(Please note this post includes references to events that
take place in episodes 1-6 of Circle: Two Worlds Connected.)
The best science fiction marries emotion with speculation. South Korean TV
series Circle: Two Worlds Connected taps into one of humanity’s basic fears; that
science will tamper with the parameters of personality.
Thematically, science fiction
television transcends language barriers and cultural differences because every
society is curious, if not concerned, about the future, and the unexplained.
An uncomfortable relationship between tech,
emotions, and memory is a popular trope in science fiction. Stories exploring the use—or abuses—of
advancements in technology are more successful if the audience is tied empathetically
to the characters.
Circle: Two Worlds Connected has a winning formula with
dominant themes of
memory, identity, and family. That most erratic variable—love—usually ruins the equation at some point
in scifi, because audiences like to see the warmth of humanity trumping the dispassion of science.
Circle: Two
Worlds Connected utilizes the tricky narrative tool of a split timeline. The
first half of each episode is set in 2017, the second in a dystopian 2037. The risk with
this kind of storytelling structure is events in the present seem futile
because viewers have a window into a bleak future.
Creating an
immediate emotive link with the audience is paramount. We know what our leads
are trying to do isn’t going to work, but we need to care enough to keep
watching.
The pilot
begins with a flashback to a childhood trauma experienced by two brothers in 2007, so the
strength of their bond, even as children, is established. As adults, differing
perspectives on that pivotal event creates an ever-widening rift, but their co-dependency persists.
Supernatural
has shown a TV series can run for years on the fuel of dysfunctional familial relations. In
Circle: Two Worlds Connected one brother studies neuroscience while the other investigates an alien
conspiracy. The way the story unfolds aligns us firmly with the “sane” one:
until it doesn’t anymore…
The present
day timeline offers the possibility of an ageless alien and a number of associated
mysteries, most notably the disappearance of our leads’ father. Clues also suggest
experiments focusing on memory manipulation are causing student deaths on
campus, till now viewed as suicides.
In the future storyline, aka 2037, Normal Earth is
polluted and the rich live in Smart Earth, a city boasting no crime. Smart
Earth citizens have chips inserted in their necks, and yes that sense of
misgiving specific to mind-control storylines is probably kicking in about now.
(Plus the Smart Earth law keepers wear a lot of white: if there’s one thing
sci-fi has taught me, it’s never trust the clean!)
At first,
we’re unclear as to how the characters from the past connect to those in the
future: memories have been manipulated, a violation revealed by the hacker
Bluebird. But why? And by whom? How exactly did the Smart B system evolve? We’re
also told the brothers became Missing Persons at some point during the time
jump, so with each episode, our dread intensifies.
The show
feels claustrophobic, no matter how spacious the setting, because the narrative
is taking us inside the minds of the characters. Most are lost, searching for a
person or particular truths, or looking to hide from memories. The show is seeped
in desperation, making each episode increasingly compelling.
A number of
characters in Circle: Two Worlds Connected are focused on the tie-in between memory and self. Post Traumatic
Stress Disorder can transform memories into tools of self-harm that impinge on
decision-making and a person’s ability to function. But this scenario wonders if the removal
or suppression of harmful memories is potentially more problematic?
Memory is the recall of experiences, but how the
mind stores them and how the present day self views them, impacts their power.
Are you really “yourself” when pieces of the puzzle that make up your psyche
have been removed?
You may be at peace… But are you truly whole?
Scientific
knowledge can create a delusional, God-like mindset, and that problematic
perspective lies at the heart of the conflicts here: those empowered by knowledge are abusing that power. Deciding the psychological needs of citizen is a
slippery slope, especially when you don’t gain consent.
Smart Earth
seems a metaphor for humanity’s timeless response to complex societal issues:
use wealth to hide from them. The story shows a safe haven can prove to be a
type of prison if those in control have no qualms tampering with your mind—for
your own good.
