"Wherever whores go"

I started this a while ago so some of the below isn't quite accurate but I decided not to edit it...enjoy....

=======================================================================

So I'm settling in for the night to watch one of my favourite TV shows of recent years on DVD....filmed in Ireland full of knights and jousts, a hot headed king who likes hunting and whoring who is married to a woman he doesn't love, a pie with live birds, a noble adviser who loses his head, a world where women are sadly the property of their fathers, fights over crowns and over faith, and Natalie Dormer as a young woman from a prominent family who doesn't want to be a queen, but wants to be the queen... granted there is a more female nudity than is strictly necessary.

Can you guess what I'm watching? That's right, The Tudors...such a wonderful piece of entertaining historical inaccuracy...as beautiful as it is incorrect and at times anachronistic. If you never saw it, can get past the nudity, and don't mind your history a little broken, I recommend it. She may not be historically accurate but Dormer's version of Anne Boleyn being told by her father that "I didn't raise you to have opinions" only to reply that the reason she was queen was not entirely due to her father or her brother or "any man you could name" but she too played a role in gaining her position is amazing.

That said, many of you probably went in a different direction with that description and thought of a newer show that is less based on history but lives in a fantasy world that is stuck in a time just before the time of The Tudors and which features Natalie Dormer in a very similar role- one could say playing Anne Boleyn was prep for playing Margery Tyrell. That is right, Game of Thrones.

Many of you have asked me over recent months about events in the latest season but I was waiting until the show was legally available to those who didn't have pay TV- I'm not entering into a piracy discussion...season 4 is on iTunes now, and it was been on google play each week at the same time as it was on pay TV I recommend any of these options if you wish to catch up.. it is due on DVD in February and can already be pre-ordered (I am looking forward to the arrival of my blu ray copy).

To start with a warning to those in Australia and the rest of the world who haven't seen it yet...spoilers are coming... many spoilers... so look away now... just so you don't end up having a spoiling fit like Sansa in season 1. There will also be reveals of the events from the books, though these will not go past the section of the books that the series has caught up with (they will only cover up until before the epilogue in Storm of Swords...the section in the epilogue hasn't appeared on screen and I'm hoping it will so unlike other book fans who have whinged that it didn't appear this season, I won't spoil and hope it becomes the prologue of season 5), so if you like to pretend the books don't exist, also see Sansa.

Hopefully you are gone now... just in case one more warning...

 

Hopefully everyone who would be angered is gone. So my opinions on the good, the bad, and the ugly of Game of Thrones season 4.

I will go backwards and start with the ugly and boy did it get ugly.

Once upon a time, I wrote a blog post that said once you got past the show's need to show more female nudity than was strictly necessary, it had a good politics of difference going especially as its female characters were diverse and complex (you can read it here). This season undid a LOT of what I liked about the presentation of women and did nothing to help some of its male characters. You have probably guessed that I am talking about the heightened sexual violence, particularly in episodes 3 and 4. Game of Thrones has never shied away from slight alterations to the plot of the book which has increased the sexual violence of the show (if not mentioned, the scene appears in the book too). In season 1, the consensual sex scene between Khal Drogo and Daenerys was changed to a rape scene...the scene in the book may be between a 14 year old girl and a man possibly twice her age, and she may be unhappy in her marriage but it was common practice in Middle Ages for marriages of this type to take place and the world of Song of Ice and Fire is akin to the world of Medieval England. In season 2, in my least favourite scene in all of Game of Thrones thus far (equal to the Red Wedding), Joffrey watched as Ros brutally beat another prostitute for his enjoyment...Ros does not exist in the books beyond one mention in the first book nor this scene definitely doesn't exist, Joffrey's sadism in the books take a different flavour as he turns it all in Sansa's direction having the King's Guard (except the Hound who refuses) beat her and though this is horrid and is glanced in one scene of the show, it has nowhere near the disgusting level of brutality of the prostitute scene and it is not sexual in nature (well Joffrey may see it as sexual but from Sansa's point of view sexual in nature, it is just violent). In season 3, Ros is brutally murdered in sexualised manner and then there is the big change to the Red Wedding which sees a pregnant woman being stabbed in the womb...aside from having a difference name, Robb's wife in the book is never pregnant (at least, it is hinted very strongly she isn't when she is last mentioned...whoops sorry after book 3 spoiler but I assume that isn't a huge revelation) and she does not die at or even attend the Red Wedding in a failed attempt to lessen Walder Frey's anger at Robb (this action and not the rest of the Red Wedding which I was expecting is why it equals the season 2 prostitute scene for horror in my mind). I was horrified by all of this but as it is in the books (and as Medieval England was too), Westeros was not a great place to be a woman  and so I dealt with it to a degree. Then came episodes 3, 4 and to a lesser extent 5 of season 4...

