Right: Veteran comedian Max Gillies is often described as a genius in the field of political impersonation. Here, he's shown being transformed into former Howard government minister Amanda Vanstone.
. Found a word you're not familiar with? Double-click that word to bring up a dictionary reference to it. The dictionary page includes an audio sound file with which to actually hear the word said. |
Arguments opposing 'At Home with Julia'
1. The series' personal focus is inappropriate
It has been claimed that the personal focus of this series is inappropriate. According to this line of argument, it is reasonable for comedy or satire to be directed at political leaders in their public roles; however, it is not appropriate to hold politicians up to ridicule in their private lives.
Janet Albrechtsen made this point in The Australian in a comment published on September 14, 2011. Ms Albrechtsen argued, 'What marks out "At Home with Julia" as different from previous satires is that it intrudes into a private arena that is, to be blunt, none of our business. By focusing its lens, even a comical one, on the private lives of Gillard and her partner, Tim Mathieson, the show crosses the privacy line. Even politicians are entitled to a private life...'
Albrechtsen quotes former Prime Minister, Paul Keating, making a similar comment in 2010 at the University of Melbourne's Centre for Advanced Journalism. Keating stated, 'The social contract we are subject to involves the surrender of certain rights in exchange for other societal benefits and protections. But at the core of that contract there must never be derogations such that the notion of individuality is materially or permanently compromised. The essence of the dignity of each of us goes to our individuality and our primary need to be ourselves.'
Critics of the series claim it exploits who Julia Gillard is in a personal and domestic sense and thus directs scrutiny at aspects of her life that are of no legitimate public concern.
The Age's Larissa Behrendt made a similar point on September 24, in relation to an episode of the series which purported to show the Prime Minister and her partner after sex. Ms Behrendt stated, 'As the Prime Minister, Gillard opens herself up to public scrutiny by social commentators ... But there are lines that are trampled where public figures are concerned and it is not simply an issue of good and bad manners or an unfettered right to free speech. The portrayal of the Prime Minister's sex life is one of those...'
In a letter published in The Telegraph on September 23, 2011, Ben Collins of Redfern stated, 'I feel our leader ... should not be treated with such disrespect.
I think we already harbour far too much personal hostility towards politicians which ultimately sidetracks us from focusing on what we need to do as a nation to prosper.
Albeit masked in satire, stripping our leader of every ounce of personal dignity is absolutely disgraceful, and a timely reflection on how far we've slid as a society.'
2. The series' focus on the Prime Minster's partner is inappropriate
There have been those who have criticised 'At Home with Julia' on the basis that it focuses unfair attention on the Prime Minister's partner, Tim Mathieson. It has been argued that Mathieson is not a legitimate target for satire as he has never run for an elected office and is not a public figure. He is the life partner of the Prime Minister which should not mean that he loses his right to privacy.
This point was made by Bruce Guthrie in an opinion piece published in The Age on September 25, 2011. Guthrie states, 'No doubt Mathieson is having the time of his life as our First Bloke, but I'm pretty sure he didn't sign on to be ridiculed on television as a needy bumbler, desperate for marriage and work.'
Similarly, Catey Baxter, in a letter published in Crikey on September 8, 2011, stated, 'Whilst I don't have a problem with political satire, I think the line needs to be drawn at the front door. What has Tim Mathieson done to be held up to ridicule on national TV? I don't recall any parodying of previous prime ministers wives and neither should there be criticism of a partner.'
On September 20, 2011, The Brisbane Times published a comment of Gerard Henderson in which he noted, 'At the halfway mark, the real victim of "At Home with Julia" is the prime minister's partner, Tim Mathieson, who is an item of humour because of his idleness and his one-time profession as a hairdresser. The joke was extended in episode two, where the Julia figure remarks that her partner "is also in real estate, granted it's more of a marketing role".'
In The Sunday Telegraph of September 18, 2011, David Penberthy also commented on the unfair and belittling treatment of Tim Mathieson in 'At Home with Julia'. Penberthy stated, 'This show is replete with unfunny jokes poking fun at Mathieson's intellect, framed in the supercilious and elitist belief that there is something innately amusing about the fact that he has worked in hairdressing.'
A similar point was made by Katharine Murphy in The Age on September 8, 2011. Murphy writes, 'The ABC's new political satire pushed unflinchingly into every potential dimension of being the Prime Minister's male de facto partner - his imagined daily frustrations, the small accumulated humiliations of being "Mr Gillard" - the problem of being "Todd" as Bob Katter called him absently at one point.'
