision. I mean seriously, who cares if Rachel ends up with Finn?Is that really what the show is about? Don’t we just like to hear her sing because she’s awesome?
7 MattPatt // Apr 26, 2010 at 11:19 pm
Michael, although I can’t disagree that there’s an *awful* lot of fanboyism going around with regard to this show, I think there’s a difference between saying that its fans love it uncritically and saying that they love it for no reason.
Myself, I recognize that it’s got some problems. (In particular, if Jessalyn Gilsig’s character goes straight from “fake pregnancy” to “heinous bitch who won’t rest until she gets her man back,” I’m going to throw something.) I like it, however, for much the same reason I loved Buffy in spite of that show’s flaws. I think the actors are nailing the emotional beats in the midst of the absurdity surrounding them. Kurt and his father, for instance — I read a really disdainful review of the episode “Preggers,” in which Kurt comes out to his father, wherein the reviewer snotted his way through a soliloquy on how he was *so over* watching other people’s coming out stories. And I’m sitting here thinking, did we watch the same show? Maybe *he’s* over seeing that kind of thing, but *I’m* not over seeing that portrayed with writing and acting that knows what it’s doing. So I think, to some extent, the uber-fans are reacting to the real quality of the performances, which do tend to get buried sometimes under the show’s own weight.
Also, don’t underestimate the Power of Rock! \m/ This show’s most recognizable song, after all, is still their cover of “Don’t Stop Believin’,” which is arguably the most iconic power ballad that exists… with all the excess that implies. I mean, you criticize pop fans for “shutting off their minds” when they hear a familiar song, but I always thought that was kind of the point, or at least part of it.
So yeah. The show’s got problems, but I won’t be canceling my iTunes season pass anytime soon.
8 Michael // Apr 27, 2010 at 12:48 am
MattPatt: Good reply–but you’re pinpointing reasons I’m not the target audience for the show.
9 MattPatt // Apr 27, 2010 at 12:56 am
Oh, sure, I can’t dispute that. (Although I myself do not unequivocally hate the jukebox musical, I do find that they can grate.) But… still, like Mark said, the students you mention are probably reacting to *something*, even if they could never tell you what it is.
Or they’re just mooning over Mark Salling, whichever.
10 Hebby // Apr 27, 2010 at 4:48 am
Glee is interesting. It’s not especially well structured and the characterization is wildly inconsistent, especially early in the season, the plots are frequently outright awful, and yet…
And yet there are moments of emotional honesty in it, moments that really resonate with viewers– bits of pain and betrayal, moments of respect and friendship. And I do get the impression that the writers may have recognised the flaws from early in the season and are working on them. They’re trying and they succeed often enough -and the rest is fun enough- that I’m still watching even though there are parts of it that I really can’t stand.
11 Michael // Apr 27, 2010 at 7:57 am
Mark and MattPatt: With full respect for your positions, mine is ambivalence, ambivalence, ambivalence. (I admit I’ve only tuned in occasionally, by the way.) I suspect that the romance of the show is the romance of self-expression–queer or conventional; we have all wanted to find the power to open up and express, with a power beyond our own, our loves, our ambitions, our flashes of self-confidence, and musical theater will always tap into that through the sacred–I believe–moment of bursting into song. It’s a fundamental pleasure for an audience. But, for me, when individual characters sing their passions in received, generic (sorry!) songs, something is lost: the tendency is to reduce the characters to received, generic vehicles of ideas we already knew–mostly hey-I-love-you and hey-I-love-me. So the stories become, as Katy seems to be saying, the kind of stories that these songs can deliver without much straining: hetero highschool love, angst, and self-assertion, even if experienced by older characters who might by now have moved on. And if queer kid characters get to own that moment of singing I-love-you/I-love-me, of course there’s something stirring in it–but it’s also (harrumph!) defining queer subjectivity in the desire to sound like everybody else. Ambivalence, ambivalence! (Just to put it out there, is anybody at that school finding the power of learning–getting a vision of science, or literature, or anything–that might expand their minds beyond their immediate concerns? Are there teachers past fifty, or janitors, or lunch ladies, who could sing about a different kind of experience? Just sayin’ . . . ) So, MattPatt, I’m not saying the fans love this for no reason, but I’m ambivalent about the reason: it’s ultimately all very easy, and can only say so much. (What if they mixed in some poetry jam expression? What if suddenly a kid found herself through a really strong rendition of a Shakespeare monologue, or playing the clarinet, or singing a kids’ song with a beloved little brother or sister?) For me, the rewards of this material are so easily conned and so predictable–but that, of course, is part of the general appeal. Argh–
12 Alina O. // Apr 27, 2010 at 8:43 am
Mark,
I have to admit that though I learned of GLEE when I was in the company of Katy and Nicole last fall while down in Atlanta, I have not been watching the show. I did, however, happen across my “Immaculate Collection” cd (which I purchased four years ago in a period of Madonna craving) this morning and your commentary struck a cord. My man and I are taking our time exploring the 1950′s with season 3 of MADMEN — we watch at least two episodes in a row with intense glee (!) every time Netflix sends us another disc.
13 InfoMofo // Apr 27, 2010 at 10:28 am
Mark, to answer your question, as an entertaining tv series, the show is faltering for me.
As a social indicator, it is cause for a cautious optimism. Living in NYC, it’s easy to forget that there are still schools that cancel their proms over the presence of lesbianism (ok, it’s not easy to forget cause it’s on the front page of the post every day, but you know what I mean). I’d like to think that kids actually in High School look at this show as a sign of validation, and a source of strength. I know I would have.
14 MattPatt // Apr 27, 2010 at 10:56 am
InfoMofo, this:
“Living in NYC, it’s easy to forget that there are still schools that cancel their proms over the presence of lesbianism (ok, it’s not easy to forget cause it’s on the front page of the post every day, but you know what I mean). I’d like to think that kids actually in High School look at this show as a sign of validation, and a source of strength. I know I would have.”
is what I was fumbling at in my prior comment. Besides which, I’m not sure the show really *does* define queer subjectivity in “the desire to sound like everybody else” in any sense other than the absolutely literal one in which all the kids are singing the same songs. But if this doesn’t do it for you, this is why God made indie gay films, Netflix streaming, and the magic box that puts them on my TV.
15 InfoMofo // Apr 27, 2010 at 11:17 am
@MattPatt- Hehe, I have probably watched all the streaming indie gay films on NetFlix. There are some borderline porns, some cloying preachy messes, and a few incredible gems.
But yes, I do appreciate that Kurt is not meant to represent “all gay kids” in the way that AC Slater represented all jocks. When the show is at its best, it’s a show about individuals defining themselves without necessarily asking for the audience’s approval, which is refreshing. I do hope I find the show more engaging next week when they’re not tied to such a narrow theme.
16 Mark Blankenship // Apr 27, 2010 at 11:21 am
Hi Michael,
Just wanted to let you know that your last comment has got my brain whirring. If I didn’t have work to do, I’d be crafting a thoughtful response right now, but I’ll be back soon!
Leave a Comment