Game of Thrones and Sexual Violence

Trigger warning for discussion of Rape. 
For as long as I can remember I have been an extremely avid reader. I’m always interested in how books are adapted to the screen, whether that be in movies or television shows. 

Game of Thrones is the wildly popular television series based on the book series A Song of Ice and Fire by George R. R. Martin. In the early seasons of the television series, it stuck to the source material faithfully for the most part. Minor changes were made of course, but the source material was well utilized. 

However, the most recent season of the show departed from the source material significantly. Season 5 included one of the most talked about episodes in television, the one where Sansa Stark was raped in her childhood home. 

First, it is worth noting that in the books, Sansa is nowhere near her home, Winterfell. She is doing some very cool political things in The Vale, which is quite far from where she is in the show. Her political arc was cut from the show. 

There is a minor character in the books, Jeyne Pool, who does go to Winterfell and is assaulted by Ramsay Bolton on their wedding night. The point of view character who witnessed this horror in the book was Theon Greyjoy. The assault is used in the books to highlight how awful the Boltons are and to explore Theon’s suffering. 

In the episode, season five episode six in case you’re wondering, Sansa takes the place of Jeyne Pool and marries Ramsay Bolton. Why? There really isn’t a good reason. Sansa already has a claim to the North as per her Stark blood. Ramsay Bolton is a known savage, prone to skinning those who displease him. There was no logical reason that Sansa the character needed to marry Ramsay. 

Moreover, there was no logistic reason to include this story line at all! The political moves Sansa is making in the Vale in the books are both important to her character growth and to the overall story. The only character this decision served was Theon Greyjoy. 

  
While the audience heard Sansa scream in horror as she was being violently raped, the camera pans to Theon’s crying face. This undeniably highlights that this is his story, not hers. Sansa was brutalized essentially to serve the characterization of Theon. 

Now, there is something to be said about portraying sexual violence in fiction. It is important and it can be done effectively. 

However, the way to do that is not to pan to a male characters face and focus on his pain while a main female character is being raped. 

A Song of Ice and Fire covers the sensetive topic of sexual violence well. One would be hard pressed to write a medieval style war torn setting realistically without discussing sexual violence. The books cover the topic well. It is clear that the narrative condemns sexual violence and those who perpetrate it. 

On the other hand, the show uses sexual violence for the shock factor. The show creates what amounts to suffering porn with the victimization of the female characters. Ultimately, the show fails at successfully adapting the source material because they use things like rape for shock value, whereas the book uses rape to provide a nuanced critique of societies and situations that allow this to happen to women. 

Resources:

http://www.vanityfair.com/hollywood/2015/05/game-of-thrones-rape-sansa-stark

http://www.themarysue.com/we-will-no-longer-be-promoting-hbos-game-of-thrones/

https://litreactor.com/columns/jessica-jones-vs-sansa-stark-rape-culture-in-entertainment

Disney and Women

This week I wanted to cover a topic that really has been done to death a little bit. Demonstrating how Disney is sexist is pretty much par for the course in almost any Gender Studies or Media and Communications classroom.

However, Disney is really the media giant that does the most work in terms of shaping the views and expectations of children, so I think it’s worth critiquing even if it has been done before.

Everyone already knows that the classic princesses are not the best representations of women. They are altogether too passive and too reliant on their various princes to help them out of whatever situation they find themselves in. Similarly, Belle from Beauty and the Beast has been diagnosed with a serious case of Stockholm Syndrome over and over again. But what about Disney’s newer movies? Are they really any more progressive? Has anything really changed?

In this week’s post, I will be focusing on the relatively recent Disney Pixar movie Brave. As a disclaimer, I did enjoy Brave. I would choose Brave over Frozen every time.

That being said, Brave had a massive impact on many fans who saw it as Disney finally progressing beyond the passive princess trope. After all, Merida doesn’t end the story with a prince. Her story does not end with a kiss or a marriage. Rather, she escapes her arranged marriage by bonding with her family who she convinces to let her find her own husband. How nice.

Brave did break some new ground by actually giving the protagonist a living mother to have a typically complex mother/daughter relationship with. Most often, Disney either gives their protagonists dead mothers or evil step-mothers, so having Merida argue with her mother about similar things many girls argue with their mothers about was nice.

That being said, the fact that it took Disney this long to have a princess story not end with a marriage to a prince is pretty disheartening.

Ultimately, this movie was lauded for being a huge step for women and feminism when in reality it was just barely meeting the standard.

Resources:

Why Pixar’s Brave Is a Failure of Female Empowerment

http://blogs.indiewire.com/theplaylist/review-pixars-brave-is-a-powerful-but-wobbly-feminist-fairy-tale-20120611

 

Diversity on Broadway

I wasn’t sure whether or not this would be a post that was relevant to my blog initially. I tried to decide whether or not history nerdiness falls under the umbrella of general geekiness.

You see, I’m that person that will go on long winded rants about Henry VIII and his wives. My very forgiving roommates roll their eyes anytime anything historical gets brought up because chances are, it’s me winding up for a long winded rant. I once wrote an essay on how today’s professional wrestling mimics jousting. For fun.