The drama
is only twelve episodes long. South Korean television generally opts for a single season series, and as a result shows achieve a level of sustained intensity
often missing from Western dramas. No story elements are held over for future
seasons; the production team throws everything into the shorter format.
South Korean
television is also fabulous at capturing emotive moments; the camera documents
myriad emotions flitting across the actors' faces. South Korean actors excel at
communicating complex wave of feeling just with their eyes, so prepare to be
enthralled.
At the
drama’s halfway point I’d guessed some reveals, and missed others. Even now,
there are a few directions the story could go, and the set-up makes many
plot options viable. I’m equally curious about the past and the future: how did
the brothers lose each other? What sequence of events brought them to this
tragic situation?
And the big
question: who is Byul? Is the woman who mysteriously appeared and doesn’t age,
an alien? Or are we seeing a series of clones? Can we even trust the brothers’
childhood memories? Can we trust anyone’s recall at this point?
What is
really going on?
Circle: Two
Worlds Connected is what brilliant sci-fi is supposed to be, packed with complex
characters, exploring many ideas related to our relationship with tech, seeping
paranoia and subterfuge, engaging and enthralling the audience with intelligent
storytelling. The plot is beautifully crafted, the acting is incredible, and
the cinematography is stunning. What more could you ask for?
For a while sci-fi was in a rut (or
to pun, lost in space) but recent times have seen an influx of
thought-provoking scripted television shows. If you’re hungry for more—in an, alien
intelligence that feeds on storylines infused with topical social commentary, kind
of way—check out the pilot episode reviews below.
Some of the shows are released in a
seasonal block, others aren’t screening in the US for another month, so in the
interest of fairness I’ve stuck to one episode per series.
Of course, don’t forget shows that
might have slipped under your radar. 12 Monkeys, The Expanse, Continuum, W: Two
Worlds, and Les Revenantes are my top five in the last few years.
(A lot of people would probably
include Black Mirror, Orphan Black, Sense8, Stranger Things, and The 100 in the
mix, but a favorites list comes down to personal preferences/tastes.)
One thing most TV sci-fi writers appear
to agree on is that the future is not a great place: dystopian storytelling is
definitely “in”. The human psyche seems to have an uneasy relationship with
scientific advances, a deep-seated worry about the lack of empathy the majority
of humanity exhibits and how this will manifest in the future, as well as a
fatalistic view of the human race's long-term chances of survival.
And after that chipper intro, here
are the newbies. Please note my reviews contain spoilers. Frankly, I figured this is okay since the trailers contain more!
3%
This series is the first Netflix
show to be shot in Brazil. Set in a future where a select few live in a version
of Utopia, the title refers to the percentage of the masses that pass the selection process.
A very talented cast—notably the
younger actors who play the desperate contenders—help ratchet up the tension;
a number of the eliminated commit suicide to avoid going back to the slums, so the
air of desperation is intense.
Naturally a rebel group not excited
about the rich/poor dichotomy—aptly called The Cause—is shaking things up. They're trying to sneak in a spy, and the testing team is trying to pinpoint that spy.
Meanwhile, internal politics among the rich community (Offshore) mean
Ezequiel, the man who created and controls the testing process, is at risk of
losing his power.
Want your kids to have a great future?
Think jenga, tetris, and a rubiks cube.
My first issue is with the testing process: one that seems so incredibly flawed it should be
easy to dethrone the man behind it. There is a vagueness to the way the tests
unfold that made them quite disappointing, rather than awe-inspiring.
Personally I would have been more impressed if people were eliminated each
round for reasons hard to define/pinpoint, until they were explained/revealed.
Ezequiel is also copping flak for a
murder in paradise, meaning a killer made it through his trial. (Having
seen the hodge-podge testing process this could not come as less of a
surprise.)
The plot feels simplified in the way
dystopian sci-fi sometimes can—almost like an abstract tale. If the core of the
story is emotional and psychological, I want that aspect of the script to be other-level
GOOD, and this is where the series runs into problems.
