Homophobia? Blame the Show, Not the Voters

As is typical, Big Media would rather blow conversations completely out of proportion than offer anything insightful, as they did by citing Season 2 runner-up Clay Aiken, a gay Idol contestant who recently derided another gay Idol contestant, the newly appointed Season 8 runner-up Adam Lambert whose singing made his "ears bleed." Meanwhile, they missed the far more salient message of Clay's blog, which is this:

The show was different [in the past], and folks made it in seasons 1-3 because they were "real" people who happened to sing/entertain well. But, somewhere along the way, AI stopped being about real people ... Those votes for Kris were also votes to return the show to its roots of finding "real" contestants with undiscovered talent and giving them the chance to grow and shine... Enough with the pretention. More Rubens, more Clays, more Fantasias and Tamyras and Kellys please.

Sure, we can argue that Clay Aiken was being incredibly tacky - and dare I say, bitter much? - and even dismissive that, due to Adam's flamboyant style and his often accused theatricality, somehow he doesn't represent "real people." But, honestly, Clay has a point. Having tuned in for Season 1's finale, when Kelly Clarkson won (also having been privy to conversations about Tamyra Gray's shocking boot) and regularly tuning in since the second season with Ruben, Clay, and Kimberly Locke, Clay is right. The show did stop focusing on finding "real" people with talent, who have an opportunity to grow and improve over the course of a season. It did become about gimmicks and favoritism and overly pimping said favorite to the detriment of others.

But, the way I see it, this is not about Adam being some "pretentious" and showy, gimmicky contestant, while Kris, as a "real" musician, quietly struggled in the shadows, ready to topple the presumed frontrunner. I cannot help but feel Adam was a set-up all along. So, rather than folks spend their precious Internet time debating whether or not Kris's eventual win was based on homophobia, why are we not asking instead if the show's over-the-top praise for a contestant like Adam Lambert is the guilty culprit? And I'm saying this in the context of Clay Aiken's critique.

As someone who has been watching American Idol for the past 7 years, I believe the show stopped being about "real people" when Carrie Underwood appeared on the scene and, in the wake of winning Season 4, became a runaway platinum-selling country music artist. She was the game changer. Which isn't to say "real people" don't include very pretty blonds who sing beautifully, but her win and post-show success changed the show's dynamics. From the moment she auditioned, Carrie Underwood was ready to be signed. Simon Cowell declared her that Season's Idol winner during the auditions. Carrie didn't need to compete for America to find her the best of the bunch. She didn't need a "makeover," like Ruben or Clay or Fantasia or Jennifer Hudson. She had the looks and the voice, and that was it. In short, she came to them already polished, which meant that - post Carrie Underwood - the show wasn't going to try hard to make over anyone.

Following her season, they also found a polished performer, Chris Daughtry, who was "ready to be signed," and they started pushing heavily for his win. But, Taylor Hicks happened, and unlike Chris, whose personality made him seem arrogant to many voters, Taylor was very entertaining and seemed more "real." That's how he won Season 5, but the show - already committed to their "frontrunner" - invested in Chris Daughtry's post-show career, leaving Taylor Hicks to fend for himself. It wasn't pretty. But that particular showdown between America's choice and the producers' choice set a distasteful precedent in the way the judges are consistently used to manipulate the show and position contestants to advance far into the show or to tank, and sometimes to get close enough to winning but eventually failing. This happened to Melinda Doolittle, Season 6, who was clearly miles ahead of the pack with her professionally trained vocals as a back-up singer, but whose self-described "hot mess" fashion sense and shyness prevented her from making the finale (that, plus some horrendous song choices picked for her by the judges and producers). This happened to David Archuleta, Season 7, whose soulful, beautiful voice made him stand out very early but whose awkwardness and timidity at times got in the way (including hideous song choices selected for him during Top 3 week), and although he recouped himself in time for the finale, it kept him from grasping the brass ring at the end, compared to his competitor David Cook, whose better showmanship allowed him to prevail.

What happened to Melinda and David was a simple case of contestants with stellar vocals who needed help in other areas and whose flaws were not corrected but amplified by the show's manipulations. Unfortunately, the judges were also too lazy to bother to help them improve because they were already committed to a specific script. Season 6 was all about how to get rid of Sanjaya Malakar, since he was clearly an audience favorite, despite the weak vocals, and once they got rid of him, they were stuck with: the runaway favorite (Melinda) looked too old. Let's work with the other 17 year old, Jordin Sparks, who's got a nice voice. She's a worthy alternative. Season 7 was all about how to find a worthy competitor for David Archuleta, who was also an early crowd favorite. Cook emerged, and the eventual script was "Battle of the Davids", and they did everything they could to prevent any other contestant from messing up that David squared finale.

