Blog PostsWhat’s So Shocking About “Blurred Lines?”

So I finally got around to watching “Blurred Lines,” and I have to ask – what, exactly, is so shocking about this video?

I’m asking this question because Robin Thicke seems to think that this video is breaking a bunch of taboos since it includes shots of naked and half-naked women in it.

Therefore, I can only conclude that Robin Thicke either doesn’t know what the word “taboo” means, or he has never seen a music video before.

If he doesn’t know what “taboo” means, I would like to gently suggest that he check a dictionary, because Taboo is more than the name of an addictive party game.

If he has never seen a music video before, I would like to direct him to this helpful Wikipedia entry called nudity in music videos, which catalogs dozens of examples of popular music videos that include naked people (mostly women).

I would also like to direct his attention towards a wide collection of films, television shows, and advertisements that use naked people (mostly women) to sell products, provide (usually male) character development, or fulfill heterosexual male fantasies.

I’m gently making these suggestions as an act of kindness. I hate to see people delude themselves into thinking that the art they create is somehow “taboo” or “shocking” when it’s just yet another example of objectifying garbage that permeates our culture. How embarrassing for them.

Posted in Blog Posts | 6 Comments

Blog Posts5 Underrated Harry Potter Characters

I just finished rereading the Harry Potter series for the first time in four years. This reread was inspired by my insomnia (ahh, insomnia, the bedfellow that will never take a hint and go away) and by my deep love of the story.

Every time I reread the series, I’m bowled away by J.K. Rowling’s talent, skill, and attention to detail. I love her wit and humor. I love the way convenient plot points that appear in Sorcerer’s Stone (the Mirror of Erised, the Invisibility Cloak) have much deeper meaning when they’re brought to the forefront in Deathly Hallows. I love the sense of community that builds over seven books, and how the destruction of Voldemort (a wizard who loved no one) came at the hands of not only Harry Potter, but everyone who cared about him and/or believed in his cause. I love the core friendship of Harry, Ron, and Hermione, and I love all three of them individually (but I love Ron the most).

Anyway, I have a lot of feminist and social justice-y thoughts about the Harry Potter series. I want to talk about how the series challenges privilege and stereotypes. I want to talk about how the series subverts the traditional “rugged male individualist loner hero” narrative and instead explores a narrative where the young male hero is exceptional because of his ability to embrace love and community.

I want to do both of those things, but those posts will have to wait for another time. Right now, I want to talk about five under-appreciated tertiary characters who are either overlooked or unfairly maligned by Harry Potter fans. (Why should the editors at Buzzfeed have all the fun with listicles?)

Here are the five most under-appreciated and underrated characters in the Harry Potter series, evaluated and ranked by a panel of three judges consisting of me, myself, and I.

5. Cho Chang
Cho Chang is #5 because a) her character as written is not all that interesting, and b) unlike the other characters on this list, she gets a silly, nonsensical portrayal in A Very Potter Musical and A Very Potter Sequel. So she’s not THAT overlooked, but she is often maligned, and I feel a need to defend Cho Chang.

Cho Chang is often criticized because she’s irrationally jealous of Harry’s friendship with Hermione, and she cries too much. She’s also not imaginative enough to be the love of Harry’s life, as she wants to call the student rebel group the “Defense Association,” and Ginny is the one who suggests “Dumbledore’s Army” as an alternative. She defends her friend Marietta instead of siding with Harry, and often storms off when she’s upset.

Cho is not perfect. She expects a little too much of Harry when they start dating, and she puts some of her loyalties in the wrong places.

But I empathize with her all the same. Rowling makes a not-very-subtle point that Cho is the wrong girl for Harry because she’s too prone to tears, and Ginny is the right girl because she rarely cries. I know I’m supposed to cheer on Ginny because she is the feisty, sporty girl tailor-made to be Harry Potter’s one true love, but honestly, if my hypothetical boyfriend was murdered, my reaction would be more similar to Cho’s than Ginny’s, and I would be closer to a human flood than a human hosepipe.

Cho’s not the most dynamic or complex character in the Harry Potter world, but I think she handled her boyfriend’s murder and attraction to Harry as best as she could, and no matter her faults, she was brave enough to return to Hogwarts during the final battle against Voldemort and the Death Eaters. Cho’s all right, and we should all cut her some slack.

4. Ernie Macmillan
Ernie Macmillan is pompous and self-important and often talks like an old man in a teenager’s body, and somehow these traits make him not very popular among the Harry Potter fandom! I can’t imagine why!

In all seriousness, though, I’m very fond of this Hufflepuff (even though I’m not quite sure what the hell a Hufflepuff is). He won me over in Chamber of Secrets when he admitted to being wrong about Harry being the heir of Slytherin, and he won me over even more when he publicly supported Harry in Order of the Phoenix. He also made me giggle when he became so indignant about the Inquisitorial Squad docking points from prefects, because Ernie clearly likes Robert’s Rules of Order even more than Stringer Bell.

When I first read the Harry Potter series, I remember a lot of fans hoping that Ron and Hermione would be Head Boy and Head Girl together. As much as I love everything to do with the Ron/Hermione romance, I can’t support this. Hermione deserved Head Girl and Ernie would have been Head Boy, puffing out his chest impressively all the while and following the rules – except when rebelling against Voldemort.

