‘I thought it was alright. The start was hard to watch, I would have changed chanels but i was folding laundry and the remote was like 2m away. When the indipendants rocked up in the one ute it picked up nicly and I will proboly watch it next week to see if I like it again. Its not great TV but its alright to fold laundry too and thats alright by todays standerds.’ : Christopher, commenter at The Drum on At Home With Julia.
Hehe.
I’m usually reluctant to hold comedy to the same standards of civility as more earnest endeavours. As viewers, it’s in our interest that comedians walk provocatively close to the line – that’s part of what makes them funny – so of course, they’ll occasionally step over it. In my experience, the best comedy is daring and startling, shedding light on situations which are so subtly ridiculous that laughing at them makes you feel like you’re part of an in joke.
At Home With Julia does not do this. I have to admit that I didn’t take an objective mind to it. I think it’s pretty lame and obvious, if not irresponsible, to make a show about Julia’s home life – seriously, can you really not think of anything less obvious? Can you imagine a show depicting John Howard in his PJs making sexual advances to Jeanette?
Some say the show will be good for Julia because it ‘humanises’ her. Well, aside from the fact that it actually makes her look like an ignorant twerp who can’t even pronounce Barack Obama’s name right, these continual demands for a warm and personal Julia are getting a bit old. How about we just judge her on how she governs? Um… oh… well, maybe…
I’m such a hedonist I was prepared to let go of my feminist misgivings if it was actually funny. As Christopher points out, some of the actors’ mannerisms were spot-on, and there were a few jokes of an ‘ok to iron the laundry to quality. But in general, the plot, dialogue and jokes couldn’t have been more unimaginative. Julia as a kind of political incarnation of Kath and Kim? For whom serious political negotiations involves having the independents over to dinner? Tim Mathieson as a downtrodden house hubby, striving to get in shape and frustrated because Julia can’t get home for ‘Date Night’?
Can you imagine the writers coming up with their ideas? ‘Yeah, I think this will make a really good plot and stuff, because like, you know, Tim’s a hairdresser, and Julia’s a woman in power! So we can, like, show the reversed gender roles.’ I feel sorry for Mathieson. As Annabel Crabb so succinctly argues here, Gillard’s not the only victim of sexism. Why do people find it so hard to accept the idea that a guy can be both ‘masculine’ and a hairdresser and housekeeper? Perhaps the writers were trying to poke fun of gender stereotypes, rather than reinforce them, but that’s not clear.
In the end, Tim does what Julia couldn’t or wouldn’t do: get tough and angry with the independants, a confrontation that finally convinces them to back down on an imports issue, and accept him as a ‘good bloke’. He saves the day by reasserting his manliness: as an aggressive saviour.
*More thoughts about sexism against Gillard here.
Finnish Whaler 