I like that physical disability
doesn't rule out a character.
The opening credits are great, some
of the best this year. In terms of cinematography, a lot of experimental shots,
and I guess you could say indulgent editing? Certain scenes feel longer than
they need to be, i.e. rather than helping build tension, interesting angles of
the same scene become distracting.
Overall I didn’t feel deeply engaged
by the 3% pilot, just vaguely interested. Not bad, definitely entertaining, and
I could see what they were trying for, but not a standout.
Note: The show is in Portuguese. (I
have no issues with subs, just mentioning because I have a few dyslexic friends
and for them it can be problematic.)
Incorporated
Executive produced by Ben Affleck
and Matt Damon, this series is set in 2074, and corporations have taken over the
globe. If you work for them you’re in the green zone, if not, the slums of the
red zone (yes, another dichotomous future).
We see two men in suits chatting in
the elevator at work. Normal enough, till the doors open and security is
waiting with a man in handcuffs and a hood over his head. Apparently corporations
are crueler to traitors than now-defunct governments…
The story jumps back 3 days to a good-looking guy getting ready for work. (A gratuitous bare-chested shower
scene, for anyone who didn’t notice actor Sean Teale is really, really ridiculously
good-looking.)
Constant bits of tech and funny
references remind us the setting, while familiar, is a future extrapolated from
today’s corporate society. (The news story about illegal immigrants from the US
living in Canada was hilarious. Considering this was made prior to the election
it’s even more cutting.)
I want one.
I liked the tech on the streets,
talk of genetically engineered crops, and the “food porn”. Not so much the
brainwave pattern reader, designed to show what people are thinking in their
sleep and translate to images i.e. gun, person, turtle.
Considering how complex and personal
dreams are, this seems ridiculously oversimplified. A snake, to one person, may
be a beloved pet, to another a phobia. In this way they could also merely be visual
metaphors for emotions evoked by a situation that have no relation to a snake.
To another it might represent a person, to another a place or a memory. In
summary, this technology won’t “reveal” anything.
Tangent aside, our good-looking, charismatic, suited brunette male lead Ben (really Affleck?) is up to something.
Sure, he’s charming, but he’s a con man, in that his identity is fabricated and
he’s using his position to search for a missing woman I’m guessing is the ex.
On that subject, women don’t do too
well here. The three notable female roles are his duped PTSD wife, the damsel
in distress ex (?), and the mother-in-law, played by
Julia Ormond, a bigwig at the corporation who is therefore heartless and evil.
(She has a Vincent Van Gogh in her office, bought from an impoverished Smithsonian.)
Talk about blocking out reality.
The pilot shows us Ben’s goal is to
get promoted to the 40th floor so he can have the power to rescue
his OTP, all while staying out of The Quiet Room, the place traitors to the
corporation are tortured.
The glossy, moneyed zone of the future has a
corporate crossed with Stepford Wives vibe. Kidnapping is rife, and everybody
seems messed up, giving the writers a lot to play with. Also worth mentioning is that Dennis Haysbert is in the cast (love him).
Visually, the set design of the
green zone sits somewhere between the lower budget of Continuum and the highly stylized
Gattaca. Subplots take place in the slums, a much messier/grittier environment,
where we follow the missing girl’s brother in his new career as a cage
fighter.
So far, I like Ben. He’s basically
taking on The Man, so his character is in a state of paranoia. He also has
conflicting feelings about the ruthless path he’s committed to, including using his
rich wife, who he obviously cares for, and framing a co-worker for
corporate espionage. The premise has an underlying tension that is engaging.
Westworld
Westworld is HBO’s much-lauded sci-fi
offering. Despite the hype, I didn’t rush to watch because I grew up disliking
cowboy movies. Basically if it’s a Western, my interest leaves the premises.
