I've dropped a few hints in the past about being a complete sucker for fairy tale reboots, what with buying any fairy tale reboot book I can get my hands on, regardless of genre, as well as writing a whole novel on my own reboot version of the Beauty and the Beast fairy tale in order to suss out my conflicted thoughts on the Disney version as well as the original feminist text.So obviously it was just a matter of time before I rented "Snow White and the Huntsman". And, well, color me underwhelmed.
There's not really much I can say on the consent issues and muddled message of the movie that hasn't already been said better here at Culturally Disoriented. As they point out in exquisite detail (and with screen captures!), there's not a single consensual kiss in this movie, which would be massively problematic in any movie but is especially problematic in the context of the larger movie message about whether men are socialized to care about women's consent or whether they are expected to just use them however they please and then crumple them up and toss them aside like so many human Kleenexes. A message which is then further fatally undermined by the female villain proceeding to then use up and toss aside some eleventy-billion young women like so many human Kleenexes, which is a shame because I was kind of intrigued there for about five minutes. OH WELL.
Nor was I even remotely pleased with the fact that the sleeping/death spell was broken by the Huntsman's kiss as (apparently) a True Love's Kiss rather than William's kiss, when William was the guy who Snow White attempted to consensually kiss. I don't think I need to go into here why it's totally problematic for a woman's romantic choice to be swept aside by some random Magic that totally knows better than the silly woman. And, yes, I realize that it's supposed to be romantic and a commentary on how she doesn't know her own heart and hasn't realized that she loves the commoner huntsman over her noble childhood friend and STAR-CROSSED LOVERS etc., but all this feeds into a toxic cultural narrative that we really shouldn't respect women's choices because they don't know their own minds 99% of the time, and it's for their own good to override their consent because otherwise how else will they learn they're wrong? And that is a serious problem.
I also want to take a moment to note here that I think it's really ridiculous that apparently this movie was considered enough of a ground-breaking epic saga that it's now apparently going to be a trilogy. Subjective opinions are subjective, as always, but if there was one thing I really liked about this movie -- and that's a question still up for debate in my mind -- then it was the fact that the movie didn't tie up everything neatly at the end, by which I mean the more-boring-than-usual love triangle business. Back when I still thought that this was a one-off movie and the choice was being left up to the audience to fill in the blanks at the end, I thought that was more than a little groovy: if you wanted Snow White to marry the drinking, brawling, so-of-course-they-gave-him-a-Scottish-accent Huntsman, then you could assume that she did; if you wanted to assume that she would marry Finnick Odair because she wanted to consensually kiss him and he's had some practice at the whole royalty thing and presumably would not be the least popular king ever, then you can assume that happens. And if you wanted her to dump both guys on the grounds that they kiss dead/comatose/unconscious women with whom they have no established romantic/sexual relationship whatsoever, then you could think that, too. EVERYONE WINS.
But. What I am instead going to talk about today is how tired I am of movie scenes where women apologize for not trusting every potentially damaging secret and/or minute corner of their heart to strange men they have no reason whatsoever to trust. Because I so tired of this trope. But first some backstory:
The Evil Queen has taken over the country via assassination and has kept Snow White locked in a tower for however many years it took for the child actress to grow up into Kristen Stewart. When the Magic Mirror reveals that Snow White is the secret to the Evil Queen's immortality, the Evil Queen decides that killing Snow White in her cell would be too grody and instead has her brought up to the royal sun-room. In the process, Snow White escapes and heads into the local Deep Woods which is totes evil and dangerous and whatnot. The Evil Queen correctly recognizes that her henchmen are worthless, so contracts out to the Huntsman to track and capture Snow White and bring her back to the palace. He manages the first part of the plan, and holds Snow White at axe-point for awhile, but the second part of the plan goes badly and the two end up fleeing the worthless henchmen together deeper into the forest.
The Huntsman doesn't know who Snow White is, nor that she's the rightful heir to the throne and the local figurehead du jour for the disaffected locals who are tired of the Evil Queen's evil reign. She will only tell him that she's "valuable" and that if he takes her to the castle of a nearby duke and resistance leader that he'll be rewarded. None of this is a lie, and frankly the fact that the Huntsman isn't able to make a logical leap from there to the conclusion that her value is political value doesn't really say much for his intuitive skills. But regardless we get this dialogue:
Snow White: Help me.
The Huntsman: Who are you?
Snow White: Maybe you should have asked the queen that.
The Huntsman: I don't trust you.
Snow White: I've given you my word.
The Huntsman: I still don't trust you. But you have a deal.
Which is, quite frankly, AWESOME given that he is the one who was holding her at axe-point five minutes ago and who she has no reason to believe isn't still working for the Evil Queen or wouldn't still turn her over if the price was right. But he doesn't trust her because she won't tell him her name, rank, and serial number. Stellar.
But you know what? Fine. Who am I to tell this guy who he should and should not trust? That's a decision that he needs to make on his own, and I totally respect that. Trust is complicated, and is something that needs to be left to individuals and respected as their choice and their right to make in accordance with their own comfort levels. This is, in fact, a pretty basic tenet of feminist doctrine, that people get to set their trust zones according to their needs and not according to the needs of others.
So the Huntsman gets to decide how much he chooses to trust Snow White, and whether or not he's willing to work with her in spite of not knowing the whole picture here. And Snow White gets to decide how much she trusts the Huntsman, and whether or not she's willing to work with him in spite of not knowing his motivation and whether or not he'd still deliver her to the Evil Queen given the right price. They both have these choices to make for themselves.
