Titus Andromedon and the "GBF"
Sunday, July 19, 2015 at 5:00PM Please welcome new contributor Kyle Turner to the team, who has previously Smackdown'ed right here. In the wake of the Emmy nominations, he's here to talk about one very particular film & tv trope - Editor
In Tina Fey’s book of autobiographical essays Bossypants, she describes with delight and nostalgia her time growing up working at the Delaware County Summer Showtime program for the arts. And while her experiences about her background in theater are the surface, it’s her relationship to the queer community that serves as, perhaps, the thesis and thematic core of the essay. She writes carefully, balancing emotional reaction of the present juxtaposed against examining the events in hindsight. She talks about the lesbian best friends she had for several years, the way her hometown was like “Gay Wales” (“What Wales is to crooners, my hometown may be to homosexuals – meaning, there seems to be a disproportionate number of them and they are the best in the world!”), and, most important, the role of LGBT people in her personal narrative(s). She writes
I thought I knew everything after that first summer. ‘Being gay is not a choice. Gay people were made that way by God,’ I’d lectured Mr. Garth proudly. But it took me another whole year to figure out the second part: ’Gay people were made that way by God, but not solely for my entertainment.’ ”
In one quote, Fey pinpoints a problem that mainstream media often has when depicting queer (usually male) characters: they’re often asexual, thinly written, or designed with tropes built in as opposed to given the benefit of complexity that their straight counterparts more reflexively are given. They are, in a word, tokenized. [More...]
It’s exactly this conundrum that Fey acknowledges, but doesn’t seem to know how to solve, through the character of Titus Andromedon in the newly Emmy nominated Netflix hit Unbreakable Kimmy Schmidt. Titus's inability to seduce a man in Unbreakable Kimmy Schmidt's “Kimmy Kisses a Boy!” episode – something he was once apparently expert at – causes him to panic, wondering...
Am I not a pretty young thing anymore? Am I a bear now? Or a Huxtable?”
It’s a rather amusing punchline, but one that also speaks to the roles of the archetype of the gay best friend in general (the GBF), and particularly the black gay best friend.
It’s funny that Fey should know exactly what the issue is, especially since she has been guilty, in the past, of perpetuating it. Though, to be fair, her depictions of LGBT characters on 30 Rock, while peripheral and uncomplicated, were, at times, mildly subversive. When a queer character has been on screen in 30 Rock, Fey and writing partner Robert Carlock illustrate these initially reiterations of gay conventions and slightly tip them on their ear, or make it so that the joke is on the judgmental. (“James. Not Jimmy, not Jim… Jamesssssss,” Jack Donaghy (Alec Baldwin) hisses when telling Liz Lemon about the interior decorator he hired.)
Walking by himself, wearing a funny sweater, Titus laments...
The larger gay community exists in hierarchies, and when you don’t fit into any of the prescribed boxes, you’re essentially “caste” aside. Age and body image is critical to understanding this hierarchy, given that so many of the labels are predicated on those aspects (“daddy”, “twink”, etc.). Titus neglects to mention his weight, but, nevertheless this sort of existential crisis is kind of critical to understanding the archetype he fits into as a whole, especially with regards to how the hierarchies are portrayed in media.
The Gay Best Friend is essentially an ornamental character devoid of any real sense of autonomy. They exist, as Fey worded it earlier, 'for [audience’s] sole entertainment'. They’re the accessory to our protagonist, usually female and straight, and their utility is mostly to make funny/snark/bitchy comments or sympathize with said female protagonist with any of their romantic woes. They’re attracted to the same thing, so of course the GBF will understand their plight. But this archetype never really expresses desire on their own terms, unless it’s contingent on how the female protagonist, or even the object of desire, is supposed to feel. Jack on Will & Grace is a classic example who, while later in the series was given heftier storylines, mostly was the comic relief whose desires were played for humor and almost never taken seriously. They are, for all intents and purposes, asexual.
Often the GBF exists in the form of either the twink (young, white, hairless, effeminate) or the sassy black character (age doesn’t always matter, body weight fluctuates, effeminate). Fey’s dabbled here before, with the character of Damian (Daniel Franzene) in Mean Girls, who, though not a twink, fulfills these criteria – he’s too gay to function to have much depth in the film (even Lizzy Caplan’s Janice has her art as both a goal and a texture). There’s slightly more stock in the former iteration than in the latter, inasmuch as they’re more visible and, infrequently, given nuance. Sometimes, they’re even used for the purpose of deconstruction, such as in GBF, a teen comedy that admirably attempts to examine the tokenism that the archetype has ushered in since proliferating on tv and in film. If not for deconstruction, their nuance has been most often presented in tragic form: Chris Colfer’s Kurt on Glee, Randy Harirson’s Justin Taylor on Queer as Folk, etc.
But since Titus basically doesn’t quite fit the tribes that are most valued within the gay community – jocks, bears, twinks, etc. – he’s left with nothing to do. Hence, the self-doubt regarding his virility and, much more, his viability as a sexual creature. Which means he has to be relegated to being a GBF.
