Friday, 9 August 2013

The Stockholm Misinterpretation

As a fan of Disney movies, it often annoys me when the topic of Disney comes up (especially where it concerns princess movies) because the result is invariably people perpetuating the most cynical  and pessimistic interpretations they can possibly imagine. Even more frustratingly, the criticisms levied against these movies often seem to be made by people who seem to haven't even seen the movies.

Important note: What follows are merely my own opinions and connections I make based on my personal knowledge and research. I have no professional credentials on psychology except a high school degree in human sciences and sociology, so please do not under any circumstances take professional advice from me regarding very serious issues. I'm just here to defend a movie that I love.


The Stockholm Misinterpretation
Beauty and the Beast



You are probably aware of this one. It's almost inevitable to come up in any discussion regarding Beauty and the Beast. "Beauty and the Beast was not a true love story! It was just Stockholm Syndrome!" So is this claim in any way valid? Is the love story between Belle and the Beast simply a severe case of her having Stockholm Syndrome?

The oldest know version of this tale was published in 1740 as La Belle et la Bête rendered by Gabrielle-Suzanne Barbot de Villeneuve, the best commonly known version however was an abridged version written by Jeanne-Marie Leprince de Beaumont and published in 1756. From there sprang a lot of alternative versions. In these original incarnations, the tale of Beauty and the Beast contains a bit of propaganda for arranged marriages (or at the very least arranged companionship). A merchant picks a rose from a beautiful garden as a gift for his youngest daughter. The beast who owns the garden is prepared to kill the merchant for thievery but spares his life in exchange for said youngest daughter. She is understandably upset but after a while she grows to love the beast of her own accord, (sometimes) changing him back into a prince.

Anne Anderson's Illustration "Beauty and the Beast"
The original stories were of course a product of their time and in adapting them at least some of the original story elements must be translated to the screen or you simply aren't telling the same story. A key difference in the Disney version however is that, instead of the beauty's father handing over his daughter in exchange for his life, Belle willingly takes her father's place in the Beast's dungeon while her father begs her not to. This of course means that the (future) marriage is not arranged. This was likely decided to give more power to Belle and intentionally avert these unfortunate implications. So, in having Belle as a prisoner instead, does it turn the situation into Stockholm Syndrome?

Well a cornerstone of Stockholm Syndrome is the irrationality of the justifications a hostage makes for her captor and situation. The problem with applying this condition to Beauty and the Beast is that in order for it to work the movie should have basically stopped after Belle had first met the Beast with everything after that only happening in Belle's imagination. As if we were watching the movie through Belle's delusions, so to speak.



Allow me to explain this. In order for Stockholm Syndrome to take hold, a captive must essentially come to fear outside situations and think interjection of rescuers (law enforcement) would only result in unnecessary violence and bloodshed. Furthermore victims will be overwhelmingly grateful for minor acts of benevolence, or merely the lack of any real abuse. The captor holds total control over whether his captive lives or dies. These conditions are enhanced by the captive only having the perspective of the captor available compounded by the intensity of the situation.



So what happens in the movie? When she actually feels threatened by the Beast's violent outburst, she immediately flees the castle, meaning the only thing keeping her there in the first place was her promise rather than the Beast's physical control over her or her life. There were no bars preventing her from escaping on her own. During her escape she is attacked by wolves and she is subsequently saved by the Beast (perhaps you could question why he followed her). Her subsequent return to the castle was not through force, but to save the Beast's life who would have otherwise frozen to death (bled out?). That's not her mind jumping through curious loops, that's just her not being a vindictive sociopath. Later when Gaston learns of the Beast's existence he scares the villagers into brandishing their torches and pitchforks (and at this point she was not even anywhere near Beast's castle so you could say it was indeed a pretty big overreaction). He also actually locks Belle up  physically along with her father in their own cellar.



When the Beast is being a jerk, Belle responds by either shouting him down or shutting him out completely. In the end Belle only warms up to him when there is a genuine effort on his part to become a better person ...or, beast. In this regard, the movie is a much better example of Lima Syndrome rather than Stockholm Syndrome. The Beast alters his personality for the benefit of his "hostage" while she essentially remains the same person throughout the movie. Furthermore Belle gets to talk to all sorts of other enchanted characters inhabiting Beast's castle, each with different opinions and viewpoints, thus negating her only having one perspective on her situation.



Beauty and the Beast doesn't present us with Belle as making irrational justifications for mentally coping with her being in a dangerous situation, instead the movie presents us with a world in which otherwise irrational fears and justifications of Stockholm Syndrome are actually a complete reality regardless of how Belle reacts to it. The outside danger IS real. Outside involvement DOES result in unnecessary violence. The Beast IS ultimately benevolent towards her. So while the movie might be an interesting perspective in showing how a person suffering from Stockholm Syndrome perceives his or her current situation and environment, the condition itself does not apply to Belle unless the entire movie is a delusion existing only in Belle's mind.

In other words, people likening the relationship between Belle and the Beast to Stockholm Syndrome are seemingly only aware of the very simplistic descriptions of the movie and the condition. Also, if there's anyone in the movie who suffers from Stockholm Syndrome, it's Cogsworth in his total submission to the Beast even when his temper is out of control.