I could accept that the show runners of Game of Thrones were uncomfortable with the idea of consensual sex between a man and his teen bride (even after the aging up of Dany) and also that they wanted another way to convey Joffrey's horribleness in a few concise snippets of brutal sexual violence instead of having him repeatedly have a 13 year old girl (granted 15 or 16 in the show) beaten. However there was NO reason for the show to make the scene between Jaime and Cersei in the sept a rape scene! It is an inherently disturbing scene as it stands in the books as it is still a sex sense between twins in what is effectively a chapel near the dead body of their bastard son. This is the scene that finally breaks their relationship in the books...I know show watchers will be confused as Jaime and Cersei had sex in the scene finale, but in the books, after the sept the next scene in which twincest looks imminent ends with Jaime turning Cersei down (I waited for Jaime to do the same in the finale and was highly disappointed when it didn't happen). There were three reasons to be horrified by the sept scene. The first being that it was unnecessary generally. I'm not sure why the change and the reasons given by the film makers (including the ridiculously attempt to say was consensual when it blatantly wasn't) did not explain or justify it in the slightest...I understand that it is a twisted, unconventional and generally wrong relationship (they are twins, it is pretty obvious that it is wrong in a big way from the get go) but that doesn't make what is clearly rape "just" violent sex, and I don't understand why the show runners thought having Jaime return to King's Landing and be rejected on a few occasions by Cersei before the Purple Wedding was necessary (I think leaving it like the books and having him return after Joffrey's death would have been better). The second being it was a blatant attempt to make Cersei more sympathetic by victimising her. This says there can be no such thing as a female villain unless men can overcome her easily and that rape is simply an acceptable plot tool for achieving this. Making light of rape in this manner is abhorrent and should never be acceptable! The rage of the internet after this episode hit this point many times and I could not agree more. Also I feel it needs to be said that women can be villains just a men can and there should be nothing uncomfortable for people in this...personally I love to hate Cersei in the books as she is an amazing villain. Third and lastly, it means the show must redeem (i.e. ask its audience to forgive) a rapist (for the second time, since they already did this with Khal Drogo). By the end of the third book, thanks to his time with Brienne, Jaime has become an increasingly more appealing character and he is well on his way to becoming the fan favourite among book readers that he now is. I could never get past him pushing Bran out of a window so he never became a favourite of mine but he did grow on me. It seems at just the turning point of his character, the show has stepped him back in the eyes of the viewers and made it so many readers of the books will be uncomfortable with what they have done with a favourite character and that it may take a while for viewers (especially women) to get anyway near liking him again (it took over a season for me to come to terms with Spike (one of my favourite characters) attempting to rape Buffy on Buffy...so I'm not sure when or if I will be okay with Jaime again). Also it means that the writers make light of a rape as they show Cersei approaching Jaime not as a rapist but as a desired lover in the finale- again I feel the need to refer to Buffy wherein Joss Whedon made it clear that Spike's attempted rape of Buffy was a horrid act and allowed the viewers to determine in the last episode of the show (not a mere 7 episodes BUT around 24 episodes later- sure I know different season length but the point remains!) to determine for themselves if they thought his redemptive journey was complete and whether Buffy would allow him to have sex with her on the night before the apocalyptic battle they are to engage in by fading to black as they faced each other across a room (I love that he gave the viewers their own space to determine this especially as I believed that they definitely wouldn't have had sex...and in his brilliance, Whedon voices in the commentary of this episode, that whilst he allows viewers to make up their own minds, he doesn't think the characters would have resumed the sexual side of their relationship because he didn't believe that the attempted rape was distant enough or that the act had been fully forgiven by either Buffy or Spike himself at this point).

That was episode 3 and then it was followed immediately by the massive divergences from the book in episode 4 and 5 which saw Jon and other men of the Night's Watch heading north to fight the mutineers who killed Jeor Moermont. Surprisingly the internet didn't rage as much about these as the sept scene is key to the book plot so book readers were more easily enraged by changes to it. It was big warning when Burn Gorman showed up on the scene that creepiness was coming...he is an actor that makes my blood curdle when he appears on screen, not because he is bad but because he is so good at playing slimey, creepy or just plain evil, and I felt that way long before he played Owen on Torchwood (one of my least favourite TV characters- almost up there with Joffrey albeit for less sinister reasons). Next thing you know the character he played (one who doesn't appear in the books) is sitting in Craster's Keep drinking wine for Jeor Moermont's skull and threatening the teenaged Meera Reed with rape whilst his fellow mutineers perform an orgy of gang rapes around him. I liked that scenes in these episodes allowed Jon to have a moment to show emerging leadership qualities and gave Ghost a moment to shine BUT they also added multiple rapes that do not occur in the books, and threatened with rape Meera- a teenage girl! The second half of the third book at the Wall, after the siege in which Ygritte dies and Mance Rayder is captured which occurs significantly earlier in the books, is about politics and I'm sure the show is getting to them so I won't go discuss them but I will say by delaying the battle and filling the gap with another set piece that included rape, once again said that GoT was a show that was fine with sexual violence as a throw away plot device. And again I was horrified!

