Pop Vultures

We’re about a month into this year’s crop of new shows and the victors are starting to emerge. Interestingly, the only clear winner so far is Pushing Daisies, a show that is being heralded for its originality in the midst of the startling mediocrity of the other programs. Fans and critics both agree: it’s clever! Beautiful! Interesting! Groundbreaking! I was with them right up until the last one. Groundbreaking? Is any word more overused in television or film? The word suggests a beginning, a clearing away of old rubble in order to build a new foundation upon which glorious structures can be built. Does this mean that we can expect to see a slew of original, visually-stunning fairy tales in coming years? Certainly, there will be a few half-hearted attempts at imitation, but I don’t see my schedule suddenly filling with shows steeped in magical realism. Pushing Daisies is innovative and has the potential to be influential, but that’s a world apart from groundbreaking.

Let’s go back a few years, to 1998. Will & Grace had just premiered to raves. It was a success, both in terms of critical response and ratings, and was widely hailed as a groundbreaking sitcom for featuring two gay characters. The mainstream show earned a huge audience, clearing the way for more gay leads in the future. Nine years later, there’s been…no, wait…I’m sure I’ll think of one…er, nope. That was it. (The aspiring drag queens of America’s Next Top Model don’t count.) Influential, yes, as seen in the slightly increased visibility of gay supporting characters, but I don’t see any towering rainbow structures being built on its groundbreaking premise.

Last year, Ugly Betty was heralded as the breakthrough, “groundbreaking” show due to its plain-Jane lead whose dowdy fashion sense, unibrow and braces made her nearly immune to objectification. We were supposed to root for the “ugly” woman. She was given a cute love interest. Clearly, representations of women on television had changed at last! From now on, we’d see more realistic portrayals of feminine beauty, right?

Ahem. Let’s take a look at the success rate in a sampling of this fall’s more prominent shows.

The show: Chuck
The woman: Sarah Walker (Yvonne Strahovski)
Gorgeous-o-meter: High. Flawless blonde with a propensity to kick-box while wearing short skirts.
In comparison to the men: Considerably more conventionally attractive. Now, I have a documented thing for Adam Baldwin’s Neanderthal-chic, and Zachary Levi works the hell out of Chuck’s John Krasinski-esque charm, but only one of these three actors is going to find their way onto dorm room walls.

The show: Samantha Who?
The women: Samantha (Christina Applegate) and Andrea (Jennifer Esposito)
Gorgeous-o-meter: Very high. The lead came to fame wearing minuscule dresses on Married With Children and the sidekick has posed on many a Maxim cover.
In comparison to the men: I suppose that depends on whether you can ever consider Barry Watson hot. He was on 7th Heaven, which should automatically disqualify him. In fairness to the show, the cast includes Melissa McCarthy, who seems to be making a career of playing plus-sized secondary characters, and the fabulous, over-40 Jean Smart.

The show: K-Ville
The woman: Ginger ‘Love Tap’ Lebeau — and, yes, that is how her name is listed on imdb (Tawny Cypress)
Gorgeous-o-meter: Very good. The uniform ensures that she can’t flash too much flesh (unlike the ‘Wiener Girl’ outfit in Chuck), and the use of realistic film techniques removes the airbrushed beauty of most television. Still, Tawny Cypress has a beautiful face which shines all the more in the midst of this gritty drama. You can almost hear the producers: “Yeah, the show is great, but Katrina is such a downer. We need something pretty to look at! That hot dead chick from Heroes — she needs work, right?”
In comparison to the men: Five thoroughly average guys. It’s not even a contest.

This is before we even get into the shows where everyone is meant to be beautiful (Gossip Girl, Dirty Sexy Money, Moonlight, etc.).

It’s not a good year for appealing, atypically attractive women on television. Ugly Betty offered a glimpse of change, but it sure didn’t catch on. So, for those who still insist on calling it groundbreaking, I can only say, in the immortal words of Inigo Montoya from The Princess Bride: “You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.”

What do you think? Is there an argument to be made for why these shows, or any others, are groundbreaking?