The green devil's commercialization of quasi queerness
Updated: 2013-07-12 06:23
By Jony Lam(HK Edition)
|
|||||||
I remember watching Queer Eye for the Straight Guy on TVB Pearl a long time ago. The name of the American reality series, premiered on the Bravo cable television network in July 2003, was changed to Queer Eye after the third season to broaden the scope of its content, but I guess I lost interest in it by then. Anyway, the Pearl decided not to renew broadcasting rights, and we all soon move on to other things.
In each episode of Queer Eye for the Straight Guy, a team of five gay men, known collectively as the "Fab Five", perform a makeover (in the parlance of the show, a "make-better") on a person, usually a straight man, revamping his wardrobe, redecorating his home and offering advice on grooming, lifestyle and food.
In my younger and more impressionable years, Queer Eye offered me a glimpse of not only (male) homosexuality in action, but also a society in which gay people can be open about their sexual orientation and be accepted.
Almost a decade later, we finally had a local production that remotely resembles Queer Eye - TVB Jade's Bachelors at War. Like most shows in TVB's Chinese channel, it has a little bit of everything, but nothing seems to be right.
Whereas the US show presented us with gay people who are not afraid of revealing their allegiance, Bachelors at War had the androgynous appearance of cross-dressing image consultant judge Karl Hui. While claiming to be heterosexual, Karl told us he struck a friendship with Clement Chan, one of the show's judges, and the two would watch the show every night together at Clement's place. These talks were of course designed both at the same time to prevent the conservatives from complaining to the authorities and to disgust us into watching the show.
Those who believe themselves to be progressives saw in Karl's TV appearance some kind of a move beyond the male/female gender dichotomy. Having read too much on queer theory, a field of post-structuralism critical theory that emerged in the early 1990s out of the fields of queer studies and women's studies, these "progressives" see goodness even in the most blatant humiliation to the sexually deviant.
Karl, or Karl's persona as presented to us, was calculated by TVB to provoke ridicule. The whole thing might even have been scripted. The average viewers were not impressed by Karl's "queerness"; they were just amused by how low TVB can go in order to attract ratings and Karl's bad taste.
Someday, people might point to Karl and Bachelors in War as the beginning of a less homophobia era in Hong Kong, just as they can point to the chaos and deaths that's happening now in Egypt as the precursor to a more democratic society. According to their logic, if there is light for the faithful in the darkest moment, why don't we just identify darkness as light and save all the trouble?
Karl announced that he would wear a sheer, transparent shirt and a T-back if the show's ratings hit 30 points (luckily it never did) for the ratings and the ratings only, not for the transcendence of gender stereotype. If people were disgusted by him, it was not because they were against homosexuals (he is not one).
The "progressives" will of course accuse us of hanging on gender stereotypes. "Your so-called 'fashion taste' is filtered with a rigid gender conception," they will say. "You can't accept someone to be masculine and feminine both at the same time, so you are calling him 'bad taste'."
Be that as it may, but norms exist for a reason and we cannot live without them. If I order a steak in a restaurant, I expect it to be tasty. The last thing I want is to have the chef come out and lecture me on my reluctance to transcend bitter and sweet.
Norms should be challenged, and they are in fact challenged every day. The crucial point is how. I am not saying that Queer Eye for the Straight Guy is perfect, but it is much better when compared to Bachelors at War. It is good when it is straightforward and positive, and is bad when it is self-humiliating and overly calculated for commercial success.
If you can't tell between the good, the bad, and the ugly, please stop pretending to be a progressive.
The author is a current affairs commentator.
(HK Edition 07/12/2013 page1)