As part of its revamped Wednesday night lineup featuring racy situation comedies, ABC has grabbed popular actress Courtney Cox for Cougar Town. Despite the smirking (though already overused) premise and fashionably risque subject matter, the show is occasionally more critical of the Sexual Revolution than one might expect. And Courtney Cox is quite good as the lead character.
Cox, 45, plays Jules Cobb, a recently divorced woman in her forties who is desperate for male companionship but losing her looks, as is of course inevitable with the passage of time. The central comic premise is the horrible indignities that her situation forces her into.
Jules’s lack of confidence about going out to meet men–while feeling a strong desire to do so anyway–is both comic and seems quite true to life. Adding to her confusion–and making her more attractive as a character–she never was into the singles scene when she was younger, and hence doesn’t know how to be appropriately selfish, vulgar, and insincere. Her big character flaw is that she too often says what she thinks without censoring herself, which likewise leads to comical effects.
Jules’s feckless ex-husband and anxiety-prone high-school student son add to her worries. In addition, countless situations and events remind her that she’s no longer what most men are looking for and hence make her feel old and unwanted. That, of course, has been one of the biggest consequences of the Sexual Revolution, which gives greater power to those who invest little meaning in sexual encounters.
That rather tragic element makes Jules a sympathetic character, and Cox does an excellent job of conveying it. And even a successful sexual encounter for her in the pilot episode is undercut by humor as she’s interrupted by both her son and her ex-husband. Later she feels guilty over the encounter itself, saying, "One time. I did it one time, and I’m already one of them"–meaning the pathetic, sex-hungry older women she sees on her daily rounds.
Cougar Town strikes me as a good deal funnier and more enjoyable than fellow newcomer sitcom Modern Family, which precedes it in the Wednesday night lineup and likewise tries to explore contemporary sexual notions, because Cougar Town is truer to life and Jules is understandable and likable with all her flaws. She wants to do right while still having irresponsible fun, which is certainly a common contemporary point of view.
Unfortunately, the show’s producers seem to want to do the same, giving lip service to morality and reality while ultimately conveying a fantasy of sexual freedom without any seriously bad consequences–at least in the pilot episode. It’s rather obvious, for example, that Jules’s affair with a younger man–which is presented at the end of the episode a quite a delight for her–would, in real life, almost certainly end in heartbreak on her part when he moved on.
That indicates the limitations of the show’s willingness to embrace reality, and it’s likely to cause viewers to lose interest over time, as such phoniness is death to audience identification with the characters. In addition, the effort to titillate audiences with bare skin, sexual situations, and innuendo after double entendre makes it all too clear that the people behind the show don’t have any real argument with the premises of the Sexual Revolution.
They’re true conservatives in that regard, wanting to preserve the present social mores.
If the producers resist the temptation to try to have it both ways, Cougar Town could be both edifying and a ratings success.
But I wouldn’t bet on it.
–S. T. Karnick
[…] ‘Better With You’ Concept Outdoes Execution As ABC attempts to solidify its popular block of Wednesday sitcoms, the new show Better with You premiered last night, nestled comfortably between returning ratings successes The Middle and Modern Family. Thematically, Better with You makes sense as a transition between the funny but Heartland-values-oriented The Middle at 8 and the spicier 9 o’clock block of Modern Family and Cougar Town. […]
You think those networks arebiased? BBC World is really left-leaning and arrogant as well. I had a laugh when Newt Gingrich answered the question of Hard Talk’s host regarding America and Imperialism. that left the host with his jaw open. That was a gem because Gingrich listed European countries and their former imperialism in Africa and Asia which was longer and had more plunder in it compared to the U.S.
This is an issue I’ve dealt with, often. Many of my friends sleep around. They don’t seem to realize that, regardless of morality, there is no free lunch. I try to tell them:
1) Sleeping with a lot of people can make it more difficult for you (and your partner) to be monogamous. You’ve been experiencing anyone you’re attracted to as a potential sexual partner. Do you think, that after years of this habit, you can suddenly shut this off? For the rest of your life?
2) Sex is amazing. Casual sexual encounters are ontologically different than those within a loving relationship. It’s fun – a lot of fun – to hook up with someone. But a real relationship provides a meaningful and blissful element not possible with casual encounters. When you do settle down with someone, sex will be whatever it’s been to you. It probably won’t change.
3a) Women: More so than men, you want to ensure that your ultimate relationship is forever. By sleeping around, first, you obviously jeopardize that. And ladies, no guy wants to be last in line.
3b) Men: Contrary to what you may think, women cheat just as often as your brethren. Think about that. Your woman probably wants someone with some experience, but the woman who will be faithful to you may not want to be with Ron Jeremy. Do you?
4) If your partner has been with many other people, chances are s/he’s been there and done that. Without someone who did it better than you, even if that’s in retrospect. Good luck.
Bill
I watched Cougar because of this back and forth, and I must confess, I kind of liked it. I’m not much of a sitcom guy, but a lot of it rang true. I’m surrounded by a number of 40 something women, some divorced, some struggling in marriages, and Ms. Cox reminds me of them. Plus she’s gorgeous! I didn’t see it as cheapening women or sex really. She has a “10 date rule” after all! I think I’m going to give this one a chance, even though I haven’t watched a sitcom in years.
You definitely got the gist of the show’s appeal, Fred.
Mike, I have read the two pieces you cite here and I am startled–though, alas, not surprised–by the unprofessional nature of their writing. The two critics write angry polemics about the show because it does not fit their idea of how women should be portrayed in the media, the realities of women’s conditions today and in general be damned. These two writers don ideological blinders and see only what they want to see.
My analysis deals with how this show fits in with long-term cultural trends and whether it is true to life under its surface situation comedy formulas. Their reviews are openly angry and politically judgmental. I tried to be evenhanded, identifying what is good about the show and where it falls short, in my view.
Where they would seem to disagree most with me is when I write, “Jules’s lack of confidence about going out to meet men–while feeling a strong desire to do so anyway–is both comic and seems quite true to life.” Well, that aspect of the show does seem true to life: women generally do desire men’s companionship, and the older they get, the more difficult that companionship is to obtain, and thus the more indignities that desire brings. So, yes, the show is true to life in that way.
The two feminist-oriented critics appear simply to refuse to see any good at all in the show, because they are made uncomfortable by the fact that it shows that men’s and women’s sexual roles and desires differ. But writing the truth, regardless of whether it is a truth that makes one happy, is the better and more honorable course, in my estimation.
Sam, reading your review of the show gave me whiplash. There were two other reviews I had read earlier Friday in the NY Times (http://warner.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/09/24/the-real-cougar-fans/?8ty&emc=ty) and the WS Journal (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204488304574432861102779126.html). The contrast between what you said and they said wasn’t so much in content as in tone and approach. I just assumed I would agree with them because of the degradation of sexual mores of our day. Now I’ll have to check it out myself.
Well obviously… uh, as you were saying, uh.. er… wow, that picture sure is something though, isn’t it… uh… wait, what were we talking about??