People I know have declared that after the above they will no longer be watching GoT and I can see why. I won't be joining them in this boycott as I love the books and I still believe that there is something of quality in the show broadly BUT the writers of the show need to learn that rape should NEVER be a plot device used to "spice up" bits that you find less interesting or stick in where you think the translation from book to TV show leaves gaps! You may be portraying a world where the position of women is horrid but you are portraying it to 21st century people, many of them young men and you need to allow your tone and your choices to reflect this and not to ever give them the opinion that sexual violence is acceptable. I hope that they listen to the rage of the internet on this topic and take it to heart as they think of how they will adapt books 4 and 5 (likely to come as a bit of a combo over multiple seasons in my reckoning). I will applaud the continued amazingness of the Tyrell women, Arya Stark and Daenerys, the introduction of the awesome Ellaria Sand, the changes to Dany's seduction of Daario Naharis (a brief attempt by a show that is so about the male gaze, to show the female gaze in action) and to Sansa's role in the Eyrie after the death of her aunt, and the lines like "Everywhere in the world, they hurt little girls" from Cersei and "I will do what queens do, I will rule" from Dany....this all was good but it does nowhere close to allowing me to forgive them for the manner in which sexual violence was employed by the show this season.

And to add just remember sexual violence can of course be enacted against men too and the vast bulk of the Theon events in this season don't exist in the books...though the removal of body parts does (or at least is very strongly hinted at when Theon, after disappearing for about two books, reappears as Reek in book 5). The bath tub scene where he is forced to sponge Ramsay Snow, though not physical sexual violence was most definitely psychological sexual torture, and was again not called for.  Again there is NO excuse for this GoT!










Before the bad, the good...

I briefly hinted at a few of them above. As in season 3, I delighted in every scene featuring Olenna Tyrell or Tywin Lannister and particularly when they appeared together- I would love a show that where just Charles Dance and Diana Rigg compete in a verbal sparring match every week and nothing else happened, anyone else? I never warmed to Tywin in the book but losing Charles Dance almost bought me to tears (Also where is his Emmy nomination! Quite the oversight!). I hope we get more Diana Rigg in season 5- I'm not sure a conversation between Lady Olenna and Cersei will be as interesting as her and Tywin but it might be, and I really want more of her instructing Margery on how to get her way with men.

I cheered at the Purple Wedding as I had been waiting to for over a year for it to happen and the Sigur Ros guest spot just added to it. 

The other highlights were the interactions between Brienne and Pod, the interactions between Ayra and the Hound, Hodor being Hodor (going to miss him next season but the Bran storyline does get dull so I understand the change), the heartbreaking dismissal of Jorah by Dany (I did cry a lot in this scene as Iain Glen's performance just shattered me- though I knew it was coming  and they did delay it ALOT as it breaks up two of my favourites and my wish-it-would-happen-but-never-will couple...that said it sets up interesting paths for these characters if the books are followed but no spoilers I promised), the way Ygritte's death played out (slightly changed from the book but again with the heart break and tears and great performances by Kat Harrington and Rose Leslie), and Littlefinger and Sansa just owning it in the scenes at the Eyrie.

I will also put it out there and say, as much as I despised the sexual violence of episodes 4 and 5 with their book changes, I was intrigued by the change with regards babies and white walkers. I'd like to see that explored more but considering where characters will be based (according to the book) in the next season we aren't likely to see that again for a while- that said more changes from the books have been hinted at.

Oh and biggest highlight of the season....here be the Martells!!! My favourite family from the book FINALLY made it to the screen. I've waiting for this for over half a season. The show's portrayal of Oberyn was perfect, as was their Elliria Sand- just oozing charm and intrigue. The Martells getting to be the family that is on the side of female empowerment- of course girls can rule in their own right in Dorne if they are the eldest- was brilliantly unchanged.  Oberyn's cockiness and wit was played perfectly by Pedro Pascal and he completely got me past the fact that I imagined the Martells as Middle Eastern not from the Iberian peninsular (OK the Martell actors aren't- being Chilean, and next season even Kiwi- but that is the look the show is trying to go with). Sad to have such a powerhouse of charisma only around for one season but it is probably a really good move that the showrunners kept to the books on this one, even if that meant eye gouging, as Pedro Pascal was a massive scene stealer. Bring on next season, time in Dorne and the Sand Snakes(though I still don't see a casting for my favourite Martell, Arianne is yet to be cast and it seems much to my sorrow, she has been cut from the show...I guess too many kick arse women from one family is too much for the GoT showrunners)!!!!! FYI, none of that is a spoiler in my books as it has already been announced.

And just to end the good, one of my favourite Oberyn quotes... which summarises why Dorne is better than the rest of Westeros and why it is so good that the show will head there next season!