But because this is a Trope (and it is my firm belief that this trope needs to quietly slink off to die as soon as possible), as soon as a third-party overrides Snow White's wishes in order to inform the Huntsman of her royal status against her obviously-made choice to keep that information to herself -- and I want to note that this is YET ANOTHER EXAMPLE of the movie overriding a woman's choice because she just doesn't know the right thing to do and it's so obvious that the Huntsman should be told her secret because he's such a Nice Guy and probably her True Love and the woman who has known him for five minutes and makes the decision to strip Snow White's agency from her clearly knows the Huntsman better than Snow White who has been traveling with him for significantly longer and has already been honest-to-dog assaulted by him and there is a reason why we don't assume that Underdog Lovelorn Romantics cannot possibly also be rapists -- there is the obligatory Meek Apology Scene where Snow White meekly apologizes for not trusting the Nice Guy before her:
The Huntsman: Why didn't you tell me? Cause I'd think it was too difficult a task? You'd be right.
Snow White: I didn't trust you. I'm sorry.
And since I couldn't find a clip of the scene in question, you'll just have to take my word that her apology felt like it was supposed to be terribly sincere and not flippant.
This thing? I am tired of this thing. I'm tired of it being hunky-dory for hard-bitten drinking brawling wounded Nice Guys to not trust vulnerable heroines who have been locked up in dungeons and threatened with rape and violently assaulted and are a walking bundle of potential triggers but that when those same deeply-damaged heroines turn around and fail to trust the Nice Guy with every aspect of her heart and every potentially damaging secret in her possession then it is totally inappropriate of her to do so and absolutely worthy of an apology because could she not see he was a Nice Guy?!?
And once again we're back to the ridiculous notion that merely thinking that someone might potentially hurt you -- even if he's already hurt you once before -- is clearly way way worse than taking reasonable steps to protect yourself. But only if you are female and if the person you're failing to trust completely is a mopey Nice Guy. If you happen to be the Nice Guy in this scenario, then it's totally okay for you to openly not trust the heroine in general and particularly not with the specifics of your mopey backstory, even if said backstory is relevant to her interests because it drove you to physically assault her and nearly take her head off with a battle-axe. If you're a Nice Guy, you get all the privacy and space you require, and without a hint of blame. Naturally.
"Snow White and the Huntsman" doesn't really flog this issue the way some movies do. After the Huntsman abandons her -- thereby proving that Snow White was right not to trust him with her secret and that the local Fuck-Consent-I'ma-Do-What-I-Want woman who spilled her secret on her behalf is a certified jackwagon -- the village is attacked and the Huntsman comes barreling back to save Snow White and the movie labors onward. We never really speak of the issue again, if only because there are new depths of consent-overriding to descend to and we're on a schedule so off we go. But it's still another piece on the pile of movies that castigate women for their failure to trust Nice Guys and I'm quite done with the whole trope.
So here is a new rule: If a woman doesn't feel comfortable trusting her secrets to a man she feels threatened by, that is her right and she does not owe him an apology for making that choice.
Period.
47 comments:
That is not what agency is and that is not how agency works.
Yes, knowing she was a princess would have changed his decision. That doesn't mean he gets to know that on-demand because her right to privacy supersedes his right to All The Informations Forever. He had complete agency to decide whether to accompany her based on what he knew and what he knew he didn't know (Known Unknowns, in other words) or to decide that the Known Unknowns were a risk he didn't want to take and to leave. He had full agency in his decision.
There are people who might not want to hang out with me based on the fact that I'm a rape victim, or a liberal, or a blogger, or whatever. That doesn't mean that my failure to wear that information on my sleeve to inform the whole world at all times somehow removes their agency to act as they decide best. They can choose to interact with me or to not do so based on the fact that I might-or-might-not-be those things and the understanding that those items are Unknowns at the time of their decision.
The concept of agency and what constitutes removal of same is basic Feminism 101 and is not "an arguable point" in this space. Respectfully, I'm drawing a line under this particular point and declaring it off-limits for the remainder of this thread because I don't want to get into basic feminism 101 education right now. I do ask that you re-read the post and maybe look up "agency" on some feminism 101 posts, because it is very problematic to insist that a woman's failure to Share Everything (or, indeed, anything about herself) somehow removes a man's agency, particularly her failure to share everything with a man who has already physically assaulted her.
That's not what "agency" means, and I'm not going to host a "let's redefine basic feminist terms" discussion in this space. Thank you.
That is not what agency is and that is not how agency works.
Yes, knowing she was a princess would have changed his decision. That doesn't mean he gets to know that on-demand because her right to privacy supersedes his right to All The Informations Forever. He had complete agency to decide whether to accompany her based on what he knew and what he knew he didn't know (Known Unknowns, in other words) or to decide that the Known Unknowns were a risk he didn't want to take and to leave. He had full agency in his decision.
There are people who might not want to hang out with me based on the fact that I'm a rape victim, or a liberal, or a blogger, or whatever. That doesn't mean that my failure to wear that information on my sleeve to inform the whole world at all times somehow removes their agency to act as they decide best. They can choose to interact with me or to not do so based on the fact that I might-or-might-not-be those things and the understanding that those items are Unknowns at the time of their decision.
The concept of agency and what constitutes removal of same is basic Feminism 101 and is not "an arguable point" in this space. Respectfully, I'm drawing a line under this particular point and declaring it off-limits for the remainder of this thread because I don't want to get into basic feminism 101 education right now. I do ask that you re-read the post and maybe look up "agency" on some feminism 101 posts, because it is very problematic to insist that a woman's failure to Share Everything (or, indeed, anything about herself) somehow removes a man's agency, particularly her failure to share everything with a man who has already physically assaulted her.
