“Are You There, Chelsea?”: NBC Plumbs New Depths of Bad Sexist Drivel

Laura Prepon on the soon-to-be-vacant set of "Are You There, Chelsea?"Photo courtesy of <a href="http://www.nbc.com/are-you-there-chelsea/photos/sneak-peek/7706#item=173967">NBC</a>

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.

If Are You There, Chelsea? were a song, it would probably be “Miracles” by Jefferson Starship—tiresome, lacking any sense of direction, and difficult to endure without a CamelBak full of absinthe. The new NBC sitcom—a midseason replacement that premieres Wednesday, January 11 at 8:30 p.m. EST—tries everything it can to be prime-time edgy. Unfortunately, the attempts at rowdy, off-kilter humor rapidly degenerate into an embarrassing mess.

In the voice-over-narrated opening moments of the pilot episode, the show makes it clear right off the bat that central character Chelsea Newman (played by Laura Prepon, of That ’70s Show fame) likes to drink—a lot and often. Her crowning achievement in life is successfully “power-slurping the worm out of a high-end bottle of tequila,” and she literally prays to the deity “Vodka.” She makes key life decisions based on her proximity to the bar. And she drives drunk, too! And she doesn’t learn her lesson even after spending a night in jail that involves some tense girl-on-girl lip-locking between cellmates.

All of this happens in the first couple of minutes of the pilot, and what follows is more canned laughter and more flat raunch. NBC, which really tried to bring the sizzle and provocativeness this past fall with their hollow soap opera The Playboy Club (the network ended up pulling the plug after three episodes), is still halfheartedly pushing the proverbial envelope. Chelsea is loosely based on the 2008 book Are You There, Vodka? It’s Me, Chelsea by foul-mouthed comedienne Chelsea Handler (who stars as fictional Chelsea’s moralizing big sister), so the politically incorrect jabs and female promiscuity come prepackaged.

The series kicks off as a compendium of party girl/faux-feminism clichés. Our leading lady devotes an entire monologue to the off-putting pubes on gingers. Her roommate and best friend, the struggling journalist Olivia (Ali Wong), is a whiny, bespectacled Korean twentysomething who enjoys talking about gettin’ it on with black men. Chelsea’s other roommate (Lauren Lapkus) is an inexplicably awkward, virginal, pale white girl. And her father (the astoundingly mediocre Lenny Clarke) is a neglectful cheapskate with woefully bad comic timing.

Here’s a sample of Chelsea‘s forced, mean-spirited non-wit (it’s a deleted scene, just FYI):

Judging from the first two episodes, this new sitcom will quickly fold under a Niagara of glaring problems. The acting is uniformly wooden, the sex fiends and booze hounds are dull and unsympathetic, the one-liners are painfully stale, and the show’s tastelessness is never quite in-your-face.

But the real issue with Chelsea is that it’s the latest—and most blatant—offender in a recent slew of TV series that gleefully emphasize the most useless, unattractive stereotypes about American women. Fox’s New Girl has (the usually wonderful) Zooey Deschanel constantly blurring the line between quirky charm and “somebody please get that girl an expensive psychiatrist.” 2 Broke Girls on CBS has been charged repeatedly with being a crass parade of ethnic and gender insensitivity. And Whitney—also on NBC—leans heavily on the whole “I’m an offbeat modern woman with an aversion to commitment and happiness and sobriety” trope.

The problem isn’t just that these shows are sexist (more on that); it’s also that they can’t be bothered to be the least bit creative about it. In the case of Chelsea, the writers seem incapable of tempering the show’s mean streak long enough to make you love (or love to hate) its dissipated protagonist. The show confuses wit and burlesque with casual hostility and tame lechery, and the strict taxonomy of women as either whores or prudes gets old by the time yesterday arrives.

TV comedy writers are perfectly capable of writing interesting female characters, even ones who are pegged to stereotypes involving deep vulnerability, sexual objectification, or self-destructive behavior. But to pull that off takes nuance, guts, and cleverness. Are You There, Chelsea? is only the most recent reminder that there’s a severe deficit in all three in today’s network lineups.

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our free newsletter

Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily to have our top stories delivered directly to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate