Episode 6: Kimmy Goes to School (Available on Netflix)
Produced by Tina Fey, The Unbreakable Kimmy Schmidt follows Kimmy as she tries to rebuild her life in New York City after 15 years trapped in a bunker of a Doomsday cult in Indiana. The show’s concept is ripped straight from the headlines, reflecting in it the headline-worthy concept of outsiders and surviving despite odd circumstances. The characters, despite being “alien” to situations, unite over their “otherness.” Kimmy’s roommate, Titus, is a black, gay, wannabe broadway star who never quite made it. Like Kimmy, he escaped from a place, Missouri, that did not allow him to be himself and/or was traumatic. Both deal with the concept of passing and conforming in ways that work against their identities. New York is meant to be a place where they can be someone and have freedom of mobility without restricting their identity. As a whole, the series focuses on their intersecting adventures, often utilizing passing as means of attaining status, indicating the “Queer” nature of their true identities and the pains associated with them.
In this episode, both Kimmy and Titus make attempts at success in ways that don’t compromise their identities. Two subplots are created: one where Titus produces a music video for his song “Pinot Noir” which marks a hilarious attempt at fame, and Kimmy’s quest to get her GED. Both face several obstacles in their quests.
One such obstacle is Kimmy’s GED teacher, who stands in her way of achieving the education she desires. Her teacher is a white, middle class, able-bodied man with no motivation to teach the supposedly “forgotten” GED students-- in fact, he attempts to do such a poor job teaching so that he can end up in paid limbo for tenured teachers. The class itself is filled with immigrants, ex-cons, and drop-outs that have all been forgotten by society in one way or another because they didn’t fit into society’s normative ideal. Kimmy’s fellow GED classmates can also be considered queer under Cohen’s definition: they represent the outliers of society. In order to get their GED, the students must band together and teach themselves the material they need to know in order to pass the GED, a representation of Cathy Cohen’s idea of the use of coalition work. Cohen writes about how queer politics should be “a politics where the normative and marginal positions of punks, bulldaggers, and welfare queens, for example, is the basis for progressive transformative coalition work” (438). These students are of different races, nationalities, and ages, and yet they come together in order to succeed when the normative authority figure wants them to fail.
It is undoubtedly an odd show, immediately striking the viewer as different, but what about it differentiates it from other currently popular sitcoms? It could certainly be viewed as queer in its representation of characters of many races, socials classes, and marginalized positions in relation to power. However, how does this show portray these characters?
In studying the characters in the show who are racial minorities, we see Dong, an Asian man in Kimmy’s GED class who is good at math and speaks very broken English. Kimmy giggles when Dong first introduces himself and he replies her name means “Penis” in Vietnamese-- which is completely false. There’s Jacqueline, who appears to be a rich and elite white woman. If this is the only episode of the show that you ever view, you might not catch that Jacqueline is a Native American woman who left her reservation due to her desire to be a rich white woman. And of course, there is Titus. Titus is given much more character development than the other characters of color as a main character of the show, and while both Titus and Kimmy can then be considered queer under Cohen’s definition due to their low socioeconomic status, it comes in question whether the theme of the “white savior” can be applied to Titus’s relationship with Kimmy?
We learn in this episode that Titus has given up hope of being on Broadway and encourages Kimmy to go back home before New York City “breaks” her too. But, Kimmy returns to ignite hope in Titus again. Until this point, Titus was a bitter, antisocial, and arguably irresponsible character (in that he manipulates Kimmy into giving him more money since he is behind on rent). However, it seems that the introduction of Kimmy into his life is just what he needed to return meaning and purpose to his life.