That's not what "agency" means, and I'm not going to host a "let's redefine basic feminist terms" discussion in this space. Thank you.
[CN: Rape, Slavery]
As I recall, I thought the movie had a lot of problematic and one potentially interesting bit that it never really went anywhere with.
Agreed. The whole backstory of the queen was a big mess of good ideas gone wrong, I thought. If I understand the flashback correctly, her village was raided and you have the standard grim-fantasy "all the women carried off" thing. So her mother, seeing what was coming, cast a magic spell to give the Evil Queen the kind of Powerful Beauty that got her upgraded from "just another slave girl" to "married off to the king" and possibly may have also influenced men to give her what she wants.
Which is already problematic, because we've talked about the fact that Beauty = Power is a very problematic trope because that kind of "power" is almost always a facade, since the genuinely powerful men can still/eventually be all "whoops, I didn't really need your consent after all", etc. And which gets muddled even further when it turns out she ALSO has the power to make magical armies, so it seems like her Beauty isn't even the Powerful thing here.
I echo your sentiments re: wanting them to do something more interesting with the scarred village. I was hoping Snow White would scar herself, but that didn't even seem to occur to her. (Possibly because she thought the queen wanted her for something else? But it would have been worth it to try, surely?) Or for them to say something about the fact that the women were still beautiful, but the magic didn't work on them because flurble-wurble-hand-wave. Or, I dunno, something.
Mostly I was just pissed that they were CLEARLY the most sensible people in the movie, but they were used for nothing more than a chance to further undermine Snow White's choices. "Oh, she didn't tell you who she is? LET ME FIX THAT FOR YOU."
CN: mention of rape
It's actually really damn weird to put your characters in a position where they have no reason to trust each other and then have one apologize for perfectly reasonable lack of trust. But I guess female characters are expected to know the title of the movie they're in.
In a world that made sense, he should've had to win her trust. On account of axes and working for the bad guy and all. Blargh, this trope!
As I recall, I thought the movie had a lot of problematic and one potentially interesting bit that it never really went anywhere with. (The whole concept of beauty and the evil queen's interpretation thereof, especially once we encountered the village of attractively scarred women. It's like it was going to have something to say about beauty but forgot.)
The evil queen's motivations were problematic and her actions didn't entirely make sense, if I'm remembering right*. Not only am I really iffy about rape (or attempted rape?) turning someone into a kingdom destroying villainess who ate other women's beauty (and beauty = youth or youth = beauty seems problematic on it's own) but I can't remember if we ever got an explanation for what she was doing, besides wanting to become immortal. I want to say there was something about revenge in there, but I couldn't swear to it.
I remember walking away feeling like there were things in the movie that could've been part of a really interesting movie, but for the most part what we got was somehow a really icky mess.
*And I want some good explanation for why villains always wreck the landscape. Okay, in a fairy tale realm, maybe that's just how the world reacts to illegitimate rulers but a) shouldn't that make illegitimate rulers really easy to find and b) shouldn't they do their damnedest to avoid it on account of a?
Yes. And I think the writers fail at this by empathizing more with the Huntsman than with Snow White.
The Huntsman has had a rough life, what with being (presumably) a member of the lower class and also his wife was killed under mysterious circumstances (he seems not aware that the Queen's Brother was involved in her death).
Snow White, by contrast, has been imprisoned since she was 7 (or whatever) after seeing her father murdered, and has been denied human companionship, and has been subjected to sexual assault (the Queen's Brother mentions that he 'watches' her, and she seems aware of this).
Honestly, the fact that Snow White isn't DEEPLY damaged by this lengthy seclusion kind of shocks me, but I'm willing to accept that she has a strong enough will that she managed to soldier on. Fine. But for the writers to be sensitive to the Huntsman's Widower Pain but not Snow White's Sexual Assault And Imprisonment Pain is REALLY problematic and underlines the issue that "manpain" is frequently treated as more important in fictional narratives.
The Huntsman doesn't trust Snow White because she won't tell him her name. She doesn't trust him because HE PHYSICALLY ATTACKED HER and nearly took off her head with a goddamn axe. These two things? Are not the same thing. The fact that the movie seems not to realize that because the audience/writers 'know' that the Huntsman is Good, is a Problem.
Yes. And I think the writers fail at this by empathizing more with the Huntsman than with Snow White.
The Huntsman has had a rough life, what with being (presumably) a member of the lower class and also his wife was killed under mysterious circumstances (he seems not aware that the Queen's Brother was involved in her death).
Snow White, by contrast, has been imprisoned since she was 7 (or whatever) after seeing her father murdered, and has been denied human companionship, and has been subjected to sexual assault (the Queen's Brother mentions that he 'watches' her, and she seems aware of this).
Honestly, the fact that Snow White isn't DEEPLY damaged by this lengthy seclusion kind of shocks me, but I'm willing to accept that she has a strong enough will that she managed to soldier on. Fine. But for the writers to be sensitive to the Huntsman's Widower Pain but not Snow White's Sexual Assault And Imprisonment Pain is REALLY problematic and underlines the issue that "manpain" is frequently treated as more important in fictional narratives.
The Huntsman doesn't trust Snow White because she won't tell him her name. She doesn't trust him because HE PHYSICALLY ATTACKED HER and nearly took off her head with a goddamn axe. These two things? Are not the same thing. The fact that the movie seems not to realize that because the audience/writers 'know' that the Huntsman is Good, is a Problem.
