Last summer, the husband and I watched the entire series of Prison Break in roughly 5 weeks. After all was said and done, I had come to appreciate the tightly constructed narrative of the first season and characterization of Robert Knepper‘s disturbing T-Bag (right) but found myself rather irritated by the series’s ending. Little did I know, however, that Prison Break‘s conclusion and the main character’s ultimate demise would prepare me for this summer’s TV-to-DVD selection: Six Feet Under, HBO’s critically acclaimed series about a family who inhabits and operates a funeral home — a show that, I’ve found, is both fascinating and grueling to watch.
The good. I’ll admit that Six Feet Under garnered multiple nominations and awards for a reason. First, the characters are exceedingly complex. Second, the cinematography is lovingly shot, much “like an independent film” as one contributor to the DVD puts it. Third, the show’s setting and subject matter are indeed unique and often handled realistically.
The bad: OMG, the depression and ennui that ensues after watching 2-3 episodes in a row! Doing the same with Prison Break is fun, exhilarating even; but spending 2-3 hours a night with Nate (Peter Krause) and Brenda (Rachel Griffiths), David (Michael C. Hall) and Keith (Mathew St. Patrick), and Ruth (Frances Conroy) and Claire (Lauren Ambrose) can be torturous, debilitating, and traumatizing (oh, that damn hitchhiking episode!). As a result, I concur with one of my Twitter friends who aptly summarizes my viewing schedule: “Six Feet Under is one of the rare shows very much harmed by DVD viewing.”
In any event, I made it through. All five seasons. You’ll notice from portions of my Twitter stream below that it was touch and go there at times. At one point, I gave up. Mostly, I blame Brenda; but looking back, I’ll admit that Ruth and Nate share some responsibility as well. Nonetheless, after a couple of weeks of vacation from Fisher and Sons (and Diaz), I returned and lived to write this post.











Like most critics who have reviewed Six Feet Under, I agree that the series finale, particularly the last 10 minutes, is skillfully crafted. Moreover, it is especially appropriate when one considers the overall theme(s) of the show: death, mortality, and living life. However, that’s not what stands out to me about Six Feet Under, at least not right now, not while I’m this close to it. Rather, what I take away from the show are its messages about humanity, some reassuring and inspirational but most of them troubling and off-putting. So that’s what I want to consider here, the messages (some silly, some serious) from 5 years or 60 episodes of Six Feet Under. Please note: spoilers ahead…
Message 1. People who inhabit or are raised in a funeral home are damaged, egotistical, and/or repressed, and they are drawn to like people.
Perpetually mousy, homely, and withdrawn from herself and her family, Ruth Fisher becomes romantically involved with Nikolai who’s involved with a Russian mob, Arthur who substitutes nose-nuzzling for sex, and George who sets up his home in a bomb shelter. Oh, George also undergoes shock therapy and has six ex-wives.- Seemingly optimistic but ultimately self-absorbed and aimless, Nate Fisher commits himself to equally broken women: Brenda, a narcissistic nymphomaniac; Lisa, a tree-hugging, people-pleasing manipulator; and Maggie, a mourning mother of a dead child. Nate also hooks up randomly with women in bars, doggie daycare centers, and children’s play groups; and he once tried to seduce a (female) rabbi. Chill, Nate, chill.
- The viewer discovers the same with Claire whose ego and indifference about most of humanity nearly gets her killed, ostracized from her family, and out of work; she also engages in semi- long-term relationships with equally disturbed guys like Gabriel, Billy, Russell, and Jimmy.
- And where do I even begin with uber-repressed David and anger-infused Keith? Perhaps I’ll just save them for Message 2.
Message 2. All gay men are promiscuous and lack commitment.
Six Feet Under was nominated for and won several GLAAD awards, presumably for its frank gay and lesbian sex scenes, David’s reluctance to come out, and David and Keith’s struggle to adopt children. For those representations, the series should be commended and rewarded. But what does the show say about the sexual behavior and sense of commitment of gay men? Virtually every homosexual character on the show, even when in a committed relationship with another, fools around with other men (and some women — I’m talking to you, Keith and Celeste!). Furthermore, he almost always engages in impulsive, unsafe, and unrewarding sex (prostitute in Vegas, plumber who fixed the Fisher’s “blood overflow” problem, paintball guy). Unfortunately, I’m not sure that these images, which appear consistently over the series, are as praiseworthy as the ones for which GLAAD presumably awarded the show.
Message 3. Spirits of the dead linger in this life and speak to us in various ways.
Depending on the episode, this is presented both creepily (disfigured cadavers, Lisa dressed as a flower) and reassuringly (most of Nathaniel’s appearances, Gabe with his little brother in “heaven”).
Message 4. If you or your parents are psychologists, you’re probably destined for a life of confusion, drugs, unfulfilled romantic relationships, and potential incest.
Cases in point: Brenda, Billy, Margaret, and Bernard Chenowith.
Message 5. ALL college students smoke pot, do cocaine, and experiment with their (and others’) sexuality.
