I recently saw a fascinating documentary on Charlie’s Angels[1]. First airing on American network[2] television in 1976 the show caused a tsunami of media coverage as it exploded in popularity. It launched the career of Farrah Fawcett[3] and created the iconic 70′s california girl image.
But, more than just being a great(trashy) piece of pop-culture of its time, the show had a more profound social impact that is relevant even today.

Angels

Firstly, in terms of popular media culture the show created the genre of Fluff TV in which the audience is less interested in story arcs or character nuances than what they want to see experience the characters’ exciting and beautiful lives. To paraphrase one of the producers; the audience didn’t care about the struggles of the characters, all they wanted was to see what the characters were wearing, where they hung out and how much fun they had.
Consider this; while the show had a very modest production budget[4] it had an unheard of budget for wardrobe – $2,500 per week, and that’s 1976 dollars. The show had an in-house designer responsible for the girls’ clothes and they never wore the same outfit twice.
The idea that a show’s characters are showpieces first and foremost and the emphasis placed on wardrobe was embraced first by the ladies of Dynasty then by LA Law and now by Desperate Housewives. It has become a staple of high-end pop culture entertainment.

Wardrobe TV

Secondly, it took genre of Sex TV to the next level, or as its was called Jiggle TV. The most radical decision the producers took in the first season was for the girls to stop wearing bra’s on the show. It was nipple central from there on out.
This legacy of squeeky clean innocent sex culminated in the early 90′s in Britney’s Baby One More Time and now in the Girls of the Playboy Mansion.

The Farrah poster – 8 million copies sold on the back of those babies

And most radically, it upset feminists no end because here you had a bunch of blonde[5] chicks who were clad in the images of sex, but still totally innocent in character. They were flirty and rambunctious but the show still insisted on selling them as strong independant women. How is this possible? It’s an impossible contradiction. Yes, I burnt by bra, but not so that some airhead could run around jiggling all over the place.
It was the perfumed smell of post-feminism wafting bra-less through the corridors of social power.

[1] the TV show, not the movie
[2] ABC to be exact
[3] and undoubtably her hair stylist as well
[4] i.e. was produced on the cheap
[5] sure, two of them were brunettes, but all of them were blondes in spirit