3. The series is disrespectful of the office of Prime Minister and of other Australian institutions
There are those who have criticised the series not because of its treatment of Julia Gillard and her partner as individuals, but because they believe it is disrespectful to the office of Prime Minister.
This was especially the response after the screening of episode three which showed Bishop and Lloyd as Gillard and Mathieson supposedly having had sex in the Prime Minister's office under the cover of the Australian flag.
Nationals MP John Forrest told colleagues that the satirical treatment of Ms Gillard's private life showed no regard for the office of Prime Minister. Mr Forrest stated, 'It's nothing to do with Julia Gillard. I'm not trying to defend her. It's the office of prime minister and it's not even funny.'
Fellow Nationals member Bruce Scott has said that he also found the program offensive and disrespectful to the office of prime minister, 'no matter who the prime minister is'. Mr Scott believes that the program holds authority figures up to ridicule and asked, 'How do parents then tell their children they have to be respectful to their elders and to leaders?'
There were also those who have argued that the episode demeaned the Australian flag. Miranda Devine in an opinion piece published on September 22, 2011, argued, 'The ABC needs to realise there is a limit to pushing boundaries for the national broadcaster of any country. The ABC has a special place in the heart of Australians and therefore it has a special responsibility to respect Australian values and especially the national flag.'
Fred Menzies in a letter published in The Australian on September 23, 2011, stated, 'I find the use of our flag by the ABC in a skit to cover the naked actors playing the PM and her partner to be in poor taste. It was degrading and disrespectful. The clowns who produced it have abused the hard-fought right to freedom of expression and forgotten their responsibilities.'
4. The series is part of a larger, misogynist trend that seeks to denigrate a female Prime Minister
It has been claimed that the series is only possible in the context of a widespread misogyny or hostility toward women that has been revealed since Julia Gillard became Prime Minister.
This point has been made by Larissa Behrendt in an opinion piece published in The Age on September 24, 2011. Ms Behrendt states, 'The portrayal of the Prime Minister's sex life ... joins a list of cheap shots with a misogynistic overtone in political debate or satire. Notable examples were the disgraceful slogans at the anti-carbon tax rally that referred to Gillard as a "witch" and "Bob Brown's bitch".'
Political and social commentators have noted that a personal focus on the life of the Prime Minister was never a feature of the style in which any of her male predecessors were treated. Some commentators have drawn the conclusion that this new focus on the personal grows out of a sexist bias against women in positions of power. This point was made by Marea Donnelly in an opinion piece published in The Punch on September 22, 2011.
Ms Donnelly states, 'Tarnishing the country's first female leader has gone beyond sexism to an almost visceral hatred, fuelled by a passion far richer than the carbon debate. Consider "witch" and "bitch". Both terms demean not only Gillard, but are commonly used to disparage all women, especially those who challenge men.'
O'Donnelly continues, 'Then there is "At Home With Julia". The name says it all. The political satire of Julia's impact on our lives does not emerge from her living room. It is played out in cabinet, parliament and the public domain.
This supposed satire is at best sexist, in that it attempts to purloin Gillard, the politician, in her lounge room. At worst, it reflects misogynist resentment towards a woman who has stepped way outside the lounge room and into the public sphere.'
O'Donnelly and others have argued that the narrow domestic emphasis of 'At Home with Julia' is misogynistic in that it seeks to diminish a female political leader and return her to the house or the kitchen where social conservatives believe women belong.
5. The series is trivialising and lacks substance
Critics have claimed that the general focus on the personal in this series is not only inappropriate because it breaches privacy boundaries, it also diminishes the political debate, reducing significant political questions to minor personal ones.
On September 9, 2011, The Punch published a comment by author and editor Sophie Cunningham. Cunningham observed, '"At Home with Julia" is a symptom of the relentless drive towards trivialising politics and politicians...'
This point was made in more detail by Robert Phiddian in The Conversation on September 14, 2011. Phiddian stated, 'What the program and its imagined secret counterpart "At Home with Tony" really point to is the emptiness of policy or even political content in our public life.
Our leading politicians are presented not as proponents of ideas or programs, but as rather crappy celebrities in a Big Brother house called democracy.
It's personality politics where the decision is boiled down to a visceral choice between "like" and "don't like".'