How Prevalent is the "Teen Show Barbie Body"?

The girls of 90210. Photo courtesy of theskinnywebsite.com.

A friend recently recommended that I check out a piece by Anne Helen Petersen about the way in which teen shows promote a very specific body image, which Petersen calls the "Teen Show Barbie Body." This particular physical appearance - exemplified in the shot above of the girls of the CW's 90210 - is described as "tall, relatively small breasts, pilates-toned ... and long, slightly wavy hair, parted slightly to the side, with no bangs ... their facial features are all remarkably similar, which is to say, Anglicized." The shows that Petersen specifically calls out are 90210, Gossip Girl, Pretty Little Liars and my beloved The Vampire Diaries.

While I certainly agree that TV shows in general, and teen dramas in particular, present a problematic body image that millions of teenage girls are exposed to when they sit down to enjoy the twists and turns of their favorite shows. However, that doesn't mean I completely agree with Petersen; I have a number of problems with her argument, not the least of which is her excessive use of commas. I won't harp on that particular problem (it's just my inner grammarian making an appearance), but I do take issue with three of her points; one, that she leaves Glee out of the equation; two, that none of these shows' stars will never move on to "true stardom" because their appearance is not "marked by some distinct feature"; and three, that none of these actresses resemble "normal" teenagers, and that their lack of normality creates a problem.

Part of the reason that I'm so bothered by Petersen's analysis is her use of The Vampire Diaries, one of my favorite shows, as an example. Loyal readers of Pencils Down, Pass the Remote know how much I love TVD, and they also know that my love for the phenomenal Nina Dobrev knows no bounds. To hear Dobrev - who plays two completely different characters so brilliantly that I often forget they're portrayed by the same actress - lumped in with the interchangeable sticks of 90210 as a "decent" actress with no potential for movie stardom makes my blood boil.

I also happen to think that Petersen largely leaves out the most egregious offender, barely mentioning Fox's Glee, a television phenomenon whose audience is probably greater than that of the previous four shows combined. The major problem I have with Glee - well, one of many, many problems - is the way the show constantly preaches that being "unique" and "different" is okay, while showing through the writing that, while being unique is all well and good, a girl can only land a boyfriend if she's stick thin with good hair (or if she's Lauren Zizes, and her entire purpose is to redeem Puck as a character). Petersen does point out that the majority of the women on Glee would fit in perfectly well with the cast of 90210, but she fails to bring up the offensive lack of storylines - romantic or otherwise - for the members of the cast who actually look different. Exhibit A: Mercedes. Exhibit B: Coach Beiste. Exhibits C-Z: Also Mercedes. Plus, she leaves out the fact that Lea Michele started out the series looking like this:

Photo courtesy of buddytv.com.

but by the start of season two had dropped a considerable amount of weight and now looked like this:

Photo courtesy of seat42f.com.

The point being that, while there was an entire episode dedicated to Michele's Rachel keeping her stereotypically Jewish nose, there has never once been a mention of the fact that she dropped two dress sizes from her already small frame before the premiere of season 2.

Petersen also claims that none of these "teen barbie" actresses will ever go on to "true stardom" - by which she means film stardom, the ranking of which so far above TV stardom is material for an entirely different piece - arguing that these girls are not distinctive enough to see true success as a film star. Petersen provides a list of actors who are distinguished by being "beautiful, inexactly," ranging from Greta Garbo to Angelina Jolie to George Clooney. Now, I would certainly take issue with the idea that Clooney is not conventionally attractive, but instead I want to point out some of the stars she conveniently leaves off the list. One of the most notable is sex symbol and movie star Rita Hayworth, an undeniable screen siren who only became famous after undergoing an extensive makeover to make her appear more Caucasian and strip away the Spanish physicality of Margarita Carmen Cansino (Hayworth's birth name).

For a contemporary example, look no further than Brad Pitt, conventionally attractive partner of the "inexactly beautiful" Jolie. I would argue that, in recent years, Pitt has become a much bigger film star than Jolie, who at this point is known largely because of her tabloid exploits while Pitt has managed to separate his reputation as an actor from the constant paparazzi coverage. Pitt has succeeded as a film star in spite of his conventional good looks, and I happen to think that Dobrev, with her classic beauty and her formidable talent, could probably do the same.

