The Romance of the Closet

51AIyxdOPlL._SY344_BO1,204,203,200_At the end of Pam Rosenthal’s 2008 regency romance novel The Edge of Impropriety, we learn offhand that Lady Isobel Wyatt and Miss Amory, two wealthy young women who had been seeking husbands during the season, have “determined to live together as companions and had set themselves up in a Welsh cottage.” The information is about minor characters, and is dropped casually — too casually, in fact. Rosenthal is telling us that Wyatt and Amory are lesbians, and in doing so, she rewrites, or reinterprets, every scene in which the characters appeared. When Miss Amory, the American heiress, watched eligible bachelor Anthony courting Wyatt, she was jealous — but the jealousy, we now realize, was because she was in love with Wyatt, not with Anthony. When we overhear Wyatt telling Amory that she has turned down Anthony’s proposal and is truly happy for the first time in her life, that happiness, on rereading, is not just because of a loveless marriage avoided — it’s because of a loving companionship embraced. Wyatt and Amory are treated throughout the novel as a kind of side plot; they are edges of Anthony’s love triangle. But then, at the end, we find that triangle was concealing another, and that the two women have their own hidden story, if you know how to look for it.

If Wyatt and Amory’s love is in a closet, though, it’s a closet within a closet. Because their Welsh cottage is not just their Welsh cottage, but the Welsh cottage of everyone in the novel. In The Edge of Impropriety, everyone, it seems, has a secret love, and, for that matter, a secret life. Lady Gorham, or Marina, the fabulous author and socialite, was once a poor Irish kept woman, forced to dance on tabletops for her upkeep. Helen, the perfect governess, is in love with the rakish, inaccessible Anthony. Jaspar, Anthony’s uncle and guardian, is actually Anthony’s father — and on top of that he’s concealing an affair with Marina. “Marina’s besotted lover and Sydney’s quaint, straitlaced guardian might inhabit the same body,” Jaspar muses, but they had very little to say to each other.” Everyone has a double life; everyone is playing his or herself for others, hiding a desire that dare not speak its name.

The key that opens the closets of that Welsh cottage, then, is also a key to the novel as a whole — which is to say, the novel is, in many ways, a closet. Wyatt and Amory are minor characters, perhaps, but Rosenthal’s emphasis on secret loves and secret lives makes them thematically central. To drive the point home, Rosenthal includes a scene lifted from (and directly referencing) the famous Catherine de Bourgh encounter in Pride and Prejudice, in which Elizabeth realizes that Darcy loves her because his aunt tries to separate them. Romance is interpreted by hints and signs — and not just by hints and signs, but by hints and signs between two women, whether Elizabeth and Catherine, or Marina and Jaspar’s ward Sydney, or the (generally female) reader and that some female protagonist. Romance is a book you read for hidden, queer love — which means those two women, and their Welsh cottage, aren’t a marginal storyline, but the story itself.

This isn’t just true for romance, either. Take the hip sci-fi Canadian televison thriller Orphan Black, which I’ve just gleefully begun to binge watch. The series focuses on Sarah Manning (Tatiana Maslany), a struggling young woman who discovers that she’s one of a number of clones. She ends up impersonating one of her “sisters”, a police officer named Beth .

Sarah’s brother, and closest friend is Felix (Jordan Gavaris). Felix is flamboyantly gay — and the fact that he is so far out of the closet tends to force you to read Sarah as in. Sarah, after all, is, like the characters in The Edge of Impropriety, playing herself. She takes on Beth’s middle-class, straight life — wearing her square clothes, living in her square house, and (with a notable lack of enthusiasm, at least at first) having sex with her square boyfriend. In one sequence, Felix is asked over to a suburban potluck as a bartender in order to distract from the fact that clone Allison has her husband tied up in the basement for questioning because she thinks he’s a spy. Felix, out of the closet, is a screen for Allison’s kinky torture role-play — a doubled roleplay, since for part of the torture, Sarah is pretending to be Allison.

