Shameless Consumption: UNDERSTANDING THE EFFECTS OF “POVERTY PORN” IN MODERN ENTERTAINMENT
By Gylf Forsberg, Culture Staff Writer
If you asked any group of 10 individuals on this campus it is likely that at least one of them would say “Wow, I just love Shameless.” While I’m not saying anything bad about these people—I too love the show—I feel that sometimes when we watch “Shameless”, as well as other TV and movies like it, we aren’t truly understanding the gravity of the situations and plotlines playing out in front of us.
While watching the show, I began to realize that while the specific characters on the show are fictitious, the circumstances of their lives are very much real. I was finding myself reveling in—almost enjoying—their misfortunes, not fully understanding the gravity and pain that real individuals experience when they encounter these situations.
“Shameless”, and other forms of entertainment like it, play into the trope known as “poverty porn” (Flinders). Matthew Flinders describes this trope as “any type of media, be it written, photographed or filmed, which exploits the poor’s condition in order to generate the necessary [interest]” (Flinders).
This trope is not something new to the twenty-first century. In the late first century, Roman satirist, Juvenal, stated that the public relied on two things: panem et circenses, or bread and circuses (Juvenal). Circuses being showcases of lower classes and slaves fighting to the death the general public would indulge in (Cartwright).
These circuses continued until the 1800s with several of Charles Dickens’ most famous novels relying heavily on the plight of the lower class in Industrial Revolution England, including “Oliver Twist” and “A Christmas Carol” (Collins).
In the modern era, several examples of “poverty porn” have been criticized for their portrayal of lower classes for the sake of media success. When the Oscar-nominated “Slumdog Millionaire” was first released, it was met with harsh criticism surrounding its portrayal of India’s shantytowns. Many believed that the backdrop of economic depression for this rags-to-riches story discredited the true struggles that many individuals face every day (Jack).
Others criticized the film due to Western viewers having their incorrect views of Bollywood validated, with the successes and splendor of the Bollywood industry being glossed over in the poverty-stricken westernized film.
The Bollywood industry has been a huge force in cinema for several years but hadn’t really been noticed by western audiences to as great an extent until “Slumdog” (Encyclopedia Brittanica). While the movie brought the industry to the forefront, it presented an extremely skewed view of the industry.
While I am not saying that the use of poverty and associated struggles is inherently bad in media, I am saying that the viewers of this trope need to understand the gravity that these situations hold in real people’s lives.
It is imperative that the public realizes that these issues flashing across our screens are not merely fictitious creations—they exist outside of the four corners of our television sets.