There is no denying that Glee is a phenomenally successful TV show. As well as top ratings, the show has grabbed Golden Globes and other awards. But, as with anything successful, someone will always knock it.
There is on the internet and in other media at the moment a bit of an anti-Glee backlash which says that the TV program plays into stereotypes and reinforces them, rather than challenging them.
Much of the latest criticism focuses on Chris Colfer’s portrayal of gay character Kurt Hummel: a role for which he has won a Golden Globe.
Kurt is supremely fashion conscious, has a scrupulous skin care routine and sings falsetto with limp-writed stage presence. So, it has been put forward: is Glee’s Kurt too gay? Would he be a more interesting character if he was not such a stereotype and was, for instance, great at sports?
One TV blog, Remote Patrolled, would like to see exactly that. What about Kurt on a bad hair day? Do we want a character who is amazing on the football pitch but just also happens to be gay? Maybe a conservative dresser popular with the ladies who they don’t know is gay? Or are we happy with Kurt in all his overt gayness?
I’m perfectly happy with Kurt as he is (I rather like him and I adore Blaine). Just had to make that clear that I’m disagreeing with the likes of Remote Patrolled, since some folks won’t get that. But what really matters is what YOU think…
Should shows like Glee have a responsibility to its audience members and provide a faithful and positive representation of a young gay man in the 21st Century or should it remain pure entertainment? Is Kurt fine just the way he is?