3. Fleur Delacour
Fleur Delacour is boss and I defy anyone to tell me otherwise.

Yes, I know the whole point of her character was that we shouldn’t judge her for being beautiful. Goblet of Fire showed us that Fleur, despite being vain and snobby, adored her little sister and was grateful to anyone who showed kindness to her family. And Half-Blood Prince showed us that she truly loved Bill Weasley and wasn’t just physically attracted to his ginger gorgeousness.

We’ve seen that story before – the story of the beautiful, vain woman who is humbled when she realizes that there’s more to life than physical beauty. I think the main reason I love Fleur is because that is not her story. Fleur is never brought down or shamed or humbled because she’s confident about her beauty. Rather, others are humbled when she shows them she’s not as shallow as they think she is.

This is a woman who, when seeing her fiance horribly scarred and mutilated, declares in front of her mother, “I am good-looking enough for the both of us, I think!” Yes, Fleur. Yes, you are. Please never change anything about your hilarious and mouthy self.

2. Percy Weasley
Percy is kind of a more obnoxious, less reflective Ernie Macmillan, and he’s a family-abandoning, Ministry-loving prat on top of that. He’s certainly not my favorite Weasley (though, in all fairness, that’s a high bar to reach, what with the eccentric Muggle-loving dad, tough mother, funny prankster twins, and Ron).

But when I reread the books this time around, I couldn’t help feeling moved by several Percy moments.

The moment in Chamber of Secrets when he and his brothers think that Ginny is dead, and he’s the one who has to send the owl to their parents…and then he shuts himself up in his room because the pain is too much to bear.

The moment in Goblet of Fire after the second task, where he runs into the water, white-faced and nervous, dragging Ron out of the depths of the lake. For all of his bluster about the importance of the tournament and how great it is that he’s taking Crouch’s place, Percy can’t help feeling worried when one of his younger siblings is in apparent danger.

The moment in Deathly Hallows when he shields Fred’s body from harm (DAMMIT, ROWLING, I WILL NEVER FORGIVE YOU FOR THAT CHARACTER DEATH) and tears down the hallway, screaming Rookwood’s name and trying to curse every Death Eater he sees.

Percy is not the most likable Weasley by a long shot, but that quality always made me sympathize with him. Imagine being born after Bill and Charlie but before Fred and George, having a similar intellectual aptitude as Bill but lacking any of his “coolness” or badassery. One older brother was really handsome and smart, another was athletic and tough, and his two younger brothers were athletic and really funny. How is a boy supposed to fit in with that family when he’s such a nerd?

I’m happy that Percy ultimately reunited with his family, but I was fond of him even before that point. I always got the sense that Ron was his favorite sibling, and I have to appreciate any character who loves Ron that much.

1. Phineas Nigellus
I can’t help it, y’all – I love this elitist, racist bastard. He is seriously my favorite tertiary character in the series, and I consider it a crushing disappointment in life that I can’t have a portrait of Phineas Nigellus in my own room, making snarky comments at me during my more angst-ridden moments.

Phineas Nigellus is never seen in the series as anything but a portrait. We don’t see him until Order of the Phoenix, where he resides in the Black family house and goes from that location to the Headmaster’s office at Hogwarts. He is temperamental, cranky, prejudiced against Muggle-borns, and sometimes deliberately unhelpful, and I LOVE HIM SO MUCH.

Order of the Phoenix was my favorite book the first time I read the series (or it was until the magnificent Deathly Hallows was published) and I still love that novel, but it does have a LOT of Wizard Angst that gets tiresome. And even though I love Harry Potter, and I empathize with his reasons for being angry all the time, I also love Phineas Nigellus for not wanting to deal with ANY of his teenage bullshit – because, let’s face it, eight hundred pages of Harry Potter being angry can be a little overwhelming.

I know Phineas Nigellus is elitist and thinks Muggle-born witches and wizards are inferior to “purebloods.” I know he’s rude and insensitive to the pain of young people. But I don’t care. I think of how he went back to Grimmauld Place, going from portrait to portrait, calling Sirius’s name, and my heart breaks. And I think of his reaction after Dumbledore stunned several Ministry wizards and fled the premises of Hogwarts: “I disagree with Dumbledore on many points, but you can’t deny he’s got style.”

Phineas Nigellus is the best. He might be the most unpopular headmaster Hogwarts ever had in most people’s eyes, but from my perspective, he is the best. I love you forever, Phineas, and I promise I won’t put a blindfold over your eyes when I pull your portrait out of my Mary Poppins bag.

Posted in Blog Posts | Tagged | 8 Comments

ArticlesYou Don’t Know You’re Beautiful

[This was originally published at Feminspire.]

I’m not always good at accepting compliments.

If someone tells me that I’m smart, I can quietly agree and think, “Yes, yes, I am. How intelligent you are for noticing my equal intellectual aptitude. We would both be sorted into Ravenclaw, I’d wager.”

If someone tells me that I’m funny, I eat it up with a spoon. “Oh, no, don’t go on – except do go on, because I literally cannot hear that enough. Tell me, what do you think was the wittiest thing I said in the last few minutes?”

But if someone tells me that I’m pretty, my body turns rigid and I feel defensive. “I’m not pretty. YOU’RE pretty. Your mom’s pretty! What do you want from me? SHUT UP.”