Titus’s gender/gender expression throughout the show is also interesting. It follows Serano’s idea that “sometimes gender is an act, and other times it isn’t” (87). Throughout both his everyday life and shooting his low budget music video, “Pinot Noir- Ode to the Black Penis”, Titus portrays himself in a feminine manner. But when he is caught shooting the video in Jacqueline’s (Kimmy’s boss) house, he blurts out he is a handyman and tries to act “manly” in a stereotypical sense of the word. He deepens his voice, and when saying something “queer”, he says he learned it from his “queer cousin.” This supports Serano’s argument because presumably, he’s not actively deciding to act or dress the way he is in his day-to-day life; that’s just how he expresses his gender. When he is trying to act “manly” to convince the teenage girl that he is a handyman, however, he is very clearly making a conscious choice to act and talk a certain way.
From a gay, Black, somewhat genderqueer lead, to the several racial minorities, to the social outcasts, to even Kimmy Schmidt herself, poor and an outsider to mainstream society, the show traverses a wide swathe of the definition of queer. Through this arguably diverse cast, spanning characters of different socioeconomic, racial backgrounds, gender expressions, and sexualities, Unbreakable Kimmy Schmidt is seems to be an attempt at queering the sitcom. But the true question is, is it a success?
Discussion Questions:
1. How does the racially charged and stereotypical nature of the characters, in humorous context, relate to Cohen’s non-normative definition of queer or refute it?
2. How does Titus’ behavior and song reflect Doty’s notions of queer? Does it make a point or is it simply using “Black gay male” stereotypes in humorous ways?
3. How does “Peeno Noir” make a positive point about being an outsider?
4. How do Kimmy and Titus use their outsider or “queer” identities to be successful in their quests?
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteTo respond to question 4, Titus uses his queer identities for a few different reasons. He first uses his identity to successfully put together a music video that he, hopefully, finds fabulous. He is also capable of using his physical stature to intimidate the group of rich teenagers to get back the pipe stolen from the party. Titus is an interesting character because a number of his identities are queer in relation to Cohen’s definition—he is a black man, he is a gay black man, he is working class (I would assume from clothing and access to video shoot locations)—but he specifically used his black male identity to intimidate, very separate from using his higher pitched, (stereotypical?) gay male identity to be creative and artistic. Could he have not been just as scary to these rich kids if he went off on them as the gay black man rather than pulling a macho black man card?
ReplyDeleteIn response to question 2, I think Titus and the show would still be read as queer to Doty. Just because the show and Titus can be read as queer, doesn't mean it's progressive or liberal in its nature. I think there's definitely some stereotyping of "Black gay male" but at the same time, Titus might be read as queer, not necessarily in sexuality, but in Black male stereotypes of masculinity. I would say there's room to read Titus/the show as queer and still recognize that this portrayal may not be progressive.
ReplyDeleteI would argue that through Doty's article that this show can (and I believe should be) read as not queer. Although there are people with queer identities within the show, I find this show to be extremely problematic. The way I read this show is to gather together as many individuals into a show to create some pretense of "representation" or "inclusion" while casting in stereotypical and hurtful ways. Meanwhile, the main character and namesake of the show greatly benefits from this story of collective otherness because she in fact fits quite well into normative expectations. This show strikes me as using strategic queerness to secure a larger audience so that Netflix can further earn profit from another show which is designed to hook audiences (like OITNB) and incite binge watching.
DeleteI agree somewhat with Anthony. I think the show includes a vast array of diverse characters, but relies too heavily on these differences for situational comedy, to the point where it almost pokes fun and enforces their "otherness." The main character, a white cis-gendered female, seems to come to the rescue for the "other" characters too often from what I can garner here. While I agree that some of the characters themselves lead queer lives, and that there is not a lot of representation of black gay men in television, I think a lot more could have been done here to not reinforce stereotypes.
DeleteTitus could be read as the stereotypical gay best friend but he is also, bald, black, and feminine. Some of his qualities marginalize him, leading him to have difficulty in his musical career. They also lead him to be incredibly strong: he and Kimmy have met opposite, but similar forms of adversity, his has been societal and hers has been characterized by lack of the outside world. Titus and Kimmy get almost equal camera time, whereas the “gay best friend” character generally only pops up when the main female character needs a shoulder to cry on. His character could also be looked at as queer because he exists outside of the stereotypical gay best friend guidelines.