It means that Titus, regardless of his development in the first season as it exists, still has that hurdle to get past, and Fey and Carlock have to do that. Titus is given the benefit of personal arcs (“Peeno Noir”), and sexual desires, though they’re played primarily for laughs. But the finale suggests that we’ll be able to dig deeper into Titus as a character almost as elegantly drawn as Kimmny herself. And while I don’t expect Fey to solve the issue of the GBF in season 2, I do hope she takes an opportunity to allow that archetype to be subverted, for it to evolve, and to give Titus, and other queer characters of color, some time in the spotlight.
Related:
FYC Supporting Actor Tituss Burgess
LGBT interest articles
Reader Comments (14)
This was great. I love how this article does not ignore that there are people of color that are LGBT, while at the same time Illustrating the problem with the media's portrayal of LGBT community in general. I also love that quote from Tina Fey.
Thanks for sharing, Kyle! I am confused about one point in your article, though: "But since Titus basically doesn’t quite fit the tribes that are most valued within the gay community – jocks, bears, twinks, etc. – he’s left with nothing to do... Which means he has to be relegated to being a GBF."
I don't quite see the connection between those two statements, the jump from TV tropes to real-world terms regarding gay identity. One is a writing construct and the other is more about loose self-identification and social shorthand, right? I'm not sure how one precludes or leads to the other, or why character autonomy would more readily come through adherence to these other labels. Or was this just meant as an extension of the argument that Titus is generally de-sexualized?
That clip was funny.
Excellently written article. I really enjoyed this and agree with most of it. I have to ask a question, though. At what point should Fey be taken to task for the portrayal of Titus. If she's aware of the issues in portraying LGBT characters and merely go along with it is that not worse than someone who doesn't understand the problem? In other words, if it doesn't get better in Season 2, should she be held a bit more accountable?
Thanks for reading, everyone! Really appreciate your comments!
Dave S.: In this particular argument, I'm kind of conflating gay hierarchies and archetypal tropes as kinds of roles. So, hypothetically, the aforementioned gay subgroups can still be seualized or be characterized with desire, but that ends up being undercut when a character is boxed in as a GBF.
Webdell: I don't mean to sound like I'm taking her to task for it, exactly. Just sort of an examination of her treatment rather than a wrap on the hand or anything. Like, this doesn't bother me as much as the Vietnamese guy on the show, which was just so lazily done. Hypothetically, if this continues in Season 2, I think it should at least raise eyebrows and engender some conversation about it, but perhaps within a larger context outside of the show.
Kyle, this was a great article about the general problems with portrayals of LGBT characters on television. So often they are there to fulfill a stereotype, but rarely given their own chance to have a more character-driven storyline. In another show/film, the character of Titus (or of Dong as you take exception to the portrayal of the Vietnamese character) would be excessive and offensive. In Ms. Fey's usage, however, their oversimplification is what makes the humor work.
Honestly, is there any character on the show who is developed as much more than a caricature? Kimmy is the dimwitted smalltown white girl, Jacqueline is the vapid (Native American?!?) socialite, Xanthippe is the angsty wealthy teen who isn't so bad deep down, Lillian is the wacky Jewish landlord... They all have stereotypical plotlines and characterizations that they really don't escape, but the self referential nature of the humor is what makes it work. Titus embraces an exaggerated flamboyance of the GBF, and that is why it succeeds.
Ms Fey pokes fun at stereotypes while fully exploiting them, and does so openly and often mocking herself by doing so. It's what makes her humor amazing.
Now please give that Emmy to Mr. Burgess!!!
I find it interesting that in many articles about the short-shrifting of gay characters the common lament is that they are too "asexual" and/or "non-threatening". Maybe I find it odd because those are two adjectives that could be said of me; while they're not a hundred percent accurate of myself, everyone else does seem to be a lot hornier and angrier then I am. I would more likely rise a brow at gay (and especially bi) characters I feel to be hypersexualized. Others might be miffed at characters that are too much a victim; others at characters whose lives are too sugarcoated, etc, etc. But I think that just goes to show that we want characters we relate to and can even project ourselves onto, especially when we belong to a historically marginalized group. And so it perfectly understandable that we would magnify, sometimes perhaps over-magnify, our issues with those characters. As for the character of Titus Andromedon: yes he's a sassy gay best friend, yes he fits into a number GBF stereotypes, yes he's not a particularly deep character, and no he's not a character I can really project myself onto, but he is a exquisite joke machine and for that I love him. For whatever foibles he might have I take him as is, and it helps that in the discussed episode "Kimmy Kisses a Boy" he provided me the biggest laugh I had all year. It's when while freaking out over getting old he panickily shouts that butterscotch candies have just materialized in his pocket.
Woah. This is interesting. A few observations:
Posting a few outrage-inclined articles without commentary is like dropping the mic and may not be the best way to start a productive conversation.