It’s not that I think I’m unattractive. I can easily rattle off a list of things about my appearance that I like, don’t like, and feel ambivalent about.

No, I’m not unattractive. I’ll look in the mirror and like what I see. But it’s when I hear “you’re beautiful” that I feel suspicious.

I’m twenty-eight years old, and I still don’t react well when someone compliments me on my physical appearance. On Halloween night of 2011, the night of the best first date I’ve ever had, I was dressed in a costume that was sexy, yet still existed well within my personal comfort zone – and my date told me I looked beautiful. I blushed, looked down at my leopard-printed pants, and turned away, unable to hold his gaze. (Never mind that I had made the first move outside of a crowded bar and we had boldly kissed on every street corner from the East to the West Village – being complimented, that’s what made my face flush.)

He paused and said, “You’re not used to being told that, are you?”

No. No, I wasn’t.

Growing up, no one outside of my family told me that I was beautiful, and as every teenager knows, the opinions of your own parents don’t count when you have to face seven hours of unrelenting judgment from other insecure seventh-graders – especially when one of them tells you, in the middle of class, that you’re so ugly that you should kill yourself.

Never mind that the boy who shared this charming sentiment with the rest of the class was a greasy-haired turd whose opinion didn’t matter to me. No one likes to hear that s/he’s so repulsive to look at that s/he’s better off dead.

And the mix of uproarious laughter, awkward titters, and uncomfortable silences, without a single person standing up for me, only confirmed my worst suspicion: that I was, in fact, ugly. The greasy-haired turd had a handful of slightly less obnoxious friends, but he wasn’t so popular that another kid couldn’t have contradicted him without fear of retaliation.

That was the year I started obscuring my body. I pulled my hair into messy ponytails, wore my dorkiest glasses, and dressed in an assortment of ugly sweatpants and sweatshirts – the fashion disaster version of the middle finger in the face of beauty standards. No one could call me “ugly” and expect it to sting if I wasn’t trying to look good, if I looked like I didn’t care about that stuff.

That phase didn’t last long. I grew out of my (physically) awkward phase by the time high school rolled around. With my braces removed, contact lenses replacing my glasses, and a set of semi-flattering jeans in place of magenta sweatpants, I was no longer the “ugly” girl.

But I still wasn’t pretty. The ugly duckling hadn’t transformed into a swan, and all of the other reindeer didn’t suddenly let me join in all their reindeer games. Making fun of my looks had lost its appeal, so they switched to making fun of my opinionated nature or the “weird” things I said.

Those comments didn’t sting as much. The Chief Turd of the Guild of Douchebags was no longer in my classes, and I had the grades, and the appreciative chuckles from my more evolved classmates, as proof that I was smart and funny, no matter what the teasers said.

But pretty, I was not. Years of dateless nights passed me by, my best friend lost her virginity before I had my first kiss, and “beautiful” wasn’t a word associated with my name.

It took me until the age of twenty to hear “you’re pretty” without bristling, where the words were music to my ears instead of words that were not to be trusted, because they were coming from the right person. A boy I was attracted to was attracted to me right back for the first time in my adult life.

So relieved was I that love wasn’t a myth that I brushed off the signs that the “right person” wasn’t so right for me after all. I tried to tell myself that it didn’t matter that “you’re so beautiful” was almost always followed by a qualifier.

“You’re so beautiful. Why do you have to wear purple? I hate purple.”

“You’re so beautiful. Why do you still dress like you’re from New Jersey?” (Whatever that means.)

“You’re so beautiful. And I don’t think it’s too much to expect that my girlfriend wears something other than sweats and T-shirts when I come home from work. Why can’t you buy sexier nightgowns?”

I was beautiful – except when I wore the wrong thing, the wrong color, or dressed for comfort instead of for his visual and sexual pleasure.

Beauty was no longer an unattainable goal for me. Instead, it was something I possessed in spades, except I was continually failing to live up to my potential.

Being sexually desirable – that, too, was unfamiliar territory. As a teen, I was the girl no boy wanted to touch. In my early twenties, one man wanted me so badly, so consistently, that saying my “no” at any time, for whatever reason, resulted in arguments that could last for hours. Because he had needs, and he didn’t have to be with me, and was a young single man who could be going out and meeting as many girls as he liked, and not being in the mood must mean that I didn’t love him enough.

It was a full year after the relationship finally ended that I saw that behavior as abusive and not a mere issue of sexual incompatibility. And it was even longer before I could recognize the irony that being considered beautiful by the wrong person was even more damaging to my self-esteem than being called ugly. (Though I doubt I would have stayed in that relationship for the first half of my twenties if those years of teasing and loneliness hadn’t convinced me that this was my only chance at love.)

“You’re beautiful” was once a sentence said to me so rarely that I immediately discounted the opinion of the person who said it and pretended it was a joke. Now, “you’re beautiful” carries an implied threat.

“You’re beautiful” now means “I might hurt you, and you would be unwise to trust me.”

Like all women, I grew up in a culture that objectifies us and communicates every day that beauty and sexiness are the most important things we can offer the world. As an “ugly girl,” I could only survive if I nurtured other talents, such as kindness, a sense of humor, and intellectual curiosity.