As the show goes on, Sarah’s square boyfriend turns out not to be what he appears either, which only perhaps underlines the point. Spy narratives are built on secrets and double lives, on passing for what you aren’t while keeping some sexy secret gun behind that secret closet door. It’s no surprise that one of Sarah’s clones turns out to be bisexual, since Sarah herself spends all her time passing. And for that matter, all those sci-fi clone and robot fictions, are about queer reproduction — a world in which heterosexual sex is displaced by alternate couplings.
 

obs01e0308

 
The Edge of Impropriety and Orphan Black both reflect a world in which LGBT people are more accepted, and more visible, than in the past. But that has not banished the LGBT experience as a fictional metaphor or trope. Rather, it seems to allow us to see just how pervasive, and important LGBT stories have been to the construction of narrative and genre. Critics of diversity sometimes argue that advocates are pushing gay content — but these stories suggest that in romance, in sci-fi, in espionage, gay content was always already there to begin with. It’s just that now, and hopefuly increasingly, it can come out of the closet.

Twilight of the Superheroines

harley quinn cover

 
“The comics industry,” according to Vulture.com’s Abraham Riesman, “is in the midst of a golden age for admirable female role models,” declaring the monthly best-seller Harley Quinn “the superhero world’s most successful woman.” I don’t care to dispute either claim, but I will say this isn’t the first such golden age. The “morally questionable” Ms. Quinn descends from a line of female sidekicks turned leading ladies.

Crowbar Nancy lived on an affluent cul-de-sac in Pittsburgh in the late 1940s. She’s not a comic book character. She got her nickname for bludgeoning my mother in the head. They were both ten, or there about, and it wasn’t really a crowbar. The wrought-iron post she yanked from her front fence must have been loose already. My mother had no idea why Nancy hit her with it. They lived katty-corner, though they weren’t friends. Nancy didn’t get along with kids in the neighborhood—a result of being adopted, my mother theorized. The violent streak didn’t help either.

After the crowbar incident (and almost certainly a behind-the-scenes parental negotiation), my mother was invited over to share Nancy’s most cherished possessions. Her comic book collection. Instead of roller skating and hopscotching up and down the block with other kids, Nancy preferred the company of four-color pulp paper. Comics meant nothing to my mother, but she accepted the invitation (or her mother accepted it for her) and across the street she went.

Nancy displayed her trove on her porch for the private viewing. If she was anything like my ten-year-old self, she arranged them in a double row of tight stacks, organized in an idiosyncratic ebb and flow of titles and genres. My mother was born in 1939, same as Batman, so this is probably 1949. DC had long imposed editorial restraint on Bob Kane and his crew, so Nancy’s propensity for clubbing fellow children had nothing to do with the body count of the caped crusader’s earliest adventures.

It wasn’t till 1954 that Frederick Wertham linked the Brooklyn Thrill Killers—four teens who murdered vagrants in Brooklyn parks—with comic books. The gang leader ordered his whip and costume (he dressed as a vampire while flogging women) from ads in Uncanny Tales and Journey into Mystery, titles that Atlas Comics (formerly Timely, soon to be Marvel) debuted in 1952—in imitation of an already deep market trend.

Superman was popular with the Brooklyn gang too, but the Man of Steel was one of the very few cape-wearers still flying. No Timely heroes saved those Brooklyn victims because none existed. Over thirty superhero titles vanished between1944 and 1945, another twenty-three in 1946, and twenty-nine between 1947 and 1949—including former newsstand champs Flash Comics, The Green Lantern, The Human Torch, and Sub-Mariner.  Sales for Captain Marvel Adventures, top superhero comic during the war, were down by half. Nancy could have spent her most recent dimes on the final issues of Marvel Mystery Comics and Captain America Comics—before both converted to horror the year she took a crack at my mother’s skull.