Every college (and high-school) student portrayed in Six Feet Under tried most of the above, e.g., Claire, Gabriel, Parker, Russell, Edie, Anita, Jimmy. Even some flashbacks include a young Nate and David doing the same with their friends. Is NO teenager or college student immune to drugs and alcohol, not to mention an immense amount of self-loathing?
Message 6. Patriarchs are unnecessary and replaceable.
As many scholars have pointed out, Disney has never had a problem killing off or omitting mothers (e.g., Bambi, Finding Nemo, The Little Mermaid, Sleeping Beauty). However, in Six Feet Under, many fathers are rubbed out, e.g., Nathaniel, Nate, Bernard Chenowith, Hoyt (Lisa’s brother-in-law/lover). I’m honestly not sure why this is the case. Perhaps the writers are instilling underlying messages about the futility of patriarchy? Or that widows can fare better in this life than widowers? Then again, the women left behind aren’t all that stable themselves. If you have any thoughts here, please comment. =)
Message 7. Enlightened, earthy, liberal-minded, hippie-ish do-gooders fare no better than anyone else in this world.
See, for example, Lisa Kimmell Fisher (Lili Taylor) and Sarah, Ruth’s sister (Patricia Clarkson). Can I just say quickly here that I love Sarah’s friend, Bettina (Kathy Bates)? Fun fact: Kathy Bates directed five episodes.
Message 8. One’s religion may be essential for planning a funeral service, but it’s immaterial otherwise.
Most of the funeral services depicted in Six Feet Under are grounded in religion (priests, monks, rabbis, crosses, etc. are featured), but rarely are the tenets or rituals of Christianity, Judaism, Buddhism, etc. portrayed as calming or positive. In fact, one of the most moving episodes of the series opts for a full-out staged opera in lieu of a traditional religious ceremony (“Nobody Sleeps“). Ultimately, although the Fisher family says grace before dinner and Nate attends a couple of Quaker services — the latter of which are depicted as weird and pointless primarily through Brenda’s perspective (above) — atheist and agnostic beliefs hold much more weight in Six Feet Under, especially outside the service room of Fisher and Sons.
Message 9. Death is immanent, unexpected, and often unexplained.
To me, this is Six Feet Under‘s greatest gift to the viewer. In an age as well as a medium that privileges life, youth, invincibility, and a complete disregard for death, the show’s constant emphasis on mortality is provocative and, dare I say, refreshing. Sociologists Avi Shoshana and Elly Teman have argued that Six Feet Under even goes so far as to evoke “the idea that the living can be more lifeless than the physically deceased and that the departed can be livelier than the living” (560). In other words, these life/death boundaries, usually so disparate in our society, become exceedingly blurred throughout the show’s five seasons. Even if one disagrees with this theory, it’s hard to refute Shoshana’s and Teman’s initial summary of the show: “It hurls death provocatively into the viewer’s face, each episode consciously serving as a ‘memento mori’ for its audience.” Yes, it does; and, as in life, Six Feet Under rarely offers an explanation for the many losses represented. Oddly enough, that is real and consoling.
Finally, before anyone makes comments like these about my interpretation of the show’s messages – But David and Keith stay together until one of them dies! But wait, Brenda remarries and lives happily with her children and spouse! Yeah, but Claire finally gets her head on straight and settles down! — I understand that the series finale reveals the main characters living long, loving, committed, and fulfilling lives. Still, I wonder if one flashforward in the last 10 minutes of one episode can completely negate the many other rather depressing messages put forth in the previous 3,600 minutes of 60 episodes? Perhaps it does once the viewer is farther removed from the series than I?



























Hi, Chris — thanks for commenting! Before I respond, may I ask how long it's been since you've watched the series? =) Thanks!
The characters were flawed, but I don’t know if they’re as bad as you’re making them out to be.
And David “almost always engages in impulsive, unsafe, and unrewarding sex”? I mean, the prostitute was from s1 when he was acting self-destructively after Keith broke up with him and before he came out.
And while David and Keith may have experimented with an open relationship later, it’s not like they didn’t stay committed with each other.
2005, when the show ended.
Okay, cool. Thanks!
The reason I ask is that I sometimes wonder if the very well-done series finale, in which virtually every character is in some way redeemed or at least made to look better than s/he has in the past, sort of clouds the memory re: some things. I also wonder the same about people who watched the series in a more "spread-out" fashion than I did, e.g., weekly on HBO, aired a year apart. Again, I watched the entire series in a few weeks. Not a good idea! =)
Re: David and Keith in particular, yes, there was just the one situation with a prostitute. But there were also random plumbers, chorus boys, Keith's employer (that one was bribery!), the paintball guy (Sarge?), Celeste, and a few more guys before the prostitute. Don't get me wrong: one of the only characters on SIX FEET UNDER with whom I identified or felt any emotion for was David Fisher. I was just taken aback and sometimes peeved by the amount of promiscuity the writers associated with him (and Keith); in some ways, it seemed so stereotypical (i.e., homosexual men as overly sexed, can't settle down/commit, etc.).