But this is a sci-fi-infused Western with a lot of philosophically heavy reviews
online, so I figured I could handle cowboy hats for at least one episode.
“Have you ever questioned the nature of your reality?”
We get a VO from a pretty blonde
lady who starts out being interviewed naked in a chair before waking up in her
frontier homestead. (Yes the show meets HBO’s unspoken
nakedness-as-soon-as-possible criteria.)
Basically the story is set in a future Wild
West theme park populated by robots and (tip of the hat to Asimov) they cannot
hurt the humans who visit. They can be reprogrammed constantly, so for many
paying customers hurting them is part of the fun. (Am i the only one having holodeck
flashbacks?)
For me the show has shades of
Whedon’s Dollhouse, what with the mind wipes and programming of personalities
to suit the client’s narrative needs, as well as the show Real Humans (Sweden)
and the remake Humans (Britain) that looked at the treatment of robots after they hit the market in the near future. It’s a common theme in science fiction: is it
mistreatment if the person is not human?
A bit Romeo and Juliet. If they were older. And robots.
A look at man’s desire to rape,
pillage and kill is threaded through a lot of HBO’s programs. Here the premise
is ripe with subtext. What defines humanity? Will the creations become more or
less than the creator? Is it ever really okay to give in to the darkest urges,
whatever the rationalization? Sure, no humans are damaged, but can torturing
and mutilating a creation that looks human and appears to suffer, really not
impact an individual?
We’re introduced to some of the
gentlest of the robot characters, and see them repeating their narrative. Oddly,
I felt sorry for them at first, but then, seeing their looped existence with no
awareness of prior events, my sympathy was dulled. Usually I empathies with the
robot characters because they often exhibit a type of cultural innocence, but
here they really do seem mechanized—at first.
I like these two. Although I guess I'm
appreciating computer configurations.
Only when the robots malfunction following an upgrade does the story begin its journey into
fascinating territory. Sentience, and the definition of such, will doubtless be
an oft-visited topic over the next century. (At this point the humans are the
creepiest things in the show: they seem the most soulless. The corporate
workplace scenes at the park confirm empathy wasn’t high on the employee
requirement list.)
The subconscious is one of the most
interesting things about humanity, so if wiping the robot’s memories is akin to
human repression, the experiences are not really gone. How those memories will manifest on
the surface is what makes this show worth watching. More importantly, to borrow from a master: do androids dream of electronic sheep?
The romanticization of the Wild West
is pretty much a misogynist’s paradise, with women’s roles falling in either the
traditional virgin or whore dichotomy (with a few exceptions). And I'm still not sure
why the makeup of the saloon girls was more seventies porn star than anything
else, but hey.
I found it interesting families
visited the theme park, considering the violence taking place at the same time.
Is a family holiday really fun if over yonder hills some guy’s getting his
jollies off shooting Native American representations and raping local (albeit robot) women?
About twenty minutes in Anthony
Hopkins appears as the Park owner. The man is a treasure: such an incredible
performance. He’s responsible for the upgrades, and therefore the malfunctions,
but Dr. Ford has his own agenda.
The cast is quite impeccable. James
Marsden and Thandie Newton: love them both onscreen. Jeffrey Wright, Evan Rachel Wood, Ed Harris, and the list
goes on. The storytelling feels very sophisticated, and the show is beautifully filmed, with a great score (but the production
values of HBO usually border on impeccable.). Toward the end of the pilot is a massacre soundtracked with an orchestral
version of Paint It Black—to say this is a new kind of take on the Western genre would be an understatement.
Travelers
Screening in the US in December (but
ahead in Canada), I really enjoyed the pilot of this time travel series. My appreciation is probably due to a mix of careful pacing, interesting premise, and
the way in which exposition is offered to the audience.
