feminist blogs

I now have the trade paperback collection. so I’ll mail the first five issues of Buffy season eight to the first taker.

(My guess is that it’ll cost a couple of bucks to mail, which I’m happy to pay for, but if you live on another continent and can paypal a few bucks to defray the additional mailing costs that would be cool.)

Joss Whedon’s new show, “Dollhouse,” released (or perhaps had leaked) this pre-casting description of one of the recurring characters:

November
20’s, any ethnicity, beautiful and heavy. Another Doll, a hopeful child in the house and everyone else you need her to be outside. A comforting, radiant presence, who tends to get fewer of the criminal gigs and more of the personal ones. Recurring.

(Empahsis added). I remember reading that and thinking “cool.”

Now the casting choice for November, Miracle Laurie, has been announced. That’s a picture of Ms. Laurie to the right. Not exactly “heavy,” is she?

I’m annoyed, but not surprised.

To be sure, there’s nothing wrong with casting a thin actress in a part originally written as fat. I’ve done a little theater, and I know that often minds change once actors read for parts. No doubt Miracle Laurie hit just the right notes for November, better than anyone else who auditioned, and that’s why she got the part.

But. Four points.

1) This sort of casting choice is a one-way street. By which I mean, producers will decide that a thin actor is right for a character who was originally concieved of as fat, and so rethink the character. But it will virtually never be the case that a fat actor is seen as right for a character originally concieved of as thin.

2) If a thin actor has the right “look,” then producers will make allowences for them being less than perfect in other ways. So, for instance, David Boreanaz — who wasn’t much of an actor on the first season of Buffy – was cast for his looks and his potential. And he grew in the role, and became a lot better as an actor. Fat actors are rarely given that chance to develop.

3) Because of who gets a chance to develop, I suspect that frequently thin actors are, objectively, better actors. This is because they get bigger parts early on and become seasoned actors, and seasoned actors are better actors, all else held equal.

4) I wonder how frequently “any ethnicity” on a casting call turns out to be “white” once they’ve actually cast the actor?

(I suspect that points 1-3, above, apply as much to actors of color as they do to fat actors. When the musical Miss Saigon originally opened on Broadway, they cast a white actor in an important Asian role, because the role required a star and there weren’t any Asian actors with that stature. Casting decisions like that become self-fulfilling prophesies.)

I’ve loved Joss Whedon for going on ten years now. Sometimes my fangirl moments can be fickle and short lived, but my love for Joss Whedon has remained constant.

It’s helped that every so often Joss will surprise me by being far more awesome than I ever imagined (have you ever listened to the Innocence commentary? There’s a lot of awesome there). The first I remember was from the Onion AV Club, way back when I didn’t know that much about his politics:

don’t want it to have my name on it if it doesn’t reflect what I want to say. Because once you get to the position of actually getting to say something, which is a level most writers never even get to, and is a great blessing, you then have to worry about what it is you’re actually saying. I don’t want some crappy reactionary show under the Buffy name. If my name’s going to be on it, it should be mine. Now, the books I have nothing to do with, and I’ve never read them. They could be, “Buffy realized that abortion was wrong!” and I would have no idea. So, after my big, heartfelt, teary speech, I realize that I was once again lying. But I sort of drew the line. I was like, “I can’t possibly read these books!”

Joss has often suggested collective action as the solution for the big problems and recently that’s got a lot more overt (I’m thinking the Buffy series finale, and ‘The Chain’ comic)

But I still didn’t expect him to become a militant union activist. He’s just posted on United Hollywood. He said

Our negotiators have the specific task of forgetting the past and dealing only with the numbers before them. Their ability to do that impresses me greatly, but I maintain that it’s their job to treat the studios like business partners and it’s our job to remember who they really are. The studios are inefficient, power-hungry, thieving corporate giants who have made the life of the working writer harder from decade to decade. They are run by men so out of touch with basic humanity that they would see Rome burn before they would think about the concept of fair compensation. I maintain that they have never revealed their true agenda in the causing and handling of this strike, and to expect them to now is cock-eyed optimism of the most dangerous kind.

and

This is not over. Nor is it close. Until the moment it is over, it can never be close. Because if we see the finish line we will flag and they are absolutely counting on us to do that. In the room, reason. On the streets, on the net, I say reason is for the ‘moderates’. Remember what they’ve done. Remember what they’re trying to take from us. FIGHT. FIGHT. FIGHT.

