SANCIO, Anna Beatrice B.

2017-00405

BC 180: Assignment Question #1 – How Queer Eye Fashions Itself

"Ayoko na, mag-aartista na lang ako." This is a statement I find myself blurting out

whenever my mountain of academic and organization deliverables become too overwhelming for

me to handle. There has always been a semblance of glamor and relaxation in being a celebrity.

After all, celebrities, in a sense, feel like they represent the best of us––with their perfect

complexions, crystal clear voices, expensive clothing, and the cherry on top is that they get fame

and wealth from it all.

In a nutshell, the overarching role of a celebrity is to glamorize content. What I mean by

this is in some sense, celebrities serves as the bridge that connects the audience to the created

content by producers and other crew members. Celebrities are among the primary reasons as to

why audiences watch and consume the shows, podcasts, and movies that they do.

In doing so, however, celebrities also end up obscuring the incredibly complex and cruelly

bureaucratic processes involved in production. They make it all seem so simple and natural, when

the reality is that every decision––from the clothes they're wearing to the lines they're speaking––

is meticulously crafted, framed, and staged. By putting up an act of perfection and precision, they

are turned into commodities for audiences to feast on, ogle over, and fanaticize. At the same time,

audiences become commodities in that their attention becomes the literal currency of media

networks. By gaining more traction from viewers, conglomerates like ABS-CBN, GMA, and more,

also earn more profit from their advertisers. As much as celebrities are commodities in themselves,

they primarily serve as stepping stones in attaining the greater products of the media: the audience.

The more famous celebrities one media network has, the greater its viewership will most likely be.

This is why networks like ABS-CBN really pamper their celebrities and stars. By developing fresh
talents who are relatable, charming, and attractive, the more likely it is that viewers will watch the

content they put out.

Queer Eye: A Case Study

The same practices are definitely observed in international and Western media.

Charismatic, witty, glamorous, funny, and beautiful don't even give justice in describing the

television show Queer Eye's main stars: the Fab Five.

Queer Eye is a Netflix reality TV series. Its hosts are five openly gay men called the Fab

Five. Each of them have their own roles in fulfilling the shows' premise: they're given the task of

"fixing" the life of an often straight male in a week. Jonathan Van Ness gives him a makeover,

Tan France upgrades his wardrobe, Bobby Berk renovates his home, Antoni Porowski teaches him

how to cook simple meals for himself and his loved ones, and Karamo Brown acts as the

"psychologist" of the show, allowing the participant to talk about his emotional baggage (which is

obviously scripted).

Although the Fab Five were not necessarily famous before the launch of the series, their

uplifting and charming attitude is what attracted stronger viewership. There are some episodes

wherein the participants are not that agreeable or not even likeable, but as the hosts, none of them

were allowed to get angry; they always have to understand and act on their emotions in a civilized,

more admirable manner, impacting their audiences all the more.

As mentioned earlier, the participants are often straight men who have had their

masculinity "crushed" in that they have completely lost confidence in themselves. The series shows

how men are actually affected by toxic masculinity, too, and it demonstrates that heterosexuality

is a disaster in itself––affecting even though who belong in its sector. What's interesting about how

the show frames its participants is that in the end, they don't come out of the whole makeover being
complete winners and utterly confident about themselves. Instead, they simply progress into

versions of themselves that are kinder to their own self-deteriorating thoughts and insecurities.

In essence, Queer Eye permits its participants to graciously accept their own flaws, with a

new mentality that change and success looks different on everyone. This actually makes for more

relatable content; these participants are commodified by banking on these aspects of the ideology

in becoming the best version of one's self. Perhaps what makes this all the more appealing is that

the "clients"––straight white men––are individuals who have never been marginalized, if one

thinks about it historically and frankly, objectively. Instead, their problems truly root from the

individual, rather than being affected by all these outside forces and complex intersectionality.

This makes it much easier to actually tackle their issues, and help them change. I'd like to think

that the concept of actively seeking to change yourself, and actually getting results has always

been a source of entertainment, and Queer Eye feeds its audiences those fantasies. Another way

that Queer Eye commodifies its participants is in the way it frames them as men who end up being

capable of cleaning themselves up and doing domestic labor. This hits the pain points and tugs the

emotions of the main demographic of the show's audience: women. Household chores and self-

care are habits and tasks often associated with women, so by letting straight men actually do their

part in this sector of the labor force gives female viewers more pleasure.

However, there is no doubt that all these renovations and makeovers would be impossible

without money. Queer Eye actually partakes in stealth advertising through the means of product

placement––it's fascinatingly subtle. In fact, their very own pick-up truck that they drive around

in is a product placement. Another example is when Tan accompanies the participant to go

shopping, retailers like Target are seen on screen quickly, but the brand itself is never mentioned

out loud. Even the cosmetics used by Jonathan on the participant are shown on screen, but very
quickly and subtly. Honestly, not one of its segments feels like an advertisement at all. Another

way the show earns profit through advertising is on social media. The Fab Five each have their

own social media accounts like Instagram and Twitter, and they are paid to endorse certain

products. In fact, their social media presence in itself is monetized.