But let’s give Nancy the benefit of the doubt and assume her collection did not include the very earliest horror titles (Spook Comics 1946, Eerie 1947, Adventures of the Unknown 1948) either. It was another new trend my mother would have noticed as she reluctantly perused the porch gallery:

Romance, a new category for comics, was already claiming a fifth of the market. When William Woolfork’s inherited Superman from the recently fired Jerry Siegel (he and Joe Shuster lost their lawsuit against DC for rights to the character when their ten-year contract expired the year before), his scripts refocused the former world-saver around love plots. If my mother leafed through Nancy’s Superman #58 (May-June 1949), she would have skimmed the episode “Lois Lane Loves Clark Kent!” where a psychiatrist tells Lois she must transfer her “love for Superman to a normal man!” Or Superboy #5 (November-December 1949), the adolescent Kryptonian falls for his first girl in “Superboy Meets Supergirl,” the first of many Supergirls to follow.

Though only eight new superhero comics debuted between 1947 and 49, five of them sported high heels. Superheroines were on the rise: Black Canary, Namora, Lady Luck, Venus, Phantom Lady, Miss America, Moon Girl. The Blonde Phantom towers over Captain America, Sub-Mariner and the Human Torch on the cover of the new 1948 All-Winner Comics. If there was a doubt about the veiled sexuality between male superheroes and their bare-legged protégés, Timely incinerated it when they fired their top two boy wonders and replaced them with women. Bucky got the boot first, when Golden Girl took over as Captain America’s sidekick in 1947. She even boasted those adorable little wings on her mask, same as Cap’s. The Human Torch’s personal secretary, Sun Girl, replaced little Toro the following year. The Blonde Phantom’s alter ego played personal secretary to her boss crush too, a private investigator who only had eyes for her when—the irony!—she was masked. Or maybe it was the tight, red dress. The leg slit and cleavage were as effective as a blow to the head.
 

AllWinners1-1948 Sun_Girl_no.1_-_August_1948

black canary MissAmericaComics_n1_1944capt-america68-goldengirl_1268710394 venus1384-1662-1482-1-phantom-lady lady luck Namora_Vol_1_1 moon girl

 
None of this made much impression on my mother. She was the female sixth-grader the romance market coveted, but when she stepped off Nancy’s porch and into puberty, she left those brief, wondrous superheroines behind. Namora’s three issue run didn’t make it into 1949, Blonde Phantom Comics switched titles in May, and Golden Girl exited in October. EC’s single issue Moon Girl and the Prince became Moon Girl Fights Crime!, which became A Moon, a Girl…Romance, which became Weird Fantasy, a hint of the horrors to come.

My mother remembers none of this now. She’s living out her twilight days in an assisted-living community where she smokes cigarettes on porch rockers. I visit for monthly episodes of shopping and restaurant adventures. She has a Ph.D. in epidemiology and a CV as thick as a comic book, but that golden age is over too.

 0901131202

Insidious Without Sin

This first appeared on Splice Today.
________
 

large_insidious

 
Great horror films connect supernatural terrors to real-life terrors. Whether it’s Rosemary’s Baby and pregnancy, Fire Walk With Me and incest/abuse, or Shivers and sex, the point is not only blood and death, but also guilt and retribution. She has chosen a shallow, careerist husband, and so shall bear a demon baby; he lusts after his daughter, and so shall be possessed; he experiences sexual desire and so shall descend into a Dionysian apocalypse. The movies have an inevitable logic; the repressed returns, the crime is found out, the doom descends. Horror is not about the suffering of innocents; it’s about sinners being devoured.

The main problem with Insidious is that it has no sinners. The protagonists are an adorable nuclear family out of an old-school TV sitcom; loving, slightly artsy mom; loving, overworked dad, three kids (two boys, one infant daughter.) They’ve just attained the American dream and bought a gigantic, rambling house. When one son, (Dalton, played by Ty Simpkins) falls into an inexplicable coma, the family moves effortlessly from sitcom to movie-of-the-week, all of them suffering in undeserved unhappiness with the same bland, predictable sentimentality with which they at first frolicked in deserved joy.