A part of me is glad that I didn’t grow up as a “pretty girl.” I’m happy that I wasn’t brought up to think that physical beauty was the most important thing about me. I’m grateful that I was encouraged to be kind and compassionate, to emphasize my intelligence, and sharpen my wit instead.

I’m not happy that I’m twenty-eight years old and I still wince when someone tells me that I’m beautiful.

Posted in Articles | 7 Comments

Blog PostsOn the Zimmerman Trial Verdict

Though I have been following the George Zimmerman trial, I was not in the courtroom and I am not a legal expert, and I cannot say with certainty that he should have been convicted of murder or manslaughter.

What I CAN say with certainty is that this entire case has been contemptible from the beginning. The mishandling of the evidence. The police testing the dead teenager’s body for drugs but NOT drug testing the man who killed him. The complete lack of followup until there was a national outcry. The number of “serious” news outlets that devoted time to discussing whether or not Martin should have been wearing a hoodie. (If you’re a woman and you’re raped, it’s because of the skin you reveal – if you’re a black man and you’re killed, it’s because of the skin you conceal.) The criticism for his marijuana use. (White stoners are funny, but black stoners are dangerous.) Zimmerman SELLING HIS AUTOGRAPH to racists to raise money for his defense. The smearing of Martin’s friend who testified at the trial. The fact that the defense opened with a JOKE. The insistence up and down, all over, that this isn’t about race, because nothing is ever about race, racism is over, we have a black president, etc. etc. etc.

Legally? I don’t know enough to pass judgment. Morally? He’s a terrible human being. And if it disturbs you to see me pass moral judgment in this way, please be advised that the extent to which I do not care is epic.

“Not about race.” What a joke, except it’s not at all funny. There will be more George Zimmermans and more Trayvon Martins as long as the lives of black men are viewed as expendable.

Final thought: Let us not forget that if Zimmerman had stayed in his car and not followed Martin, NONE OF THIS WOULD HAVE HAPPENED.

Final thought #2: I wonder if the (mostly white) people totes ok with the Zimmerman verdict because a “jury of his peers decided he was not guilty and that’s how the system works” had the same unwavering faith in the justice system back when O.J. Simpson was acquitted…

Posted in Blog Posts | Leave a comment

ArticlesBart Simpson’s Feminine Side

[This article originally appeared on Bitch Flicks.]

In my umpteenth viewing of episodes from season four of The Simpsons, I noticed something that never occurred to me in my first viewings of the show: Bart Simpson has a feminine side.

This shouldn’t come as much of a surprise. An episode in the eighth season, “Homer’s Phobia,” shows Bart becoming appreciative of gay culture (much to Homer’s dismay) after the family befriends a delightful gay man named John. The episode has an important lesson where Homer learns a lesson about acceptance, but Bart’s development isn’t explored in detail, as his appreciation of gay culture is just a catalyst for Homer’s (temporary) growth as a person.

Earlier (and later) episodes, though, show that Bart’s feminine side is more than just a passing trend. It’s a trait that appears sporadically during the series, and is amusing every time.

In “Lisa the Beauty Queen,” Bart shows his little sister how to walk in heels for the competition. When Lisa asks Bart if he really thinks she could win, he strikes a pose and says, “Hey, I’m starting to think I could win!”

In “Marge in Chains,” Bart shares his plan to break his mother out of prison: “Don’t worry, Mom. I’ll bust you out of there as soon as I get a cocktail dress and a crowbar.” Then we see Bart’s dream sequence of dancing with the warden, who says, “Oh, Bartina — before I met you, I was a lonely man.”

[True story: I watched that episode with my roommate when she was resting on the couch with a sprained ankle, and she laughed so hard that she almost fell off the couch and sprained it again.]
Two seasons later, Bart reluctantly signs up for ballet class when there are no other P.E. electives available. He’s not happy about wearing tights or being in a sport “for girls,” but he soon realizes that he has a talent for ballet — and loves it!
Several seasons afterwards, Bart and Milhouse raid his parents’ closet when they have nothing else to do, and when Milhouse suggests they “dress like ladies,” Bart quickly notices that his mother’s dress hides his thighs, and soon they’re jumping on his parents’ bed.

Clearly, Bart’s feminine side is more than just a one-episode gag or a prompt for Homer to get over his phobia. It’s a recurring character trait. But what does it mean?
Probably not much when considering the writers’ intents. The writers of The Simpsons are fond of having characters act in unexpected ways, where the punchline is simply the character acting out of character (Nelson loving Andy Williams, Jimbo being a fan of The Joy Luck Club, Ned Flanders having lax beatnik parents). Bart knowing the “ancient art of padding” is funny because we wouldn’t expect him to know about it.
Still, writer intent aside, I love the moments where Bart slips on a pair of heels, dons a dress, or fantasizes about seducing a warden to get Marge out of jail. Even a character who prides himself on being America’s bad boy has a girly side.

 

Posted in Articles | 1 Comment

ArticlesThe Occasional Purposeful Nudity on “Game of Thrones”

[This was originally posted on Bitch Flicks.]

Much has been said about the gratuitous nudity on Game of Thrones. Several feminist critics (such as yours truly) have written about the objectification of the female characters, and how the writers use naked women as objects for male fantasy or to develop male characters.

Challenging the use of nudity in a TV show or film will predictably result in accusations of prudishness and pearl-clutching, as though feminist critics are nothing but live-action versions of Helen Lovejoy.