Synthesis and Insights

I think Queer Eye is one of the best examples of how celebrities and even participants (who

become stars in their own right) also affect our perception of reality. By transforming commodities

for us to ogle at, they present us with highly unrealistic standards of living. This is where material

mobility comes into play in that celebrities give its audiences the illusion that wealth is possible

for anyone.

Money is truly the biggest contributor in creating the change possible for the participants

in Queer Eye. Without money, their growth and progress wouldn't be possible. The greatest pitfall

of all this is that by commodifying these celebrities and stars, these extravagant measures and

lifestyles seem attainable to the general public, when in fact, they rarely are.
SANCIO, Anna Beatrice B. 2017-00405

BC 180: Assignment Question #2 – Adjusting to the Buhay Media

As I was scrolling through story after story on the Buhay Media website, I stopped at this

entry: To Hell and Back: The PA Survival Kit. The title on its own already compelled me,

especially with its use of the word "hell" to describe the nature of the workforce that a personal

assistant, or PA, is exposed to.

The entry was submitted by Gay Domingo who was once a PA herself. In her article, she

basically emphasized how life is a literal living hell for PAs, and she also discussed the crazy

conditions and straight-up maltreatment they are given. In her survival kit, she gave seven pieces

of advice: 1) Right from the start, inquire about your salary––if you are even entitled to one, 2)

Forget your school or where you came from, 3) Color bars cannot be bought from the grocery, 4)

Learn to smoke, or develop an astig stance, 5) Forget holidays, weekends, and romance, 6) Stars

are people, too, and 7) Never get the director angry.

I chose this article primarily because it has always been the buzz in Maskom about how

everyone almost always starts as a PA in the industry, no matter how well one performed in school.

There is also this notion that being successful in media means climbing the ladder from the very

bottom, and more often than not the "bottom" is viewed as being a PA. I even recall an interview

I conducted with Director Antoinette Jadaone, who shared that she, too, started out as a PA,

constantly being badgered with commands and requests. But being a PA is what made me learn

the ropes, and turned me into the director I am today, she says.

However, this mindset can be so toxic because of the systematic hierarchy and

discrimination in place towards PAs and smaller roles and personnel in general. I've always
questioned the success metric of progressing from a PA to a duly recognized director, and I

honestly think that cases like Jadaone's are merely the exception to the norm.

The sad reality is that people with jobs in the media like a PA have to constantly adjust to

the world and forces around the, whereas for celebrities, the world is built and fashioned around

them. Because the intensive labor is so hidden behind good lighting, well-crafted sets, and

beautiful stars, it is easier for the efforts and hard work of PAs to be discounted. Moreover, this

also makes it easier for them to be manipulated and be taken advantage of since they end up having

zero sense of ownership to the content that is produced, when in reality, they played a crucial role

in making it a success.

For example, the post says, "Stars are people, too." The ridiculous part of this is that the

way the blog is written makes it feel like PAs aren't people, but robotic slaves who need to keep a

demeanor of calmness and efficiency, all while performing their functions with grace and without

fail. PAs have to adjust to the fact that celebrities make mistakes, but the moment that they make

a single mistake, they are thrown under the bus and reprimanded harshly. PAs also have to act

strong and astig in the face of adversities, because looking weak would mean being the subject of

teasing and ridicule by your own co-crew members. PAs are truly viewed as those at the bottom

of the ladder, and so they have to succumb to what everyone is telling them to do in order to make

keep their jobs. There is no adjusting for PAs––they do all the adjusting for everyone else.

I don't want to be too idealistic and say that there's a chance that things could change. The

conditions of laborers like PAs are truly unfair, but it's a system that has been so deeply rooted in

history and embedded in our mindsets, that it might be difficult to overcome it any time soon. I

really can't think of any way to solve the dehumanizing of PAs other than by actually regularizing

ALL media workers, and by implementing stricter rules on employee's incentives like holidays,
leaves, and overtime. However, this seems like a far-fetched idea, even if these are, funnily enough,

basic human rights.

Overall, I'm genuinely scared of working in media. I have always upheld my principles

strongly, but as early as now, I am sadly certain that these may remain as what they are now––

mere principles and beliefs, but without any perceived action to solidify them. I have no idea what

I want to do career-wise, but I have been preparing myself mentally already to the harsh treatment

and conditions I'll be facing. As the system dictates, of course I would be the one doing all the

adjusting, and it would not really matter that I graduated from UP. What matters to them is that

my presence would mean a new robotic slave for them to take advantage of and whose skills and

talents they could easily exploit without any consequences. It really aches me to my core to have

to think of one of my possible career paths in such a grim perspective, but there is really no point

in being positive when this treatment of media workers has been going on for the longest time. If

anything needs to adjust, it should not be the PAs, and it should not be me. It should be this rotten

system.