Under some circumstances, a failure like this might suggest a lack of familiarity with horror tropes. But that’s not the case here. Director James Wan (Saw) obviously knows his canon; the movie’s screechy soundtrack harks back to Psycho and everything since and the various startles and shocks are all done with exquisite freak-out timing. For that matter, the dad, Josh (Patrick Wilson) looks so much like Craig T. Nelson, who played the patriarch in Poltergeist, it seems Wan made the casting choice on purpose.

Moreover, Wan does seem to have fitfully noticed that his screen family is too pristine. The script makes some half-hearted gestures at developing corruption within as well as without. The mother, Renai (Rose Byrne) mutters something at one point about how she’s worried that life in her new house won’t be any better than life in the old, and Josh promises her it will. Unfortunately, we never actually learn what was bothering them beforehand (infidelity? termite infestation? peeling paint?), so it’s hard to get too worked up about it.

There are a couple of slightly more effective attempts to sully our heroes. After Dalton has lapsed into a coma, Josh stays late at work at his teaching job night after night. Finally, Renai accuses him of  running away from the problem, suggesting that this is what he always does. The film has up to this point (about halfway through) mostly focused on Renai, but from here on it becomes more and more a story about Josh’s neuroses about being an inadequate patriarch. These neuroses are somewhat undermined by the fact that, if the size of his house is any indication, he appears to make more money than any other teacher in the country. And, besides that, Dad worrying about being a protector is more than a little stale at this point. But better a hoary, poorly conceived anxiety than no anxiety at all, I suppose.

But, no sooner is Josh’s inadequacy introduced than it’s brushed away at tedious length. Various explicators reveal that Dalton is an astral projector; his spirit has wandered out of his body, and various evil critters are attempting to take over. Josh used to be able to project his spirit too—but as a child he was haunted by a creepy old woman who threatened to take him over. He outfoxed her with the help of medium Elise (Barbara Hershey), who got him to forget he could astral project. So the reason he responds to stress by running away from it isn’t because he’s a douchebag; it’s because he was traumatized as a child by evil outside forces. In short, the movie uses its horror tropes to let its protagonist off of, rather than to hang his decaying flesh upon, the hook.

All of which suggests that the director lacks the courage of his convictions. In some sense, that’s probably good, because his convictions appear to be not so much insidious as invidious. When Josh wanders off into the astral plane to save Dalton, the evil spirits he encounters are all smiling theatrical cabaret weirdos; carnivalesque deviants. And the shocking final dénouement involves Josh finally being possessed by that evil old woman. The happy nuclear family is undermined by the father’s unhealthy closeted secret—the patriarch is a woman in a man’s body. Bad things follow.

If Insidious were willing to really embrace the connection between insidious possession and the insidious allure of gender deviance (as, I’ve argued, The Thing does) it would be a much better film. It would also be potentially much more offensive. As it is, the movie does little with the gender switch and never suggests that Josh has any actual predilections of his own. He’s just the boring straight victim, fighting for his boring straight family against the somewhat-but-not-insistently queer powers of darkness. Maybe he wins, maybe he loses. With so little at stake, it’s hard to care which.

Thanks to Bert Stabler for his help with this essay.

Utilitarian Review 3/28/15

stockartseahorse_4514

 
Wonder Woman News

Me on how only bad art is sacred.

Peter Sattler on how comics can’t escape formal definitions.

James Romberger on Antonioni, Bunuel, and love in the dirt.

Kim O’Connor on Valerie D’Orazio, Chris Sims, and progress, or lack thereof.

Chris Gavaler on Cinderella and how superheroes are easy to remember.

Tara Burns interviewed me about the coming matriarchal utopia at Vice.

A Spanish translation of the Vice interview is here.

Frederik Sisa reviewed the book (negatively) over at Frontpage.
 
On HU

Sarah Shoker reviews Cinderella and talks about why kindness isn’t a fantasy.