Considering that, frankly, Huntsman's Widower Pain isn't at all related to "oh noes, strange woman I was hired to kill won't tell me her name," this has to be one of the most obvious cases of Manpain Matters Most ever. Especially since we mainly know he's good because, hey, movie title! If the movie had bothered to sympathize with her, the question of trust would actually have been more meaningful and dramatic (at least if done well) because the situation has resulted in two people who need to team up having trust issues for understandible reasons. Well, her reason's understandible. What was his, again? Why does the person with the axe, the person hired to kill someone, need to have their trust won by the person they tried to kill again? I mean, really, the more I think about this, the more WTF the whole thing becomes.
I think it's the extreme power imbalance. You can write a scenario where the wanted person has to win the trust of the person hunting them, but this really isn't that scenario. Especially since the evil queen wore her "Hi, I'm evil! :D" nametag the whole movie.
Considering that, frankly, Huntsman's Widower Pain isn't at all related to "oh noes, strange woman I was hired to kill won't tell me her name," this has to be one of the most obvious cases of Manpain Matters Most ever. Especially since we mainly know he's good because, hey, movie title! If the movie had bothered to sympathize with her, the question of trust would actually have been more meaningful and dramatic (at least if done well) because the situation has resulted in two people who need to team up having trust issues for understandible reasons. Well, her reason's understandible. What was his, again? Why does the person with the axe, the person hired to kill someone, need to have their trust won by the person they tried to kill again? I mean, really, the more I think about this, the more WTF the whole thing becomes.
I think it's the extreme power imbalance. You can write a scenario where the wanted person has to win the trust of the person hunting them, but this really isn't that scenario. Especially since the evil queen wore her "Hi, I'm evil! :D" nametag the whole movie.
If I may speak as a black female that went to see this movie in theaters?
The first thing I noticed, if you'll pardon me, was that none of the females the queen used for her beauty where females of color. Hell, there were no females of color in the entire world building/world canon, if I remember correctly. But then again, the title of the fairy tale has always been "Snow White", and not something like "Dark Ebony".
Yep.
If I may speak as a black female that went to see this movie in theaters?
The first thing I noticed, if you'll pardon me, was that none of the females the queen used for her beauty where females of color. Hell, there were no females of color in the entire world building/world canon, if I remember correctly. But then again, the title of the fairy tale has always been "Snow White", and not something like "Dark Ebony".
Yep.
OH GOD, yet another reason to seriously dislike this gross-gross movie.
One of the most frustrating things about the "Trust the nice guy" trope is that women are somehow supposed to have an INFALLIBLE RADAR that tells them who nice guys are. Snow White is magically supposed to know that the Huntsman is totally trustworthy, but also know that the Queen's Brother is totally untrustworthy, and should be hit in the head with a rock.
Because it's still a woman's fault if someone rapes her, right? She should have known not to trust that guy. He was an evil evil rapist. But she should also know to trust all the nice guys, because they're not rapists.
... honestly, do other women have this radar? And if so, where can I purchase it? Because *I've* never been able to magically tell the difference between "decent guy who won't hurt me" and "decent-LOOKING guy who will most definitely hurt me if given the chance."
OH GOD, yet another reason to seriously dislike this gross-gross movie.
One of the most frustrating things about the "Trust the nice guy" trope is that women are somehow supposed to have an INFALLIBLE RADAR that tells them who nice guys are. Snow White is magically supposed to know that the Huntsman is totally trustworthy, but also know that the Queen's Brother is totally untrustworthy, and should be hit in the head with a rock.
Because it's still a woman's fault if someone rapes her, right? She should have known not to trust that guy. He was an evil evil rapist. But she should also know to trust all the nice guys, because they're not rapists.
... honestly, do other women have this radar? And if so, where can I purchase it? Because *I've* never been able to magically tell the difference between "decent guy who won't hurt me" and "decent-LOOKING guy who will most definitely hurt me if given the chance."
Oh, come on. Just because he was hired to kill her doesn't mean she has... never mind.
Oh, come on. Just because he was hired to kill her doesn't mean she has... never mind.
It really is a super poisonous trope.
And, really, is it that hard to figure out how to get your characters to plausibly trust one another? I know, that takes actual thought and writing and stuff, but come on. (And I still think it's completely backwards that its the Huntsman who needs to come to trust SW and not the other way around. She has far more reason to be wary of him. Far. More.)
It really is a super poisonous trope.
And, really, is it that hard to figure out how to get your characters to plausibly trust one another? I know, that takes actual thought and writing and stuff, but come on. (And I still think it's completely backwards that its the Huntsman who needs to come to trust SW and not the other way around. She has far more reason to be wary of him. Far. More.)
I had several cinematic objections to the movie, but reading the issues with consent and trust here helped me crystallize some of the reasons why I kept muttering at the television about the characters not being well-written and the story not cohering and the use of bladed weapons against glass creatures.
I think the "you have to trust me" scene like this was done much better and more accurately between Fezzik and The Dread Pirate Roberts in The Princess Bride, where the alternative to guarded trust is fairly certain death.
I had several cinematic objections to the movie, but reading the issues with consent and trust here helped me crystallize some of the reasons why I kept muttering at the television about the characters not being well-written and the story not cohering and the use of bladed weapons against glass creatures.
I think the "you have to trust me" scene like this was done much better and more accurately between Fezzik and The Dread Pirate Roberts in The Princess Bride, where the alternative to guarded trust is fairly certain death.