And now the bad...

The bad does not stack up against either the good or the ugly (aka the horrendous) but it is a big deal in my opinion. The bad comes down to the changing of two sections of the final episode from the book (aside from the twinsect scene already mentioned which was also bad). I don't mind too much when the show messes with the books except as detailed before in the case of the addition of unnecessary sexual violence. I didn't mind in the slightest that they killed off Jojen Reed especially as George R R Martin struggles with how to use him in the books, or that the Hound fought Brienne and Brienne met Ayra, or that the Hound and Ayra got so close to the Eyrie, or the changes to Sansa at the Eyrie, or the white walker baby, or the changes to Dany and Daario's relationship...the list could be longer. The changes I mind (aside from the ugly ones) are the changes that will impact character motivation and there are two interactions in Tyrion's escape from prison that are key to the motivation of both himself and Jaime in the subsequent books.

Interaction one: the interaction between Tyrion and Jaime. In the book, Tyrion tells Jaime of all the men in King's Landing that Cersei has cheated on him with (a larger number in the book than the series). The line where he lists them haunts Jaime for the next two books, and is part of the death of the twincest- the combination of Tyrion's revelation and Jaime's guilt about the sept scene (because of where they were and that Cersei had her period at the time and was therefore a little hesitant...not because it was rape, it was not) result in Jaime's rejection of Cersei by the end of book 3.

Interaction two: the interaction between Tyrion and Tywin. In the book, this interaction ends with Tyrion demanding to know what Tywin did with his wife, who he now knows (thanks to Jaime) definitely wasn't a whore. Tywin replies with what I have chosen to title this post and what is one of my favourite GoT lines because of horrible yet subtle way it conveys everything that is wrong with Westerosi attitudes to women without having to use sexual violence (listen up GoT showunners, George R R Martin pitched it wrong, you got it profoundly wrong!)- "Wherever whores go". This line is what motivates Tyrion ultimately to kill his father and also is what drives where he chooses go in the next season after his escape. Charles Dance has hinted he will reappear in season 5 and I hope it is just for his ghost to utter this line as he would have delivered it perfectly.

These two changes mean that I have no clue how they will motivate Jaime and Tyrion in the next season if their actions follow those in the book...

Anyhow enough on GoT especially as it finished months ago...I just felt it was time to finish this as it has been sitting as a draft for an age.

"Well, it beats being alone all by yourself."

So it seems this is the time of the year where I get all serious on my blog in a less political way (as that happens relatively often) and more of a personal sense. This isn't the post I had planned to post next as I have this post on season four of Game of Thrones almost ready to go, nor is it a feel sorry for me post, it is just a stating of a fact from my experience.

The quote that is the title is of course from the amazing Cordelia Chase from Buffy and Angel in the context of her saying that being popular doesn't mean she isn't lonely. She may be the most shallow of sources (at the time of this quote) but that in some ways doesn't lessen that it is relevant to modern society. In modern society, we are so surrounded by people as we go about our busy lives that we sometimes don't realise that we are neglecting human interaction in the more personal sense. For everyone this is bad, but for extroverts doubly so as it means you are often lacking in energy.

I've felt this particularly hard this year. Don't get me wrong I work with an awesome bunch of people (at both of my jobs) and I get to hang out each Sunday with my amazing church family BUT in previous years I was working every day with two of my closest friends and had the same nights of the week free as other close friends so I saw them pretty regularly. Earlier this year, I moved to a new second job and left the office with people I knew better. I also found myself in the position of being busy on exactly the nights my friends were free and free on the nights they were busy- even Saturdays weirdly my rare free Saturday almost always seems to coincide with the ones others were busy on. I work with people so I'm always around people but I don't often get to have conversations about things that interest me or to have deeper personal conversations. I also find when I do see people that we have one of those weird conversations where we both think the other knows what has been going on for us lately, but then we realise mid conversation that this isn't the case and have to backtrack and retell everything.

So many people in society are more busy than they possibly should be. So this is just me saying text messages are cheap as as phone calls. If you think that someone is busy and you think that you haven't seen them in a while, just shoot them a text. You might make their day, especially if they are an extrovert who needs a bit of re-energising.

That is my two cents for today...

A love/hate song to the technological world

As I finish rewatching my one of my favourite products of the digital technology...The Lizzie Bennett Diaries...for those not in the know, it is a vlog version of Pride and Prejudice and I strongly recommend you look it up on the YouTube- it is now on DVD too (that's what I'm watching it on- thank you to another creation of the digital age...crowd funding websites so awesome (yay for Kickstarter!)...though I warn you if you get the DVDs, it is very binge-able) but it will always be on YouTube for free so enjoy that. I also have been playing a lot of 2048 in various forms lately...so addictive. And so I'm feel yay for the digital world, it can be so awesome and fun!

