Ugly Betty: Glamorous and Unrealistic?

There’s a pretty fascinating article in the LA Times by TV critic Mary McNamara. She starts out examining the feminisation of network television, and the masculinisation of cable TV (especially reality TV). I thought it was interesting that she used Ugly Betty as an example, but I think McNamara misses the mark somewhat. Then she ventures into the depiction of class on television, and I think what she has to say is important (although she still, I think, misreads Ugly Betty).

I didn’t know this, but Discovery Channel’s Deadliest Catch was the highest rated prime-time show amongst men ages 18-49 on Tuesday night, beating out Dancing With the Stars and Shark. This used to be the single most sought after demographic in TV, although now I think it’s women of that particular age. She highlights shows Dirty Jobs, Ice Road Truckers, and Ax Men. The she says:

The folks are mostly men, all rugged, real and capable, proof that Americans are still capable of living by their wits and the strength in their calloused, competent hands. Call it testicular television.

The point is that some people actually work at real jobs…they are members of the working and middle class, and they have been all but abandoned by the rest of the entertainment industry.

I think McNamara has a point. She does throw Ugly Betty a bone later: “Ugly Betty” comes pretty close to occupying an actual social demographic — they all live together in a slightly cramped but cozy row house and have immigration issues, but fortunately Betty’s job allows her access to the luxe life, so we don’t have to spend too much time idling in dreary “real” life.

I think McNamara somewhat misses the genius that is Ugly Betty.

More after the jump.

I’ll grant that 80 percent of the show happens away from Queens, but like the reality shows McNamara highlights, Betty is primarily a show about work. But, to say “women call the shots” on the show, well, that’s just a product of not paying attention. Up until his death, the Meade empire was owned and run by Bradford. He gave the Editor in Chief job to his playboy son. Even now, with Alexis running things, well, she’s not exactly what we would think of as a normal “she”.

Betty is a working-class girl, trying to survive in a male-run corporate world, surrounded by people who appear glamorous, but maybe aren’t so much so (remember Swag?).

Hilda runs her beauty salon out of her home to help pay the bills. Betty communtes into the city. Ignacio is disabled and cannot work. Justin goes to public school. I know lots and lots of families just like this.

But, the genius of Ugly Betty is the juxtoposition of the two worlds. The writers like to have themes in each show, and usually a Mode person has a parallel story to a Suarez. But, there are differences. The Meades are rich, but disfunctional. The Suarezes are barely surviving, but tight-knit.

Even the supporting cast, I think, is pretty dead on. Chris Gorham’s shy, fumbling accountant Henry is like many I’ve known. Kenny (please? can we have a little more of him?) is just like several people I’ve known. I’ve known some Cliffs, and a few Marcs. Even Amanda reminds me of some friends over the years. Only Alexis seems to come out of the soap opera realm.

That being said, my quick answer to McNamara would be that a little bit of fantasy (done with a grounding in reality) is just what many of us need in tough times. I get plenty of reality every day, thank you very much.

That being said, check out the article. Aside from missing the mark on Ugly Betty, I think McNamara raises some interesting points.

Image: Newscom