The 1997 midquel "Beauty and the Beast: The Enchanted Christmas" however does pretty much turn the situation into Stockholm Syndrome, as it is entirely about Belle almost foolishly trying to make an increasingly violent Beast understand the spirit of Christmas. Whereas in the original movie Belle is being treated like a welcome guest rather than a prisoner after the wolf attack, the midquel (which takes place during the same time) puts extra emphasis on her being a prisoner trying to thaw out the Beasts temper. Which of course negates my points about the original movie (also the Beast can read in this movie, which contradicts a certain scene from the extended edition). Oh well, that's probably why certain Disney sequels carry such a bad name.


I have not yet seen the 1998 midquel "Beauty and the Beast: Belle's Magical World" myself so I cannot discuss it here yet.

Criticisms and Further Interpretations


 A certain Cracked article, which labels the relationship as Stockholm Syndrome, suggests that Beast giving Belle the library is an empty gesture as it was already there, and thus an example of a very minor act of benevolence (opening the door and pointing) that is overblown by Belle into the kindest thing ever. Clearly I interpret that scene differently. The Beast took the time to learn what Belle likes and bases his consideration for her present on that, even though he himself has little interest in books. This even mirrors an earlier scene with Gaston in which he openly mocks Belle for reading books (soon she might even get ideas and *gasp* thinking!). This is further expanded upon in the extended 2002 DVD release, in which it is revealed the Beast can't actually read but attempts to anyway because of Belle.

It is thus in no way an empty gesture for the Beast, after a lifetime of selfishness, to give Belle the library with childlike glee. Yes, the library was already there and as such he could have just opened the door and pointed, but the Beast learning the joy of giving and being considerate of another person's interests is the true power of this gesture.  

There's of course also the likely explanation that the article on Cracked is just taking the piss, as it tries to paint Gaston as a heroic figure.

(I'll be going off on a tangent here a bit, but when else would I get the chance to talk about this?)

I think most people would consider the Beast's maturity reaches its zenith when he willingly releases Belle from the castle so she can save her father. However I'd argue that it is in fact his death scene in which he showcases a much more powerful gesture.


In physically releasing Belle from the castle he had shown that he loved her so much that he would condemn himself to an eternal life as a Beast for her benefit. However in accepting his own death he had also set her free emotionally, for without the Beast there is absolutely nothing tying Belle to the castle anymore. In essence, the Beast dying was the ultimate form of setting her free and I personally consider this a reason why the curse was broken at least as powerful as Belle realizing and saying she loved him.

Hidden Messages


As for what it teaches your kids? I'm not cynical enough to read into movies the absolute worst message one can derive and then think every person or kid will take that message away from the movie. If the hidden message really was "stay with this abusive person because your kindness will change him", Belle could have just married Gaston instead and tried to change him. Looks weren't even an issue there because even Belle admits he is handsome.
It's also not like throwing up "Stockholm Syndrome" as if it is something inherently bad is a good argument either. It is just a psychological mechanism built into the human brain, not some sort of toxic behaviour learned from a movie.

Meanwhile the movie does show us that being kind and making an effort to improve your behaviour is a lot less destructive to you and your environment than being a violent, petulant child. The Beast learns this and is rewarded for it. Gaston doesn't and meets his end because of it. It seems to me that the message young girls would likely take away is much closer to "don't judge based merely on appearances" (even though the Beast is basically just a giant teddy bear instead of a hideous monster) rather than "your love will change this violent person" as is often said. 



It is important to note that staying in an abusive relationship is not necessarily the same as Stockholm Syndrome either. Stockholm Syndrome deals with hostage behaviour (and is often actually encouraged to happen by law enforcement to ensure the survival of hostages, even if it makes prosecution more difficult). A person staying in an abusive relationship is more accurately described as Battered Person Syndrome (often popularly gendered as Battered Wife Syndrome or Battered Woman Syndrome, even though there's no shortage on male victims).

Actual instances of emotional abuse are actually portrayed in a couple of Disney movies, but you could hardly call them glorifying it. In both The Hunchback of Notre-Dame (1996) and Tangled / Rapunzel (2010), Quasimodo and Rapunzel are held captive by an abusive parental figure. They are not trapped with door locks or prison cells, in fact both movies make it very clear they could have easily left at any moment if they really wanted to do so. Instead they are emotionally trapped by a parental figure they see as kind and benevolent even though we as the audience see them for the villains they really are. Frollo and Mother Gothel prey on Quasimodo's and Rapunzel's insecurities, making them think the outside world would chew them up if they ever left their sanctuaries.   

The Hunchback of Notre-Dame (1996) & Tangled / Rapunzel (2010)
So Disney does have characters who are in toxic relationships with each other (although parental rather than romantic) and appropriately they are shown in a clear negative light. 

Beauty and the Garden's Keeper

Interestingly, there's actually an episode of the Aladdin TV Series called "Garden of Evil" which follows a remarkably similar premise to the original story of Beauty and the Beast. In it, a much younger Sultan picks a flower from a mysterious garden only to be confronted by its keeper. In exchange for his life the Sultan offers Arbutus, the keeper of the garden, the most precious treasure in Agrabah, which Arbutus will collect in 20 years. Obviously, Sultan cares much more about his daughter than he does any of his treasures, so when the time comes Arbutus takes her instead. 