Simultaneously I am fighting with a broken computer on which my internet keeps crashing and which has stuck my new phone in restore mood (I've tried many times to get it out of restore but it isn't happening...soon I'm off to somewhere with wifi to get my other computer which isn't broken to fix this but it has no internet so hence the wifi hunt)- yep I currently have no phone which in the modern world feels a little like locking your keys in your house or forgetting to wear pants in public.  And so I get to also feel the horrible power of technology in our lives and how debilitating it can be...

So it goes without saying the digital world is a mixed bag and I could speak at length about the pros and the cons, but today I have a particular whinge to get off my chest...the "maybe" to a digital invite! I know people have mentioned that the "facebook maybe" is typical of Gen Y (the generation I cringe at being part of) to the extent that some term it the "Gen Y maybe".

I'm not saying that this is something I'm never guilty of. I am not a fan of the notification counter showing that I have events I haven't replied to and so I just reply "maybe" to get the counter to go away.  So my sincere apologies if you have been the victim of a "maybe" from me...I do try and change things to an actual yes or no at least a week before the event if it is a personally organised event but sometimes I miss this mark.

So acknowledging my guilt on this front, now for the hate rant! Some of us reply maybe because we don't like notification counters, some of us because we've been invited to something that is so far in the future that we have no clue if we will actually be free, but the horrible fact is that the reason for many facebook maybes is that you are saying "I'll consider this event only if something more exciting doesn't come along". We'd never say that to someone's face nor back in the days of paper invites and replies would we have written that on a reply card- in past there were three options, "yes", "no", or not replying (the lazy no). In the past had we indicated that we might go to something, we at least contacted people to apologise if it turned out we ultimately couldn't come to something. Now it is just the click of a mouse and we say "maybe" and we don't think of the implications of this.

If it is a personally organised event (not a group organised one), someone is likely shopping for food/drinks,  and assuming that they are planning at event suited to particular people. People have different techniques when there are facebook maybes...some don't take them into account, others do (I'm the latter camp...unless I know someone is a habitual maybe and I know that they never show up). If an event is planned by those who take maybes into account, the person isn't just missing your company...they are likely missing money as well and it would have just taken you the another click of the mouse to save them that money. And we often don't apologise as we think "I never actually said I was coming".

So I'm making a commitment not to facebook maybe anymore...I will either say coming or not coming or I'll not reply (because no-one plans on the attendance of someone who didn't reply). I ask you to join me in saying NO to the facebook maybe and thereby returning some civility and politeness to the digital age. So I leave you to prove the below quote wrong.

The disappearance of centre and the emergence/re-emergence of new activism

So how about a post that doesn't relate to representations of women on television or film....I'll even use a show that I like but which has a less than perfect record on that front for some illustrations.

Instead I bring you some thoughts on recent weeks in Australian politics. As regular readers will know, I was less than happy with the result of the last election (I expressed my expected deep disappointment before we even had a result, mainly using West Wing gifs in the post you can find by clicking here). The last few months I have had near daily reminders of my sadness at this result as the Abbott government developed exactly the kind of policy decisions that I had anticipated. The Abbott governments has done many things I disagree with profoundly but today I'm focusing on one negative and one (two sided) positive (yes I found one).

When I say that I focus on one negative, many of you will ask only one? As is abundantly clear from my blog, I live squarely on the left side of politics so you can take it as read at this point that I despise the government's policies on asylum seekers, the environment, education, media funding, health funding, etc etc...right down to and including the joke and mass waste of money that is reintroduction of knighthoods (I've spent a lot of the last week hoping the government was kidding on that). I could write blogs on all of these matters at LENGTH but I'm leaving that for now. My negative for the today focuses on something else...the big question of why did the centre go?

Now part of me would love it if everyone agreed with me politically but that would be boring and also I feel that sometimes we might need the right to pay the bills and make the trains run on time (theoretically at least, years of a Liberal government in NSW and we got a rebrand and are getting Opal cards but the trains and buses still often aren't on time). In the end the important thing is that political views are a continuum, otherwise it is just the middle to far left screaming at the middle to far right and vice versa. We need a political centre, those people who are slightly left or right who are usually left on social issues and conservative on financial matters. They are the buffer for the screams...they keep us balanced, no puns intended they get us centred. The problem is that the policies of the Abbott government have created a void. The left have got mad and often moved further left by the minute. Many of those in the centre have feel so disenfranchised that they have not so much shuffled but more sprinted to the left to join in on the anger. The right have got defensive and have moved further right. There is no centre... there is only the void, the darkness and the anger. Thanks to the T.E.A. party in particular, this has been an issue in the States for a few years now and so I bring you a clip from Aaron Sorkin's The Newsroom- the most famous clip from the first season possibly- to show someone who is centre right struggling to be just that...