For this movie, I will say I got exactly what I was expecting. I was expecting a "standard" fairy tale remake with all that that implies, and by God I got one. It could have been so much more. The only things that really stood out to me was the possibility they left open for Snow White not being in love with either William or the Huntsman (that thought, while awesome to me--and it's sad that I should be this excited over being given a presumably heterosexual female movie character who isn't hopelessly in love with SOMEONE--is sadly unlikely), and the "Florence + the Machine" single at the end. It sounds like it was stolen from a much cooler movie.
As for Snow White's apology, it sounds to me much the same way most apologies given by female movie characters do: "Oh great, yet again I'm being forced to apologize for doing or saying something COMPLETELY RATIONAL given the information I had at the time." Only now it's layered on top with "Who the Hell told him I was a princess?!"
And I was really hoping the Stepmother wouldn't be evil. You really want to make an "edgy" remake, Rupert Sanders? Try THAT change on for size.
For this movie, I will say I got exactly what I was expecting. I was expecting a "standard" fairy tale remake with all that that implies, and by God I got one. It could have been so much more. The only things that really stood out to me was the possibility they left open for Snow White not being in love with either William or the Huntsman (that thought, while awesome to me--and it's sad that I should be this excited over being given a presumably heterosexual female movie character who isn't hopelessly in love with SOMEONE--is sadly unlikely), and the "Florence + the Machine" single at the end. It sounds like it was stolen from a much cooler movie.
As for Snow White's apology, it sounds to me much the same way most apologies given by female movie characters do: "Oh great, yet again I'm being forced to apologize for doing or saying something COMPLETELY RATIONAL given the information I had at the time." Only now it's layered on top with "Who the Hell told him I was a princess?!"
And I was really hoping the Stepmother wouldn't be evil. You really want to make an "edgy" remake, Rupert Sanders? Try THAT change on for size.
in addition to causing boners she can also summon glass armies
I read this as "summon boners."
in addition to causing boners she can also summon glass armies
I read this as "summon boners."
I haven't seen this movie. I didn't think I'd enjoy it, from the previews - and it seems I was right. I did enjoy the other Snow White film, Mirror Mirror - you might consider reviewing that as well. I'm still new at, well, noticing things like this, but Snow White in that movie is definitely more empowered. I don't want to spoil it, but it's definitely better than this one sounds.
"I don't think I need to go into here why it's totally problematic for a woman's romantic choice to be swept aside by some random Magic that totally knows better than the silly woman."
I instantly thought of Mercedes Lackey's "Tales of the Five Hundred Kingdoms", a fairy-tale realm where stories have their own magic, and if a person's life starts fitting a particular pattern, the magic of Tradition will manipulate things to make them play out a familiar tale. Considering the unpleasant events in most of Grimms' tales, this is not a good thing. The books center around Godmothers (fairy and otherwise) who manipulate the magic to prevent tragedies and to try and give victims of the Tradition more control over their own lives. It's basically fighting against what you described there.
First book is The Fairy Godmother.
(I know some of Lackey's books are problematic, but these are pretty good.)
I don't want to derail this conversation, but can we have an open thread to talk about fairy tale adaptations in general?
I haven't seen this movie. I didn't think I'd enjoy it, from the previews - and it seems I was right. I did enjoy the other Snow White film, Mirror Mirror - you might consider reviewing that as well. I'm still new at, well, noticing things like this, but Snow White in that movie is definitely more empowered. I don't want to spoil it, but it's definitely better than this one sounds.
"I don't think I need to go into here why it's totally problematic for a woman's romantic choice to be swept aside by some random Magic that totally knows better than the silly woman."
I instantly thought of Mercedes Lackey's "Tales of the Five Hundred Kingdoms", a fairy-tale realm where stories have their own magic, and if a person's life starts fitting a particular pattern, the magic of Tradition will manipulate things to make them play out a familiar tale. Considering the unpleasant events in most of Grimms' tales, this is not a good thing. The books center around Godmothers (fairy and otherwise) who manipulate the magic to prevent tragedies and to try and give victims of the Tradition more control over their own lives. It's basically fighting against what you described there.
First book is The Fairy Godmother.
(I know some of Lackey's books are problematic, but these are pretty good.)
I don't want to derail this conversation, but can we have an open thread to talk about fairy tale adaptations in general?
But it's still another piece on the pile of movies that castigate women for their failure to trust Nice Guys and I'm quite done with the whole trope.
This sort of reminds me of a book that I suppose would be classed YA now, though back then it was just another fantasy children's novel. I can't remember the author's name, which is a shame because I'd like to resolve never to read anything by them again.
Anyway, the book was about a girl (aged 12-or-so, I think) who was sent by her family to go live with the reigning family of another country. There were desert landscapes and a salt inland sea, which was what drew me to the book in the first place: I love depictions of huge desolate landscapes. The girl had been sent in order to marry the age-appropriate (her age) son of the reigning family, and both she and son knew this, but the marriage wasn't to take place for years: the visit was meant to be a look-her-over and let-her-get-used-to-the-country sort of deal, I think.
Girl hates it. She hates the weather, she hates the desert, she hates the palace, she doesn't like the family, she's not sure she likes the boy she's supposed to marry. She keeps a journal, and in her journal, she writes down everything she hates about the reigning family, the palace, and the country.
The boy whom she's supposed to marry is equally unsure about liking her. There is clearly an Adventure coming up (thought juvenile me, reading) in which the boy and the girl will Save The Something, the girl will discover she quite likes the country, and girl and boy will discover they are now looking forward to getting married to each other. (I was a genre-savvy reader fairly young.) I didn't mind any of this, I was enjoying the author's depiction of huge desert landscapes and looking forward to reading about Adventures in landscape.