Aladdin TV Series - Garden of Evil
There's obviously no love story here considering Jasmine is already engaged to Aladdin and since this is just one episode in a TV series there isn't that much in-depth characterization, but by the end Arbutus is shown in a much more sympathetic light and Jasmine does end up defending him against Aladdin, who only sees him as another monster of the week who has to be defeated. In the end it provides the moral that we should come together over our similarities rather than demonize each other over our differences. Having a bit of understanding for each other isn't a bad thing after all.

For another interesting twist on the Beauty and the Beast story (although having nothing to do with Disney) you could check out Andrzey Sapkowski's The Last Wish, a collection of short stories featuring twisted versions of classic fairy tales set in the world of The Witcher where the second story in the collection turns the tale of Beauty and the Beast on its head.

Conclusion

I think there's a clear overreaction by the moral guardians who read too much negativity into Disney movies. In adapting old stories which may contain potentially offensive messages to our modern sensibilities, Disney puts in a lot of effort to maintain the charm of the story while also clearly altering certain aspects for the modern era (another example: Ariel from The Little Mermaid already had a complete obsession with the human world long before she ever saw Prince Eric, but that's a topic for another time). This generally gets overlooked by people complaining about these movies and as a fan, this cynical view sort of saddens me.

From my perspective, Disney's Beauty and the Beast is an absolutely beautiful and heartwarming movie and I see no value in reducing its impact.

Links & References


Posted by at 10 comments:
Labels: , , , , ,

Thursday, 18 July 2013

FemFreq's Sources




It has recently come to my attention that—where it can be checked (cutscenes are usually the same everywhere after all and popular games have a million Let's Plays to hide in)—a substantial amount of Feminist Frequency's video game footage isn't actually stuff she recorded herself despite interviews claiming the contrary (http://anita.sarkeesian.usesthis.com/). She's already just pretty much reading Tvtropes pages and Wikipedia summaries, but the game footage doesn't even come from her own camp and she doesn't cite her resources?

There's of course a disclaimer at the end of her video to declare all the footage as fair use (which applies to it being footage from video games), but it's still bad form to hide the fact that a lot of her footage is ripped straight from YouTube in, as MovieBob calls it, an "academic presentation", especially with the money she raised for the project and the amount of time it took to even release her first video. 

Information in the individual images should be enough to find the original video and the timestamp at which I screencapped them. Look for things such as the score counter, health bar or items the player character is holding. Some of these examples have been provided by Barfman over at MovieBob's blog at http://gameoverthinker.blogspot.ca/2013/03/overbytes-on-tropes-vs-women.html.

 Note: the original comments on MovieBob's blog seem to have disappeared (which may be an honest error with his comment system). Screencap backup here courtesy of Jyagos: https://imageshack.com/a/JFQb/1

Also, this post might grow if I find more examples.

UPDATES:

I have been in contact with some of the channels hosting these Let's Plays and I have been informed she didn't ask for their permission or were made aware at all. Here's what I got back from cubex55, the channel hosting the vast majority of Longplays Anita used:



The List

Damsel in Distress Parts 1 to 3



(I fully accept that this one is questionable. I include it because the position the characters are in does vary depending on where you beat the boss and it also comes from cubex55 like most of the other examples listed here)





(That's the 1992/1993 Sega-CD version, not the 1990 DOS/Mac release)


(I guess that explains why she was unaware Zelda fights back against Ganondorf in Twilight Princess as well)






(The weapon gave it away, all the other Let's Players used a machinegun-like contraption)


(Explains why she mistakes Metal Gear Solid: The Twin Snakes (2004) for Metal Gear Solid (1998))



The following footage was taken from trailer footage, and as such might not have strictly come from the source I found. I merely include these for the sake of completion and because they weren't obviously trailers (to me, at least). 

Zelda starring Zelda trailer

Hoard trailer


Ms. Male Character
(Which clearly should have been titled Ms. Adjective-Man >:C )

Giant Boulder of Death

Angry Birds Seasons "Hogs and Kisses"


Others
Crowd sourcing for more examples (Feb 14, 2014)


Even your fanart isn't safe

Princess Daphne by Tammy / Cowkitty
(Links and more information here)




SuperClaire by Heather L Sheppard



I also talked to the original artist of the poster used in the Ms. Male Character video and received an e-mail asking me to include this statement:

"Although Anita did not ask permission to use the image, and she refused to remove it quoting 'Fair usage', we did eventually come to a compromise that she would credit and link back to my website in the video description, which she did do. 

However, in UK (my home country) law, 'Fair Usage' is not applicable, and instead we have this - http://pages.citebite.com/a2e3m4d8p2jxh
...which basically states that you must ask the creators permission, if you cannot find any rules on usage on the page you have found it, and if you are making and distribution copies of the work - she is distributing media that contains my work, which as I understand, will be available on DVD.

