The brilliant but troubled singer and pianist Nina Simone (pictured) is the subject of a new documentary, "What Happened, Miss Simone?"; after the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling on gay marriage, we examine whether TV has swayed American attitudes on the matter.
How TV shows like 'Modern Family' helped shape perceptions of same-sex marriage (POLL)
Today’s Supreme Court ruling in favor of gay marriage was the opinion of five judges. But their decision also reflects changing attitudes among the population at large.
One of the contributing factors has been television, which has gone through its own evolution of how to portray gay Americans.
Whether TV has helped change attitudes about gay marriage is not just anecdotal. There has been plenty of research done on this topic, much of it by Edward Schiappa, a Professor of Media Studies at MIT.
Schiappa joins the Frame to talk about what his research shows about televisions influence on public opinion, and he runs through some key moments from the past 25 years.
Interview Highlights
You conducted five separate studies on this topic while you were at the University of Minnesota, briefly walk us through what that entailed, particularly as it related to television depictions.
What we already know from years of research is that one way to decrease prejudice is to have meaningful contact between majority and minority members. What we found is was that that process can actually be duplicated through media, through television and film exposure. In particular, we focused on gay men in television and film and how television could change people’s attitude by basically allowing people to get to know gay people in a safe environment if you will. And so we found from a number of studies from ‘Six Feet Under’ to ‘Will & Grace,’ to ‘Queer Eye for the Straight Guy,’ that the more people had contact, mediated contact, then the lower their prejudice would be as a result.
How would you characterize the evolution of depiction of gay characters over the years?
There’s a difference between some generalizations that may have some basis in reality and negative over-generalizations. That’s how I define a stereotype, as a both negative and false overgeneralization. There are flamboyant gay men. One of the things about ‘Will & Grace’ is you had two very different gay male characters in leading positions. One who might be described as more flaming, one who could pass as a straight guy. And so it’s that diversity of representation that’s so important.
What do you think have been some key turning points in the past 20, 25 years?
There are some historic landmarks, such as Ellen coming out and even going back to the show ‘Soap,’ with Billy Crystal. But I think in terms of meaningful change, the two big landmarks that I would point to would be, certainly first and foremost, ‘Will & Grace’ because it was a very successful, mainstream show that played with gender a lot... And then I would also point to, more recently, ‘Modern Family,’ because we sort of travel with them in their relationship. They adopt a child and then, reflecting the realities of legal changes in California, they get married. And that episode was important because the patriarch of the show clearly starts out uncomfortable about it. And that reflects a lot of potential viewers out there. And yet we see his character change and evolve and accept the marriage. And I think that does important psychological work for mainstream viewers who may not have direct interpersonal contact with gay people in their lives.
I think we can safely say that not only have attitudes of viewers changed but probably attitudes at television networks and among advertisers as well. What role did that all play in getting to this moment?
Let’s be realistic and say the networks have gotta make money. I think that, though there are shows produced in a way because of certain social justice goals, if they’re not gonna make money they’re not gonna be on the air very long. I’ll again point to ‘Will & Grace’ and ‘Modern Family’... shows that were phenomenally successful and had significant gay characters on there, showed that money could be made and entertaining television could be done. And I don’t mean to limit it to just those two shows. You also have gay characters on more niche shows like ‘Pretty Little Liars,’ of course ‘Glee,’ cable shows like ‘Six Feet Under,’ ‘The Wire,’ ‘The L Word.’ And so, the collective success of those shows basically helped cement the deal if you will. That you could have diversity of representation and still make money and still have quality television. And now, what we’ll see in the future I suspect, is even greater efforts of diversity.
The Frame's Oscar Garza also spoke with Andrew O’Hehir, a Senior Writer for Salon.com and the author of an essay titled, “Did TV change America’s mind on gay marriage?”
Interview Highlights
You wrote that the biggest single factor that’s driven social change on gay marriage is that all straight people in America have gotten to know someone gay in the past 20 or 30 years and have not found them as you say, ‘fundamentally alien.’ You added that ‘what we know about the world from our real lives and what we experience on TV tend to reinforce each other.’ So I wanted to ask you, what have been the key moments in television in that progression of American attitudes?
There have been so many, even shows that don’t maybe seem incredibly progressive from the standpoint of what we just learned about America in 2015. Even going back to ‘Will & Grace,’ -- in some ways a silly show but one that was extremely popular and had an effect on people’s consciousness. ‘Modern Family,’ a show that is about as mainstream as you can get and was watched by millions of people every week, I think it was really making LGBT people, same-sex households, appear normal as ridiculous or as boring or as noble or as ordinary as everybody else. And I think the effect of that in ideological terms is very profound over the decades.