It’s easy to assume that critics are ranting because they’re too squeamish and repressed to look at pictures of naked women without feeling embarrassed. Leaping to that conclusion is much more comfortable than acknowledging the problematic aspects of using naked female bodies as decoration and masturbatory fodder.

The accusation of prudishness is also a strawman argument, assuming that viewers who object to objectification can’t tell the difference between gratuitous nudity (where naked bodies are used for spank bank material) and nudity that serves an artistic purpose.

In fact, the difference between gratuitous nudity and artistic nudity is not that difficult to discern. Even Game of Thrones, the show that puts the word “tit” in “titillation,” occasionally uses nudity in a way that isn’t exploitative and adds to a scene rather than detracting from it.

One such example can be found in the story of Daenerys Targaryen, a character who is more frequently naked than most other characters on the show. The very first time we see Daenerys, she is a pawn in her brother’s game to earn the throne he feels is rightfully his. Stripped naked, Daenerys steps into a bathtub, her eyes haunted and her expression blank. She is the sacrificial lamb and she knows it, and her nakedness is symbolic of her status as an object.

The last time we see Daenerys in the first season, she’s naked again–except this time, she has just emerged from flames and hatched three dragon eggs. The fire that consumed her enemy and her clothes has left her skin smudged but unburnt. Her nakedness is no longer a symbol of her vulnerability–it’s a symbol of strength.

Daenerys doesn’t have to be naked for the viewer to understand the change in her character, but the nudity in both scenes highlights and reinforces the dramatic growth she’s had over ten episodes.

Another scene that includes purposeful nudity takes place in the third season, where Jaime Lannister and Brienne of Tarth, captive of Stark family allies, bathe in the tub (though sitting on opposite sides). Jaime, having lost his swordfighting hand, is even more sarcastic than usual, insulting Brienne’s prowess as a fighter and implying that her former king died because she wasn’t a good enough knight. At this, the maid of Tarth leaps to her feet, completely naked in front of the Kingslayer, staring him down until he apologizes for impugning her honor.

This is a great moment for Brienne’s character–only moments before, she was embarrassed to share a bath with the Kingslayer, but when he insults her, she wastes no time in asserting herself. When she rises to her feet, naked as the day she was born, she isn’t subject to the same male gaze as the chorus of nameless prostitutes on Game of Thrones. She’s still a warrior, and being stripped of her armor doesn’t change that fact one bit.

And the scene only gets better from there. Jaime Lannister, used to being the strongest and most skilled person in the room (in both swordplay and wordplay), is stripped in every sense of the word. He’s vulnerable in a way he’s never been before, confessing the truth about his reasons for killing the Mad King, and he eventually faints into Brienne’s arms, whispering, “Jaime. My name is Jaime.”

Much like Daenerys’s scenes at the beginning and end of season one, the nudity in this scene represents both strength and vulnerability. In this scene, Jaime Lannister reveals more of himself than he’s revealed to any other person, and this only works if they’re both literally stripped bare.

Now imagine how much MORE powerful these scenes would be if the frequent use of gratuitous boob shots hadn’t turned this aspect of the show into a running joke.

Despite strawman arguments that claim the contrary, it’s really not all that hard to discern the difference between gratuitous nudity and nudity that serves an artistic purpose. People who claim otherwise are not confused; they’re deliberately disingenuous.

Posted in Articles | 4 Comments

ReviewsBtVS and Consent Issues: Buffy and Spike, Post-“Seeing Red”

“BtVS and Consent Issues” is a series I began writing over a year ago with the goal to examine episodes of Buffy the Vampire Slayer where rape, sexual assault, sexual coercion, and/or violation of consent were major plot points. I wanted to examine the way rape and consent issues were portrayed in one of my all-time favorite television series – a series that had an explicit feminist vision.

The last episode I reviewed was “Seeing Red,” which is probably the most controversial episode of Buffy the Vampire Slayer. This is the episode where Spike tried to rape Buffy on her bathroom floor, where he called her a bitch, where he left town in an effort to rid himself of the speck of humanity that stopped him from raping her. (Except oops – he actually didn’t rape her because she successfully fought him off, and oops – he wasn’t actually trying to rid himself of his humanity at all, and was in fact seeking his soul so that he would never hurt her again, except the writers tried to hide this through their clever misdirection and make it SEEM like he was trying to get rid of the chip of his brain.)

Anyway, I digress. (You can tell that I’m digressing when I write run-on sentences in parentheticals.) “Seeing Red” is such a disturbing episode in the Buffy canon because the male romantic lead/anti-hero tries to rape the protagonist. Subsequent episodes continue to portray Spike in a sympathetic light, and even attempt to reignite a romantic relationship between Buffy and the man who tried to rape her.

Seeing any show pursue a romantic relationship between a woman and her attempted rapist is disturbing, to say the least. Yet, all throughout season seven, I wanted Buffy and Spike to get back together. I wanted Spike to redeem himself, I looked for clues that Buffy was returning his feelings, and I felt completely swept up in their last moment together in the series finale, when she told him that she loved him.