I do not want to attack Anita directly, I just want her, and every other person out there, to contact an artist, ask permission and credit them as per the artist's wishes. We work hard on our work, it would be nice to get a little appreciation for it."


Links to the Original Artist:
Website
Original Image



Criticism


"Half of those screens are from cutscenes"
That's why I specifically mentioned to pay attention to score, life and weapons the character might be holding. Yes, the scene from Violent Storm is a cutscene, but how likely is it that both the Let's Player and Anita got a life count of 0 and a score of exactly 2492500 by that point? 

"The screens don't match up exactly"
Anita uses video footage and not screenshots. Which means that for a single comparison I have to line up both videos as closely as possible, which is incredibly hard to do. I also clearly provide timestamp and location of the source video so you can go check it out yourself. 

"I can't believe someone took 1000's of hours to research this"
I happened to see the comment on Moviebob's blog, checked out the claims and decided to look a bit further into it and provided screenshots to have a clear reference. All of this took me, at most, 4 to 5 hours. It's not hard to do if you are vaguely aware of most games or where pivotal scenes occur. The majority came from the same channel anyway, it's not that hard to figure out where to start looking. 

"This is a derailment tactic"
No, it's a simple clarification on her sources as people were arguing about this anyway (doesn't that mean I stopped derailment?). Furthermore a proper sourcing on her part would ensure people can easily check Anita's claims for themselves without having to spend a fortune tracking down all of the games mentioned, which in turn would help to keep her honest, as we know she alters footage or leaves out context if it helps her narrative (Hitman, Deus Ex: Human Revolution, ...).
It's also something her backers should be made aware of for the sake of transparency, even if they don't care she used Let's Plays. 

"This doesn't mean she isn't a gamer!"
I also did not use this as evidence that she isn't a gamer or that she hasn't played any of the games pictured, at most I point out a couple instances where her lack of knowledge illustrates which games she clearly hasn't played extensively. If someone else makes this argument based on the evidence I provided, go take it up with them.

"This doesn't invalidate her thesis"
And it's not meant to. For criticism on her thesis, look for criticism on her thesis.


Responses


Much appreciation to Mundane Matt for making a video about this post.  


And since I have your attention, I'm going to plug The Gaming Goose's excellent response to Damsels in Distress.



Last updated: 15/03/2014
Posted by at 229 comments:

Saturday, 22 June 2013

Holy Privilege, Batman!

Here shown is Batman, checking his Bat-privilege.

Movie version

Comic book version
Posted by at 2 comments:
Labels: , , , , ,

Monday, 3 June 2013

Lies, damned lies and statistics

Anita Sarkeesian admits that she ignores context of particular games in order to analyse a more systemic problem. That's certainly the first thing her fans will throw in your face when you start to argue how the context Anita ignores actually refutes her argument. However the problem with doing these kinds of global overviews while ignoring context is that you can twist anything you find to say whatever you damn well please. After all, don't you think that if you can explain away practically all of the individual examples, your overall conclusion has to reflect that rather than reach the opposite conclusion?

Since this is meant to be understandable by people who don't know anything about Borderlands, I shall try to be as complete as possible. There will be spoilers for Borderlands 2.

Lies, Damned Lies and Statistics
(Tropes vs Women part 2, Borderlands 2)

So Anita Sarkeesian uses Angel from Borderlands 2 as an example not just of a Damsel in Distress, but a Euthanized Damsel. This being a Damsel in Distress who can't be saved and who has to be killed instead to be put out of her misery, thus subtly promoting violence against women (sigh..., here's a video of how well a male domestic abuse survivor takes such a disgusting notion). Frankly, the previous video merely annoyed me because of the bad information. This one offends me because of Anita's utterly disgusting statements. She does not get to tell men how they supposedly feel as a man when confronted with certain scenes or what they take away from it. For someone preoccupied with analyzing the underlying messages, she should really pay attention to what she is saying herself.

For reference, here's a link to the full Angel section: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZzJeSBV24G4

Damsel in Distress?



"Another popular Gearbox game, Borderlands 2, also uses this plot twist when Angel asks the player to murder her as a way to thwart the villain's evil plan."
- Anita Sarkeesian

 Let me first point out that Angel is not a Damsel in Distress in the first place. Let's pull up her first video and take a look at her definition of what a Damsel in Distress is according to her:

"A female character is placed in a perilous situation from which she can't escape on her own, and must be rescued by a male character, usually providing the core incentive or motivation for the protagonist's quest"
- Anita Sarkeesian


Perilous situation? Not really. She was never in any physical danger considering she was the daughter of the game's antagonist. He cared about her safety so much that not only had he placed her in a bunker, but created a huge, aerial battle station called BNK3R on top of the bunker. She only gets put in a perilous situation when the vault hunters arrive to retrieve the vault key they need.

Must be rescued by a male character? Nope. At no point was there even the hint of a plan to rescue her or any intention to do so. In fact until the moment we actually get to meet her, we are led to think she's just a very advanced AI. In the first game we know even less about her. Furthermore, Borderlands has multiple protagonists and not all of them male, more on that later.