The thing is there is not one thing in this speech I, as a leftie, disagree with on a basic level and it is fascinating to watch as the show attempts to create a centre right figure in a world where they increasingly don't exist. We even had them in the parliament too...back before the election...

Bring back the centre, please Tony! To quote Newsroom again, "Facts are the centre"!

So that is the negative....you may continue to be perplexed by my finding a positive but it is this. As was noted in V for Vendetta, "People shouldn't be afraid of their governments. Governments should be afraid of their people". Finally it seems the populace of Australia is waking up to this fact and is calling the government to account on their myriad irksome policies. This means that we are seeing a new form of activism and the rebirth of an old form of activism. Most people I know have political views and they hold them strongly but they are suddenly feeling that this prime ministerial term, or at the very least this year, is the time to take that politics to the streets and to actively engage in social justice. I have gone to more protests/events and signed more petitions and written more letters since this government came to power than I have in all of my previous years combo-ed, and I lived through and occasionally protested, signed petitions and wrote letters about the Howard government for 12 years (especially the last 7 of those years when I was at university). The breadth of the dissatisfaction with this government created a new form of activism, for Australia at least. People who disagree with the government would be unable to work if they were actively engaging in protesting all the policies they are dissatisfied with. The way to respond to this is the March in March protests. Now these protests were flawed and seemed to work on the base line that we could overthrow the government just by protesting (if only), but there is brilliance in the idea too. The March in March protest allowed people to voice their anger on many issues instead of just one (effective!) and it also allowed the protest to be large enough to get decent news cover global so it showed foreign governments that as the government tried to sell their policies overseas Australians weren't happy and it showed ex-pats that the people back home were angry. The second form of activism that I'm happy to see making a reappearance is the religious communities of the country getting vocal on social justice. The leaders of multiple faiths came (or sent people to speak for them) to a vigil I attended in Sydney and there was more solidarity across the common humanity represented there than I have ever seen. Multiple Christian social justice organisations have been started over the last few months to seek to help with the plight of refugees. It is both amazing to see the solidarity and AWESOME to see Christians living out the welcome that they are call to give outsiders.

There is my negative and my positive for this week. If people want the names of the Christian social justice groups that I've mentioned, comment and I'll give you them. Just to finish so you don't think I've forgotten another Newsroom clip that sums up some (those not all) of the anger I continue to have regarding the government's policies on refugees (wait for it as I'm pretty sure it is towards the end of the clip).

"Underneath that angry young woman show, there's a slightly less angry woman who's just dying to bake me something."

Once upon a time I wrote blog posts on things that weren't related to representations of women in pop culture...but it seems my blog has developed a theme and sadly this isn't the post to break it. Maybe next time...

Today I invite you all to get EXCITED! Insanely excited! Ladies and gentlefolk, one of the strongest female characters in TV genre fiction is BACK!

So flashback to 2003...Buffy was ending, Firefly had ended, and we knew Angel was also on the way out. With the Whedon's collections of amazingly complex intelligent female characters on their way off our TV screens, the TV fans who liked a bit of genre fiction were thinking where will we go for smart scripts that include complex female characters who aren't ciphers or manic pixie dream girls? I mean, we didn't have Scully anymore either! Sure, conventional TV was made strides with the female characters on shows like The West Wing, Gilmore Girls, E.R., Six Feet Under, some of the Law and Orders (esp. SVU), and  The Sopranos (to name but a few), but genre TV (your Sci Fi, Fantasy, the more Detective-y/Noir end of Crime etc. brand of TV) was stuck in a feedback loop. I, for one, was at a loss, but it turned out my pain was to be of short duration.

A new show started being advertised that seemed to tick many of the things I like...it had a noir flavour, it was a high school drama with a twist (I like my regular high school drama (I still count The OC as a highpoint of television) but add a twist like teen vampire slayer or teen detective or, even for a brief period, teen witch (less said about Sabrina the better) and I'm glued), it appeared to be sassy and a little cynical, and finally there was an underdog versus the horrible bitchy rich kids vibe. And then the ultimate seal of approval...before it even started on Australian television, Joss Whedon said in an interview that it was the best show currently on television. If you don't know where I'm going by now, I'm very sorry for you as you have clearly never seen the brilliance that is Veronica Mars.

A season 1 cast photo..sadly missing my favourite character who became more prominent towards the end of season 1 and after that became a main character for the remaining two seasons

It was a show that kept on giving. Whedon's endorsement was accurate and all of the elements I listed above were there but it was so much more.

For a synopsis that hopefully avoids spoilers...the show introduces us to Neptune, California which to quote Veronica is "A town without a middle class". It is a town where the (mainly white) wealthy are incredibly wealthy and the rest of the town (many of whom are Latino) cleans up after them. As season 1 kicks off Veronica Mars, a 16 year old high school girl, has got tough after the events of the previous year which included, in chronological order, her being dumped by her long term boyfriend without an obvious reason, her best friend was brutally murdered, her being ostracised by all of her friends, her being drugged and raped at a party, her father being removed from office as Neptune's sherrif, and her mother disappearing into thin air. Her father now works as a private detective and Veronica "does his office work" i.e. helps him with cases as well as doing some paperwork and answering phones. As series one progresses, Veronica and her father investigate the murder of Veronica's best friend, whilst Veronica also solves crimes of week, mainly arising from her classmates. .

