We Need Lipstick

Pop culture, unlike what some critics have said to believe is, in fact, making us a more intellectual society. In Steven Johnson’s eye-opening book, Everything Bad Is Good For You, he calls this idea, the Sleeper Curve. As Johnson puts it, “the Sleeper Curve comes out of an assumption that the landscape of popular culture involves…the neurological appetites of the brain, the economics of the culture industry, (and) changing technological platforms” (10). As an active member in our society, I have found some examples in media that fit Johnson’s argument and others that do not. Throughout the past weeks I have become keenly absorbed in the television drama Lipstick Jungle. Weekly, I anxiously anticipate what the upcoming episode will reveal. This fast paced show illustrates these ideas Steven Johnson has portrayed in his book.

Lipstick Jungle is a television series that premiered last year, and currently running its second season. This show brings the lives of New York’s powerful woman to the screen. This series consists of three powerful women; Wendy Healy, Victory Ford, and Nico Reilly, and how the wealthy New Yorker maybe more relatable to the average Joe then we all thought. Wendy is a president of a movie studio, Victory a fashion designer, and Nico an executive e

ditor for magazine, weekly these three women show the audience that maybe, just maybe, being powerful and seemingly getting everything thing they want is not as easy as we think. A show about friendships, love, lies, and betrayal Lipstick Jungle has caught the attention of many television viewers. In an article found in People magazine, Tom Gilatto says, “Seems it really is a jungle with in the show,” But is this statement really a coincidence? Of course not, the writers give a new light to women all over the globe. Developing a show about three beautiful, encouraging women who face New York, America’s jungle, on a daily basis.

Johnson introduces multiple ideas as to why this growing intelligence has become more apparent. Over the past decades, television shows have more in depth storylines (or threads as Johnson puts it) and relationships between characters “increased in their complexity” (109). He also brings up the issue of why today’s sitcoms, and other shows, with holds information from the viewer so they are left to figure certain things out for themselves. Johnson argues these, “Cognitive stimulations” (Johnson 9), are like work outs for our minds.

In most scenes of Lipstick Jungle, several stories are in motion, some at the very same time. Johnson uses the term “multi-threading” to describe our ability to differentiate between storylines. Johnson argues more of these threads present in today’s television shows, and some plots happen in the same scenes. (Johnson 69-70) The three main characters stories are in every episode of the show, with side stories that involve friends, lovers, archenemies, and so on. During an early episode, Nikko and Wendy, two of the three main characters, are both talking about their problems in an elevator, with each other, and at the same time, confusing? So much information has been crumbled up into an hour; writing a short summary can be hard to come up with, trust me! This show not only has multiple storylines going on at once but also, drops a thread and picks it back up in a later episode. Early in the season, Victory had to let go all of her employees, including her assistant; Reese, when Victory finds out Reese stole her designs, Reese is plopped right back into one of Victory’s threads. Below I have illustrated a multi-thread diagram for the first episode of the second season of Lipstick Jungle.

Johnson has developed charts, similar to this one, to examine just how many stories go on in a television episode. Every square resembles two minutes in the episode, starting with the very beginning, with only two threads, but as the story grows more and more plots build. This makes viewing a television show difficult for new audiences starting in the middle of the season. With any television show today, when a viewer begins watching the show in the middle of the season the stories are so jumbled, keeping up with the characters as the season progresses might be difficult because you’ve already missed much of what has happened.

As a child did you ever watch the movie Jaws? Another theory Johnson presents is the infrequent use of flashing arrows that occur in films, as well as television shows. These arrows are the cues that let the viewer know something significant is about to happen. (Johnson 73-75) With the movie Jaws, the ominous music that plays right before we see Jaws fin is the flashing arrow, which lets the audience know, in the coming scene someone will be eaten. Johnson argues that although we still see flashing arrows, they have become more difficult to pick out and appear less and less in shows, as television evolves. (Johnson 74) During one viewing of Lipstick Jungle, I attempted to find as many flashing arrows as I could. After watching the episode once, I found none. There were no scenes, I could find, where foreshadowing cues were present. After several days of watching other shows and then the same episode, I came to this conclusion; once I found these “flashing” arrows, I realized, they were facial features from the characters. Eye movements, mouth puckers, as soon as the camera swept to one person with a suspicious look, I knew they were going to do something. In the episode, Wendy has just told Nikko, J.K. Rowling is putting out a prequel to the Harry Potter series, however when Nico’s boss confronts her for new ideas for a magazine article, her eyes dart back and forth before she knowingly unveils Wendy’s big news, she wanted to reveal for herself. Watching this episode for the first time, this eye movement would have meant nothing, but, because I knew what was about to happen I focused on details I could have missed. The notion of these flashing arrows being present in television has become a rare sight for the viewer, as with Lipstick Jungle. Although I did find an arrow pointing to an upcoming event, it was not flashing at me. After re-watching this scene I found the arrow, Johnson also points out the idea about a re-watching rewarding system, that television shows provide for its viewers. (Johnson 86)