Motivation for the protagonist's quest? Nope. The vault hunters weren't motivated by a desire to rescue her at any point. As I said, nobody was aware that she was an actual person. Instead they infiltrated her bunker to get the vault key back.

The only thing left is her inability to escape on her own, but that still has the problem that she wasn't planning on escaping. She was merely tired of having her powers abused by her father to serve his insane plan and considered the odd friendship she had with the vault hunters to be more important. Furthermore, I don't consider the ability to control practically every single piece of mechanical equipment on the planet to be particularly lacking of agency.

So yeah, even from the big picture, global overview that Anita wants to analyse, one of her more prominent examples shouldn't even be on the list at all.


That's not to say Borderlands 2 doesn't use damsels in distress though, it's just that one of them is named "Roland", who gets kidnapped while being kidnapped and gets shot through the chest seconds after Angel dies. But I'm sure the fact that Lilith gets captured afterwards nullifies any of that. I'm also sure that the option to have Lilith literally liquidate Handsome Jack at the end of the boss battle is just a token gesture of pseudo-empowerment, because her being a player character in the first game doesn't count as empowerment. Distress is only problematic when it happens to women after all. It happening to both genders and the player characters being whatever the player desires apparently isn't "gender equality" when it can be framed against larger issues.

Anyway, notice how she puts emphasis on you requiring to murder Angel without actually showing it like she does with some of her other examples? That's because you don't actually murder her. Her life support simply gets turned off when you destroy the machine connected to her. Which, like Anita cutting out the dialog between Jen and Tommy in her footage of Prey, only serves to deepen the disgust of Anita's fans who happen to be unfamiliar with the games in question. Another tactic I consider to be at least a bit dishonest.

On Player Characters



Here's something else I think was funny. The "Vengeful Beast" under the experience bar and special ability icon on the left clearly indicates that Anita (or whoever she got the footage from) was in fact playing as Salvador, the Gunzerker. What this means is that Anita created or chose footage of male-on-female violence in a setting where she actually had the ability to pick a female character.

As of writing, there are 6 playable characters you can pick from the start (although 2 of them have to be purchased): Axton, Salvador, Zer0, Maya, Gaige and Krieg. Out of those 6, 2 of them are female (there goes Smurfette Principle, if not entirely). The game itself is also meant, or at least capable, to be played with several people at once. What this means is that the narrative has to reflect that. The interaction with the player has to be as neutral as possible, which includes gender neutrality. The player character is only ever referenced in singular and as "vault hunter".

In other words, not only is there no actual male-on-female violence considering you don't actually have to harm Angel yourself, it's also very possible to not be playing as a male character at all.

Borderlands 2 Playable Protagonists

In The Face


"These damseled women are written as to subordinate them to men, they submissively accept their grisly faith and will often beg the player to perform violence on them, giving men direct and total control on whether they live or die. Even saying thank you with their dying breath. In other words, these women are asking for it. Quite literally."
- Anita Sarkeesian

It's really hard to take a statement like that seriously when using Borderlands 2 of all things as an example (especially when seconds earlier she mentions you have to murder Jen from Prey by shooting her in the face). Not just because heroism in Borderlands is gender neutral, but because this game literally has a (male) character named Face McShooty who gives you the quest to shoot him in the face (and he's very specific about where he wants to be shot) and will shout out "thank you" with his dying breath. It's almost as if Anita is mocking us with the fact that she can get away with saying absolutely anything and she'll still be taken seriously. The "Shoot This Guy in the Face" quest is admittedly a side-quest, but it happens before we get to meet Angel, and anyone paying a bit of attention would have noticed the guy waving his arms yelling to be shot in the face.

... Okay seriously, I'm not making this up.



It's not the only one either. Much earlier in the game we find a cult dedicated to the Firehawk. One of the more insane followers (although that's not saying much) asks to be set on fire to honor her.

Borderlands simply takes place in a very messed up world and Angel was the victim of her father's messed up sense of morality. That's why he's the bad guy. Of course Anita bunkers herself in from arguments like this with the nonsense that individual examples do not count because of these elusive larger problems. I obviously disagree very strongly. Context matters.

A Man Chooses, A Slave Obeys

In the original Bioshock, when we finally catch up with Andrew Ryan (the bloody king of Rapture), he starts a monologue about what separates a man from a slave ("A man chooses, a slave obeys"). Up until that point we think he is going to be a boss we'll have to fight. However, something very different happens. Knowing his time has come, he simply orders the protagonist to murder him. The entire thing serves as a huge plot twist so I won't spoil everything (unless you don't care or have already played Bioshock, in which case click here), but the point is that the player character is not allowed any other option than to kill Ryan. The brilliant writing allows a murderer to become a slave and the murder victim to be 'a man'.

In essence this is exactly the same what happens to these women who force the protagonist to kill them for whatever reason. What Anita qualifies as women subordinating themselves to men by putting their lives in their hands, is actually the reverse situation. We as the player often have no other choice but to shoot, and heart-wrenchingly we sometimes are forced to pull the trigger ourselves, but the women have elected to die on their own terms. I find it somewhat astounding how this is not discussed. When a man does it, it is considered one of the best and most powerful scenes in recent gaming history, but when a women does it suddenly it becomes problematic BECAUSE she is a woman? Even when the gender of the player character is not an issue? How are Angel and Andrew Ryan different, aside from Ryan's monologue about the situation? 

