Is Broad City Taken Too Seriously?

Having seen multiple episodes of Broad City coupled with Kenny Chung’s blog (at the bottom) referring to Broad City, I believe an important issue has been highlighted. Broad City at it’s very core is satirical, with many hard hitting issues being subtly/heavily mocked and/or referenced to for comedic effect.

While the idea of creating comedy from tragedy is in itself somewhat controversial, it without a doubt creates a setting in which discussions are better able to be had regarding the usually unapproachable problems permeating a society. Kenny Chung introduces the idea that while it is effective to reflect on tragedy with comedy, there is such a thing as comedy for the sake of comedy.

Though Broad City does make many points, it should not be looked at only through the lense of how progressive it is for women. This somewhat defeats the purpose of feminism. While this show introduces many ideas reflecting similarities between men and women by switching the traditional roles and expectations of each throughout the show, if it is judged solely on these messages then it is not being judged as a regular show to be judged on character development, plot progression, and entertainment value as every other show is/should be judged. Characters that are not allowed to represent themselves rather than a greater group they belong to are lessened for it. No one individual is able to reflect the entirety of a subgroup within society.

In this sense I do enjoy Broad City, they use every comedic effect in their arsenal to create scenarios with strange fluidity and use controversy as material rather than using their show to express some grander message. The introduction of comedy to tragedy naturally facilitates conversation, and therefore allows grander messages to be an afterthought on the individual’s level.


One clap, two clap, three clap, forty?

By clapping more or less, you can signal to us which stories really stand out.