ReplyDeleteIn watching this episode of Unbreakable Kimmy Schmidt, I found that there were many elements that could be read as queer or out of the norm of society. Even though the episode, based on the title, appears to be more focused on Kimmy’s character going back to school, I noticed that Titus’s music video also had a large significance. In response to question 3, I found the line “you don’t have to be popular find out who your true friends are” to be very clear in this idea of being an outsider as a positive. A lot of teenagers would find being popular as a norm and if you are not in the popular group then you are considered different. The lyrics suggest though that “you don’t have to be popular” or fit into the norm in order to find true friends.
ReplyDeleteIn watching Titus’s full music video at the end, I found that I did not really understand some of the references that were being made. After looking up the lyrics, I found that a lot of the references being made were about being yourself and not hiding who you really are. Towards the end of the song he says “Peeno Noir, leather bar” and I was not really sure what this was exactly meant to be referred to. I found a movie titled “Interior. Leather Bar” which is about an actor who takes a role in a gay sadomasochism film. The film’s focus is to explore sexual and creative freedom (IMDb “Interior. Leather Bar”), which when talked about in the music video is trying to show that people should not have to hide there sexual desires and be free to express themselves.
I found it interesting that the lyrics seem to suggest a positive expression of oneself in being an outsider, yet throughout the whole video Titus appears to be covering himself up or hiding himself. At the beginning of the video once he takes off his “handyman” outfit revealing the glamorous sparkly outfit underneath, he covers himself up once someone walks in. There are also clips where he covers his mask with the tribal mask and the curtains. I am not sure if this hiding had an intentional meaning or not?
In this show I found it interesting that these three, very different, people were friends. It was nice to see that despite their very clear differences that they were able to become such good friends and interact like that and have a strong and caring relationship. I also found it interesting that Titus had not written the lyrics beforehand and came up with the words as he filmed the music video because most of the time lyrics are the most important part of a music video and he seemed to make it such a little deal. The locations he choose to record the video was also interesting to me, like filming in front of a strip club. I also found it interesting how the show made it seem like the show was focused on Kimmy but showed a lot of Titus throughout the episode. In the beginning it portrayed him as just Kimmy’s “gay best friend” so I didn’t expect him to show up as much as he did/play as big of a part as he did.
ReplyDeleteAnother thing I found interesting was the fact that Titus seemed to want to cover up the fact that he was queer, like he blames his “queer cousin” when he says something queer or how he changes the pitch of his voice around certain people or tries to hide his sparkly outfit when the girl walks in on him filming. In his music videos he talks about not hiding who you are so it’s interesting that he seemed to be hiding who he was. Like when he tries to act “masculine” and attempts to be a handyman or when he goes up to the teenagers and deepens his voice to scare them off. I also found it interesting that Titus acted more towards feminine in the show when he was just around his friends but acted differently when he was around different people.
In response to question 2, I think Titus's character is both queer but still matches many of the gay male stereotypes. His character is queer in that he is bald, physically larger, and very feminine. His race also queers him in this show. He is a main character in this show which is also queered because his "gay best friend" character type is not usually seen as a main character in shows. Though he does meet many of the gay male stereotypes, his character is still queered.
ReplyDeleteI thought the point about Titus being more than "just the token black/gay friend" and more of a central character itself is worth a mention. In 21st century television, it's almost hard to find a relatively successful show that fails to have a *secondary* character who is gay or otherwise non-overly-heterosexual-- but-- this seems to break the mold, in the direction of "upping the gay" and making the queer character more central (as opposed to excluding them from the show altogether).
DeleteThat all being said however, some other people have posted how the show's selective queerness and perhaps 'over inclusion' is somewhat problematic itself. I haven't actually watched the show, but even if this were true-- if the producers are giving a "See, we have gay/queer too!", trying to follow the recent success of shows like OitNB and Transparent-- I think it speaks greatly to the politics that surround participating in these texts.