This is why I honestly couldn’t be happier about Hamilton: An American Musical. If you haven’t been living under a rock for the last few months, I’m sure you’ve heard of it.

In case you haven’t, it’s a musical about the life of Alexander Hamilton that stars a cast made up entirely of People of Colour and the songs are primarily hip-hop based. To cut right to the chase, it’s absolutely amazing.

What I want to focus on though is the cast. The historical figures represented in this musical were white. Some were even slave owners. This musical stars are almost all People of Colour. Broadway, like many areas in the entertainment industry, has historically been dominated by white cast members. Many casting calls for Broadway musicals (and movies and television shows) call for white actors and actresses. We as consumers like to think that the role goes to the person with the most talent, but in reality, the role goes to the person with the most talent who also fits into a very specific physical description.

In fact, it was only last year that the role of Jean Valjean in Les Miserables was given to a black man. Kyle JEan-Baptiste has since tragically passed away and the world has lost a great talent.

Is there any reason Valjean can’t be black? Absolutely not. Many people like to use the “historical accuracy” argument but let’s be real, bursting out into song is not historically accurate either.

Ultimately, the creative visionary behind Hamilton, Lin-Manuel Miranda, has created a show in which People of Colour are finally given the opportunity to shine on Broadway. Additionally, the revolutionary energy captured in the story of Hamilton echoes much of the revolutionary energy infusing the world today with movements such as Black Lives Matter.

Whatever Hamilton is tapping into, it’s doing it very well because tickets are completely sold out for the foreseeable future!

Resources:

http://www.buzzfeed.com/davidmack/the-first-black-man-to-play-jean-valjean-on-broadway-dies#.os2yVOVx5

http://www.vox.com/2016/2/23/11058702/hamilton-angelica-eliza-schuyler-love-triangle

 

Musings on Lord of the Rings

I need to add a disclaimer to this post. I am a huge Lord of the Rings fan. I read the books once a year, religiously. I semi-regularly watch the movies (extended edition, of course) as a measure of comfort when I’m feeling down or ill. It actually upsets my roommates who may have been tolerant of the series but now unfortunately are subjected to long winded rants every time anything about the series is ever mentioned (sorry guys).

That being said, you can love something and still critique it.

There is a lot to critique in Lord of the Rings. J. R. R. Tolkien created a beautiful fantasy world complete with elves, dwarves, orcs, goblins and men. Just not women. Or people who aren’t white, unless they’re villains.

To put this in perspective, a friend of mine recently held her phone out to show me that her quick Google search for “named women in Lord of the Rings” had been corrected to “naked women in Lord of the Rings”.

Anecdotal evidence aside, the Lord of the Rings movie franchise (excluding The Hobbit) is not notable for its inclusion of women. Admittedly, the source material is pretty sparse on women as well.

In the movie there are three women in the main cast (Eowen, Arwen, and Galadriel) as compared to twelve men in the main cast(Frodo, Sam, Merry, Pippin, Gimli, Legolas, Aragorn, Boromir, Faramir, Gandalf, Sauroman, Elrond). That’s a pretty obvious disparity.

And to be honest I’m just not going to go near the “Southrons” and “Easterlings” beyond saying that’s some thinly veiled racism.

Ultimately I think it’s vital that we critique the media we are consuming. Television, movies, books and music are so completely ingrained in our culture that they both reflect and shape how we view the world and each other. It’s especially important to critique the media we love, and to be open to critique concerning the media we love. We should be able to accept this kind of critique without getting defensive. This is especially true for those of us who come from a position of privilege in our lives.

Lord of the Rings is the most famous of his works but Tolkien did write some great ladies. Check out this article that goes over a few of them!

http://www.themarysue.com/tolkiens-forgotten-ladies/

#WheresRey

SPOILER WARNING: This is a post about the newest installment in the Star Wars Franchise, Episode VII: The Force Awakens. It’s not going to be massively full of spoilers but I will be discussing the movie so if you haven’t seen it and want to stay spoiler free, maybe pick another post to read!

 

Ok now that that’s out of the way, this was an amazing movie. A longstanding complaint about Star Wars has been the treatment and inclusion of women. Carrie Fisher, who played Princess Leia in the original trilogy has complained at length about the slave Leia costume. She has expressed outrage at the fact that once Leia was put into this costume, her voice was taken away. In order to make Leia more feminine they not only changed her clothes, they took her voice.

Of course, one can easily make the argument that the original trilogy at least were created in a different time, one where diversity and inclusion were not the focus of these productions.

Fast forward to Episode VII, and we have a whole new world of diversity! The two main characters are a black man and a woman! This is a big deal! Little girls are going to see Rey and know they can be strong and aspire to be something other than the classic Disney Princess! Young black boys are going to see someone who looks like them be a hero! It is a massive step forward! It’s a shame that the licensed merchandise isn’t keeping up.