He makes the argument that more and more shows contain “layered jokes” (86) or information, to create complexity in a show. “The most telling way to measure these shows’ complexity is to consider how much external information the viewer must draw upon to ‘get’ the jokes in their entirety.” (84) these jokes present an incentive for viewers to return again, and again, to the show. Johnson calls this re-watching a “reward” (Johnson 84-87) for those viewers who have been with the show over the course of its showing. Just watch the final episode of Seinfeld, the show about nothing. The episode brings past foes of Jerry, Cramer, Elaine, and George back for revenge. In our culture we have an advantage over our parents, and generations before us. In Tim Madigan’s review of Johnson, he says, “multiple viewings are not only possible, but also profitable” (Madigan 1106), and this is where Johnson’s rewarding system comes into play. Now, through the use of media, we have the ability to catch minuet details significant to the show. As a viewer of both the first and second season of Lipstick Jungle, one situation that carries hidden information is Nico’s marriage. In the first season, Nico and Charles relationship hit several bumps, including cheating, betrayal, and illness. I gasped when Kirby returned again, later in the second season. For those viewers tuning into the series Kirby would be just another character with some unknown background, because I had the opportunity to watch the whole series I had already been introduced to Kirby Atwood and his past with Nico. I think of this as secret information only some viewers have the pleasure know about.

Today’s media presents their audience with much more information, then in earlier television days, because the more information in a small amount of time, the more information that must be left uncovered for the viewer to figure out. People engage in popular culture because there is a sense of mystery to the story when details are left out. One could argue, shows present a summary of the real story. As an audience, we must imagine and discover, for ourselves, what has happened when the story leaves out facts. Johnson says, “Narratives that require that their viewers fill in crucial elements take that complexity to a demanding level...you aren’t just asked to remember. You’re asked to analyze.” (64) The producers of Lipstick Jungle have done well with this concept. During these episodes stories will fade into one another and fail to conclude what has happened, and when they come back to the character they are in a different situation. One drastic example that comes up in most episodes is the story of Niko and Kirby Atwood, Niko’s secret lover. Nico and Kirby always find themselves in hot and tense situations. In on scene they find themselves in Prince Williams’, as the newest cover for the magazine, hotel suit, when Nico stops what is thought to be a sexual adventure the camera cuts to Victory on the opposite side of town, leaving the viewer with a question mark above their heads. Pondering just what has happened in the room to, or outside of it, to make Niko abruptly end the passionate scene. Society has fallen to television series like this one, because instead of telling the audience every detail they leave it to the viewers to piece together parts of the story, actively getting the viewer involved in the show.

The character’s relationships in television shows have become more complex over the past decades. Johnson has coined the term, social network, to explain how characters in shows are related to each other. He says, “…many popular television dramas today feature dense webs of relationships that require focus and scrutiny on the part of the viewer just to figure out what’s happening on the screen” (109). These connections between characters are no longer one on one, two or three other characters are involved with each other. Johnson expresses this idea with a character map that displays this social network (Johnson 111). The social network illustrates who each of the characters knows and the relationship between them. One segment of Lipstick Jungle’s social network shows; Nikko is married to Charles, and sleeping with Kirby, Charles is friends with Nico’s best friends (Victory and Wendy), Kirby is Nico’s photographer’s former assistant, and Wendy has just booked Kirby a job in her studio. That’s just a blip from the shows social network. The network for the same example looks like this, Nico likes Kirby and Kirby more-then likes Nico, Charles is Nico’s husband, and also friends with Nico’s best friends; Victory and Wendy, and Wendy is acquaintances with Kirby. On top of all of these major characters are the ones that show up in multiple episodes, may not speak much, but have a major impact on the main characters. Megan Albright; one of Charles’ students and also the father of his baby, Hector; Wendy and Nico’s boss, and then there are Tyler and Maddie Healy; Wendy and Shane’s children who are extremely important to the show because Wendy’s role is the do-it-all mom and businesswoman. As a viewer watches these networks become mixed up, and complicated very quickly in our pop culture movement.

The intelligence in our society has grown over the years, complicated storylines and character relationships started as single plots and easy-to-follow character connections. There has been “... a rising tide of popular entertainment…asking us to think more than it has in the past” (Frydl), and Steven Johnson’s argument fits this intellect in popular culture. Using Johnson as a guide to dissect Lipstick Jungle has changed the way this show can be watched. In reference to Johnson’s Sleeper Curve there is much more cognitive activity in television shows then what critics have sought out to believe. His writing opens a new world of viewing and interacting with media. Johnson states media in today’s popular culture has become “harder” and in return in fact making us smarter (Johnson 14). In the sense that, in our society, television’s developing complexity, mysteriousness, and ingenuity that has become an asset to our culture, instead of a drawback.

Work Cited

Johnson, Steven. Everything Bad Is Good For You. New York: The Berkley Group, 2005. Print.

Gliatto, Tom. "Lipstick Jungle." People 70.24 (15 Dec. 2008): 45-45. Academic Search Complete. EBSCO. May 20 2009.

Madigan, Tim. "Everything Bad Is Good For You: How Today's Popular Culture Is Actually Making Us Smarter." Journal of Popular Culture 39.6 (Dec. 2006): 1104-1106. SocINDEX with Full Text. EBSCO. May 22 2009 .

Frydl, Joseph. "Don't be 'Starsky & Hutch,' be more '24'." Advertising Age 77.12 (20 Mar. 2006): 24-24. Business Source Complete. EBSCO. 1 June 2009 .