And keep in mind, all these contestants since Carrie Underwood are still "real people." What's different is the way the show positions some of these contestants as if they were larger than life, the most spectacular thing to hit the stage, etc. The audience reactions, as a result, since they're still stuck on the "ugly-duckling-turned-into-a-beautiful-swan" storyline begun since the beginning of the show, looked beyond the hubris and said,

"Yeah, Melinda's a technically good singer. But she bores me."

"David is too Disney. He's good but he's boring, and he looks like he's 12!"

"Adam's too theatrical. His screaming is just too much!"

See what I mean? Complete set-up. Because, these contestants are real people, and they were being hyped up to be something they were not. More than that, once the judges kept them in a box, they were not allowed to grow and transform. Beyond the lack of growth, other contestants, who are treated as also-rans, were prevented from advancing by receiving little constructive criticism or destructive criticism. And that's the problem with the show. Before, it was a showcase of contestants as they were (i.e. nobody tried to correct Fantasia's countrified dialect or hide that she was a teenage mother who dropped out of high school) eventually emerging as TV stars. Today, the show tried to hide that Kris Allen was married so his marital status didn't interfere with the perception that he was an available potential heart throb. Meanwhile, Adam's flash and standout performances led many in Big Media to speculate about his being gay.

And this is where the show's homophobia comes in. Just as with "frontrunners" in the previous seasons, Adam didn't get a lick of constructive criticism. Not once! He did his rock-glam, over-the-top performances, and all the judges did was praise him. Big Media chimed in too. We were supposed to believe he was the greatest contestant to hit the Idol stage. Yes, I was entertained by Adam, especially when his competition - outside of Allison Iraheta, someone with real potential who got mostly destructive criticism, as opposed to constructive criticism - bored me to tears. But, he didn't come on the show hitting the ground running. He had an idea of performing flamboyant, rock glam, but much of it was too showy. Somebody like Adam should have been guided in the ways of 1)how to make it all seem like an individual style, rather than rock theater and 2)how to look like a regular guy with his own sense of performance style who had room to improve. He became a "gimmick." And, worse, with the various "is he gay?" questions in the media, he became a gay caricature. As a judge or mentor, either you're up to the task of transforming your amateur talents into real stars, or you're not.

Time and again, the judges were too busy making witty and uninspired repetitive remarks, or they were too caught up in childish behavior (i.e. Simon drawing a crayon mustache on Paula's face when they could have been instructing poor Allison, a young teenager with a gorgeous husky voice, how to make her performances more compelling). The criticism was unbelievably lazy, and the judges seemed bored. And because of their self-absorbed, foolish, foolish behavior, contestants like Adam Lambert skated by with little criticism while others were crushed, and worse, he is is left with the impression that he's "the greatest contestant ever" with his shtick while never being called out on knowing the difference between rock music parody and crafting an individual style. Why do I call it homophobic? Because, there was an expectation that - if Adam is perceived as a gay contestant, simply because of his attempts at gender-bending - this is what a gay Idol would look and sound like. He was "different" in a way that gave the show buzz, and even with him eventually losing the title - after building up the expectation that no one else was worthy to win - that's all anyone is talking about.

His "difference" also allowed for a backlash, and I will never not question whether or not the show had already built up this set-up for Adam to come oh-so-close but not winning because 1)not long before the finale, Bill O'Reilly (on the same Fox network, mind you) did a show about the "culture wars" as represented on American Idol with the final 2 contestants and 2) Entertainment Weekly featured Adam, and only Adam, during Top 3 week, on its cover, with the big old question: "Is Adam Gay?" This was the buzz around Adam Lambert, which meant that the show was invested in creating the spectacle of gayness around him and around the finale. In a lackluster year, what better way to get people interested in your lousy show than to push certain buttons and raise the issue of gay rights, which is very much a hot button issue right now?

All I know is, it's pretty hard to say for sure that Adam Lambert lost because of homophobia, especially when, personally, I thought Adam left too much room for Kris to look good on the final 2 showdown. Adam could have wiped the floor with Kris, but he didn't. Did he not want to win? Was he aware of how the gay factor would always cloud his win and how he's marketed? Did he not want that burden? We won't really know if homophobia colored the eventual votes. But I have no doubt in my mind that American Idol itself went out of its way to make gayness a gimmick. If anyone should be accused of homophobia, let's start with the show.