Jared Hill on our fascination with AI.
 
Utilitarians Everyhwere

For Ravishly I wrote:

—on Edward, Pretty Woman, and power fantasies.

—a list of men covering songs by women.

—abput Project Vox and the need for women philosophers.

The Solaris study guide I worked on for Shmoop is online.

At Splice I wrote about

Aquaman, who is not a badass.

—book tours and writer’s egos.
 
Other Links

Rahm Emanuel is awful.

Depressing piece on problems with the Hollaback anti-harassment organization.

Matt Binder on GG and comics.

Linke on Valerie D’Orazio and Goodbye To Comics

A commenter named Linke discussed the background for the recent revelations about Chris Sims harassing Valerie D’Orazio. I thought I’d reproduce the comment here.

I find it disturbing that even in this moment of reckoning, the full backstory of why Sims targeted D’Orazio has gone unmentioned.

In 2006 D’Orazio caused a stir with a 12 part rant titled Goodbye to Comics: a blistering critique of misogyny by an industry insider. It includes a takedown of DC’s Identity Crisis, which many consider peak Women In Refrigerators, which is significant as she was the assistant editor on the book.

For the unfamiliar, Identity Crisis centers on the murder of Sue Dibny, wife of Elognated Man. The bronze age couple were known for being depicted as consistently loving, supportive and lighthearted. In issue 1 Sue Dibny was graphically burned alive. In issue 2 she was explicitly, brutally raped. Her murderer turned out to be the Atom’s ex-wife, literally a crazy bitch. The whole series was full of overwrought pain and suffering and a weird takes on female characters. It was inspired by Watchmen and the Killing Joke (even Moore admits Joke had flaws) but either missed the deconstruction of Moore’s work or discarded it for pure shock value.

Many hated it when it came out, but in 2004 it was easier for fans to handwave or rationalize the content. Some praise is disturbing in hindsight (including Joss Whedon who later hired Metzger to write the Buffy comic with equally creepy results).

Goodbye To Comics is pure rant, a digressive mix of insider dish, critique, personal anecdote (some a bit TMI) and now dusty topical humor. Some who didn’t like her blunt denunciation of misogyny seemed twice provoked by the raw, awkward presentation.

At it’s best, however, it’s very good:
http://occasionalsuperheroine.blogspot.com/2006/11/goodbye-to-comics-7-we-need-rape.html

Such a dramatic and at times scattered call out was bound to attract some scorn and eye-rolling. What’s striking is how aggressive and resentful some became and how little, if any, was initiated by D’Orazio.* Like Anita Sarkeesian, just being a woman making vehement statements was an affront those who disagreed with her.

It was in this context Chris Sims began picking on D’Orazio. As others speculate, it’s likely he was demonizing her to build up his own rep, but this involved knowingly embracing unhinged resentment of “too much” feminist critique and pushing it further.

I knew little about this, but when her Punisher special came out, the irrational hatred of her intense enough that it was visible casual fans.

Even then, it didn’t register just how fucked up it was and I suspect people might not have believed, pre-gamergate.

This is what bothers me about McDonald’s take – what she calls feuds was mostly people snarking at D’Orazio until she responded (or didn’t). It’s telling McDonald mentions Ragnell, whose grudge against D’Orazio is oddly into political correctness myths for a progressive (much like McDonald herself).

Thing is nothing D’Orazio wrote – indeed no comics criticism – merits hostility even Marvel took the death threats seriously. After recent death threats on Sarkeesian, Zoe Quinn and others, it’s clear D’Orazio was an unwitting pioneer.

What’s ironic that that Sims has more recently said Identity Crisis is the comic that ruined comics – and his critique sounds a hell of a lot like D’Orazio. To echo the words of the person you tormented yet not apologize until called out is a bit more troubling than I think he realizes.