Hasbro owns the rights to produce licensed Star Wars merchandise though 2020. However there’s something missing from a lot of their toy sets. That something is the main female character! The special edition monopoly set they put out doesn’t include Rey. A toy set was released that included Finn, Chewbacca, Poe Dameron, Kylo Ren, a Stormtrooper, and a TIE Fighter pilot. Notably absent are Rey and Captain Phasma, the female villain in the movie. The worst offender for the missing Rey syndrome that’s plaguing Hasbro toys is the Millennium Falcon set. ***SPOILERS AHEAD***

The toy set includes Finn, Chewbacca, and BB-8 but not Rey. Rey was the one in the movie who actually pilots the Millennium Falcon!

This isn’t a new phenomenon, unfortunately. Black Widow was missing from her own scene when the Age of Ultron toys came out. Gamora was missing from the Guardians of the Galaxy play sets.

However, Rey being missing from Star Wars merchandise is even worse. While Black Widow and Gamora were arguably minor characters in their respective films, Rey is the lead in Star Wars. Hopefully Hasbro will note this backlash and step their game up.

Diversity and Harry Potter

So likely everyone remembers when JK Rowling dropped the bomb about Albus Dumbledore being gay. It was lauded as a fantastically bold move and a win for representation.

But was it really?

Many people praised Rowling for creating a gay character whose entire personality wasn’t centered on his sexuality, or who didn’t “throw it in your face”.

But just as many people questioned this move. If Dumbledore’s sexuality was to be read “in between the lines” as many have said, wouldn’t it make sense for some people to have had some inkling of it?

The Harry Potter online fan community has been known as a place full of shipping. Any character theoretically can be written to be in a relationship with any other character. There are tons and tons of stories out there (fanfiction) written about Harry being in love with Draco, or Hermione being in love with Ginny or any other number of pairings. This community is widely accepting of LGBT relationships. Some have been accused of fetishizing homosexual relationships which may be so.

It is primarily the members of this community who are critical of Rowling’s decision. Dumbledore’s sexuality being revealed was nice, but it was hardly revolutionary. Having a character’s personality not being entirely focused on their sexuality is one thing, but to have hardly any hint of that character being anything other than straight is completely different. In light of how little Rowling included about Dumbledore’s sexuality in the series, this reveal felt like a bit of a desperate grab at diversity points.

The generation that maintains their obsession with the Harry Potter saga is growing older, and they are increasingly involved in activist causes. We, as a group, are increasingly aware of political movements like feminism and how these things impact our daily lives. Diversity and representation are increasingly important to us.

Rowling may have simply not thought to include things like sexuality or race in these books. Whether she wrote them to be read that way or not, people were not reading them that way and retroactively adding diversity, while a nice gesture, is not ultimately anything massively special to the LGBT community.

The 100 is Moving TV Forward

If you’re like me, you may already be freaking out about this weeks episode of the CW’s hit show “The 100”.

If you’re not like me, you may need some background. The 100 is a great show about how humanity survives post-apocalypse. It’s on it’s third season and the fan base is only growing. What’s most significant, however, is the show’s treatment of relationships and gender roles.

The show’s main protagonist, Clarke, is nothing less than amazing. Despite her youth and her gender, she is the leader of her people. She is the one responsible for making the tough decisions. What makes her even more fantastic is that she’s canonically bisexual! She has previously had romances on the show with the male character Finn, and is currently being romanced by the leader of the Grounders, their commander, Lexa.

The fact that both of these young women occupy leadership roles in their societies is huge. Clarke is listened to and her authority on almost everything is almost unquestioned by both her peers and adults.

Lexa’s title of Commander is significant especially in light of the fact that some of the other clan leaders are given the title of Queen. Lexa is given the military title of commander, a traditionally masculine moniker, and she is the leader of an entire coalition of clans.

Gender roles aside, I’m most excited about the show’s treatment of the LGBT community. So often now TV shows pander to their LGBT audience by hinting at an LGBT relationship. These fans then get their hopes up over relationships (ships) that the show creators have no intention of making canon (Supernatural’s Destiel anyone?). Ultimately this leaves LGBT fans in the lurch, feeling disillusioned and disappointed.

In contrast, The 100 doesn’t dance around LGBT relationships. The creator of the show, Jason Rothenberg has been quoted saying that he “needed it to be clear that she is bisexual”. This in and of itself is huge. As a bi woman myself, so many times on television I see bisexuality unnamed or written off as a phase so to have an incredible, bad ass lead woman be confirmed bisexual is massive. The creators and actors of the show have been widely in support of Clarke and Lexa’s relationship (Clexa) and the couple even shared an onscreen kiss last season.

I remember watching that moment in awe, thinking Oh my God, finally. I may have teared up. I had another moment like that this week when Lexa kneeled in front of Clarke and privately pledged fealty to her. It was huge. I am white, cis, and able boded and I often see those aspects of my identity represented in media, but I very seldom see bisexuality represented in a positive way.

Ultimately, I’m thrilled television seems to be moving in a more progressive direction because teasing a LGBT ship for literally years and never following through with it is just the worst. *cough*Supernatural*cough*