Now let's hope something interesting happens in the next couple of weeks so I can talk about something else than Feminist Frequency.

Links / References:

In Response to:

Other people speaking on the same topic:
eacaraxe: Tropes vs Women vs Context
eacaraxe: Tropes vs Women vs Context Part 2  (Also about Borderlands 2)
Posted by at 5 comments:

Thursday, 30 May 2013

My Boyfriend Died, It's Funny (Tropes vs Women Part 2 response 1)

So yeah, I watched the latest Tropes versus Women video. At first I was planning to wait until she wraps up the topic of Damsels in Distress and we got her full lecture on the topic, but frankly the waiting time between each video combined with the quickfire rate at which she spouts fallacies makes this impossible. So while we wait the obligatory 3 months before she wraps up this topic, let's start shoveling some of the bullshit out of the way before the pile gets bigger.

Disclaimer: I do not object to the concept of more and better written female characters in video games. In fact I'm a strong supporter of that. I also do not disagree with Anita Sarkeesian because she is a woman. What I object to is Feminist Frequency's propensity to use fallacies, one-sided arguments, lies (either outright or by omission) and her downright dishonest tactics which serve only to promote herself to be in the middle of this discussion to the detriment of outside voices and opinions, and potentially even to the detriment of solving the problem. (And to be clear, I also do not support the false flagging of her videos. She is allowed to speak her opinions and a fair few people actually did pay her to speak them.) 

You'll (maybe) notice that I'm considerably less gentle on this subject than I was earlier. This because it has become very clear to me that we aren't dealing with someone who wants to discuss this topic intelligently, but someone who wants to assert her opinions with only yes men / yes women surrounding her. She's perfectly fine with having us embed her video into our blogs as long as she can shield her own audience from our actual criticisms, thus gaining her attention without actually having to deal with criticism. If she wants to prove me wrong, gladly, maybe we'll get somewhere if she does. 

My Boyfriend Died, It's Funny
(Tropes vs Women Part 2, Rogue Ops)



Here's a quote from her latest video:

 "It is interesting to note that the reverse scenario, games hinging on a woman vowing revenge for her murdered boyfriend or husband, are practically non-existent. The gender role reversal is so unusual that it borders on the absurd. Which is one of the reasons why this scene from Disney's Wreck-It Ralph is so humorous."
- Anita Sarkeesian

It is very interesting how instead of an actual instance of role reversal in video games, Anita settles for a similar situation from a comedy movie, a comedy movie suitable for kids. I myself thought the scene was heart-wrenching (aside from the huge-ass gun out of nowhere obviously), but okay.

I guess by Anita's logic 2003's Rogue Ops for the Xbox, GameCube and PlayStation 2 is one of the funniest games ever made, because essentially it is Splinter Cell with the roles reversed. It is in my opinion the most literal example she could have used yet she totally ignores it in favour of Wreck-It Ralph (Sergeant Calhoun herself was likely inspired by Samus Aran from Metroid or female Shepard from Mass Effect). It's also interesting how this is the second time she ignored this game when in an earlier video she accused Splinter Cell Conviction of running on the death of Sam Fisher's daughter Sarah and this being problematic.



"When the world's most brutal terrorist organization, Omega 19, killed Nikki Connors' husband and daughter, they didn't count on payback. Now the ex-Green Beret has joined Phoenix, a covert agency dedicated to counter-terrorism. With unsurpassed skills, weapons expertise, and tools for concealment, she's ready to use stealth, stamina, and deadly force to take her revenge."

So we have a game that literally starts from the premise of female ex-Green Beret Nikki Connors going on a rampage against the people who murdered her husband and daughter. On top of everything, there's nothing overly sexualised about her.

Rogue Ops Commercial
(Rated M for Matture?)

Interesting how with a budget of $160.000 her broadened scope doesn't reach beyond the Tvtropes pages relevant to the topics she wants to discuss and the movies she accidentally watched in cinema.  As of writing, the Tvtropes page for Rogue Ops itself lists tropes for 'Action Girl' and 'Roaring Rampage of Revenge' but the game isn't referenced on their respective pages. Maybe if she actually provided a way to, you know, discuss what she would be talking about before she released her 'academic' presentations we'd be able to compensate for her limited field of vision.

That or we have the more insidious explanation of her being aware of the game but ignoring it because it would lessen the gravitas of her argument, thus making Wreck-It Ralph seem enlightened by pointing it out and the straight up 'girl dies for the sake of men' examples being worse because there are no counter-examples. I'm fairly sure ignorance about the game is the likelier example, but since she made Dinosaur Planet out to be more progressive than it was (Krystal was there to save a princess and there was a male playable protagonist who looked like Fox McCloud) just to make the actually released Star Fox Adventures seem problematic, it's a tactic she does employ. Also no brownie points if it eventually does get mentioned because she missed 2 important opportunities already.

But I know, right? I found one obscure game that nobody ever played. Good job using Google, idiot.