I have been mugged an embarrassing number of times, even for a New Yorker. I’ve been yelled at and chased, beaten down and kicked, threatened with a gun and the only mugger who still hurts my gut is the one who made me shake his hand. Until there is a deal – the right deal, not the DGA deal – held out, let’s keep our hands in our pockets or on our signs. Let’s not be victims. Let’s never.

He also did a radio show on the strike, which is of similar stuff.

To conclude my three day Joss-a-thon I’m going to review Tales of the Slayers. This is a collection of short comics about the lives of 8 slayers in different points in history. Although my reviews are usually spoiler-ific this review will be much more spoiler free. The very shortness of the stories means they rely on their plot twists, so while I do talk about the set up, I’m not going to tell the endings.

What stands out from me, particularly compared to season 8, is how interesting the art is. Very different styles of art are used for different stories, and they reflect often reflect the times the stories are set in. This is particularly effective with the story set in 1930s Germany.

The quality of the stories is extremely mixed. Two of Joss’s story’s are brilliant. The first is very short, and is about the first slayer. It is just one moment in her life, and sets up the rest of the stories.

Joss’s second story, set in the middle ages, is written in verse (which I bet made Joss very happy). It is a simple story, told from the point of view of the Watcher, but is very effective

Jane Espenson’s Regency era slayer is beautifully done. The author’s voice is deliberately modelled on Jane Austen, and works perfectly. Jane and Joss were the only authors who used the literary forms of the time they were writing about, and it makes their stories much stronger. I think they also both understood the limits of the space, and had the right sized story for a very few pages. Really the authors only had time to set up two characters, and one plot turn, and Jane and Joss both do this very well.

The other stories, set in Revolutionary France, America at the time of colonisation, Nazi Germany and 1970s New York, are less successful. The most dire is Sonnenblume, set in Nazi era Germany. It’s slightly less subtle than being hit over the head with a mallet (which is a real shame, because, like I said, the art is very good). I found the Revolutionary France story similarly trite, possibly because it was trying to deal with something very big in a very small space (or possibly just because Amber Benson doesn’t have very interesting ideas about revolutionary France). The story set in America at the time of colonisation, works for the first few pages, but relies on simplistic statements as a substitute for character development, and in the end appears to be making an argument for assimilation. Nikki’s story is OK, but not particularly interesting.

The comic ends with another Joss story, this one about Fray. By itself this short piece isn’t even a story (and I was disappointed, because after several stories of in period or practical clothing, Fray is wearing a very short, loose, cut off top, which you absolutely wouldn’t be able to fight in. I guess I should be glad no-one found a place in the story to have a bath). But it ends with Fray finding, and reading the Watchers diaries of previous slayers.

In the end despite the mixed quality of the stories, I would definitely recommend this to any Buffy fan. Because what it does do so nicely is expand on the idea, implicit in the Buffyverse, that struggle has a history and each generation in that struggle is connected to those that have gone before it.

The latest Buffy comic has a backstory. Last year Darkhorse ran a competition inviting 100 word essays on ‘How Buffy Changed My Life’ - Joss would chose the winner who would then appear in one of the comics. The winner was Jarrod’s essay, he wrote about his wife’s schizophrenia, and how they’d watched Buffy as she was getting sicker and sicker. Robin appears in this story, she is a minder who has to guard unstable reality fields (or possibly demons). It’s well done, and the more I thought about it the more sense it made. Although I don’t know that much about schizophrenia, so I don’t know how well the storyline reflects reality.