I also take issue with Petersen's argument that shows like Freaks and Geeks and Veronica Mars are inherently better than the teen dramas she singles out because they present more "realistic" high school students. I love Freaks and Geeks just as much as the next critic, but that's not the kind of show that The Vampire Diaries is. It's a show about freaking vampires! It doesn't have to be realistic. And while most high school students don't look like Nina Dobrev, there are very few television actors that resemble high school students. Veronica Mars' Kristen Bell is considerably better looking than most of the people I went to high school with, as is Freaks and Geeks' James Franco. Petersen doesn't seem to understand that television actors, at least in the US, are all better looking than the vast majority of the populace. That's why they become actors.I'm not arguing that this isn't a problem, but it's not a problem with these particular shows; it's a proble, with TV and movies in general, and the culture of beauty and sameness that they promote.

However, I don't think that the teens on The Vampire Diaries are as unrealistic-looking as Petersen seems to think. Of course, when you post promotional photos like this:



Photo courtesy of haironthebrain.com

 the actress is going to look unrealistic. It's a photo meant to promote the show in which Dobrev is wearing designer clothes, has had her hair and makeup done for a photo shoot, and has probably been airbrushed within an inch of her life. Meanwhile, when Dobrev appears as Elena she looks like this:

Photo courtesy of sidereel.com.

She's still thin and beautiful (Nina Dobrev would look good in a paper bag), but she's dressed like a normal high school student in jeans, sneakers and a jacket. Her hair is styled, but it isn't "the type of hair that is impossible or requires a tremendous amount of labor" as Petersen claims. Maybe it's just because of the environment in which I grew up, but many of the girls I went to school with showed up every morning at eight a.m. with shiny, flatironed, salon-perfect hair. I certainly wasn't one of those girls - I have curly hair that is extremely difficult to tame and I happen to value my sleep - but to me, Elena's hair doesn't look out of the ordinary, and neither do her clothes.

\

I certainly don't think that television, movies and media promote a healthy body image for women, and I also have my own set of body-image issues that are, in all likelihood, the result of the constant media barrage of impossibly thin, flawless women that grace TV shows, films and magazines. I just don't think it's fair for Petersen to pick on talented young actresses like Nina Dobrev or her costars Candica Accola and Katerina Graham. These girls may be thin and pretty, but none of them are as terrifyingly skinny as the girls of 90210, and they're also more talented (and on a better show). It's certainly not fair of her to argue that none of these girls will ever become film stars because of her inaccurate idea that great film stars are only famous because of their distinctive features, rather than their talent and charisma. Let's stop picking on the casts of teen soap operas, and instead focus on the real problem: magazine editors, casting directors and studio executives who have created a pop-culture world in which the only acceptable body type is one that very few women can ever hope to attain.

"Glee" Finale: Well, at least Mercedes got to do something...

Mark Salling, Chord Overstreet, Harry Shum Jr. and Kevin McHale in "New York," the second season finale of Glee. Photo courtesy of starpulse.com.

(Warning: SPOILERS ahead for those who haven't yet seen the season finale.)

I've complained about Glee a lot in the past. I've been disappointed by the way this once smart, feel-good show became a parody of itself, a series of seemingly unrelated episodes designed only to shoehorn in Top 40 hits and increase iTunes sales. The finale didn't really do anything to change my mind; while the usual pop hits were eschewed in favor of some uninteresting original songs, a plug for Matthew Morrison's new album, and a truly terrible Madonna song, the story was just as inconsistent as ever, and the characters once again seemed like completely different people than they did last week.

Let's start with the good moments, shall we? First of all, and most exciting, Mercedes (Amber Riley) actually has a love interest in the person of Chord Overstreet's Sam. Let's all just pause and let that sink in for a moment. As I've discussed before, Mercedes is the most ill-used character on the entire show, and until now she has never been allowed to have a love interest, while the rest of the characters have hooked up in a quantity of different permutations that could give the teens on Gossip Girl a run for their money. Does the extremely brief glimpse of Mercedes and Sam's relationship at the end of the episode - not to mention the fact that it seems to have stemmed from their pity date to prom - make up for two seasons of neglect? Well, no, but it's a good sign. Plus, it adds credence to my theory that executives and showrunners at FOX read this blog on a regular basis.