The girl stumbles across something that she finds suspicious. She decides that the only person likely to listen to her in this strange place is the boy she's betrothed to.
But, the boy has been reading the girl's diary. He discovers the girl has been complaining about his family and his home and his country. He confronts her, very angrily, about this "betrayal".
And the girl... and this is where I just stopped reading, most uncharacteristically for me...
...the girl apologises. She actually gets tearful over it and sorry. She begs the boy, even if he can't forgive her, to listen to the suspicious thing she's discovered. He concedes that he might. Adventure ensues....
Adventure ensues, but I stopped reading. I was ten or eleven, I suppose.
It is possible that, later on in the novel, the boy would have had it pointed out to him that you don't read other people's private journals. And obviously the girl for plot reasons wanted the boy to listen to her. But all I could think was; the boy had committed the most massive act of betrayal and treachery that I, age 11, could really imagine: he'd read her private journal. How could he ever suppose he could be forgiven for doing that, or trusted again after he'd proved himself so untrustworthy? Yet the boy's anger, and the girl's apology, appeared to have authorial approval. The most beautifully-written desert landscapes in fiction couldn't have held my attention after that.
(Though I will say: I have remembered this preposterous YA novel for thirty-plus years, just because I couldn't bring myself to finish it.)
But it's still another piece on the pile of movies that castigate women for their failure to trust Nice Guys and I'm quite done with the whole trope.
This sort of reminds me of a book that I suppose would be classed YA now, though back then it was just another fantasy children's novel. I can't remember the author's name, which is a shame because I'd like to resolve never to read anything by them again.
Anyway, the book was about a girl (aged 12-or-so, I think) who was sent by her family to go live with the reigning family of another country. There were desert landscapes and a salt inland sea, which was what drew me to the book in the first place: I love depictions of huge desolate landscapes. The girl had been sent in order to marry the age-appropriate (her age) son of the reigning family, and both she and son knew this, but the marriage wasn't to take place for years: the visit was meant to be a look-her-over and let-her-get-used-to-the-country sort of deal, I think.
Girl hates it. She hates the weather, she hates the desert, she hates the palace, she doesn't like the family, she's not sure she likes the boy she's supposed to marry. She keeps a journal, and in her journal, she writes down everything she hates about the reigning family, the palace, and the country.
The boy whom she's supposed to marry is equally unsure about liking her. There is clearly an Adventure coming up (thought juvenile me, reading) in which the boy and the girl will Save The Something, the girl will discover she quite likes the country, and girl and boy will discover they are now looking forward to getting married to each other. (I was a genre-savvy reader fairly young.) I didn't mind any of this, I was enjoying the author's depiction of huge desert landscapes and looking forward to reading about Adventures in landscape.
The girl stumbles across something that she finds suspicious. She decides that the only person likely to listen to her in this strange place is the boy she's betrothed to.
But, the boy has been reading the girl's diary. He discovers the girl has been complaining about his family and his home and his country. He confronts her, very angrily, about this "betrayal".
And the girl... and this is where I just stopped reading, most uncharacteristically for me...
...the girl apologises. She actually gets tearful over it and sorry. She begs the boy, even if he can't forgive her, to listen to the suspicious thing she's discovered. He concedes that he might. Adventure ensues....
Adventure ensues, but I stopped reading. I was ten or eleven, I suppose.
It is possible that, later on in the novel, the boy would have had it pointed out to him that you don't read other people's private journals. And obviously the girl for plot reasons wanted the boy to listen to her. But all I could think was; the boy had committed the most massive act of betrayal and treachery that I, age 11, could really imagine: he'd read her private journal. How could he ever suppose he could be forgiven for doing that, or trusted again after he'd proved himself so untrustworthy? Yet the boy's anger, and the girl's apology, appeared to have authorial approval. The most beautifully-written desert landscapes in fiction couldn't have held my attention after that.
(Though I will say: I have remembered this preposterous YA novel for thirty-plus years, just because I couldn't bring myself to finish it.)
My goodness, is that Angrish or Lovecraft?
All the lolz :-)
It's actually a rotation-13 cipher - folks use it to hide spoilers sometimes :-) You can translate it by copypasting to www.rot13.com, or I think there's a doohickey at the top of the page.
But when I see rot13 now, I'm going to immediately think someone's summoning Cthulhu!
Cthulhu -hates- spoilers.
Cthulhu -hates- spoilers.
My goodness, is that Angrish or Lovecraft? It sounds like you're summoning Elder Gods (Though I feel like that's probably justified).
(And yes, I know I've probably got Lovecraft all wrong; I've only ever read a couple of his works, not enough to have a "real" grounding.)
My goodness, is that Angrish or Lovecraft? It sounds like you're summoning Elder Gods (Though I feel like that's probably justified).
(And yes, I know I've probably got Lovecraft all wrong; I've only ever read a couple of his works, not enough to have a "real" grounding.)
It's rot13, a way of quickly changing letters to avoid triggering people or spoilers.
[CN: rape, discussion of the "rape is love" trope]
I had issues with Fairy Godmother because I felt it played too much with the "rape is love" trope. SPOILERS for FG: Jura gur znva punenpgre vf encrq, fur qbrfa'g yvxr vg, naq vf ubeevsvrq, ohg bire gvzr fur obgu ersbezf naq snyyf va ybir jvgu ure nggnpxre. Naq V svaq gung fdhvpxl. Svefg bs nyy orpnhfr vg snyyf vagb gur "ersbez gur onq zna" gebcr juvpu V fgebatyl qvfyvxr, naq orpnhfr, nf V fnvq, vg srryf n ovg gbb zhpu yvxr "encr vf ybir." vs gur znva punenpgre unq ersbezrq ure nggnpxre naq frag uvz bss naq ur'q zneevrq fbzrbar ryfr, V'q unir orra bxnl jvgu vg, ohg sbe ure gb zneel ure nggnpxre jnf jnl gbb zhpu sbe zr.
