As the show’s title and theme song state explicitly, Two and a Half Men (T&HM) is primarily about men and masculinity. T&HM negotiates masculinity against several, and sometimes conflicting, backdrops. These backdrops include the show’s largely conventional style, the spectrum of masculinity created by the two lead characters and the actors who portray them, the oppositions created between the male and female characters, and the simultaneous acceptance of and rejection of homosexuality. Like any television program, T&HM plays this negotiation out against the larger backdrop that is American culture and, in my humble opinion, this culture is one that has undergone several dramatic shifts in recent years. Through this program we can recognize America’s discursive past, present, and future, which on the surface might appear to be nothing more than another male dominated sitcom. After all, this show does bare a striking resemblance to the 1970s sitcom success The Odd Couple. However, The Odd Couple was forced to perform some levels of its negotiation within the confines of a metaphorical closet whereas T&HM is able to centralize many its questions. Before undertaking a close analysis of the program’s key questions it seems prudent to first identify the televisual landscape in which these questions are negotiated.
T&HM appears, on the surface, to be nothing more than a conventional domestic sitcom. After all, the program is shot in multi-camera mode and incorporates the ever-present laugh track for a conventional sound styling. These stylistic choices occur at a time when the sitcom genre has shifted toward a preference for a more flexible, and arguably complex, style based on the single-camera mode of production. For example, shows like My Name is Earl, Malcolm in the Middle, The Office, and Scrubs have all violated generic convention by choosing not to use laugh tracks and choosing to rely on videographic techniques that exemplify the single-camera mode of production; T&HM is not one of this new breed of sitcoms.
In addition to T&HM sounding and appearing like sitcoms of the past, the show also relies on viewers’ acceptances of the discursive norms presented throughout the history of the genre (i.e. the male-dominated family unit). Despite the use of conventional style and the program’s reliance on seemingly dominant discourses, the show still raises some serious questions for viewers. In much the same way that Will & Grace asked viewers to question what it meant to be a gay, middle-aged, white man in America, T&HM begs viewers to question what it means to be a heterosexual one. In short, the program asks viewers to draw distinctions within the social class that historically has embodied the group recognized as the dominant class in American culture. As such, this class and its singular definition of acceptability have often been viewed through a lens of normalcy. The adoption of a conventional style reaffirms this sense of normalcy; if it looks and sounds normal, then it must be normal, right? However, T&HM recognizes that even the white, heterosexual male is a nuanced cultural construction. With this in mind, the program asks viewers to question the acceptance and construction of this norm. The program begs this question primarily through its construction of the show’s five familial characters (Charlie, Alan, Jake, Judith, and Evelyn).
T&HM aired its pilot episode in September of 2003. In the pilot, viewers are introduced to the primary characters and their backstories. The show opens with Charlie about engage in intercourse with a beautiful and scantily clad young woman. The phone rings and interrupts his sexual progress. The call is answered by his machine and we hear a woman ranting about Charlie’s piggish behavior. This call tells viewers from the beginning that Charlie is a womanizer. This notion is reinforced further by the viewers’ foreknowledge of the actor, Charlie Sheen, who has experienced very public bouts with both substances and women. The lines between the historical (real) and televisual (fictionalized) worlds are further blurred by the character and actor sharing a first name. After Charlie explains away the first phone call, the phone rings a second time. This time it is Charlie’s brother, Alan. Alan tells Charlie that he and his wife have separated and he needs a place to stay. Charlie agrees to provide Alan with a room. The sibling relationship of these two characters prompts viewers to assume that some similarities will exist between the two characters; however, no assumption could be more inaccurate.
Alan, unlike Charlie, has been a devoted husband and is the father to one son, Jake. In short, Alan is a family man. Alan is also nerdy (he is a chiropractor after all), hen-pecked, effeminate, emotional, hardworking, penny-pinching, anal-retentive, and played by the diminutive actor Jon Cryer. Ultimately, the characters these actors portray represent opposite ends of the masculinity continuum. Charlie is the alpha male and Alan is the Hansian and Franzian “girly man” (see 1990s SNL). The center of this continuum is where Jake, Alan’s son, is situated. In the pilot episode, viewers learn that Jake will spend considerable time in Charlie’s house with his father and uncle. In this house, Jake will see his father struggle to cope with his life’s failures or perceived shortcomings, but he will also see his father consistently and positively reinforce the importance of some characteristics that many Americans would consider to be feminine, like family devotion. In this house, Jake will also see his uncle treat everything around him as if it were placed there simply for his pleasure. In addition to being a womanizer, the character of Charlie is a gambler, drinker, partier, composer of knock-off ad jingles, and ultimately the pure embodiment of the privileged, white male. Everything comes too easily and too readily for Charlie (including the hangovers). Jake is the impressionable boy. He is Alan’s only child. Jake is not academically-gifted, but he is far more aware than his father gives him credit for being. Viewers are positioned by the pilot to observe which lessons Jake learns from each of his male role models. Whether or not Jake will become a man is not one of this program’s overarching questions, because undoubtedly the boy will grow into a man. Instead, the question that should be asked about this program is: What kind of man will Jake become?
