Read and/or listen to Krissy Clark’s report on Hollywood representations of middle-class life from the 1950s to today. Do you agree with Clark’s characterization of present-day Hollywood representations of middle-class life? If possible, cite a specific TV show or movie that supports your point of view.
February 18, 2019 at 1:57 pm
In terms of Krissy Clark’s report on Hollywood representations of the middle class from the 1950’s to today, I am very much in agreement with Clark’s assertions. Clark did a great job of providing ample evidence to buttress her claims, drawing from a wide array of tv shows and sitcoms in the mid-to-late 20th century. Personally, many of the shows that I wanted to bring into the post have already been mentioned by my classmates.
In any case, I want to highlight one key fact of Clark’s argument: in the 1950’s upward mobility was a thing. Clark later continues to say that by the 1970’s this trend was drastically misinformed. I want to take Clark’s argument a step further by saying that in today’s society, this claim is flawed. As illustrated in the “Wealth Inequality in America” video, there is a large separation between the prices of things such as a college education in the 1950’s vs the price of that same good today. I think that Hollywood perpetuates the “American Dream,” which I interpret as a middle-class life with disposable income, to encourage consumerist mannerisms within the country. At the end of the day, capitalist USA is reliant upon both producers and consumers to stimulate the economy.
February 18, 2019 at 11:42 am
I do agree with Clark’s characterization of present-day Hollywood ‘representing’ middle-class life. One example that comes to mind when thinking about “Hollywood’s inflated version of the middle class” is a TV show called Pretty Little Liars. Pretty Little Liars is an incredibly unrealistic show in many ways, but even when looking at aspects of the show that aren’t supposed to be questionable – such as three out of the four high school girls’ lives/ living situations with their families – problems are still found. One of the girls, Spencer, is acknowledged as coming from a wealthy family of lawyers, but the other three, Hanna, Aria and Emily, have parents that are teachers, local bankers, enlisted in the military, etc. as well as divorcees. Despite the fact that many of the girls’ parents’ jobs would produce a ‘lower’ income and the parents are often times unemployed or dealing with criminal records, the girls live in big houses, are constantly shopping for new clothes and make-up and are always have up-to-date technology. It’s also worth noting that the three girls that are ‘not as wealthy’ as Spencer, seem to have the exact same lifestyle as she does.
I think with a show like Pretty Little Liars that consists of numerous, problematic elements, it may seem silly to focus on the main characters’ class depictions – and maybe it is! However, the fact that Hollywood’s skewed depictions of class continue to be reinforced is concerning when it actively skews our perception of reality. If we, as viewers, constantly see the middle class as quite privileged in our supposedly non-propagandic media, we will become numb to the real middle class and their ways of life. For those in higher classes it allows them to play ignorant – “if this is what the middle class is like, everyone’s fine!” “I don’t know what there is to complain about” – and can create frustration for those who are actually in the middle class.
February 18, 2019 at 11:36 am
While I do agree with Clark’s message that the ‘middle class’ is often portrayed in inaccurate ways in modern television and movies, I do believe that there are many exceptions to the rule. Yes, shows like Friends and New Girl are false representations of the living situations of twenty-somethings, showing young adults living in spacious, well-decorated apartments in major cities, but this is not the exclusive nature of all sets. I believe that while this is the standard for media, I can also recall many other shows that provide more accurate representations of middle class lifestyles. The first show that comes to mind is The Office, portraying the work and (some) home life of individuals working for a paper companion Scranton, Pennsylvania. All of the employees wear average clothing, drive non-flashy cars, and live in modest homes. The manager of the office, Michael, lives in a small, one-bedroom condo with bare furnishings and few luxuries. Jim and Pam, a married couple in the office, buy a small and unassuming ranch house together. This particular example is especially helpful to look at given that we know Jim and Pam have two full-time salaries for the home purchase, but still live in a realistic setting. Even their lifestyles and habits are realistic, having an office party at a Chili’s restaurant, not some flashy restaurant or venue. Overall, I believe that this show exemplifies an instance of Hollywood portraying a realistic version of middle class lifestyles. Two other examples that come to mind are the shows ‘Malcom in the Middle’ and ‘The Middle’, focusing on middle class American families living modest lives in simple homes. So while I do fully agree with Clark that there is an abundance of inaccuracies throughout modern tv and movie culture in terms of middle class lifestyle, realistic interpretations do exist.