Another nice moment was the resolution of the Brittany/Santana storyline. It's slightly misleading to call it a resolution, since things were left pretty open-ended, but the final conversation between the two characters was sweet and, while they didn't end up together, it did leave the door open for a future romantic relationship while making sure that Santana knew how Brittany felt about her. It was a lovely, understated moment for a show that does not generally appear to know what the word "understated" means.

The third interesting storyline of the episode - and the only one that produced a remotely compelling musical number - was the moment when Kurt and Rachel snuck onto the stage of Wicked and, with the help of the world's most understanding security guard, sang a duet of "For Good." Now, "For Good" is one of my least favorite Wicked songs - it's saccharine and rather boring. However, compared to the rest of music contained in this episode, it was great. Which isn't really a good sign.

Now, onto the bad. I suspect that one of the reasons I disliked this episode so much is because I don't buy into the romanticized version of New York that was the focus of so much of this episode. My personal experience of New York has been that the city is filthy, crowded and hostile. I get stressed out just from being there. Based on my time in the city, if a group of Ohio teenagers suddenly burst into a terrible mash-up of some awful Madonna song and "New York, New York," they would be mocked and possibly spit on. (Also, can we talk about the unreality of a glee club who, only a few episodes ago, didn't have any money to go to Nationals, would be staying the Intercontinental Times Square? Or Finn taking Rachel to Sardi's, where an appetizer will run you between $15 and $20?) To me, New York City has never been a city of artistic inspiration, but rather a city of people yelling at me because I had the audacity to be from somewhere other than NYC. It's apparently my own personal failing.

However, despite my infinite dislike of New York City, the major problem I had with this episode was the general inconsistency of the characters. Will Schuester, who is perhaps the most inconsistent character on the show, had a baffling character arc. First he wanted to stay in New York to work on April Rhode's broadway show, a decision he made clear in the last episode; then, all of a sudden, after singing a song off of Matthew Morrison's new album in the theater and being told, in the corniest way possible, that he "had real talent" by an usher, he decided to quit on his Broadway dreams and go back to Lima, thanks to some backstabbing by Vocal Adrenaline coach Dustin Goolsby (a wasted Cheyenne Jackson).

Rachel's character arc was just as confounding. First she was in love with Finn, then she refused to be with him because she thought it would conflict with her "career" (at which point I wanted to yell "You're still in high school! You don't have a career), because she apparently forgot that she's still a year away from graduation and their last shot a relationship lasted considerably less than a year. Then they kissed on stage, which apparently somehow cost the glee club the competition - which they lost, by the way, although it was a fairly unimportant plot point - and then they made out in the library and decided to get back together anyway, and you know what, I really don't care anymore.

A few other random things happened: Quinn wanted to destroy the glee club's chances at winning (because apparently their hastily written, insipid original songs weren't going to do that anyway) but settled for getting a haircut instead; Brittany wrote an awesome song about a cup; and Puck, Sam, Mike and Artie serenaded Finn and Rachel with a song from The Aristocats. Other stuff probably happened, but this episode was such a grab bag of random plots and moments that, as Todd VanDerWerff pointed out in his recap for the AV Club, seemed to have dropped in from another show entirely, that I'm having hard time remembering what it was.

All in all, this episode encapsulated the problems of the extremely uneven second season. There were moments that were lovely, and brought back the original sense of the show as a series about a group of misfit kids and their hopes and dreams, but the vast majority of moments were just a grab for attention, ratings and iTunes sales. I'm looking forward to next year's NBC musical series Smash, which appears to feature original songs that are largely related to the plot and characterizations that are consistent from episode to episode. However, in order to make time for Smash, I might have to jettison Glee, and I'm really okay with that. A this point, even the promise of Mercedes getting a story can't keep me interested. The writers will probably just forget about it two episodes in anyway.