Something that has always fascinated me about
soap operas is what Feuer identified as “no action [being] irreversible” (p.
15). I think this feature of nothing being ‘irreversible’ is what gives
soap operas “’an indefinitely expandable middle’” (p.12). There is no need to come up with a
conclusion or ever end an action because it can always be returned to; even
death is not final in a soap opera (or in network television from time to time;
recall dead Denny making a ghost love with Izzie on Grey’s Anatomy).
I’m interested in discussing further the ideas
brought up in the piece about the issue with sitcoms “forc[ing] a false sense
of social integration by the end of each episode” (p. 15). I think it’s noteworthy to consider
soap operas as an alternative to sitcoms that are cable of tackling ideas,
though maybe less overtly, over a longer period of time and without the
constraints of needing to box up a perfect ending or closure to the idea. The lack of resolve that occurs in
melodramas, particularly in soap operas, enables soap operas to address large
issues without those issues becoming permanent markers on the characters,
themes, or even direction of the show. I
think the concept of ambivalence generated by sitcoms like All in the Family and even more contemporary shows like Black-ish is what I have the most difficult time
reconciling. Their format
demands that a conclusion be reached about any particular issue instead of
demanding to address the ongoing-ness of issues, particularly those issues
related to race, gender, and class. It’s troublesome that people during any
point in time were cheering for Archie Bunker for President. Similarly it’s also troubling that in Black-ish, color is being seen
and viewed as “flava” (as discussed last week) or a unique style that can be
sprinkled on or added to (or removed from) something as necessary. When Andre is made the “Urban” vice
president, he’s the only one upset—he’s the only one who sees his self-identity
instead of his talents or skills being exploited for the capital gain of the
company he works for. While soap operas don’t necessarily provide less
ambivalence than sitcoms to these larger issues, the fact that they don’t
require conclusions does leave them more open to exploring such issues more
thoroughly and frequently.
On a bit of a different note, while I was
reading this particular piece I was trying to think of why I like even like
soap operas and Feuer brings up this critic’s idea about soaps reinforcing
bourgeois norms, specifically that “the prime-time soaps confirm the suspicion
that great wealth and power are predicated on sin, and, even more satisfying,
don’t buy happiness anyway” (p.15). I
have to admit, this really hit the nail on the head when I thought about why I
like watching so much Real Housewives or even spin-offs like Vanderpump Rules; although
these particular shows are “reality” television, there is a certain superiority
that one begins to feel when watching the lives of others be sloppy,
back-handed, and overly-dramatic. This
kind of touches back on our ideas about television promoting a self-regulated
citizen who can be ok with their basic cable package because having more
channels won’t bring them extra happiness anyway.