On a side note: The first episode includes
a scene with someone fighting in a cage, something I’d just seen in Incorporated,
making me wonder what exactly appeals to the American psyche… Also, Ian Tracey
appears in the pilot for this series, and Incorporated. He’s becoming a cult
show regular. Seriously, The Outer Limits, Dark Angel, Smallville, The 4400,
Flashpoint, Sanctuary, Supernatural, The 100, Wayward Pines, Bates Motel,
Continuum… The list goes on!
Back to the story: people in the
present day are introduced right before their time of death (text appears
onscreen telling us this), and then obviously a form of consciousness transfer
occurs. Each gets up a changed person, and heads off with obvious goals.
I like this style of storytelling; rather than straight exposition the plot is allowed to unfold. The audience is
along for the ride, but not pandered to, which is my preferred form of science
fiction television.
The travelers are keeping their
mission details on the down low but they’re seriousness and determination adds
extra gravitas. They’re not here for fun (not even a quick bout of casual sex),
and they won’t interfere with predetermined deaths.
I like the leads.
The travelers are well trained in
hand-to-hand combat. Not so much in childcare, and a few faux pas reveal that the information they memorized in regards to the lives of the bodies they now
inhabit can prove a tad inaccurate (especially for the guy who transported into a
junkie).
Hopefully a plot reveal in the
future will explain why the blonde woman feels comfortable naked all the time
while everyone else appears fine with keeping their clothes on... Overall the
travelers seem bemused by their new everyday lives.
FBI agent Grant MacLaren, played by
Eric McCormack, is on the trail of the group thanks to obtuse online messages
that he assumes are left by gamers. The closing scene offers a twist that
shifts the dynamic among the leads—and possibly audience assumptions.
Slower paced and sprinkled with mystery sci-fi, containing less sex and violence, is a harder sell. Hopefully people will tune in
because already there is a stylistic feel to this show that I find interesting. Shot-wise, a
documentary-like approach, in terms of camera work, is interspersed with more
traditionally static frames, a juxtaposition that suits the series.
Now I'm getting a Stargate vibe.
Travelers is created/written by
Brad Wright, who co-created Stargate SG-1, and created Stargate: Atlantis, and
SGU. The Stargate programs were always very good with emotional elements of the
plot, so this “fish out of water” scenario, combined with high stakes (saving humanity
in the future) should unfold in an interesting way.
Obviously much of the show’s success
will depend on the nature of the missions, since at this point the audience has
no idea what they will entail, and how the series chooses to deal with the time
travel aspects, which have tripped up many a program in the past. Personally, I think how successfully viewers engage with the personalities projected into the past will
matter the most. Already the travelers seem stressed, lonely, and somewhat
naïve when it comes to dealing with “modern” life, and the issues attached to
the lives of the body’s they’ve possessed (for want of a better word). Maintaining their facades, and the required emotional detachment needed to complete their tasks, won't be easy—but hopefully, will be fascinating to watch.
Casual use of the term empowerment
has come under scrutiny in recent times; female empowerment especially is a bit of a minefield, and on television everyone has different ideas as to what
constitutes empowered female characters.
Telling people they should like a
character or program for politically correct or “empowering” reasons is
pointless. A television series involves hours of viewing, possibly spread
across years. If the audience doesn’t connect in some way with at least one
character, they won’t continue watching. The harsh truth is you need viewers to
feel engaged, not obligated. And that’s complicated.
People recommend a series and assume
I’ll love it because the female lead “kicks ass.” But lately my reaction has
been disappointment for the most part. When a trend in entertainment takes off,
new tropes and stereotypes evolve, and the current lot hasn’t been holding much
appeal.
Discussing with a friend how
“empowerment” for female characters seems to translate as a penchant for physical
violence and more aggressive language, she pointed out these are characteristics
traditionally viewed as masculine traits, and in today’s world are still more
admired than attributes considered traditionally feminine.