Titus, although fitting many of the gay stereotypes presented in the show can still be read as queer through the intersection of his race and sexuality as well as his class and sexuality. Titus, a gay male of color, is marginalized by those factors as well as his class and his lack of power resulting from this. These factors combine to place Titus into a marginalized or queer category. His mannerisms and behavior are fitting of homosexual stereotypes but certain aspects still fall outside of normative boundaries, particularly his gender expression during his song. Titus is depicted wearing a sequined outfit with gold leggings which is not an expression of his gender identification and leads a reader to view him as queer or falling outside of the norm (for both heteronormativity and homonormativity). I feel that Titus for the most part fits a wide variety of gay best friend stereotypes but can still be read as queer in the slight ways in which he differs from the normal stereotypes. I believe Titus's behaviors and song do in fact make a point about self-acceptance and accepting the various and acute ways in which an individual might differ from traditional norms and fall within a queer spectrum.
ReplyDeleteIn relation to question one, I think the show’s relationship to queerness is a complicated one in which there isn’t a clear answer of yes this is queer, or no it isn’t. In general I believe there are some messages in the show that can be read as queer. Most of the characters have some facet of their identity that can be construed as marginalized. Kimmy is a “victim” and typically, having the identity of a victim can lead other people to mark and define who you are, and also being seen as that is all you are. Kimmy’s first goal in the show is to prevent this from happening. She does not want the identity of a victim to rule her life, hence she refuses to move back to Indiana where the other mole women eventually do capitalize on the victim identity. The show is making a really strong point about many individuals in life faced with this struggle - each one of us is a complex human being and one facet of your identity shouldn’t let others define who you are. For a sitcom, that is a pretty queer message to be making.
ReplyDeleteI agree that Kimmy trying to avoid capitalizing on her identity of being a victim is fairly queer for a television show. However, it's confusing to me when she's sort of grouped in with the other marginalized characters from this television series. I feel that her background of coming from a Doomsday cult and being inexperienced and social stinted makes for a very interesting plot, but she's still straight and white and came from a religious cult that is based on Christianity and in America is predominantly white.
DeleteIn response to question 1, without ever having seen the show, the POC characters all seem to be made humorous in an offensive way. Titus is a gay man who wants to be on Broadway. Not exactly revolutionary. And black people in general are stereotyped as being good at singing and dancing. So if he's black and gay of course he can perform! Then, the Asian character is named Dong. Ha ha ha, East Asian names are so weird and penis jokes are so funny. Finally, a Native American woman who desires to be read as a white woman. Because naturally a POC should aspire to whiteness. Sounds like she has some internalized racism to work through but I doubt this show is going to engage in any critical race theory.
ReplyDeleteAll the POC are stereotyped. They don't disrupt societal norms, they enforce them. I don't think they're queer(ed).
I would have to agree with Ari on this. The central character Kimmy, who is white and read as cisgender is the one who saves the day. Titus is the flamboyant gay guy who does not seem to have a real career (although I haven't seen any other episodes). On the other hand, Kimmy has a steady career and more character build up. Titus does not seem to be multifaceted like Kimmy, who is trying learn more about the world, while the show primarily focuses on Titus's sexuality. I think this show was perhaps trying to make it seem more inclusive and promote visibility for queer POC, but really just enforced homonormative/hegemonic ideals.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete(Sorry for the double post, I found out the hard way that you cannot edit)
ReplyDeleteIn response to question 4, Kimmy is able to use her blatant, or perhaps "queered" sense of the world due to her captivity by taking a different approach. Where someone may find themselves downtrodden or angry, Kimmy finds herself with a sense of hope, and self efficacy. In the first episode when Kimmy gets fired from her job, almost immediately instead of getting angry with her ex employer at the time (and also just after losing $13,000) she instead makes a plan to get her job back with little down time. From her ever expanding world view at the time she did not know how unlikely it would be to get her job back, or know enough about the world to discern enough information about the family she wanted to work for as people she would like to work for or not (or anyone for that matter).