It would be easy to say that the Buffy/Spike relationship was fundamentally different in the seventh season than it was in the sixth, due to Spike’s soul. And their relationship was very different, because Spike-with-a-soul was able to love Buffy unselfishly. Spike in season six would whisper manipulative words in her ear when she was depressed and vulnerable. He wanted her to be with him, no matter how terrible she felt about herself. Spike in season seven, however, tells Buffy, “When I say I love you, it doesn’t mean I want you. It has nothing to do with me. I love what you are.” And he means it.

But I can’t pretend that the existence of Spike’s soul is what made me root for Buffy/Spike in the last season, because in seven seasons, Whedon & co. never successfully explained what a soul was – why Angel’s missing soul turned him into a completely different person with not even a speck of humanity in him, why Spike and Drusilla were able to love each other even without souls, why Harmony the soulless vampire was the exact same person as Harmony the human (except with fangs). Besides, I don’t think hand-waving Spike’s actions with “but he has a soul now!” is appropriate when dealing with the attempted raping elephant in the room. (Ew. Sorry for the image.)

No, I rooted for Buffy/Spike in the seventh season despite my problems with the storyline from a social justice lens, because their actions after the attempted rape seemed perfectly in character to me.

“Seeing Red” and the episodes that follow make it clear that the attempted rape had a much stronger effect on Spike than it did on Buffy, even though Buffy was the victim. Buffy cried during and after the attempted rape, she condemned Spike’s actions in “Beneath You,” and she flinched when Spike put his hand on her shoulder, but by the season’s halfway point, she was in constant close physical contact with Spike without being triggered by the memory.

Spike, on the other hand, went completely insane after he earned his soul. Granted, some of this insanity was due to a hundred years of guilt catching up to him, but it was clear that attempting to rape Buffy was the single action he regretted most. (After all, that was the one thing he regretted doing before he had a soul.) The guilt tormented him long after Buffy stopped being triggered.

Strange that the attempted rapist would feel more emotional about his action than the victim would – yet given Spike and Buffy’s history, their reactions make complete sense.

We all know that Spike is “love’s bitch.” He always puts the woman he loves at the center of his world, whether the woman is Cecily, Drusilla, or Buffy. Being with the woman he loves is always his priority. This aspect of his personality was true when he was human, and it didn’t change when he became a soulless vampire, and it didn’t change when he became a souled vampire. Of course the act of hurting the woman he loves would torment him.

Buffy, on the other hand, is no fool for love. She loves deeply, but even as a teenager, she never put love in the center of her world. She put a sword through Angel even though she loved him (because that’s what heroes do. That’s my girl!)

One would think that Buffy, not being ruled by love, would cut all ties with someone who betrayed her the way Spike did.

Unfortunately, physical violation and betrayal is a sad fact of Buffy’s life, and Spike was not the first person who betrayed her or violated her body.

Here’s a short list of instances where people have betrayed Buffy or violated her body: her father walked out on her family, her mother tied her to a stake and tried to burn her as a witch, Giles gave her a poison that would weaken her strength as part of the Cruciamentum, Faith switched their bodies and had sex in Buffy’s body with Buffy’s boyfriend, Willow ripped her soul out of heaven and reanimated her corpse and left her to crawl out of her own grave, and everything Angel did in the second half of season two.

That’s not a comprehensive list. Also, notice that every single person on that list is someone who was once Buffy’s friend, part of her family, and/or someone she trusted deeply.

Then Spike tries to rape her, and the next day, one of her friends is shot and killed, and Buffy herself is shot and almost dies for a third time. Almost being raped by a lover wasn’t the worst thing that happened to Buffy in her lifetime. In fact, from her perspective, it probably wasn’t even the worst thing that happened to her in that week.

Considering all that Buffy’s been through, her forgiving and even loving Spike makes sense for her character. Despite her reputation for coldness in the last season, she’s actually a very forgiving person, and she respects people who make active efforts to change for the better. If she could forgive Willow (who tried to destroy the world and threatened to turn Dawn back into a ball of energy), she could forgive Spike.

But this is where the story becomes problematic through a social justice lens. There is no real-life equivalent of “my best friend brought my back to life against my wishes, tried to turn my sister into an energy ball, and tried to destroy the world.”

There is a very strong real-life equivalent of “my ex-boyfriend tried to rape me.”

And even though domestic violence is far too common, this feminist show depicted a storyline where a woman forgives and falls in love with the man who tried to rape her.

And even though I think their character arcs in season seven make complete sense, even though their relationship stays true to their characters, I’m still disturbed that the writers portrayed a story where the attempted rapist feels really bad about what he did, you guys, and let’s focus on his guilt and his feels. (The girl? What about her? She’s over it.)

Ultimately, I think a writer’s primary responsibility is to remain true to his or her characters, and I believe the writers of Buffy the Vampire Slayer did just this with Buffy and Spike’s slow rebuilding of trust in the show’s seventh season. But the storyline still bothers me when I view it through a feminist lens. I don’t think they considered the implications of the attempted rape, nor the implications of the storyline that followed, and I still wish they had chosen a different impetus for Spike to seek his soul.

Posted in Reviews | 27 Comments

Blog PostsSupport Haberdasher Theatre’s “The Wonderful Remix of Oz!”

Last June, an independent theater company in New York City called Haberdasher Theatre put on a production of The Wizard of Oz. The result was a charming, sweet show that kept to the original spirit of the classic tale while sneaking in a few moments of adult humor and inspired silliness. I wrote a review of the show here and praised the company for capturing the magic of Oz.

