Schitt’s Creek is a Perfect Metaphor For Progressive Hypocrisy

You only have to go one step beyond what you’re presented.

First of all, hand on heart, I absolutely love Schitt’s Creek. I think it’s one of the best shows of the last decade and it’s very excellently written. I appreciate that it may not be to everyone’s taste but I think it’s warm, sweet and funny in equal measure.

It follows a wealthy family as they lose their fortune and end up in a motel in a backwater town called Schitt’s Creek. The premise is excellent and over the six seasons, the family learn humility, inclusion and how to love each other. It’s a genuine emotional journey and well worth watching.

The bratty daughter character of Alexis Rose (played by Annie Murphy) is everything I could ever want in a performance. There is nothing that woman can’t do to make even the most simple line hilarious.

Yes David?!

If you’ve seen it, you’ll have transposed those two words into the exasperated voice of Alexis in your head.

The writer Dan Levy, took great pains to ensure that the world he created and the fictional town of Schitt’s Creek was inclusive. There is no racism, there is no homophobia in the town, Dan Levy didn’t want it. Good for him. Schitt’s Creek is a fictional safe space in which romantic relationships of all kinds are explored.

The show has got all kinds of awards for its comedy portrayal and stand out performances. It has done very well and I think it is likely to become a landmark show in the history of LGBTQ+ writing in particular.

I’m still sounding very positive aren’t I? That’s because I haven’t got to the bit of Schitt’s Creek I don’t like. The bit that has nothing to do with the world they created and everything to do with the process of creation.

What don’t you like?

I don’t like that this show was written by the son of an existing well-known comedian. That’s not because it isn’t good, it is. I ask myself ‘if this was written by someone other than Dan Levy, would it have been made?’ — and I conclude the answer is likely to be no.

Without drawing on significant resources, calling in his Dad and his Dad’s best friends, Catherine O’Hara and Chris Elliott I’m not convinced this show would’ve got out of the pilot phase.

It only really takes off after the first season and is a bit of a slow burn.

I don’t like that three members of the same family all star in the show. Whilst Dan Levy and his father Eugene are compelling on screen, I feel that Sarah Levy (Dan’s sister) isn’t at the same standard.

Originally slated to play Alexis, she was bumped by Annie Murphy into the part of ditzy Twyla. In my opinion, she’s notably weaker than the rest of the cast. Whilst that’s only my subjective opinion, her IMDB page doesn’t suggest that she has a background in acting or has pursued anything outside of Schitt’s Creek.

So whilst the show itself is a beacon of inclusivity — it also demonstrates something else. The people most inclined to play inclusion are those who have the privilege and time to play it. This is the problem with creating a utopia in your spare time, then wondering why the rest of the world doesn’t hop on board.

The show applauds inclusion whilst neatly side-stepping any such thing in its creation.

Something is jarring about presenting a world free from prejudice and oppression in a show that relied so heavily on nepotism and inherited privilege to be made in the first place. That’s a perfect metaphor for the current state of all things woke, where exactly in society the conversations are primarily located and whose voices are amplified.

So whilst it shines a spotlight on inclusivity for the middle-class LGBTQ+ community I wonder what didn’t get made or was passed over in favour of Schitt’s Creek. What voices did we miss? Why do such arguments tend to come from affluence first and dictate to the rest of us what inclusivity looks like?

I think identity politics undermines socialism at every turn

I think structuring the dialogue this way is a bad thing for the economically struggling people of all skin colours. Financial disadvantage underpins a lot of societal ills which encompass both racism and sexism. It keeps people barely surviving day-to-day and not able to explore the complex nuances of the discussions or reflect much on their attitudes.

What the world didn’t need was a warm fuzzy place created for people who already think this way. The world didn’t need to put more money into the already wealthy Levy dynasty. Schitt’s Creek was written from a place of extreme privilege as a congratulatory pat on the back for an already changing society.

‘Nom nom for us, David’

The world didn’t need Schitt’s Creek but we got it anyway. You know what, it’s so well structured and contains so many witty lines and great performances I can’t help but implore you to watch it. Even if it wouldn’t have got made in a class-free meritocracy, it damn well should have been.

Go watch it. I’m going to carry on Penguin-grumping about the Schitt’s Creek Paradox.

Want more penguin on TV and film?