February 17, 2019 at 6:51 pm
I definitely agree with Clark’s characterization of hollywood representations of middle class life, and I find it to be accurate. Clark explains that around the 1950’s in America hollywood had two conceptions of the worker: either wage earners (butchers, or blue collar) and salaried men (office workers, or white collar). However, in a prosperous economic climate from the 1950’s onward, Clark explains, that hollywood began to merge these two conceptions into one large (and overly wealthy) middle class, which she refers to as, “lots of men in suits.” By the 1970’s, she says, this representation had fully developed and inflated into the falsified middle class look that we still know today.
A contemporary example that supports this representation is the recent Netflix release, You, that follows a group of girls who live relatively lavish and comfortable lives in one of the most expensive cities in the country. One of whom, Beck, has no job and is a graduate student at NYU, but lives in a $3000/month apartment in New York city. The activities of the homogenous friend group also display this gap between representation and reality of young life in New York city. Beck represents a character who, in real life, would be struggling without some source of income. There are even references to her being less wealthy than the rest of her friend group, relegating her to the middle class. However in reality, this must mean that her friends are super wealthy and she is simply wealthy. Her social exclusion from not being quite as wealthy and her time devoted to her studies (which her friends do not have to do) is an indicator of being middle class, and yet the setting (set design of apartment, activities, economy/local prices) of the show reveals how grossly it misrepresents her supposed middle class identity.
February 17, 2019 at 1:23 pm
I agree with Krissy Clark’s report of Hollywood’s representation of middle class in the sense that we see middle class on television represented as someone who lives comfortably with a steady job, a nice home and maybe even a nice new car. Similar to the example of New Girl, as mentioned in class, the show Friends is another example of Hollywood’s inflated version of middle class where one character is a struggling actor, one is a waitress, and one is a chef, yet they live in nice apartments in the heart of New York City. Middle class is on a scale, some with blue collar jobs and some with white collar jobs, however what is shown on tv are the ones on higher on the scale who can afford this lifestyle, or a semi-distorted reality of a bartender who lives in a nice apartment in a big city which gives a sense of false hope for those aspiring to live like that but simply cannot afford it. Although this can be a good thing that can encourage those to work hard to earn a lifestyle like this if they are in the middle class, it can also be seen as an inaccurate representation of the middle class as a whole.
February 18, 2019 at 1:22 pm
Sidney, you bring up a very important point that I want to build off of. I agree with you that the middle class is on a scale, and as a country we have a very hard time defining what exactly the middle class is. Some reports indicate that the average household income for middle class families is $44,000 – $72,000, while President Obama and Hilary Clinton declared the middle class as ranging up to a household income of $250,000 (CBS Report, Who Counts as The Middle Class). In reference to Krissy Clark’s report of the representation of the middle class in Hollywoood, I have to agree that it portrays the lifestyle of the middle class on the higher end of the scale. Back to the reference you made about the scale, I think setting is also a huge part of defining the middle class. I live in the suburbs of New Jersey, less than 30 minutes away from Manhattan. What most people would define as middle class in the Suburbs of NYC would most likely be defined as upper class in rural Indiana, or in urban Detroit for example. I think that is a contributing factor as to why the United States has such a hard time defining who makes up the middle class.
To Clark’s narration of the middle of the Middle Class in Hollywood, one part that resonated with me was when she talked about the upward mobility that is highlighted in Hollywood. An example supporting that came to mind that supports her claim is the George Lopez Show. In the show, George is a first generation Mexican American who works as a mechanic. While money is tight, George does everything in his power to give his children more then he had, and he makes sure that they are appreciative. Often he reflects back to his childhood, growing up poor, and it reminds him that with hard work, anything is possible Throughout the seasons, there are examples of George catching a lucky break financially, reassuring his core values.