In response to question one, the stereotypical nature that Titus seems to have, in my opinion, refutes Cohen's non-normative definition of queer. Over recent history, this stereotypical definition of what a gay man is in pop culture has taken on very normative standards, and I don't believe that this show does anything groundbreaking in that aspect. It uses the same types of archetypes for Titus that we've seen in Will and Grace, Queer as Folk, etc. This stereotyping is exacerbated in an episode where Kimmy's friend is dating a secretly gay man, as he pretends to like typically masculine things, in a more-than patronizing manor. While it does have comedic affect, I don't believe it does anything to change our perception of queer.
ReplyDeleteAs a response to question one, I find that the behaviors and representations of the characters refute Cohen's definition of queer rather than support it. Although some characters seem to work within Cohen's definition of someone outside the norm as queer, the over-stereotypical representation of those same characters - Titus, Dong, Jacqueline - presents more of a problem working within the definition than outside of it. The reinforcement of stereotypical ideas like "hilarious" East Asian names and broken English do nothing to question a viewer's definition of queer and just supports already problematic notions present in society.
ReplyDeleteIn response to question three, the song “Pinot Noir” attempts to emphasize the positivity in being an outsider by saying that “you don’t have to be popular, find out who your true friends are”, suggesting that it is better to have true friends and to stay true to oneself than to worry about trying to fit in with the majority. Additionally, in response to question one, the racially charged and stereotypical nature of the characters in this humorous context relates to Cohen’s non-normative definition of queer in a complicated way because despite the characters immediately appearing to possess qualities that would make them marginalized— race, sexuality, etc.—it is not necessarily the most groundbreaking version of queerness. Since this relationship to queerness is somewhat complicated, it makes it difficult to determine if the show succeeds in queering a sitcom.
ReplyDelete1) Given that Cohen’s definition of queer includes an intersectional approach, the characters, their circumstances and relationships to structures of power, are significant examples for a queer analysis in pop culture.
ReplyDelete3) Titus’s song is positive because it is an expression of queer identity in pop culture that’s not commonly expressed: a joyful celebration of bodily pleasures. It seems that, more often than not, queer expressions of sex and sexuality are portrayed in an almost pornographic manner, with little to no reference of feelings of joy. Even though Titus feels the need to switch looks and mannerisms while in Jacqueline’s house, the message and expression of the song, and the joy that goes with it, remains the same.
I agree with everything Branden has to say! Along with Ashley and mulitiple others, the song creates a positive image toward being the outlier, the outsider. It addresses sexuality with a positive self regard and works to create emotion rather than simply "pornifying" queer sexuality. Also, by showing the marginilization of the characters, they are in fact showing their queerness. It is nonnormative based upon the ultimate power structure. It works as an example of queering a sitcom, however whether it is the representation is the question.
ReplyDeleteThe best* representation
ReplyDeleteBoth Titus and Kimmy fit well into Cohen's more inclusive definition of queer. The intersectionality of her socioeconomic status and her inherent confusion and unfamiliarity with norms places her as on the outside of heteronormative society, despite being a caucasian, straight character. Going further, Titus also fits well into Cohen's definition. Titus' music video, "Pinot Noir," is especially interesting when thinking of Small's essay on hip hop and heteronormativity. In the artcile, Smalls discusses how body marking can subvert heteronormativity if gender roles are reversed. Smalls uses rapper, Jean Grae, as the subject for this. Titus could prove to be a viable counter to Grae.
ReplyDeleteThere are greater examples, "queerer" shows of sorts. This show is problematic in the fact that it does conform to stereotypes at multiple times, ie. broken English, fem/masc performance, etc. The intertwining community and their situations work to make the show queer, however it conforms to societal standards and stereotypes, which actually do not work to change our already established perceptions. It's not common to see a show of this sorts, but it does nothing to change our established beliefs.
ReplyDeleteI keep posting but I'm not done talking yet sorry! lol
DeleteCohen's ideas work for their socieconomic status and sexuality. The show sot of works as a buffer between the two. The characters support the ideas, but the actually affect of the stereotypes enacted and performances in the show refute the ideas.