A year later, Haberdasher Theatre wants to revive The Wizard of Oz with a larger set, bigger costumes, and a 4D tornado experience involving the audience – and they need your help.

Haberdasher Theatre is now running a Kickstarter campaign to raise funds for their latest production. The link is located here: “The Wonderful Remix of Oz!” They need $1499 to remount Oz, and so far they have raised $660. There are 20 fundraising days left and they are close to halfway towards their goal.

That’s $839 they still need to raise. If 100 people donated $9 each, the show would be completely funded with some spare change left over.

In the interest of full disclosure, I will share that I have friends who work with Haberdasher Theatre, but I am promoting their fundraiser of my own volition. I believe in this company and I believe that supporting small, public theater companies is important.

I also believe that revision is not only a key part of the writing and performance process, but an art form in of itself. I respect the ability to look at a production and think, “That was great, but how can we make it even better?” Striving for improvement is something everyone should do in both art and life.

I will review the show once it goes up and compare this version to their first production. Please donate to this fundraiser – or, if you are not able to do so, please share their fundraiser with everyone you know who cares about supporting public and independent theater. By supporting this production, you are contributing to the thriving world of independent theater in New York City.

Posted in Blog Posts | 1 Comment

ArticlesJoss Whedon’s “Much Ado About Nothing” and the Wedding That Wasn’t

[This piece originally appeared at Bitch Flicks.]

Joss Whedon’s adaptation of William Shakespeare’s Much Ado About Nothing is soaked in sex, languidness, and alcohol, as any decent adaptation of a Shakespeare comedy should be. It’s not a “wedding movie” in the traditional sense: there are no Bridezilla jokes, montages of wedding planning going hilariously wrong, or subplots about in-laws fighting each other.

But Much Ado About Nothing does have more than one wedding scene, and the film does employ the classic “left at the alatr” plot point. Claudio (Fran Kranz), in love with Hero (Jillian Morgese), abandons her on their wedding day. What follows is not the typical “wacky wedding hijinx” story, but a story that exposes the true nature of the characters involved in the ceremony, where several male characters reveal disturbing attitudes toward women, and one surprises us by being a little more enlightened than we expected.

Claudio doesn’t have cold feet because he’s nervous about marriage. At the beginning of the film, there’s nothing he wants more than to go to the chapel and get ma-a-a-a-aried. In fact, he wants to marry Hero the day after she accepts his proposal, prompting her father Leonato (Clark Gregg) to tell him to put on the brakes because he’s not quite ready to transfer ownership of his daughter to a husband…I mean, er, “watch his little girl grow up.”

Then the villain Don John (Sean Maher) tricks Claudio and Don Pedro (Reed Diamond) into believing that Hero is unfaithful to him. Don John stages a moment where his cohort Borachio (Spencer Treat Clark) seduces Hero’s lady-in-waiting, Margaret (Ashley Johnson), in Hero’s bedroom. Claudio and Don Pedro witness two shadowy figures going at it behind a curtain, and believe that Hero is disloyal. She is, as Don John puts it, “your Hero, Leonato’s Hero, every man’s Hero.” (Keep away from that Runaround Sue.)

So, naturally, Claudio and Don Pedro a) forget that Don John is the same villain who was in handcuffs at the beginning of the film for trying to stage a coup against Don Pedro, and b) decide that two shadowy figures in his fiance’s bedroom is concrete proof that Hero is cheating on him. They believe this because someone wrote “gullible” on every ceiling in every building they’ve ever been in.

Feeling betrayed and resentful, Claudio doesn’t simply call off the wedding or privately ask Hero for an explanation. He manhandles her at the ceremony, shoves her back into her father’s arms, calls her a whore, and refuses to marry her. Don Pedro joins in on the slut-shaming, and once they’re done humiliating Hero in front of her friends and relatives, they stalk off with Don John (who hilariously steals a cupcake from the dessert platter before leaving the ceremony).

The scene is mostly played as serious; Whedon even eliminates Benedick’s Captain Obvious moment where he comments, “This is not a nuptial.” The film focuses on the horrifying behavior of Leonato, the previously affectionate father, who wishes for his daughter’s death after hearing the prince declare that she is nothing more than a “common stale.” Some of his exact words: “Let her die.”

Leonato’s denunciation of Hero is the most disturbing moment of the film, as it should be. Verbal and physical abuse at the hand of a lover or boyfriend is traumatizing and life-altering, but there is something profoundly and uniquely painful in suffering at the hands of a parent. The casting of Clark Gregg, aka everyone’s favorite Agent Coulson from The Avengers, is a particularly brilliant move; any fan of Joss Whedon’s is conditioned to see Gregg as a good guy, and the moment of betrayal feels particularly pointed when coming from the mouth of such a likable actor.

Meanwhile, only two men present at the ceremony believe Hero’s (accurate) version of the story without question. One man is a priest, who is not so much a character as a plot device, serving the same purpose as Friar Lawrence in Romeo and Juliet and coming up with the always brilliant “hey, let’s pretend the girl is dead!’ scheme.

The other man who immediately believes Hero is Benedick.

Remember Benedick? The man in the beginning of the play who proudly proclaimed his eternal bachelorhood to anyone who asked his opinion (and those who didn’t?). The man who only ever referred to Hero as “Leonato’s short daughter”? The man who, when pressed to think of a compliment for a woman, could only say, “That a woman conceived me, I thank her”?