Do you think there have been landmark moments on television or has it been a slow and steady climb?
I tend to look more towards the slow and steady climb. I think probably you could pick some if the network TV and cable series of the last couple decades and identify things. Every show that you can think of had to deal with this at some point. You know, the depiction in ‘Mad Men’ of the agony endured by a closeted gay man in the period that that depicted. The depiction in ‘The Sopranos’ of an Italian American gangster who had to deal with the fact that somebody in his circle was gay. There were so many moments that I think it becomes difficult to say that there was something specific that turned the tide.
Why do you think people are more accepting of social issues like gay marriage when it’s portrayed on TV?
I think I incline towards the idea that entertainment as a medium, especially in the context of TV -- network TV in particular -- it’s not really presented as confrontational. It’s not something that speaks to challenging your preconceptions directly. It’s entertaining, it’s meant to be funny, it’s meant to present an emotional response. That’s a really effective way of changing hearts and minds. You go back to Charles Dickens in the 19th Century who wrote novel after novel designed to call attention to social justice questions, but they were tremendously melodramatic and exciting and adventure stories. And I think that’s proven to be the case over and over again with popular entertainment.
Director Liz Garbus on capturing Nina Simone’s passions and demons in ‘What Happened, Miss Simone?’
Nina Simone was a singular figure in American popular music. Born in 1933 in North Carolina, she aspired to be a classical pianist, but as an African-American, her opportunities were limited. She began performing jazz and she also put her unique stamp on pop songs.
She was also tortured by inner demons and a physically abusive husband. What’s more, her militant attitudes toward civil rights harmed her career and she ended up living her later life largely alone in Africa and France.
That story is captured in “What Happened, Miss Simone?” a documentary by Liz Garbus out today in select theaters and available for streaming on Netflix.
The Frame’s John Horn caught up with Liz Garbus after the movie’s premiere at The Sundance Film Festival in January.
Interview Highlights
What was the epic find? What was the thing that you said ‘This is something I’ve been looking for and really need.’
“Nina had, over the course of her life, attempted to tell her story and had collaborated -- or had some false starts collaborating -- on writing an autobiography. And through research and talking to people who knew her, I was able to track down some of the people she had approached to be her co-author. One of them was in Australia; One of them was down south. And we were able to find them and after months and months and months of begging, get them to go into their garages and find the micro-cassettes that they sat and talk to her. Some of it ranging from the late-’60s, some of it as late as 1992 of her telling her story in an effort to have her autobiography. So what I basically had was Nina’s life in her own words. There was one particular treasure trove where first we found the guy in Australia, he said maybe it’s in my house in France... Finally I get an email from him saying he went into his garage and he found 40 hours of tape of Nina talking.
What about her diaries?
“Her diaries came through her daughter, who had been storing her stuff. And through the estate of her late husband.”
What does the title of your film mean?
“The title of my film is ‘What Happened, Miss Simone?’ and it’s derived from a 1970 article written by Dr. Maya Angelou. Nina had been such a force in the civil rights movement and then in the late-’60s she left. And Maya Angelou was asking, ‘What happened to this hero?’ Where was she?"
The movie starts with a very specific concert and then flashes back. Why did you choose to start the movie where you started it?
“... She goes to Montreux in 1976 and she walks out on stage and she sort of has this outer body, almost break with herself. My interpretation is that she’s trying to reconcile all the different feelings she’s having at that moment. Of anger, of joy, of hatred, of resentment but also of belonging -- that that really was a place for her... Look, if you don’t really know Nina yet and you see that song, you don’t really know what’s going on. But what I’m offering to you as an audience is a question. What is happening with her right here? And that the film is going to answer: What did happen to Miss Simone?... What happened to her? The Civil Rights Movement happened to her. Racism happened to her. Her husband happened to her. The music business happened to her. Family and the divide between family and career happened to her. All of these things happened to her and I think in that performance you can see those pressures playing on her, but you don’t quite know it yet.”
What do you think Nina’s legacy is, primarily?
“Her legacy is her music. You know, I’ve had so many people come up to me since they’ve seen the film and they’ve said, ‘I’ve always loved Nina’s music and it’s always stirred me in an emotional way, and I never really understood why. I didn’t know how it was operating on me.’ When you can go back and listen to the music and you see the classical influence, you see the influence of jazz, you see the influence of folk music. You see all these influences and then you see the delivering of her soul and the suffering and the passion and the brilliance... My hope is, for the audience, that you put that music on and you put her in your Spotify and you have a whole new 3D experience of that music... She was a feminist, she was badass. Her bar was so high, she was so brave. And I think as artists that’s inspirational.”