Opinion – ‘Pam & Tommy’ helps and hinders female exploitation

Lily James’ portrayal of Anderson is as funny as it is disconcerting, with an airy tone of voice and high-pitched giggle that cuts through Sebastian Stan’s irksome Lee. Viewers have used this whimsical character study to criticise the show, claiming it makes light of Anderson’s sexual exploitation.

We often get caught up in the Hollywood drama of a leaked sex-tape. Kim Kardashian, who used her own stolen video to catapult herself to global fame, has become the blueprint for ‘girl bossing’ your way out of sexual abuse. But stories of exploitation rarely end positively (nor can anyone can speak for the ways Kim’s own experience hasn’t caused her deep emotional pain).

Unlike Kardashian, who has spoken openly about her experience and shifted the conversation on her own terms, Anderson continues to be mocked for her 90s video with Lee, a reality that many believe is only extended by Hulu’s new series. It’s hard to disagree, given the show’s status as a ‘class-conscious satire’.

The overwhelming topic of discussion following the series’ launch was not the truly horrifying, international distribution of Anderson’s most private and vulnerable moments, but a scene involving Lee’s animatronic talking penis. This response cements the fact that, for women, the consequences of ‘baring it all’ are far gloomier than knee-slapping comedy and tabloid fodder.

Most critically, behind the hubbub caused by ‘Pam & Tommy’s’ no-holds-barred storytelling, is another story of exploitation playing out in real-time.

Pamela Anderson, the show’s titular star, has publicly denounced the series and refuses to watch the trailer, both allegedly created without her consent.

A source close to Anderson told news outlets that they know ‘she’ll never, never watch this’, adding that she wanted the press to focus instead on ‘her philanthropic efforts’. For Anderson, having her story told without consent is just a continuation of the privacy-invasion ‘Pam & Tommy’ chronicles.

Responding to criticism, the show’s director Lake Bell has said her own experience of nude photo theft left her empathising with Anderson, and felt her story ‘was too prescient not to tell’.

But while a tale of female exploitation like this one may be ideal for driving public awareness, Bell’s claims that her personal struggles made her ‘uniquely positioned’ to tell Anderson’s story are considerably problematic.

Besides no two experiences being the same, and one’s means of dealing with trauma varying significantly, nobody has the right to tell somebody’s story for them, especially without their consent.

In this way, ’Pam & Tommy’ serves as a reminder that someone else’s experience isn’t ours to reclaim on their behalf. It isn’t a thing we can mould and shape to suit our own agendas – no matter how well intentioned they might be. And real experiences of sexual exploitation certainly shouldn’t be used for mass entertainment, thinly veiled by crude jokes and kitschy nudity.

Otherwise, we continue to capitalise on the same violations of trust we call out.