Again, thanks for reading/commenting, and I hope that makes (some) sense!
I didn't find the show at all depressing. I liked that the characters are intelligent and that their problems aren't (usually) blamed on their intelligence. Yes, it was often harrowing and upsetting and Brenda in particular made me furious much of the time, but I enjoyed almost every minute of it.
Re religion, David grapples with religion very much in Season 1, and while my memory is that this gets dropped a bit, the show regarded his religion as a serious and important part of his life.
I wonder if something about the show is very Southern California and the characters come across as depressing and outlandish to people in other parts of the country. I lived just north of LA when I watched it, and it's the first television show I've seen that really captured a certain aspect of the LA experience.
I agree with Chris–David's promiscuity wasn't because he was gay but because of things that were going on in his life. Brenda was also promiscuous. So was Nate, at certain times.
I'd point to Rico if I wanted to focus on stereotypes.
Hi! Thanks for stopping by.
Hmmm, what do you mean by "intelligent"? Ruth and Nate = intelligent? Yikes! =)
Yep, as I point out above, several heterosexual characters are promiscuous, but there's a much larger cross-section of them in the show than homosexual characters, which means that they are not representing a minority, if that makes sense.
Good point about Rico; I didn't consider him much, did I?!
I'm in the middle of season 4 and am really enjoying the show. I am watching it back to back to back and I am not finding it very depressing to watch. The dark subject matter and black comedy don't bother me.
I think you may be overstating the case WRT to the promiscuity issue for gays, this is a drama and they need to have numerous situations explored for the drama to be allowed to unfold. However, you are correct in that most of the homosexual characters have been rather promiscuous even the committed 22 yr couple was very open.
I think that I read somewhere how the sex was a response to all the death or pain in the character's lives, an attempt to create life in response to the sublimated pains the character's experience.
As for religon, I think the writer's are quite respectful of many different religons. It is refreshing to watch a show where people's religious beliefs are not the butt of a joke but a serious and important part of a person's life (and this is coming from an avowed athiest). As for not featuring the details of the religon, I think that is limited to the fact that the services are conducted at the funeral home, but in the 3.5 seasons I have watched so far they have had catholic, christian, jewish, buddhist, communal living people and a few other belief systems I cant think of (gangster comes to mind). I would imagine they have a muslim ceremony at some point
Hi, Paul. Thanks for chiming in and sharing your thoughts on the show! Also, kudos to you for watching SIX FEET UNDER back to back without (apparently) needing a Valium! Wow — nice going! =)
Interesting about the theory that "sex is a response to death/pain." I'll have to look into and think about that further. A link to where you found that notion?
You're definitely right on about the writers' being "respectful of many different religions." But once you get to the Quaker stuff (which is the most, I think, the show comments on a specific religion), come back and post some more, won't you? Would love to know your thoughts on the show's reading of that…
David was promiscuous, not Keith. David used sex to take away pain and frustration.
Since the post included Keith in the promiscuity charge, I will document David's escapades while being in a realtionship with Keith.
David fucked Patrick; David received a blowjob from the plumber; David tried with the bartender, but got spooked by his PTSD; David fucked Sarge; and finally, tried to get it on with the hairdreser but finally felt guilt.
And,Keith hooked up with Celeste. I'm not counting Roger, because it was blackmail. David wins in the promiscuous department.
I don't think Alan Ball wanted the gay couple to be seen as the Sidney Poitiers of gay men. Having sex as a reaction to things going out of control in their lives was a common theme for the heteros as well as the gays.
Hi there — thanks for your comments!
Btw, I love your theory that you "don't think Alan Ball wanted the gay couple to be seen as the Sidney Poitiers of gay men." Great mental image! At the same time, however, I'm not sure Sidney Poitier necessarily intended to be seen as "the Sidney Poitier of African Americans." =)
In addition, I completely agree with you that David (as well as many of the non-gay characters in SIX FEET UNDER, for that matter) uses sex to take away pain and frustration, not to mention suppress his own inability to come out to his family and himself, yes? Still, no matter how he/they "use" sex, they're still promiscuous, right? (For more here, see my comment above about "a much larger cross-section of heterosexuals in the show than homosexual characters.")
Finally, I include Keith above because he is inextricably linked to David — after all, the only reason Keith exists in the narrative is because of David — and because he is, yes, promiscuous as well, even if one of his encounters derives from blackmail, which he could have chosen NOT to engage in.
Hope that makes sense from my perspective. Again, thanks for sharing yours.
i am just re-watching the series after a number of years – i saw most of the seasons back in 2006.
i have rarely seen a show present characters with so many dimensions. and i do not find it pessimistic. i simply think that this is what human beings are like -messy and complex. it sometimes does make me rather pensive, but not necessarily gloomy.
Hi, thanks for stopping by and commenting. It would be interesting to revisit the show (as you're doing) and see if my perspective changes at all. Again, watching it in such a condensed amount of time was brutal (as you can tell from my tweets and the post in general), so I wouldn't do it that way again! Have fun… (well, maybe FUN isn't the best word.) =)