[CN: rape, discussion of the "rape is love" trope]
I had issues with Fairy Godmother because I felt it played too much with the "rape is love" trope. SPOILERS for FG: Jura gur znva punenpgre vf encrq, fur qbrfa'g yvxr vg, naq vf ubeevsvrq, ohg bire gvzr fur obgu ersbezf naq snyyf va ybir jvgu ure nggnpxre. Naq V svaq gung fdhvpxl. Svefg bs nyy orpnhfr vg snyyf vagb gur "ersbez gur onq zna" gebcr juvpu V fgebatyl qvfyvxr, naq orpnhfr, nf V fnvq, vg srryf n ovg gbb zhpu yvxr "encr vf ybir." vs gur znva punenpgre unq ersbezrq ure nggnpxre naq frag uvz bss naq ur'q zneevrq fbzrbar ryfr, V'q unir orra bxnl jvgu vg, ohg sbe ure gb zneel ure nggnpxre jnf jnl gbb zhpu sbe zr.
I had a lot of issues with this movie, but I hadn't spotted the consent issues. The whole thing felt like it might have a lot of really cool potential, then couldn't decide what it wanted to be.
I kind of liked, weirdly enough, the idea of Beauty=Power in a tangible way instead of a way for a woman to stealthily get what she wants because of Men Being Seduced. But I liked the Evil Queen the best, even if the story really had no idea what to do with her. It was a problematic way for women to get power, but it was something she did despite men, not simply because of them. It also gave her a reason to want Beauty, instead of general cattiness.
I found this story to be a real mess at times, but I really thought someone loved it, and there were some yummy crumbs of what could be that tickled your tongue but was gone a moment later.
I had a lot of issues with this movie, but I hadn't spotted the consent issues. The whole thing felt like it might have a lot of really cool potential, then couldn't decide what it wanted to be.
I kind of liked, weirdly enough, the idea of Beauty=Power in a tangible way instead of a way for a woman to stealthily get what she wants because of Men Being Seduced. But I liked the Evil Queen the best, even if the story really had no idea what to do with her. It was a problematic way for women to get power, but it was something she did despite men, not simply because of them. It also gave her a reason to want Beauty, instead of general cattiness.
I found this story to be a real mess at times, but I really thought someone loved it, and there were some yummy crumbs of what could be that tickled your tongue but was gone a moment later.
It seems like you could put the good pieces together into a rather different but much less garbage message movie. Though there are so many problematic tropes around beauty and female power that its really damn hard not to just stumble out of one bad trope and into another.
I do think if you're going to give your evil queen that kind of back story, you really do need to make her sympathetic. Or at least you need to address the problem of "whoops, avoiding rape turns you into a beauty eating monster." (But I generally prefer villains either be evil because "hey, I'm evil" (see also, power, wanting more of, mwahahah) or have understandable motives but be going about things in a problematic way. The evil queen here was a weird hybrid - lets give our card carrying evil villain a sympathetic back story for no reason, woo!)
I actually think over all, it would make the most sense if one de-eviled the queen, either completely or partially (well intentioned extremist, did what I had to do kind of thing). What if the old king, though good to his family, hadn't been good to his country? What if the queen hadn't actually killed the king, but the steps she took to secure power when he died made the daughter think she had? Or nine million other variations. You see, there's no reason for card carrying evil queen to keep Snow White alive until she comes of age. (At least I don't remember one.) But if she's not an evil queen, any number of reasons are possible. Hell, even if she's evil but understandable evil, there'd be reasons. What if she took Snow under her wing?
Also, adding an attractive powerful older woman who isn't evil (perhaps someone from the village of sensible scarred people?) would be a really good move.
...
And if I keep this up, I'll end up with not-actually-evil queen, sensible scarred woman, and Snow heroically protecting the kingdom from something completely different and all resemblance to the movie and the fairy tale will be buried under woo adventure! Because that is where my mind goes.
It seems like you could put the good pieces together into a rather different but much less garbage message movie. Though there are so many problematic tropes around beauty and female power that its really damn hard not to just stumble out of one bad trope and into another.
I do think if you're going to give your evil queen that kind of back story, you really do need to make her sympathetic. Or at least you need to address the problem of "whoops, avoiding rape turns you into a beauty eating monster." (But I generally prefer villains either be evil because "hey, I'm evil" (see also, power, wanting more of, mwahahah) or have understandable motives but be going about things in a problematic way. The evil queen here was a weird hybrid - lets give our card carrying evil villain a sympathetic back story for no reason, woo!)
I actually think over all, it would make the most sense if one de-eviled the queen, either completely or partially (well intentioned extremist, did what I had to do kind of thing). What if the old king, though good to his family, hadn't been good to his country? What if the queen hadn't actually killed the king, but the steps she took to secure power when he died made the daughter think she had? Or nine million other variations. You see, there's no reason for card carrying evil queen to keep Snow White alive until she comes of age. (At least I don't remember one.) But if she's not an evil queen, any number of reasons are possible. Hell, even if she's evil but understandable evil, there'd be reasons. What if she took Snow under her wing?
Also, adding an attractive powerful older woman who isn't evil (perhaps someone from the village of sensible scarred people?) would be a really good move.
...