Well actually no. I bought this game myself way back in 2004. I remember standing in the store with Rogue Ops in my left hand, and Kill.Switch in my right hand, only having the money to buy one. I was big into Metal Gear back then and was looking for similar stealth games and Splinter Cell wasn't doing it for me and so I went with Rogue Ops (this was before Splinter Cell: Chaos Theory). Sure, according to VGChartz the game only sold 0.41 million copies across all platforms but the point is that I'm not actively searching for the most obscure games in history to prove a point, I'm pointing out examples I'm aware of from my experience as someone into gaming. And perhaps if you want a better female representation in games, you might want to start by paying attention to and buying the games that actually fit your requirements rather than having them fail financially. 



I'd also like to point out from the top of my head that the second half of Tomb Raider Underworld also has Lara Croft seeking revenge for the murder of Alister Fletcher, Tomb Raider: The Angel of Darkness starts with Lara being accused of the murder of Werner von Croy, Castlevania: Order of Ecclesia has Shanoa's brother figure/love interest dying for her character development, Perfect Dark Zero ups the stakes by killing Joanna Dark's father, Alice: Madness Returns has Alice going on revenge for her dead parents and sister (which retroactively qualifies American McGee's Alice). Also, a lot of people would probably cry sexism about Metroid: Other M anyway, but Commander Adam Malkovich dies for Samus' character development (as shown in Metroid Fusion). This without using examples from games in which you are able to choose your gender (like the aforementioned Mass Effect).

Funny and absurd! Right?

Anyway, this has been going on for longer than I intended to spend on this nonsense so I'll wrap it up here. Cheers!

Links / References:

In Response to:

References:
Posted by at 2 comments:

Monday, 27 May 2013

The Ordeal of Queen Zelda

I have seen examinations of Link from The Legend of Zelda in regards to the monomyth before. While I think that's interesting, what bothers me is how we examine a fairly blank character while reducing the worth of the titular Princess Zelda to just a damsel in distress. As I see it, although not our focal point in the story, princess Zelda is in fact the true protagonist of several Legend of Zelda games, as their names imply. We merely hook into her story from the perspective of Link. Similar to how Hideo Kojima introduced Raiden in Metal Gear Solid 2 to give us a perspective on Snake without having our own projections as a player cast upon him.

The idea of this examination was sparked because of a video by Dangerous Analysis on YouTube, which can be found here in which he discusses a similar idea.

The Ordeal of Queen Zelda
(The Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time)


One of the biggest mistakes in pop culture labeling Zelda as a "Damsel in Distress" is the characterization of it as her character archetype when in fact it is not. Damsel in Distress is not her role, it is a role she occasionally takes on during her story arch of a particular game. Other roles she takes on include mentor, messenger, and even hero.

In Majora's Mask for example, she still bestows Link with a magical gift that helps him on his quest without ever physically appearing and thus never being in danger. Furthermore games like Spirit Tracks blur the lines of "in distress" by having Zelda's body taken while her spirit takes on the role of guide (similar to Navi, Midna and the King of Red Lions) while also being playable through the ability to possess certain types of armor.

In this particular context, I shall be looking at princess Zelda's role in relation to The Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time, although it is my belief that the same principles here apply to Wind Waker and Twilight Princess as well (although in Twilight Princess, Zelda takes a back-seat to Princess Midna).

Story situation

In Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time, we catch up with the current incarnation of Link as he has been hidden by his mother and the mystical Great Deku Tree among the Kokiri of Kokiri Forrest to protect him from a war that raged years ago. After he vanquishes the curse cast upon the Great Deku Tree, he sets off to meet the princess of Hyrule, Zelda. He learns of a man from the desert who swears allegiance to the king, but Zelda's prophecy reveals him to be a traitor. Together they formulate a plan to keep the Triforce save from Ganondorf, who plans to use its power to take over Hyrule.

The plan fails when they accidentally provide Ganondorf with access to the Sacred Realm where the Triforce is hidden, Link is locked up for 7 years until he is physically mature enough to wield the Master Sword in order to become the Hero of Time, and Zelda goes into hiding while fighting back against Ganondorf under the guise of Sheik.

The Damsel in Distress

"A usually beautiful young woman is placed in a dire predicament by a villain or a monster and has to be rescued by a hero". By that definition, this certainly happens at one point in Ocarina of Time. Zelda, as the rightful heir to the throne of Hyrule and the keeper of the Triforce of Wisom, is certainly of value as a prisoner to Ganondorf. The problem is that this only happens at the very end of the game*. During the rest of the game Zelda's role could very well be seen as her being the hero of her own story. Of course the frequency with which she is kidnapped in the Zelda series as a whole does become annoying after a while but that still shouldn't mean "Damsel in Distress" is an accurate descriptor of her character.

There is also the issue of the final battle. During the first fight between Link and (Gerudo) Ganondorf, Zelda is locked up in a crystal. After the battle Zelda is freed and they escape Ganondorf's crumbling castle together. Ganondorf survived and reemerges to battle Link again in his pig form. Zelda herself is not very helpful during this time but it is important to note that when Ganon is weakened, she is the one to imprison him. This and considering Zelda is an active combatant in Wind Waker and Twilight Princess, one could speculate that her sitting back to watch the battle rather than be a participant has more to do with 1998's limits on technology rather than an attempt to portray her as a weak character. 

