Censorship in Skins USA
Published in The Badger, Film Section, ed. by Lucy Atkinson & Lily Rae
Word Count: 653
Date of Publication: February 2011
Coinciding with the airing of the equally anticipated and dreaded new series of teen it-drama Skins, is the release of its American adaptation and counterpart this month, imaginatively titled... Skins. And unlike its reception in Britain where the distaste it inspires is mostly due to its well earned place in the hipster canon, the US version, premièred on MTV in January, has roused the masses for a very different reason. Being dubbed as 'child pornography' for its racy content, and apparent 'glamorisation' of under-age sex and drug usage, Skins US has faced not only the possibility of investigations on these grounds but the drop out of their biggest sponsors as a result of the scandal - Amongst them, Subway, giving real sustenance to kids since 1965. However, since neither the British nor the American Skins feature the nudity of any of their child actors, the real question is, what is it that has evoked such passion against the show, and is it at all justified?
One thing I can say for certain is that teenagers have sex. They also take drugs. Its there. It's true. It is, of course, also possible that teenagers, though not infamous for their intellectual prowess, are not stupid. They are not toddlers and they do not need a lesson in the difference between sensationalism and the reality of their own lives. They are also capable of seeing what the parent groups contesting the show on the grounds of its sexual content do not; that Skins, whatever you may feel about it's quality, is not about sex. As it is not about drugs, despite the name.
If Skins prioritises anything, its the malleability of relationships; the reality of bullying, eating disorders, depression; the complex issues of gender and sexuality that every teenager has to face, but until now has not had the privilege of seeing in celluloid, in their own living rooms, in a way they can relate to. What's really at issue here is not the teenagers who are watching the show, but the parents who cannot deal with the harsh reality that their children are growing up.
Maybe instead of further glamorising the more contentious issues raised in the show by circumnavigating it, parents should actually do the job they seem to expect television to do for them, and talk to their children about what they are seeing, the issues that are really being raised in Skins. The mass media, or so we are led to believe in modern democratic society, does not function on the premise of watch-dogging the youth. Nor does it primarily exist to educate. It is entertainment first and foremost. It is the tension between our need to escape our lives, but see them dramatised in the same instant. And that is exactly what Skins does, so at least in that it fulfils the brief.
I'm not an expert on developmental psychology, but I'm pretty sure its a fundamental pillar of the parenting handbook to know that when you are told not to touch, you want to touch a lot more. The protesters obviously do not listen to the lessons they themselves teach; that ignoring something, letting it run its course is generally the best form of retaliation. After all, if we want to get into a critical discussion, its not even certain that Skins is a good show. In fact I would go so far as to say that in it's American reconfiguration almost everything that made it interesting and edgy has now become numb with about as much effort to re-contextualise – with or without the sodding nudity – as I put into eating my breakfast every day. And I am not a morning person.
After all, if we do not respect our children enough to believe them capable of comprehending the difference between fantasy and reality, let us at least credit them with taste.
Word Count: 653
Date of Publication: February 2011
Coinciding with the airing of the equally anticipated and dreaded new series of teen it-drama Skins, is the release of its American adaptation and counterpart this month, imaginatively titled... Skins. And unlike its reception in Britain where the distaste it inspires is mostly due to its well earned place in the hipster canon, the US version, premièred on MTV in January, has roused the masses for a very different reason. Being dubbed as 'child pornography' for its racy content, and apparent 'glamorisation' of under-age sex and drug usage, Skins US has faced not only the possibility of investigations on these grounds but the drop out of their biggest sponsors as a result of the scandal - Amongst them, Subway, giving real sustenance to kids since 1965. However, since neither the British nor the American Skins feature the nudity of any of their child actors, the real question is, what is it that has evoked such passion against the show, and is it at all justified?
One thing I can say for certain is that teenagers have sex. They also take drugs. Its there. It's true. It is, of course, also possible that teenagers, though not infamous for their intellectual prowess, are not stupid. They are not toddlers and they do not need a lesson in the difference between sensationalism and the reality of their own lives. They are also capable of seeing what the parent groups contesting the show on the grounds of its sexual content do not; that Skins, whatever you may feel about it's quality, is not about sex. As it is not about drugs, despite the name.
If Skins prioritises anything, its the malleability of relationships; the reality of bullying, eating disorders, depression; the complex issues of gender and sexuality that every teenager has to face, but until now has not had the privilege of seeing in celluloid, in their own living rooms, in a way they can relate to. What's really at issue here is not the teenagers who are watching the show, but the parents who cannot deal with the harsh reality that their children are growing up.
Maybe instead of further glamorising the more contentious issues raised in the show by circumnavigating it, parents should actually do the job they seem to expect television to do for them, and talk to their children about what they are seeing, the issues that are really being raised in Skins. The mass media, or so we are led to believe in modern democratic society, does not function on the premise of watch-dogging the youth. Nor does it primarily exist to educate. It is entertainment first and foremost. It is the tension between our need to escape our lives, but see them dramatised in the same instant. And that is exactly what Skins does, so at least in that it fulfils the brief.
I'm not an expert on developmental psychology, but I'm pretty sure its a fundamental pillar of the parenting handbook to know that when you are told not to touch, you want to touch a lot more. The protesters obviously do not listen to the lessons they themselves teach; that ignoring something, letting it run its course is generally the best form of retaliation. After all, if we want to get into a critical discussion, its not even certain that Skins is a good show. In fact I would go so far as to say that in it's American reconfiguration almost everything that made it interesting and edgy has now become numb with about as much effort to re-contextualise – with or without the sodding nudity – as I put into eating my breakfast every day. And I am not a morning person.
After all, if we do not respect our children enough to believe them capable of comprehending the difference between fantasy and reality, let us at least credit them with taste.