This got me thinking: empathy,
kindness, tolerance and gentleness, historically considered feminine traits
(however right or wrong an assumption) aren’t really celebrated onscreen. Great
for brief humanizing moments, or when displayed by the support cast, but they
aren’t the dominant aspect of leading female characters currently on TV. Aggression—whether
physical or verbal—is generally the popular trait.
At present, I dislike the Passionate Idiot trope most. She’s found not just on television but in film and
fiction too. The Passionate Idiot is often dressed in skin-tight jeans and a
singlet, is a heavy drinker, and always mouthing off. Basically she acts like a
bitch because she’s been hurt in the past. Usually good in physical fights, and
often involved in them, being aggressive both physically and verbally.
With this emerging stereotype
“passion” replaces intelligence as an admirable quality; the passionate idiot
is brave but not too smart, missing vital clues, often
forgoing a plan and leaping into dangerous situations without thinking. But
loyalty to friends, combined with an aggressively “passionate” nature, is apparently
more appealing in terms of hero qualities than an intelligent woman who uses
her brain, and occasionally practices restraint.
Have you ever heard the argument
most TV and film is written to appeal to the inner 12-year-old boy of the male
audience? I feel like the “empowerment” female heroes of today are written to
be in-ya-face cool as imagined by the inner 12-year-old girl of the female
audience.
Scriptwriting is key to creating
interesting female characters onscreen, but glossing a PC veneer of
“empowerment” onto the surface doesn’t an in-depth and fascinating character
make. So what makes a female character on TV qualify as empowered? Tough
question, since it involves breaking down actions and motivations, onion-style.
A flawed character is immensely
appealing and always has been, but why are some deemed annoying while others
become TV icons? At what point, and why, does a representation of a woman on
television leap out of the screen, making the viewer want to see the rest of
her journey? And does a female character need to be “empowered” to be popular?
Life experience impacts audience
response. That’s what I like about television: it’s just you, the story, and a
whole lot of twists and turns, in terms of reactions. Sometimes
people can’t verbalize why they love a show or character, possibly because
they’re not consciously aware of the reasoning; the subconscious has it’s
own agenda, and often doesn’t like to share.
Considering my own response to female
characters on the small screen seemed a good way to ponder empowerment, and
appeal. Below I’ve listed a few shows, characters, and scenes that have stuck,
in the hopes of breaking down where exactly empowerment and engagement cross
for me as a viewer (that will hopefully help me as a writer).
Orphan Black
The clone premise of this program
provides even better storylines than identical twins with opposing
personalities (here’s looking at you, Wakefield sisters from Sweet Valley
High). They say everyone has a doppelganger in the world, and this is a
nightmarish/futuristic interpretation of the idea.
Orphan Black isn’t my favorite
science fiction series but I think the writers play with expectations of
womanhood and a woman’s concept of identity marvelously. Part of Orphan Black’s
success is the way the narrative plays with tropes. Storylines we’re
traditionally used to seeing on TV get flipped on their head. A dark sense of
humor balances out heavy themes; I love the occasionally whacky messes this mob
gets into alongside the intense dramatic moments.
Most notable characters (for me)
include clone Alison Hendrix, a suburban housewife whose desire for Brady-like
perfection turns out to be just one facet of her nature. On her journey
of “empowerment” Alison found time to fit murder and a drug-dealing
career into her busy lifestyle.
Then there is Helena. Trained to be a
killing machine, Helena enters the story as an assassin attempting to eliminate
her fellow clones. Raised on warped religious dogma, she’s hilariously funny in
a deeply shocking way, but at the same time her unique perspective and
experience of the world makes for a fascinating character.
What I like most about Helena is how the evolution of her empowerment is choice in the form of mercy, and
empathy—especially in a maternal sense. And viewers are never 100 per cent sure
which path Helena will take (as shown by her surprising soft spot for Alison’s
fumbling husband Donnie).