Feminist criticism has taught us that there is a distinction to be made between sex and gender. Sex is physiological; it is largely defined by what does or does not hang between your legs. In contrast, gender is understood as a cultural construction. Gender begs questions like: How should a man behave? Are “girly men” real men? To reference Seinfeld, can a man be neat and single and not gay? Questions of sex are largely uninteresting, but questions of gender require cultural awareness, personal reflection and inspection, and an understanding that nothing is ever truly “normal.” In other words, some things are so common in our worlds that they appear normal, but in fact this normalcy is illusory. T&HM centralizes questions concerning the normalcy of manliness.
It would be remiss to undertake this discussion without acknowledging at least two of T&HM’s female characters in more detail: Judith and Evelyn. In the pilot, Judith has left Alan to explore her sexual identity. Judith’s questioning of her sexuality tells viewers that the creators of this program are fully aware of the ideological negotiation that they are undertaking through this program. Judith’s introspective question of sexual identity should be read as a cue for viewers to ask the same question of the other characters in the show. And in various episodes, this question is explicitly asked of almost every character, with Jake a as notable exception. The creators of this male dominated sitcom do not shy away from questions of sexual orientation and this topic becomes part of the negotiation of masculinity and femininity, although there is no indication that sexual preference is necessarily a defining characteristic of a masculine man or a feminine woman. In this respect, homosexuality is normalized within T&HM even though viewers are asked to question the normalization of gendered identities.
One of the ways that the program asks viewers to understand masculinity is to develop a keen awareness of non-stereotypical woman. In this respect, Judith’s character is constructed with several stereotypically masculine traits. She is characterized as dominating, demanding, overbearing, vocal, and generally inflexible; she is the boss of her household and has obviously displaced Alan from that stereotypically male familial position. In order to re-emphasize these traits, Judith eventually returns to her heterosexual roots and becomes engaged to another man, which illustrates for viewers that Judith’s dominance is not relegated only to her relationship with Alan since she also occupies the alpha position in this new relationship. This domination is exemplified in a fourth season episode entitled “Don’t Worry, Speed Racer.” In this episode, Jake endures the unfortunate problem of overhearing his mother and her fiancé having sex. Apparently, Jake has been unable to sleep due to the volume at which Judith provides her lover step-by-step instructions to help maximize her pleasure. For viewers, this characterization reinforces the ideas that Jake has witnessed his father’s emasculation and domination by his mother during his most formative years. So unlike Charlie’s overt conquests of women, Alan has been ruled by the opposite sex. Arguably, Alan is the most stereotypically feminine character in the show. This characterization is further reinforced by the presence of Evelyn, Charlie and Alan’s mother.
Evelyn shows viewers that both of her sons had experienced female domination in their lives. It seems logical to assume that Charlie in the mirror image of his mother, while it is likely that Alan depicts his deceased father’s role in life. Charlie has become his mother, while Alan simply married her image. Despite their apparent similarities, or maybe because of them, Charlie and Evelyn often express an open disdain and lack of respect for one another. In many respects, Charlie and Evelyn are constantly battling to control the alpha position in the show; a battle Evelyn generally wins. In contrast to Charlie’s relationship with his mother, Alan represents the more dutiful son. He is always, although begrudgingly, there when his mother calls, which is rare. Yet, Evelyn seems to respect Charlie and considers Alan weak. Of course, this is another set of relationships that Jake is in prime position to witness. Moreover, this is another set of relationships that viewers are in a prime position to witness. Developing an awareness of the negotiation that is occurring before them will likely add another level of viewing enjoyment to the program.
In the end, T&HM provides no clear definition of a real man. More importantly, the program should not provide this definition because a proper definition does not exist. The pleasure of this program involves the negotiation itself and the questions are far more interesting than the answers. The negotiation of the white, heterosexual man in T&HM shows viewers that these men are prone to stereotypes and overgeneralizations, but because this group has occupied a privileged position in American society for so long a singular understanding of masculinity seems normal. T&HM provides an open window into the world of men by recognizing that trying to determine whom the “manly men” are is not a simple question with a singular answer. More importantly, our understandings of men are directly influenced by our understandings of women. In an age of ass kicking women on television (e.g. Battlestar Galactica’s Starbuck or Bionic Woman’s Jamie Sommers among others), T&HM recognizes that more and more frequently men are learning to become men by observing and interacting with women. In this respect, this program has as much to do with developing a recognition and acceptance of powerful women as it does with determining and defining the characteristics of “Men, Men, Men, Men, Manly Men, Men, Men.”
Recent Comments