At the end of season 1...the murder is solved and all seems right with the world until there is a mystery late night knock on Veronica's door. As season 2 kicks off, Veronica is in her final year of high school. She is working at a coffee shop and life for her is normal i.e. no more PI work for her. By the end of the first episode, on the way back from an excursion a bus of Veronica's classmates drives off a cliff and Veronica decides to investigate. Soon enough it is back to PI work for Veronica.

Season 2 and another crime solved....until a dubious reccurring character knocks on Veronica's father's office door with a crazy offer. In the third and final season, Veronica is at Hearst College in Neptune instead of leaving Neptune for college as she had wished to. She investigates a series of rapes on campus (introduced as a plot when Veronica visits the college in season 2), then the suicide/ possible murder of Hearst's Dean, and another big mystery that I can't mention without there being spoilers.

Synopsis done! Hopefully the lack of spoilers didn't make that too confusing.

So, except for delivering on the things I wanted from it, why was it the show that kept giving? The script was hilarious and smart- Rob Thomas and the rest of the writing team followed in the suit of Whedon's team on Buffy and refused to treat the show's teen/young adult audience as idiots. The characters were complex- there was no pure black from the villains and, with the exception of the adorable Piz (college mate of Veronica's), there is no pure white. Unlike some series that start when the main character is in high school, the adults were fully formed characters in their own right. The acting was great. The soundtrack was awesome. The guest stars...oh the guest stars...Joss Whedon, Kevin Smith, Jessica Chastain, Aaron Paul, Jane Lynch, Michael Cera and Alia Shawkat (in the same episode- yay for the Arrested Development connection), and Paul Rudd, and in more recurring roles, Charisma Carpenter, Alyson Hannigan, Amanda Seyfried (as Veronica's murdered best friend), Max Greenfield (his role in Veronica Mars make me love him in New Girl all the more), Steve Guttenberg, and Krystan Ritter...OK less said about the fact Paris Hilton is in the second episode, the better (to quote a later season, "You know that Hilton girl gives you nightmares"). And now the five best things about the show working to the hilarity from the serious:

• Complex lead female character! Especially in the first season, Veronica was a girl in a man's world as she was at first the only lead female character (the actor playing the high school journalism teacher also landed a photo in the credits but that had to be merely to create the appearance of more female characters as she was in less episodes than Veronica's dead best friend) and she outsmarted them all. She was joined by more female characters in the second and third season but never was there a man (or woman) who could outsmart her. And though there were moments when she was saved by someone else, the weekly refrain from the other characters was "I need your help"...she was essentially the white knight of the show. Thanks for the quality of the writing, she also dealt more horrifying things in her life than most people ever could without seeming for a moment to be soapy and melodramatic.
• Best ever portrayal of a father daughter relationship between a single father and his daughter. There is nothing false nor is there anything that seems creepy in the relationship between Veronica and Keith Mars. 
• One of best ever portrayals of a female/male platonic friendship between a straight guy and a straight girl. Veronica become best friends with Wallace (a new guy at school) in season 1, and though one girlfriend of Wallace's had a brief issue with their friendship, by and large it is never questioned that their friendship is not completely normal and no-one seems to think that is or should be anything other than platonic. 
• Dick Casablancas...Dick is basically the anti Veronica. He is rich, he is stupid and he is sexist...basically he lives up to his name. The show spends most of its three years (he only comes to the fore from the second half of season 1 onwards) with Dick is the butt of many a joke and you just have to love to hate him as there is an awkward adorableness to his horribleness. 
• And this dance... when it comes to the men of Veronica Mars, I'm firmly in the Logan camp (when I'm not speaking of my loving/hating of the amazing Dick)...but this dance from Piz will never fail to draw a laugh from me. That said I can only find a short gif but if you get the chance to watch the whole thing...especially Wallace's reaction...you should!

So why the rant now for a show that a network cut short well before its time? Especially when the axe fell eight years ago. Well unless you have been living in a cave, you'll know thanks to breaking some kickstarter records (and I'm so happy to have contributed to that), it is BACK on FRIDAY! Albeit back as a movie but that doesn't lessen the excitement! I've been rewatching the show in prep for the movie but this is my encouragement for you to watch for the first time if you haven't or to watch it again if you have, because it is quality television to truly deserves the cult status it has and for that cult status to never die. In particular, as after Veronica Mars and before GoT, by and large genre TV women went right back to being ciphers and manic pixie dream girls (there are exceptions but they are few and far between and mainly not from the States).