As McDonald reveals, Chris Sims only apologized after he was called out by gamergate – which he was because he was a precursor to gamergate. He didn’t start the rage against D’Orazio, but he fed on it for cynical reasons. In this context, Sims “are you going to cry, little girl” is far more disturbing. I do think change and genuine apologies are possible, but so far he and his cohort haven’t quite acknowledged how much he’s entwined in the forces which led up to this current wave of zealot trolls. Nor how the gender imbalance in mainstream comics has improved very little since then.

 

71PithyctZL

Androids, and Cyborgs, and Robots, OH MY!

images

 
Terminator: Genisys, Avengers: Age of Ultron, Chappie and Ex Machina: Hollywood is nothing if not entranced with the idea of artificial intelligence. In truth, great movies have always spoken to the fears plaguing our current culture. That being the case, what do all of these films about AI tell us about this current point in time? Simply put, we are terrified of what our own inventions can potentially become.;

Terminator: Genisys tempts us with the promise the previous sequels did—preventing Judgment Day. Avengers: Age of Ultron pits super heroes against a rogue AI built by one of their own. Chappie puts forth the age old debate asking us who the real monster is. Ex Machina follows suit. While the first two present the plot of AI eventually rising up to wipe out the weaker species, the latter two call into question how humane humans truly are.

After the dropping of the bombs on Japan revealed to the world the utter devastation unrestrained technology could bring about, campy sci-fi movies emerged during the Cold War to tackle this widespread technophobia. Such Cold War films as The Thing from Another World placed their hope in the possibility that the same technology that destroys can also be used to build. Still other titles, like The Day the Earth Stood Still, poignantly exhibited the unnecessary brutality humans have toward things that aren’t their kind. If you delve deep enough to the true threats of each film—self-destruction and racism—we can see our fears have not changed at all, they’ve only adapted to the available technology (the films in question are streaming on TCM and DTV).

Take Metropolis, for instance. An absolutely outstanding movie, this futuristic city’s backdrop once again pitted man against machine. First it’s the workers against the machines that run the city. Then it is the Whore of Babylon, a robot disguised as a woman, that brings about near catastrophe on the city and the two heroes caught up in the battle. The machines are very much the embodiment of sin. Only by uniting as a human race could the horrors be quelled.

The question that must be asked, then, is why are we still so afraid of technology? After all, the vast majority of us now speak to an artificial voice that reads us driving directions. Isn’t that any indication of how well we’ll get along with AI when it is finally emerged? According to the films, the truth of the matter is that we do not respect what we create. Because of this, we either dismiss it, allowing it to take over, or we fear it, working to destroy it even though it is harmless. If we take this idea deeper, our fear is simply us being afraid of being relegated to uselessness, the way the elderly in our society often are.

All the same, our love of inevitable doom is what has kept the Terminator franchise kicking for so long. Rumors even have it that Genisys is only the first of a new trilogy, going so far as to reboot the entire story told in the first film. Even bigger rumors are circulating about the supposed villain. According to the stars, it’s going to be quite the twist. As we head into 2015, munching on popcorn, we can rest easy knowing that AI dystopia is one thing, at least, that will never be obsolete.

Embracing Exaggeration: A Review of Cinderella

images

 

Cinderella is a stark contrast to ‘edgy’ television drenched in grit and grimdark-inspired fantasy novels. The film’s sets are improbably opulent, glittering, and overridden with beautiful stuff, an indication that Cinderella readily embraces its own moral exaggerations, a potentially gusty move in a time where pop culture strives to be ‘realistic’ and marks this realism with morally ambiguous characters and plot.

Cinderella is a cultural conversation between cynicism and hope. The audience is paired with an oppositional binary: cruelty versus kindness, epitomized by the step-mother and Cinderella, respectively. The characters are reduced to these traits so that the relationships and interactions become similarly exaggerated. As a result, Cinderella is committed to the tropes of the fairytale genre and is, in this way, differentiated from Everafter, the latter of which tells the story of a fairytale without using its structure, allowing for a darker retelling.

