“Biggest Loser,” “Ugly Betty,” and Downright Mean
I’ve found myself in a nasty quagmire a few times lately over
meanness. When I heard about the shows “Ugly Betty” and “The
Biggest Loser,” I couldn’t believe the shows’ titles. Whatever
the actual shows were about, those titles are MEAN. I decided
not to watch either just on principle. Not even to see what they
were about.
Around the same time, “Borat” hit the theaters around here. What
did “Borat” mean? No negative connotations that I could
determine, but the reviews both piqued my interest and turned me
off at the same time. I did have what I called a perverse
interest in seeing it, even though I was worried that I would
laugh and then be embarrassed that I had found something funny.
I couldn’t talk anyone into going with me. Drew doesn’t like
comedies. Meg wasn’t interested. But then we were all at a
party where several people raved about how much they had liked
it. Meg went without me, and then reported back that she hated
it and found it had “no redeeming social value at all.” Since
Meg has a finely tuned ethical barometer, I believed her. She
did say that the guy she went with laughed and that made her mad
—at him. Since the premise of “Borat” seems to be tricking
real people into acting like their real selves on film, no matter
how caddish they are, I am glad I did not go. Tricking people
and laughing at them is not something I find funny. No matter how
boorish they are.
Then, I slid into some very disturbing conversations with “The
Biggest Loser” fans who tried to convince me how great the show
was, how it was really educational (fat people would learn how to
eat and exercise by watching it), and how the
biggest loser was really a winner. Somehow, I couldn’t be
convinced. How could a show that played on the commonly
understood phrase “the biggest loser” (as in “He is the biggest
loser”) possibly be construed as a positive experience for people
struggling with weight? Which more and more people in this
country are doing every day.
Rather than break my pledge to myself not to add to the Nielson
ratings of “The Biggest Loser,” I Googled the show and found this
Entertainment Weekly review which put my
worst fears into words. Here are a few of them:
But there’s a loathsome, mock-the-fatty undertow to Biggest
Loser. Part of the ugliness comes courtesy of the editing. ....
Loser’s challenges are even more manipulative: Many of the stunts
have no goal but to ridicule - or punish - the contestants. One
can argue that forcing out-of-shape folks to climb to the top of
that L.A. building was a lesson in perseverance. But what’s the
point of making them squeeze in and out of car windows too small
for them? Or forcing them to build a tower of pastries using only
their mouths? Or compete for a bag of lard? (Thereby forcing a
nation to make an immediate, collective ‘‘tub of’’ reference.)
More Googling, this time on “Ugly Betty”, brought up the ABC
“Ugly Betty” website. The banner across the top reads: “Ugly is
in! Go to the ABC store to buy this T-shirt and get an Ugly
Betty ring free! ABC’s net proceeds to benefit Girls Inc.,
inspiring all girls to be strong, smart and bold.”
Then I go to girlsinc.com where I find the following:
BE UGLY ‘07
Girls Inc. is teaming up with ABC on the “BE UGLY ‘07” campaign.
The campaign encourages people to be real in a superficial world,
just like the title character of ABC’s hit show, Ugly Betty.
Girls Inc. kicked off the partnership at a luncheon event hosted
by ABC Entertainment and CosmoGIRL! magazine, where Girls Inc.
girls met the show’s star, America Ferrera. Congratulations to
America Ferrera and the Ugly Betty team on their recent Golden
Globe wins!
First off, the girls in the accompanying photo with “Ugly Betty”
start America Ferrera (what a name) did not particularly happy or
in on the joke. And Ferrera was by far the prettiest girl in the
picture. And co-host COSMOGIRL??? Go on over to that site.
No ugly girls there.
ABC has made a half-hearted attempt to defend the show name “Ugly
Betty” by starting a “movement” to reclaim ugly and make the term
a positive one. Like black folks reclaiming n****r and gay folks
reclaiming queer, faggot, and dyke. The difference that self-
serving ABC does not see is that n****r, queer, faggot and dyke
are only okay when used by the minority group with each other,
usually affectionately. Those terms have a far different
connotation when used by the non-minority group members. Ugly
has a long ways to go. Who would ever want to be called “ugly,”
whether or not the namer was ugly, too?
Even more ridiculous is that the “Ugly Betty” character is not
ugly! The actress who plays her is beautiful, and the “ugliness”
seems to be glasses, braces, and a bad fashion sense. She looks
like a gawky 13 year old girl who could easily become a real
beauty in just a few years. What about someone truly ugly? A
disfigured actress who looked it? Would that be so funny?
What about a reality series about people who were messy and
needed help getting organized? We could call it “The Dirtiest
****”! You name the minority. Lots would fit. They could get a
free house makeover. Why stop there? How about a free new house
to the dirtiest?
Segue to a story from the Netherlands:
Dutch shock at proposed dating show for ‘visibly disfigured’
The Netherlands, the country that has pioneered reality shows
like “Big Brother”, is planning a new first - a dating programme
for the visibly disfigured.
The broadcaster SBS 6 is seeking candidates for its “Love at
Second Sight” show due to be launched in February.
“Do you have a visible serious handicap and are you looking for a
partner?” says an appeal on its Web site.
“The programme is a platform for people with such problems to
share experiences and feelings in a positive way with the rest of
the Netherlands and to show that they are absolutely not
pitiful,” the broadcaster said.
“The main aim of the programme is to remove prejudice about these
people, to create more acceptance and respect and, of course, to
find the love of their lives.”
But the majority of Dutch viewers are turned off by the show that
was initially set to be called “Monster Love”.
A poll by the mass circulation De Telegraaf daily showed 85
percent do not like the idea, with only 9 percent in favour.
“MosterMonster Love”? Need I say more???
Loyal reader Ben asked me to post this for him:
Sorry, Kathryn, but I think that you’re way off-base
with this one. The whole point of the title “Ugly
Betty” is that Betty isn’t ugly! It’s used
purposefully to contrast Betty with the mean
“beautiful” people that she works with. The show
itself is quite positive and uplifting.
The same can be said about The Biggest Loser. I find
it to be an inspirational show, at heart. Of course
it’s a reality show, so there are stupid competitions
and elimination vote conniving that aren’t that
exciting to watch. But the weight loss part is
interesting.
I think that you do a disservice when you review
television shows without watching them.
Ben
Posted by Kathryn Lord on 01/25 at 06:52 AM