One argument that has been made is that Link, unlike Zelda, has the ability to escape being imprisoned by himself during his visit to Gerudo Fortress. What is left out in that argument is that Link's imprisonment is not necessarily a part of the narrative. The mission in Gerudo Fortress is to infiltrate without being seen to rescue the imprisoned carpenters. Link being imprisoned here is merely a failure on part of the player to do this effectively. In essence the player is transported to the beginning of the board as a sort of soft Game Over. What is in play here are gameplay mechanics, not story elements. 

* During my latest playthrough  I took 30 hours to complete the entire game, which included 100% completion. Out of these 30 hours,  Zelda is 'in distress' for 1 hour and 30 minutes at the absolute most.

Princess Zelda and the Monomyth

So let's take a look at the various step of the Hero's Journey as proposed by Joseph Campbell and how the several elements can apply to princess Zelda. An often strangely ignored aspect of the Legend of Zelda story structure is the reward for the hero. For Link's quest, Zelda is not the prize to be won (further evidenced in Majora's Mask). Link's reward is the restoration of the status quo.

But what is Zelda's reward? We know that there was a king during the time of Ocarina of Time. He wasn't mentioned again after Ganondorf's takeover so we can assume he was murdered. Therefore after the end of Ganondorf's reign of terror, it is Zelda who ascends the throne as queen of Hyrule. This also applies to Wind Waker, in which the King of Red Lions dies with the destruction of Hyrule, and Twilight Princess, in which Hyrule is taken over during Zelda's corronation.

Departure

  1. The Call to Adventure: Zelda's dream of dark stormy clouds warning her of Ganondorf's treachery.
  2. Refusal of the Call: Zelda doesn't take action against Ganondorf until Link comes along. (Humorously enough, Link's refusal of the call is him turning over in his bed while Navi nags him to get up)
  3. Supernatural Aid: Zelda's prophecy from her dream as well as her gifts by being a princess Zelda. 
  4. The Crossing of the First Threshold: The escape with Impa from Hyrule Castle.
  5. Belly of the Whale: Link is sealed after retrieving the Master Sword, Ganondorf takes over Hyrule Castle. Zelda is forced to flee and unable to return home. Her Sheik persona is born.

Initiation

  1. The Road of Trials: The resistance against Ganondorf during Link's 7 year absence. We see the results in her actions as being victorious in rescuing Princess Ruto and we see her fail against the shadow from the Kakariko well.
  2. The Meeting With the Goddess: Just like how Zelda represents Link's 'goddess' in this instance, so does Link's return represent hers. 
  3. Woman as Temptress: Although not shown or hinted at in the game, in the (non-canonical) manga, Zelda/Sheik hides by becoming a follower of Ganondorf and thus has a taste of the winning side.
  4. Atonement with the Father: Zelda receives her part of the Triforce and sets out to face Ganondorf along with Link. 
  5. Apotheosis: The Sheik persona disappears to make place for Zelda's return.
  6. The Ultimate Boon: Sealing Ganondorf into the corrupted Sacred Realm and saving Hyrule. 

Return

  1. Refusal of the Return: Zelda's hesitance to give up her Sheik persona in fear of Ganondorf finding out about her. 
  2. The Magical Flight: The escape from Ganondorf's crumbling castle. 
  3. Rescue from Without: well this is where her status as a Damsel in Distress comes into play. Zelda has to be rescued by Link in order to help defeat Ganondorf.
  4. The Crossing of the Return Threshold: Zelda has gained an understanding of her kingdom by traveling it as a Sheikah warrior, and now returns to take dominion over it.
  5. Master of Two Worlds: Zelda understands her power and, unlike Ganondorf, how to control it for the good of others.
  6. Freedom To Live: Zelda ascends her father's throne as Queen of Hyrule 
Even other aspects commonly associated with the hero myth such as the miraculous birth can be applied to Zelda through the nature of the trinity that Zelda, Link and Ganon represent as the elements of the Triforce.

Surely you can argue over this model, but if so many aspects of Joseph Campbell's monomyth can be applied to the character of Zelda (and not every hero's journey incorporates them all anyway), is it not disingenuous to just label her as a simple "damsel in distress" or a "helpful damsel"?

Princess Zelda simply does not qualify as a flat character and that makes reducing her worth to a single sentence meaningless and short-sighted. Princess Zelda is a three-dimensional character with her own emotions, motivations and story who grows throughout the story. What she goes through as a damsel in distress is merely part of her character. It is not her entire definition.

Conclusion

While none of these arguments make the need for a game with Zelda as a playable character any less severe (no, the CD-i games aren't proper substitution, make this happen instead), I do think we need to rethink Zelda's position in the games that carry her title as a character worthy of recognition. At the very least there's no need to pretend she is any less than what she is.


Links / References


Patmore Chris, 2005, Character Design. Hilversum. Librero.
Forster, E.M., 1927, Aspects of the Novel
Posted by at 7 comments:
Labels: , , , , , , ,
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)