The Inconsistent Star: Pete Davidson’s Bupkis Deserves More Than Pity or Praise

The recent inclusion of Pete Davidson’s short-lived Peacock comedy Bupkis on TIME’s list of 50 Most Underappreciated TV Shows is a curious development. While some may view it as a vindication for the comedian, who has been dogged by controversy and criticism throughout his career, others will see it as a tokenistic nod to a talent struggling to find his place in the spotlight.

Bupkis’s semi-autobiographical approach is striking. By drawing from his own experiences with addiction, trauma, and the pressures of stardom, Davidson creates a show that feels deeply personal and eerily relatable. His portrayal of the dark underbelly of fame – where even minor successes can be reduced to mere publicity stunts – is often uncomfortably familiar.

The cast’s deliberate choices in casting Italian American screen icons Edie Falco and Joe Pesci as Davidson’s mom and grandfather are noteworthy. This decision subverts traditional family dynamics on television, centering these characters – particularly his maternal figure – and challenging our expectations around the typical Hollywood fare.

Davidson’s struggles with addiction and mental health are inescapable themes throughout the show. His conversations with John Mulaney about their respective reputations offer a commentary on how we measure success and failure in this industry. It’s clear that Davidson is grappling with the consequences of his actions, rather than relying on easy excuses or self-aggrandizing justifications.

The inclusion of Bupkis on TIME’s list raises questions about our cultural attitudes towards fame. Do we praise those who navigate its complexities while pitying those who struggle? Or are we addicted to the spectacle of celebrity, regardless of their personal costs? The show presents a nuanced exploration of what it means to be in the public eye – and how that gaze can both empower and destroy.

As we grapple with our own mental health struggles, substance abuse, and family dynamics, Davidson’s show offers a vital counterpoint to more sanitized portrayals. By embracing his vulnerabilities and those of his characters, Bupkis challenges us to reevaluate our relationship with celebrity – and what it means to be human in the 21st century.

In an era where social media platforms have created new industries around the commodification of fame, engaging critically with these narratives is more important than ever. Examining Davidson’s Bupkis through this lens reveals that his struggles – and those of his characters – are not so different from our own.

When we prioritize scandal over substance, and gossip over genuine critique, what do we lose? What does it say about us when we’re more interested in tearing down a celebrity’s reputation than in genuinely engaging with their art?