We can’t seem to escape the controversy surrounding MTV’s Skins this week. Prior to the first episode of MTV’s Skins the series was deemed by the Parents Television Council to be “the most dangerous show for teens.” Since then the Parents Television Council (PTC) has called for a federal investigation of the series saying that “In addition to the sexual content on the show involving cast members as young as 15, PTC counted 42 depictions and references to drugs and alcohol in the premiere episode.” The PTC went on to state, “it is clear that Viacom has knowingly produced material that may well be in violation of [several anti-child pornography laws].”
The Parents Television Council are not the only ones telling the series to tone it down. The New York Times reported that network executives at MTV ordered the producers of Skins to make changes to the series so it would be less racy.
Despite their efforts to tone down the series the show is still surrounded by controversy. In addition to speaking out against Skins and calling for a federal investigation the Parent’s Council also urged their supporters to boycott Taco Bell, a sponsor of the show. Since then Taco Bell has pulled their ads that run during Skins. Since Taco Bell pulled it’s ads H&R block, Wringley and GM have followed suit. We are sure these advertisers will not be the first or last to pull their support from Skins.
We are sure the producers and stars of the show are just gleaming right now. All this bad press is sure to drive up the series ratings and drive teenagers to their television to watch Skins come Monday. The stars, producers, and Network are standing by their show and are proud of what they’ve created. Jeannie Kedas, a spokeswoman for the series, said in defense of Skins that it “is a show that addresses real-world issues confronting teens in a frank way.” One of the stars of the series, Sofia Black-D’eila said in an interview “It’s pushing the boundaries for teen drama because I think Skins goes where other shows are afraid to.” She went on to say “It’s what teens are doing. It’s the way teenagers believe, I think, especially you know in certain situations when you come from home lives where your parents don’t really support you or really listen to you. That’s what most of these kids are going through. And so, um, the drugs and the sex, they’re vices, and that’s what teenagers have.” In a previous interview Black-D’eila defended the series by saying “Skins isn’t an exact depiction of any of our lives, buts it’s one of the few shows out there that gets close.” Her co-star Eleanor Zichy, who plays Eura on the show, told Newsweek, “We don’t make this up. Sure, some of the experiences are exaggerated—it’s television. But all the material comes from real teenagers.” And in that same article Newsweek writer Jessica Bennett said of the series “Skins may be the most realistic show on television.” Bennett even led the article with this bold statement “MTV’s controversial new series, Skins, portrays teens as experimental and sex-obsessed, lying to their parents and sneaking out at night. In other words, it shows them as they really are.”
Normally we would agree with the series producers, the network executives and the stars of the series. The stars, network executive and producers of the series defense of this series is that their series is an accurate portrayal of teenagers in America today. Skins is basically saying, we refuse to apologize for being “too real.” In the case of Skins that is not a viable defense.
Skins is not a realistic portrayal of American teenagers today, it’s a realistic portrayal of British teenagers in 2007. The characters, their lines, their mannerism, the stories, the overall plot, was taken directly from the original version of Skins. As Jezebel pointed out, the American version of the script even kept the British slang from the original script, using the word “narcotics” to describe pills, “spliffed up” to describe being stoned, and “skins” to describe rolling papers. How can a series be a “realistic” portrayal of American teenagers when it does not even use slang that American teenagers use?
What Skins is doing is not revolutionary. It is not giving a voice to the voiceless teens who smoke, drink, party, have sex and disrespect authority. It’s not going into the dark underbelly of teenage life and exposing the truth about teenagers. Skins is not the next Daria, My So-Called Life, Freaks and Geeks, Undeclared, Beverly Hills 90210 (the first season of the original series only, after that the series went down hill), or even Glee. In fact as far as American teenage dramas go, Skins can’t barely compete with Pretty Little Liars and the series is not that much better than Degrassi, Secret Life of the American Teenager or Gossip Girl, in fact it may be worse.
MTV Skins is not original, unique or realistic, it’s a complete rip off of the original series. Correction, it’s a water down version of the original series, most of the raciest scenes from the original series were taken out during the season premiere. Skins does not reflect American society, it reflects British society. The actors on Skins are not attempting to portray real teenagers in America they are desperately trying to impersonate their British counterparts. In fact at times we even heard some of the actors speaking with what seemed to be fake British accents.
We asked these questions before and we will ask them again. How can a series be the “most realistic thing you’ll see on tv,” when it is a complete rip off of another television show? How is Skins USA an accurate portrayal of American life when it is clearly just a duplicate copy of a British television drama?
All this is to say it is completely absurd for MTV Skins to defend itself from the accusations of the Parents Television Council by claiming their show is a true reflection of American teenage life today when the writers and producers of MTV Skins have not even made a serious attempt to adapt the series so it actually reflects the lives of American teenagers. American teenagers today do not act or behave like British teenagers in 2007 and as a result Skins does not accurately portray the plight of US teenagers. The only thing that appears to be remotely American about this series is that it has cheerleaders.
It seems fitting that the producers and stars of Skins are defending their series by telling everyone that their series is “real.” The producers and stars of the original version of Skins used that same argument in 2007 when the series was released and faced serious criticism. If you are going to steal a series from the U.K. you might as well also steal the tactic used to defend it.