The clone club also includes gay
clone Cosima and transgender clone Tony, and the idea the clones have different sexual orientations along with varying personalities is intriguing. Some of the
clone club are extremely intelligent, and I like that while Rachel uses her high IQ without empathy to further her own agenda, Cosima primarily uses her intelligence
to help others.
Being more emotionally open and
connected to each other is part of what empowers the surviving clones; aggression
and physical violence are tools but they also utilize careful planning and choose to practice
kindness, even to the detriment of long-term goals. In summary, Orphan Black
offers a wide spectrum of empowered female characters.
Slap Scene In Pretty Little Liars
Pretty Little Liars is rife with
interesting female representations. Jenna is an intriguing character, blinded
by a prank attributed to the Pretty Little Liars crew (although Alison is primarily
responsible). As a result Jenna is a prime suspect in the hunt for mysterious cyber-bully
A.
In the bathroom scene I’m
referencing, Jenna smirks because she recently paid new character Caleb to spy
on Hanna. Hanna fell in love and lost her virginity to Caleb before discovering
he was in Jenna’s employ.
Upon crossing paths, Hanna, who hasn't employed physical violence up to this point, impulsively slaps Jenna,
who becomes disoriented and frightened; a slap would be shocking for anyone,
but more so for a blind character. The other Pretty Little Liars present are
stunned, displaying neither condemnation nor approval.
Hannah picks up Jenna’s sunglasses
and places them in the girl’s shaking hand, with the line, “This is Hanna, in
case you’re wondering.”
Pretty Little Liars always explores
power dynamics across different types of relationships, especially focusing on
the grey zone. Hanna crosses a line, and in the moment it feels warranted
because the audience sides with her pain. What Jenna set in motion for Hanna
might have pushed another teen to suicide, so it could be argued Jenna's already
crossed a psychologically abusive line.
But hitting
a blind person in the school bathroom is wrong (hey, hitting anyone in the school
toilets seems wrong) and it is one of the first times Jenna appears frightened
in the series. When it comes to lies, manipulation, and bullying, Jenna is
empowered, but in this moment she becomes the victim, and audience empathy
swings to her.
Keeping in
the mind the torment Jenna inflicted, you understand that loss of control even
if you don’t agree with it. Hannah snapped—and slapped! But it’s a simmering
powder keg on both sides. If not for this group of friends Jenna wouldn’t have
lost her sight.
That’s what
I like about the writing: Jenna is a Mean Girl before she loses her sight, and
after. Going blind doesn’t disempower her. In this moment it does place her at
a disadvantage, but overall her personality never loses its vindictive bite. To
paraphrase her stepbrother Toby, she’s a strong person—it’s what she does with
that strength that is the problem.
The confrontation between Jenna and
Hanna has a lot of layers, and history; probably why the scene stuck. In
this moment Hanna leaves veiled and not-so-veiled threats behind, crossing over
into physical violence, but her journey is a result of Jenna leaving veiled
threats behind and crossing into psychologically abusive territory. As with most power plays in the PLL world, nobody wins.
At its core, from day one the show
has been about a group of young women’s struggles for empowerment in the
face of persecution and blackmail, in a largely predatory world.
Women Of The Expanse
Beautiful costuming too.
Most notably, Shohreh Aghdashloo as
Chrisjen Avasarala and Dominique Tipper as Naomi Ngata.
First up, I love the writing on this
show and look forward to the second season. The cultures of the future are
complex, and as a result the politics of the solar system are teetering
on the brink of conflict. Conspiracies abound, and in terms of the main
characters it seems like everybody is hiding something (or maybe the audience becomes
as paranoid as the characters onscreen).
A high-ranking Earth politician, Chrisjen
Avasarala is playing the long game. In pursuit of her goal she has become dehumanized,
or should I say disassociated from the impact of her decisions. Great scriptwriting
lets the audience understand how she came to be this way and why she’s so
blinkered.