He’s the only male character of note who takes Hero’s word.

Granted, Benedick did not witness Don John’s display of shadow puppet porn theater on Hero’s balcony–but then again, neither did Leonato, who immediately believes the accusations against his beloved daughter. Benedick also knows better than to trust anything that comes from Don John’s mouth.

But even though he believes Hero, he’s not willing to engage Claudio in a fight. He puts the blame on Don John. His position seems to be that even though Claudio and Don Pedro were wrong, they were tricked, and not entirely to blame.

After his conversation with Beatrice, however, Benedick changes his tune. He agrees to challenge Claudio.

This is a complete role reversal from the beginning of the film. Claudio, the professed lover, and Don Pedro, seemingly a friend to women, think nothing of denouncing and humiliating a woman in public. Benedick, the proud bachelor and misogynist, prioritizes the woman he loves over his closest friends.

What can we learn about misogyny from the Much Ado wedding that wasn’t?

To put it in the most cliched terms, we can learn that actions speak louder than words. Claudio’s sweet professions of love mean nothing when compared to his behavior towards Hero, and Benedick’s rants against women and marriage are redeemed when he defends one woman on behalf of another woman he loves.

Or, to put it another way–the guy who says a lot of sweet things and seems genuine might turn out to be a gullible asshole with a lot of internalized misogyny, and the mostly-decent guy who stands up for you will still need to make a lot of sexist jokes for the sake of appearances and male ego.

Yay?

(Go see this movie immediately.)

Posted in Articles | 3 Comments

ArticlesWhy I Reject the Ending of “The Wizard of Oz”

[This post was originally published at Bitch Flicks.]

The Wizard of Oz is my favorite movie. There are movies that are more artistically accomplished, movies that are more sophisticated, and funnier films that make me laugh my butt off, but no film I’ve seen has the same sentimental, emotional effect on me as The Wizard of Oz.

I love this movie as I love no other movie. And I hate the ending.

Let me explain.

The plot of the movie is fairly straightforward. Dorothy and her three male companions go on the same quest: to meet the Wizard of Oz. Each member of the original Fab Four has a different reason to meet the Wizard. The Scarecrow wants a brain, the Tin Man wants a heart, the Cowardly Lion wants courage, and Dorothy wants to go home to her Auntie Em and Uncle Henry in Kansas.

In the end, their quests prove to be unnecessary, and not just because the Wizard is a charlatan who cannot give the characters what they desire. As it turns out, each character already possesses the quality he or she was seeking. The Scarecrow doesn’t need a brain — he’s already the smartest person in the group, a quick thinker and problem-solver who comes up with the plans to break into the Wicked Witch’s castle. The Tin Man doesn’t need a heart — he’s already emotional, crying whenever his friends are in trouble. The Lion doesn’t need someone to give him courage — he already steps up to every challenge that’s presented to him, even when it scares him. And Dorothy doesn’t need to go home — she’s been there the whole time, because the entire colorized section of The Wizard of Oz was all just a dream!

BOOOOO. (Just to make myself perfectly clear, I am, in fact, saying “Boooo!” and not “Boo-urns!”)

I hate “it was just a dream!” endings on principle, because if the entire conflict takes place in the main character’s head, there’s no real urgency, nothing really at stake.

I hate that the message — “What you thought you wanted is something you really had all along!” – is applied differently to Dorothy than it is to her friends. The Scarecrow, Tin Man, and Lion are told that they always had a brain, a heart, and courage, and the Wizard giving them their “gifts” is affirmation of their strengths. Dorothy, on the other hand, gets a lecture from Glinda and has to realize that “if I ever look for my heart’s desire again, I won’t look any further than my own backyard.” Her friends get to realize that they were always smart, emotional, and brave, while she has to learn a lesson about being grateful for what she already has.

I hate the ending because it breaks my heart to think that Dorothy’s friendships were all a product of her fantasy.

The truth is, Dorothy doesn’t have a bad life on her farm in Kansas. Her aunt and uncle love her and take care of her, and the hired hands on her aunt and uncle’s farm treat her with kindness and consideration. I don’t mind that she takes a minute to appreciate that and realizes that running away is not the best idea.

But even though a loving family is invaluable, guardians are not the same thing as friends.

In Oz, Dorothy has friends and equals. She and the Scarecrow, Tin Man, and Lion share the same adventures and support each other. She invites them on her quest to find the Wizard, giving them hope where they had none before, and in turn, they save her from the clutches of the Wicked Witch of the West. They don’t treat her differently because she’s a girl; any concern they have for her is because they fear for her life in an enemy’s hands, not because they doubt her abilities or strength.

There’s mutual respect and love among Dorothy and her friends and equals, something she doesn’t have in Kansas because there’s no one her age to relate to her — and we’re supposed to happily swallow that this is all just a dream, and there’s no place like home?

Well, I don’t accept it. I refuse. In my mental version of the ending, Oz is real. Dorothy traveled there and came back, and even though she has a renewed appreciation for her day-to-day life, the door is still open for her to return, where the new rulers of Oz — the Scarecrow, Tin Man, and Lion — will all be waiting for her, ready to go on their next adventure.

Posted in Articles | 3 Comments