We’re living at a curious moment. On the one hand, everything is worse than it ever was before. Every time you mention something positive online, the ritual is to begin with, “Things are terrible, but.” However! Things are also better than ever before, to the point that any TV show from more than five minutes ago is too problematic to live.
Britbox Canada appears to have full-on removed the “Fawlty Towers” ep that had previously been disclaimered (“The Germans,” in which the Major uses racist language, in a scene where he’s being mocked for his bigotry and general stupidity, in an episode opposed to bigotry, but I digress), while others have these mini-warnings affixed, letting you know that television existed before the exact instant when you happened to click play.
What does it mean for a show to be problematic, though? Is dated-ness on its own reason to feel on-edge? Does the mere use of terms that now seem out-of-date make a show Bad, or is it more about identity differences being mined cruelly for laughs? Or! Is it about a certain lack of reverence for identity, where traits are just kind of matter-of-fact accepted, but not solemnly acknowledged for the struggles they may bring.
Now seems a good enough moment to situate myself in these matters: I’m straight, white, cis. I’m also a Jewish woman, and if you think the pre-sensitivity era (including the shows I’m about to discuss) was kind women, Jews, or Jewish women, think again.
Two shows — and two characters — immediately come to mind though re: the lack of reverence hypothesis: Mr. Humphries, from “Are You Being Served?” (1972-1985) and Les/Leslie, on “Benidorm” (2007-2018). Note: I’m only 4 seasons into “Benidorm,” and the latest ones aren’t available streaming, so if things change radically later on, this is why I have not mentioned it. “Are You Being Served?” is a workplace sitcom, focused on the staff of a department store in London, while “Benidorm” is in some ways its opposite: a sitcom about leisure and its discontents, set at an all-inclusive Spanish resort popular with working-class (I think?? sorry I’m American) guests from the north of England.
Despite being nearly a half-century apart, the two shows exist very much in the same universe. They’re about ordinary people unvarnished, and everyone is a joke. Gay and straight, hot and plain, old and young, working class or (on the rare occasions such characters appear) posh, everyone is embarrassing because of who they are. But not in a “South Park” equal opportunity cruelty way, exactly. It’s more that the absurdity of the human experience is an acknowledged universal, without any one sort of person standing in for the everyman. (Think Jim on “The Office,” US version.) Everyone gets a gentle punch-down, including lustful and self-important straight white men.
Which brings me first to Mr. Humphries. He’s gay (and played by a gay actor), but not openly so, or rather, the show doesn’t spell this out to the audience, but it’s not ambiguous, either. If anything, it’s over-the-top to the point of controversy: even at the time, the character’s beyond-camp persona put off gay activists. Mr. Humphries speaks in constant innuendo (is this Polari?), referencing being easy either way, etc., and provides much of the show’s humor. But he’s also highly respected by his colleagues, and accepted for who he his. He’s ridiculous but no more so than lecherous Mr. Lucas, pompous Captain Peacock, or (and she’ll be getting her own newsletter) neon-haired “pussy”-having Mrs. Slocombe.
Les/Leslie requires more explanation, or maybe defies it. Is this character transgender? A transvestite? A drag queen? A point-by-point analysis could only land on, an unspecified all-of-the-above, offered up to an audience deeply unschooled in such distinctions. I mean for starters, why is “Les” the man, “Leslie” the woman, when both names are gender-neutral? Was 2009 or whatever really that long ago?Les/Leslie has a young-adult son from a past relationship, but seems to only date men. The dressing up in womenswear is part stage performance, part lifestyle, it’s really vague and, in its vagueness, Bad.
Les/Leslie is introduced in a truly cringe-inducing plot involving a (straight cis male) character getting mistakenly outed by his own mother, then ending up on a blind date with Leslie, but that character leaves the show, while Les/Leslie stays on as a server at the Solana resort, appearing in both roles. For the most part, that Les is sometimes Leslie is a non-issue, or anyone who does take issue is called out. Mateo, his chiselled lothario colleague and the only actual Spanish character (played by an Italian actor, which I think is OK? or is it like with Manuel?), is first put off by the crossdressing (itself a problematic depiction of the Traditionalist Latin Type), but a plot twist has Mateo in drag himself and it is clear strutting around town in sexy womanswear plays into his baseline vanity and he comes around.
Anyway. What strikes me about both of these shows/characters is that they feel dated mainly not because of any particular cruelty represented onscreen, or the specific language used, but rather because of the absence of a certain seriousness about difference and marginalization. A ritual of behavior, one that may nor may not actually make anyone’s life easier, but that is, at any rate, what’s recently been determined is the timelessly correct way of doing things. Things used to be terrible. But look at now, and how everything is just fantastic.