Almost as soon as two self-identified women of color (or am I misinterpreting?) enter into a conversation the (generally intelligent "non-racist"/"non-sexist") hounds come out and yell at them for sharing their opinions, dropping words such as "outrage" and "oversensitive." If people are outraged perhaps we should try harder to understand why rather than demonize them for having these feelings? I think that's actually a building block of feminism. Instead the emphasis seems to be on demonizing them for not just having these feelings but how they go about sharing them. Rage is an important catalyst for change. "Rational objectivity" is a privilege of those who don't have to fight daily. Feminism is usually interpreted on the internet in a limited (classist, white-washed) way. But it is not the enemy.
White female comedians should be and are held accountable, just as every public figure should be. Just yesterday there was a post about Tina Fey's portrayal of the GBF and how this plays into racial and gender stereotypes. But the article also acknowledged that Fey is aware of these issues and so the article is optimistic that she might be working toward some progress or resolution. It does not simply dismiss her as a dead and gone insensitive person who should be demonized and cast away.
Criticism of public figures is a productive and valuable way to shed light on broader cultural conversations, as long as everyone is willing to listen. People in positions of (social, cultural, gender, economic) power need to try harder to listen, especially if they are the ones who are not raising the issues at hand.
The issue of representation is a complex one--when Lena Dunham didn't represent any black women on Girls she was lambasted for her "universal" title not living up to its name. When she did introduce black characters she was lambasted for not having the authority to represent these characters adequately.
This reminds me of a NYT article about public shaming. What struck me about the article is that the public criticism seemed to intensify every time that it was a (white, in the examples given) female culprit. Yet this was unmentioned by the article author. Women seem to be held more accountable for their offences but somehow even the NYT misses the connection. (http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/15/magazine/how-one-stupid-tweet-ruined-justine-saccos-life.html)
I think most people who read this site agree that we need more black (or generally non-white) female voices across various forms of media.
Most also agree that we need more white female voices.
Both groups stated above represent a diverse group of people. Until we enable more and more voices from each grouping we run the risk of demonizing and silencing the pioneers who are stepping forward. We need to make individuals from both (HUGE) groups to feel welcome presenting their opinions and ideas. Even if we don't like the articles one woman may post or the fact that she is angry.
Well I posted it on the wrong page AND at the time of reading I had missed Nick's brilliant response (ah the pitfalls of switching from phone to computer to type a response). Oops. This article is great!
Catbaskets -- neither of these articles were intended to be "outrage-inclined"-- the first was a simple ... 'what did you see this weekend?' it's just what happens in the comments. I think this one is fairly positive actually. Cool observation about Tina Fey seeing a common media problem and then examining how she handles that same problem in her own work and if she'll find a solution.
I think this is one of the reasons a lot of people try to steer clear of complex topics and just talk about superhero movies. you're less likely to upset people and more likely to get big traffic ;)
RyGuy -- i agree that the humor in Kimmy Schdmit isn't a great fit for indepth engaged desexualization or avoiding tokenism. It's part of the humor that everyone is cartoons. But i do think if you look at it the show does actually *feel* things about Kimmy's love life and even Jane's love life (albeit under a heavy heavy layer of mocking) but Titus just doesn't have one. This wouldn't be an issue at all -- and I'd argue isn't really an issue for *this* show -- if it weren't the case pretty much every time.
JJs Diner -- good to hear a different perspective. I totally hear you. How to get Aay with Murder is an obvious counterpoint too. It does the exact opposite of the asexual gay in that every single thing about The Only Gay in the Village in that show is how he wields his sexuality so indiscriminately. I didn't watch the whole season but the episodes i did watch he definitely seemed to have more sex scenes than anyone else.
Yeah, again the oops on my part. The outrage-inclined articles I meant were the ones posted by Nikki as the first comment to the other threads. You're right. Neither of TFE's articles are click baity via outrage and it does speak volumes that people are disinclined to engage serious with issues for fear of backlash!
I get a little miffed with Tina Fey. On one hand, it seems she wants to be defined as someone who critiques representation problems. But so often she doesn't walk the walk, at all. And it's not just how she writes black and LGBT characters. I think of how judgmental and disdainful (when not patronizing) 30 Rock is to Cerie.
I didn't finish Kimmy Schmidt but one (undiscussed) issue I had was when Carol Kane drops an early line about going to an AA meeting. My first thought was "Good for her! This is unexpected." But instead of saying "Oh that's interesting, let's take this somewhere," later on she's sneaking drinks and falling off the wagon. That seemed so cheap and lazy to me.
Like, you wouldn't introduce a bipolar character who is on medication and doing well and then use her relapse into psychosis for laughs. Or schizophrenia. Or any other DSM-recognized psychological disorder.
There was a moment during "Kimmy Goes To A Party!" where I really thought they were turning Titus into a fully sexualized character. It was upsetting that they didn't follow through on that promise. That being said, Titus did get amazing stories to tell throughout the season, and he's one of the most three-dimensional gay characters we've ever had. Let's just talk pray that his sexuality get explored next season