Socialized into accepting skepticism as a marker of sophistication, I initially identified these exaggerations as problems. Parody works the same way, I thought, and Cinderella looks much like Voltaire’s Candide, whose protagonist believes that optimism and destiny will eventually lead him to a fruitful end–it doesn’t. So while Cinderella clings to her dead mother’s advice (have courage; be kind), the audience sees how these words are rendered absurd in the face of abuse and neglect. Cinderella isn’t rescued by her own merits, but by a Fairy Godmother. If kindness and courage couldn’t be sustained without the help of magic, then their relevance to our everyday lives became questionable. I was spiraling deeper into condemning a fairytale for being insufficiently real and nuanced, as though the criteria for realism and nuance were determined outside the bounds of ideology. (They’re not.) Cinderella schooled me pretty quickly.

When confronted by her step-mother about how she acquired the dress, Cinderella responds that someone gave the dress to her. Her step-mother snarls back that people do not simply give and that there’s always a price to be paid, a conclusion she has reached from a lifetime of pain and loss. Cinderella says no, that sometimes people can be kind and offer help for no ulterior motive.

If fairytale exaggeration is similar to parody, then the audience is the butt of the joke. Cinderella’s response to her step-mother disrupts our assumptions about plot –in this version of the story, the dress, shoes, and carriage are not gifted to Cinderella as a reward for her kindness. To assume that the dress was a reward is an assessment that adopts the step-mother’s gaze, where good behavior should be adopted only because the consequences will be beneficial. However, Cinderella’s be kind; have courage mantra are rendered into Kantian absolutism–be kind, and damn the consequences.

I had initially misread the Fairy Godmother’ s role as that of magician and plot mechanism, instead of what she really was–a godmother. The magicking of a pumpkin into a carriage isn’t a plot device used to transport Cinderella to the ball, but a demonstration of a loving relationship. The role of the Fairy Godmother is thus subverted from reward-giver to a helping friend. In this sense, the fallacy of self-sufficiency and its subsequent lionization is subordinated to love and care.

The film isn’t perfect, of course. The narrator, voiced by the Fairy Godmother, amplifies the fairytale-like tone of the movie by shifting the film closer to the folk roots of oral storytelling. Unfortunately, the narrator doesn’t possess a distinct voice and merely describes what is readily apparent on the screen (Cinderella is sad), rendering the device entirely superfluous. A real opportunity was lost here; the film shines when illustrating how pain and grief can either twist or strengthen a person. Instead of addressing this thematic point, the Fairy Godmother repeats Cinderella’s mantra. The third person omniscient point-of-view (the voice from nowhere is disembodied, and therefore not prone to a body’s subjectivity) is used to bolster the alleged authority of the narrator, rendering the have courage; be kind mantra into objectivity instead of a suggestion with political connotations. Which, okay, fine. Film is always trying to convince the audience of something. A television show like Game of Thrones uses the aesthetic veneer of grit and grime to convince the audience of its realism, whereas a fairytale uses the omniscient voice to impart an ‘objective’ educational lesson. The issue here is that the narrative voice was redundant and offered nothing that couldn’t be gained by watching Cinderella interact with her step-mother. The narrator simply didn’t commit to its own authority.

Nuance and exaggeration often appear at odds (nuance is supposedly characterized by subtlety, after all), but in this case they blend together and challenge the audience to question why enthusiasm and sincerity seem further away from ‘realness’ than, say, the manipulation and greed in Game of Thrones. The step-mother uses her cynicism as a sign of worldliness and as way to dismiss Cinderella’s claim. The dress could not be a gift because the world is nasty, brutish, and short (to quote Thomas Hobbes.) Cinderella must have stolen the dress, instead. The step-mother, and the audience that shares the step-mother’s gaze, conflate cynicism with realism, as though “have courage; be kind” is more ideological than the dark aesthetic that is currently popular in television. The film, wonderfully, painfully, forces its audience into questioning why skepticism has become naturalized into common sense.

****

You can follow Sarah on twitter: @SarahShoker