And if I keep this up, I'll end up with not-actually-evil queen, sensible scarred woman, and Snow heroically protecting the kingdom from something completely different and all resemblance to the movie and the fairy tale will be buried under woo adventure! Because that is where my mind goes.
I was hoping Snow White would scar herself
Me too! It seemed so obvious - the women were safe because they didn't fit the evil queen's idea of beauty, and since Snow White fitting it was part of why she was in danger... (At least I assumed the flurble-wurble-hand-wave was that it was really about the evil queen's idea of beauty, but that never went anywhere, so hell if I know.)
The evil queen's powers also confused the heck out of me. Where did she get the magical army making powers, turn into birds powers, and all the other powers she showed? If her village's magic users had those types of powers, that messes up the backstory. If they didn't... where'd they come from? They don't seem to follow logically from Magical Beauty Power. I mean, did she study magic tomes, user her beauty powers to get someone to teach their tricks to her? What? And with those powers, why did she need her Magical Beauty Power? (Okay, wanting to live forever is a typical villain desire, but she acted as if her magic was all dependent on her looks, but it was kind of impossible to tell if that was true or not.)
I was hoping Snow White would scar herself
Me too! It seemed so obvious - the women were safe because they didn't fit the evil queen's idea of beauty, and since Snow White fitting it was part of why she was in danger... (At least I assumed the flurble-wurble-hand-wave was that it was really about the evil queen's idea of beauty, but that never went anywhere, so hell if I know.)
The evil queen's powers also confused the heck out of me. Where did she get the magical army making powers, turn into birds powers, and all the other powers she showed? If her village's magic users had those types of powers, that messes up the backstory. If they didn't... where'd they come from? They don't seem to follow logically from Magical Beauty Power. I mean, did she study magic tomes, user her beauty powers to get someone to teach their tricks to her? What? And with those powers, why did she need her Magical Beauty Power? (Okay, wanting to live forever is a typical villain desire, but she acted as if her magic was all dependent on her looks, but it was kind of impossible to tell if that was true or not.)
It's an arguable point. He did outright state that knowing that she was the princess (as opposed to potentially important in any number of other ways) would have changed his decision.
It's an arguable point. He did outright state that knowing that she was the princess (as opposed to potentially important in any number of other ways) would have changed his decision.
"...you'll just have to take my word that her apology felt like it was supposed to be terribly sincere and not flippant."
The funny thing is that when a woman makes an apology of this kind, usually it's, I won't say "flippant", but rather pro forma ; it isn't that the woman making it doesn't believe it but that she doesn't believe it the way she'd believe the catechism if she believed in God. So what this kind of apology usually means is: "I'm sorry you feel that way about it" or "I'm sorry that made/makes you feel uncomfortable", not "OMG I'm sorry I'm sorry I'm sorry I've seen the error of my ways and I'll never never never do that again I swear!!"
Sometimes when a young or impressionable man finds this out he's led by his discovery to the conclusion that women are, um, untrustworthy. But that's a conclusion not necessarily supported by the evidence at hand. Women are operating inside a different set of parameters, that's all. It would be cool if Snow White and the Huntsman had some kind of exchange of views about this issue (although such an exchange would be difficult to dramatize) but if they did it might come across as somewhat out of place. I'm saying that b/c this movie impressed me as pure eye candy without a brain in its head, such that not only would it be an inappropriate vehicle for the conveyance of ideas, but is almost insufficient to sustain dialogue.
Super gorgeous, though...
"...you'll just have to take my word that her apology felt like it was supposed to be terribly sincere and not flippant."
The funny thing is that when a woman makes an apology of this kind, usually it's, I won't say "flippant", but rather pro forma ; it isn't that the woman making it doesn't believe it but that she doesn't believe it the way she'd believe the catechism if she believed in God. So what this kind of apology usually means is: "I'm sorry you feel that way about it" or "I'm sorry that made/makes you feel uncomfortable", not "OMG I'm sorry I'm sorry I'm sorry I've seen the error of my ways and I'll never never never do that again I swear!!"
Sometimes when a young or impressionable man finds this out he's led by his discovery to the conclusion that women are, um, untrustworthy. But that's a conclusion not necessarily supported by the evidence at hand. Women are operating inside a different set of parameters, that's all. It would be cool if Snow White and the Huntsman had some kind of exchange of views about this issue (although such an exchange would be difficult to dramatize) but if they did it might come across as somewhat out of place. I'm saying that b/c this movie impressed me as pure eye candy without a brain in its head, such that not only would it be an inappropriate vehicle for the conveyance of ideas, but is almost insufficient to sustain dialogue.
Super gorgeous, though...
I find it worthy of note that he actually said "You'd be right". To me, that should translate as "the correct thing to do in your current situation where desire for survival overrides respect for my own agency was not to trust me, but I still get to be angry over having my agency overrode."
That, if we want to be charitable, *could* have her not appologizing for the lack of trust, but for denying him important information and risking his own life.
But, then there's the general context of the rest of the movie, so in this case charity is somewhat a choice against evidence.
I find it worthy of note that he actually said "You'd be right". To me, that should translate as "the correct thing to do in your current situation where desire for survival overrides respect for my own agency was not to trust me, but I still get to be angry over having my agency overrode."
That, if we want to be charitable, *could* have her not appologizing for the lack of trust, but for denying him important information and risking his own life.
But, then there's the general context of the rest of the movie, so in this case charity is somewhat a choice against evidence.
I hate this trope. And the related one of 'damaged' women just have the problem of needing to trust more. It's very gender role enforcing, and of course mostly at women's expense.
Post a Comment