Chrisjen Avasarala is also a grieving
mother, and this is worked into the story in a relevant way. The scenes with her
family offer stark contrast to her ruthlessness in the political arena. (Her husband
and grandson can be viewed as embodiments of the Earth First belief system that fuels her actions.)
At present the character is
empowered by her political skills—in the grey zone. Surviving in a morally
bankrupt environment where manipulation is an essential tool, rather than being
a “baddie” the character is presented as an intelligent, complex individual who
has empowered herself in a questionable way. She’s not violent, but has no
qualms ordering violent acts she considers justified. Her empathy is
unpredictable, in terms of the impact it has on decisions, and that’s
intriguing.
The character Naomi Nagata is a bit
of a mystery. She spends the first season trying to stay alive, along with the
rest of the surviving crew, and her interplay with Jim Holden sets up an
interesting power dynamic. Naomi Nagata is intelligent and well liked
on the ship, but she’s obviously got secrets, and when caught up in the fall-out of a
conspiracy the team can’t help being suspicious of each other.
Naomi acts as the moral compass for
the character Amos Burton. Exhibiting sociopathic traits, he has a tendency for
violent responses and only listens to Naomi. In the chaos that erupts, this does
empower her, providing an insta-back-up vote but it’s also a problematic
dynamic, especially under pressure.
By the end of the season it’s clear
how much the team respects this character: calm under pressure, she’s an
independent, clever, loyal, and pragmatic survivor who prefers a non-violent
approach to problem solving. Seeing what Naomi will do next, and whether or not
her secrets will be revealed in Season 2, is one of many reasons I keep tuning
in.
Classic Flashback: Buffy and Co.
Way old skool.
A lot has been written about Buffy
and her friends. Fans will tell you she’s the blonde cheerleader in a horror
movie who is always meant to die… yet didn’t. Instead she becomes the
killer—albeit a righteous one, her victim’s an endless list of supernatural
nasties.
Part of the show’s charm is that people
who love television created it, taking well-known storylines and throwing them
for a loop amidst scripts brimming with pop culture references. More importantly, the
series provided a steady stream of interesting female characters.
In relation to empowerment I think
Buffy losing her supernatural strength (Helpless, Season 3 episode 12), drugged
to the point where she was weaker than the average girl yet still capable of
killing a vampire and surviving to tell the tale, is a standout. The goal was
to show Buffy’s intelligence and survival instinct were the true source of her
power. Episodes like this made the series so phenomenal.
The addition of Faith to the cast
was genius. Faith, a slayer who emerged when Buffy died briefly, came
to be viewed as the dark side of Buffy. Unstable and volatile from the outset,
Faith’s existence allowed larger questions to be worked into the narrative,
like the age-old nature versus nurture.
Buffy maintained friends/family
were the key to her own stability, whereas Willow disagreed, believing Faith’s
violent and destructive tendencies were an innate part of her psyche.
Independence versus responsibility, isolation
versus teamwork: just some of the choices the female lead struggles with. Sexuality and
relationships were also core themes. Angel’s turn to the dark side (a
vampire who loses his soul) as a metaphor for boyfriends who become violent
after sex was brilliantly clever. Learning how to be a woman empowered by a
relationship rather than disempowered was constantly addressed.
I’m not really a fan of the final
season, and dispersing the strength of the slayer to teen girls everywhere is
probably one of my least favorite aspects of the show. But I think any series
that runs longer than half a decade has a season or two less loved by fans.
Aside from Buffy and Faith, Willow,
Cordelia, Anya, Tara, Dawn, Joyce and a heap of other female characters along the way were
on journeys of personal growth. Everyone made mistakes, and evolved.
The women of BTVS were understandably flawed, and that made them endearingly relatable.
Most would say Buffy The Vampire
Slayer had many hits, and a few misses, in terms of addressing female empowerment,
but it was constantly striving to challenge the female characters, and will
always be a standout inspiration for future scriptwriters wanting to create
well-rounded, engaging women of the small screen who inspire their audience.