And just to leave you with something that possibly is funnier than the dance above and something that almost makes me ship DiVe instead of LoVe and also tempted me to buy a "Team Dick" t-shirt (even though you could wear that nowhere without it being inappropriate)...sorry ignore the uber Veronica Mars nerd knowing of ship names and just watch the video. It is Ryan Hansen's announcement that he was going to return to play Dick Casablancas in the film and it pretty much summarises everything I love/hate about my favourite Veronica Mars character:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ADKKZA5twgI

So there is my rant of Veronica Mars movie release week...two days to go!

Disney is on the money with this one...a bit of review of Frozen

Well hello blog reading types...this time something less emotional than the last post.

It often surprises people but I'm quite the fan of the Disney animated film. For many years in my childhood, The Little Mermaid was my favourite film and Prince Eric was my first film crush. I mean look how pretty he is...

And he plays a musical instrument and has an adorable pet sheep dog...pretty much the perfect man, right? What a pity, he is fictional and a cartoon.

Anyhow that said, like most people I have a bit of an issue with the expectations they establish for young women- true many of them are after all based on fairy tales, most of which were written to help keep the women in their place BUT the Disney version of The Little Mermaid gives a much more "keep them in their place" view of women than the original. And then along came Frozen!

Surprisingly for a film that includes the voice talents of many actors I'm quite the fan of (Jonathan Groff, Idina Menzel, Alan Tudyk, and Kristen Bell), it came to cinema screens without me hearing much about it at all. I was a little curious but not enough to look into it. Then friends started seeing it and they started ranting about how much they loved it so I caved and went along to see it myself.

First a synopsis, Frozen is the tale of two sisters, Elsa and Anna. Their parents are killed at sea and the young girls left to fend for themselves (well they are princesses so really be taken care of by servants) and in addition to this, Elsa has since birth made an uncontrollable power to create ice and snow, and after an incident that almost kills Anna, Anna's memory of her sister's powers is erased by trolls and Elsa isolates herself from Anna and the castle is locked to avoid people discovering Elsa's power. After years of distance between the two sisters and isolation from the outside world, the castle is opened to the people when Elsa comes of age and is crowned queen. Anna, now a flighty young adult, falls in love with the first man she meets, Prince Hans, and decides to marry him after only knowing him for a couple of hours. The sisters fight and Elsa's powers are triggered and she freezes the whole kingdom before fleeing into the mountains to be alone. Anna goes to the mountains to find her sister in order to unfreeze the kingdom and as she travels she meets Kristoff an ice salesman whose only friend is his pet reindeer , Sven,and also Olaf a sun loving snowman who Elsa brought to life by accident. When they find Elsa, the sisters fight again and Elsa accidentally strikes Anna in the heart with ice. Kristoff rushes her to the trolls to get help but it is discovered that only an act of true love can cure her...

Stopping before I spoil the ending.

So why is this film different?

Is it a better Hans Christian Andersen adaptation than The Little Mermaid? No, as an adaptation of The Snow Queen, it is definitely a failure. It is more of an homage than an adaptation. Is it that it is unique in it style? No, many people have commented and I agree, it owes a lot to Wicked and not just the casting of Idina Menzel (BTW, anyone know if there is an original Broadway cast recording of Wicked on CD or DVD available anywhere?).

The difference and one of the more amazing things about Frozen is summed up in this meme:

 

The amazing thing is that finally Disney openly acknowledges that marrying a man you just met or who doesn't really know you (sorry Mulan fans but I would argue she also falls into this camp- I would argue potentially Belle from Beauty and the Beast does not but no-one says it in her case) is a STUPID idea, and that marriage isn't the be all and end all for a young girl. Both Elsa and Kristoff declare that Anna is foolish in getting engaged the first night she meets a man. In addition to this, aside from her powers, it is not questioned that Elsa as a young single woman would be perfectly suitable candidate for queen. Finally, Anna's desire to help her sister show that even though she could have been a Disney witch, Elsa is not to be dismissed or considered villainous after she freezes the kingdom- she is the most sympathetic "witch" that Disney has ever given us and she is definitely not a villain.

I would add more but that would be spoilers, needless to say, the film's ending supports my argument. The ending gives me other things to say but spoilers...

The film is amazing for many reasons- the songs, the snowman who longs for summer, the voice acting- but I would argue that this is the first Disney film that I would say every child should see for the expectation and ideas it gives them (especially young girls)*. I will still love the other Disney princess films for what they are but this finally is a Disney film with its ideas about women heading in a direction I would prefer. 

And if you haven't seen it and need more convincing, for an animation and song point of view, not a gender politics standpoint, watch this clip of the amazing Let It Go as sung by the absolutely astounding Idina Menzel (who voices Elsa in the film):

Convinced, now? You should be!

*I should admit I've not seen Brave and I think it might be more in the vein of Frozen than earlier Disney.