By John Q. Hosedrinker 
During an appearance on “The Joe Rogan Experience”, vice presidential hopeful JD Vance admired Lily Collins’ Netflix show “Emily in Paris”, calling it a “masterpiece”. He praised the show despite earlier stating he and his wife were watching “some stupid show” after the Republican National Convention. However, Collins, who voted for the Democratic nominee Kamala Harris and her running mate Tim Walz, revealed she wasn’t a fan of Vance’s work. The actress praised Harris and Walz for supporting women’s rights, LGBTQ+ rights, climate policy and environmental protection, access to education and healthcare, and more. She further warned against the ‘dangers of the alternative’.
Read the original article here
JD Vance’s declaration that “Emily in Paris” is a “masterpiece” raises eyebrows and ignites conversations that intersect pop culture with politics in a rather fascinating way. This kind of commentary from a prominent figure like Vance, who is often associated with conservative values, sends ripples through both the political landscape and the entertainment sphere. It presents a curious case where the boundaries between personal taste and political identity blur, culminating in reactions that are as varied and complex as the show itself.
Seeing JD Vance, known more for his controversial political stance than his taste in television, praise a Netflix series that often faces critique for its portrayal of romanticized expatriate life feels almost surreal. It’s tempting to dissect this admiration through the lens of his political identity. Perhaps it indicates a yearning to connect with a demographic that values lighter entertainment amidst serious socio-political discussions. Or maybe it reflects his own struggles with image in a world where masculinity is often defined in rigid terms. Embracing “Emily in Paris” might even come off as a unique rebellion against the expectations placed on him by his political base, where reality television and aspirational content are often dismissed as trite or frivolous.
The discussions surrounding Vance’s comments often veer into a critique of his persona—some labeling him a “creepy cabbage patch kid” or attributing various labels to him. This kind of mockery speaks volumes about the societal pushback against figures who thrive on traditional masculinity yet simultaneously embrace something deemed “feminine”. It opens up an avenue to explore the fragile nature of masculinity and how expressions of taste can encourage or challenge established norms. Vance’s potential enjoyment of “Emily in Paris” could be read not just as a personal preference, but as an act of defiance against a culture that stigmatizes what is traditionally considered “womanly.”
Critics of Vance’s comment sometimes conflate his appreciation for a show that revels in glamor and romance with notions of sexual orientation. Such assumptions lead to discussions steeped in both humor and discomfort. It’s as if viewing “Emily in Paris” becomes a litmus test for identifying one’s political and sexual identity, casting light on the absurdity of our cultural landscape, where TV shows transcend their narrative purposes and become fodder for socio-political commentary. The lines between critique, mockery, and earnest conversation often blur—causing a rift where sincere discussion might just be the antidote to toxicity that pervades political discourse.
These conversations take a twist when we consider the implications of associating personal taste with one’s identity. The premise that enjoying a show like “Emily in Paris” might suggest something about one’s sexuality reflects broader societal struggles with acceptance and the reduction of identity to surface-level signifiers. This irony is not lost in observing Vance’s political arena, which frequently targets the LGBTQ+ community. There’s undeniably a hypocrisy at play when someone like him admires something that may be perceived as “frivolous,” all while advocating for policies that dismiss or belittle those very expressions of identity. The sheer absurdity of this situation accentuates how disconnected political rhetoric can be from personal reality, with the entertainment world serving as a mirror reflecting these discrepancies.
In the grand scheme, JD Vance’s comments about “Emily in Paris” spark discussions that go far beyond just a cultural critique. They call into question our societal constructs surrounding masculinity, taste, and identity. We find ourselves grappling with the implications of watching a show that embodies contradictions—the allure of a picturesque life outside one’s homeland vs. the realities of life that often include hardship and struggle. It becomes a cinematic tapestry reflecting diverse narratives, which ultimately, as a society, we must learn to discuss without resorting to outdated frameworks of judgement based on superficial understandings.
This blend of entertainment and political identity creates a complex dialogue that challenges us to revisit our definitions of normalcy and acceptance. It beckons a broader conversation about how we receive and interpret someone’s taste, pushing the envelope of tolerance. So, what does it mean for a leader in the political sphere to call “Emily in Paris” a “masterpiece”? Perhaps, just perhaps, it suggests a need for all of us to expand our emotional and intellectual horizons beyond conventional binaries—accepting that within all of us lies a capacity for both complexity and contradiction.