I find that I'm most intrigued by the character "Dong." We read about Asian representation in porn which seemed to leave Keni Styles in a position where he has to over-compensate his masculinity in order to be desired as women. Well, Asian men are seldom the romantic interest in regular t.v. or movies either. In this show, Dong is Kimmy's love interest. And although he falls into stereotypes of the Asian man with broken English, who delivers Asian food and is worried about deportation, who is good at math, and who has the "laughably Asian name," he also breaks stereotypes by being Kimmy's main love interest, and unlike Keni Styles, he doesn't even have to prove himself God's gift to women to do it. Also, when Kimmy and Dong are together, Dong is usually the one making fun of Kimmy's behaviors which demonstrates that he is better at fitting into the norm than she is. He brings out he "otherness." Keeping in mind that this is a sitcom and uses characterizations rather than characters, I'm conflicted on how I feel about Dong. Is he just another stereotypical character, or is he more?
ReplyDeleteIn response to question 4, I think that Kimmy and Titus use their “queer” identities to be successful in multiple ways. Kimmy uses her naively positive view of the world to band her GED class together and encourage everyone to excel despite the bad teacher they’ve been given. Without this identity of childlike naivety to the world, she probably would have sat by and gotten nothing accomplished, just as the other students were appearing to do. Titus was successful in his quest to make his music video, despite many obstacles, due to his identity as an actor. When he was caught in the house by Jaqueline’s step-daughter, he acted like a handy man, and later when he retrieved the pipe he acted as an imposing figure. Had he not been an actor and so ready to assume the role of a new personality, maybe he wouldn’t have been able to cover up the true reason he was in the house in the first place.
ReplyDeleteWith question two in mind, I would argue that you can make a relatively weak argument that Titus is a queer character. I feel like he is portrayed as queer in very stereotypical ways, and especially in ways that reinforce stereotypes related to black women and appropriate their culture. His gender is certainly a performance at times, which I view as comical but also offensive. I think Titus is the most queer in the way that he breaks the traditional stereotype of what it means to be a masculine, black man.
ReplyDeleteIn response to question 1, I don't feel that the "racially charged and stereotypical characters" support or refute Cohen's definition of queer, but I do say that the use in them in the show goes against what Cohen described as being transformative/radical politics and is still supporting structures of power, whether it's in humorous context or not. I suppose Kimmy's role in the show as the main character and her background could be considered queer, but I still feel uneasy about the "Asian man that likes math," "black man that is financially 'irresponsible'/unstable, and "gay man that wants to be on Broadway." I don't feel that including racial minorities and LGBTQIA characters in a television show makes it queer if they are still conforming to stereotypes that stem from systems of oppression. To me it just comes off as "I just made an insensitive joke but it's okay because it's just a joke" and it honestly turned me away from wanting to go any further into the series. Ironic racism/homophobia is still racism/homophobia.
ReplyDeleteI believe that Titus’s character can be read as queer to an extent. As has been discussed by many others already, Titus’s additional identities of black and being of a lower socioeconomic status categorize him as queer under Cohen’s definition. Beyond this, though, the way the show represents his identity as a gay man is still extremely stereotypical of what we expect to see in television and movies. He is very “flamboyant”, and the trope of a gay man whose only dream it is to be on Broadway is extremely overdone. Although his character is given much more depth in this show than most “gay best friends” are afforded, I think the show could have done so much more with his character. While I applaud the show for giving Titus diversity through his race, socioeconomic status, and body type I think that the show ultimately decided that they “had” to characterize Titus in a very stereotypical way in order to still appeal to the largest audience possible.
ReplyDeleteBy Cohen's definition, Titus and Kimmy could be considered queer. Both come from the lower class, Kimmy is a women with no high school diploma, and Titus is a black man who is gay. I think that they make the best of their situations though. They use creativity and their quirkiness to further their careers. I don't know how much of a political statement the show makes, I think most of the show is used for humor.
ReplyDelete