Overall I liked this comic, although I remain unsure about the genre. I’m going to like any comic which has Buffy and Willow talk about their relationship. Of course, the bitter part in me, that does believe in showing not telling, would have rather that they’d had Buffy and Willow have a relationship in season 6 an 7, than explain to us with small words what’s going on.

I loved the little details of this story, the ever developing ‘Anywhere but Here’ was really fun (and a nice little bit of continuity). I loved that we found out where the money was coming from, because it really annoys me when fiction ignores economics. I love even more that Buffy is stealing from Swiss banks, not being particularly fond of banks and all.

I wasn’t so happy about the Dawn revelation, if this is the final twist (and it may not be) it does bear a striking resemblance to her being punished for having sex. I love giant dawn; I love her giant suitcase of clothes. I don’t love punishing female characters for having sex.

The comic ends with Buffy and Willow walking off separately. It’s clear that this season is going to be about stripping Buffy of her allies. I can’t help but feel that we’ve seen that before and, like I said in my last review, these plotlines would be anchored better if we had more idea what normal was for the relationships between these characters.

On the art front, this is the first story arc in a Buffy comic which hasn’t involved a female character taking a bath. It was almost comical how hard the artists appeared to work to draw Robin so that she didn’t look like a comic book girl.

So I’ve got behind on my Buffy comic reviews, so I’m going to review the last three episodes of the Faith arc together. As expected Faith becomes close with the evil slayer who is a member of the English aristocracy (mostly by fighting the gargoyle), and then (again not suprisingly) Gigi is trying to kill Buffy.

It was well done, Faith was well captured, and Gigi worked as a character. Gigi’s Warlock friend seemed very much a cardboard cut-out, but that’s all he needed to be I guess.

And in the end the story wasn’t about Gigi at all, but Faith, Giles & Buffy’s relationship. But there were serious problems in the execution. This plot-line lost a lot of its power because we had no idea of what Buffy and Giles or Buffy and Faith’s relationship had been like since Sunnydale hit into a hole, so it wasn’t anchored to anything.

I think maybe it’s a problem with the genre, because there seems to be a lot of ‘telling’ rather than showing going on. Characters explain exactly what their motivations are, whether it’s Twilight or Faith. The ratio of fight scenes to conversations is so much higher than it was in the TV, so there doesn’t seem to as much space for character, which I miss. I do enjoy the comics, and like the ideas, and where the characters are, but I’m just not convinced by the way it’s told.

Talking of problem with comic books. The baths! Never in the history of literature have female characters been so disproportionately cleaner than their male counterparts. Why do Faith and Gigi make plans in the bath?

No, I know the answer, it just pisses me off.

Tomorrow I’ll review the ‘Anywhere But Here’ and then maybe I’ll review Tales of the Slayers (which I got ages ago). I’ve been remiss in the Joss content for a few months.

I would have expected to have written more about the writers’ strike, because it involves two of my favourite things: industrial action and Joss Whedon. The Writers Guild of America have been on strike for over two months now, and there’s lots of information out there and good blogs by striking writers. There are also several websites set up by fans who support writers. There was a Mutant Enemy Picket day, where Joss and the writers and actors from Firefly, Buffy & Angel all picketed together. Some fans came from as far as England and Australia to join the picket.¹

The writing for the Golden Globes and the Oscars is usually done by WGA members. THe Guild has announced that it will refused waivers to allow these ceremonies to be written by Guild writers, and will picket the ceremonies if they go ahead without the writers.² Now actors, the sort of Actors who get nominated for Golden Globes and Oscars, have unanimously announced that they will not cross a picket line if the ceremonies are picketed. The first thing Katherine Heigl (to choose one random example, because I have an inexplicable fondness for her) said when she was nominated for a Golden Globe, was that she wouldn’t cross a picket line. Without stars there isn’t much appeal to an award ceremony. What I thought was particularly awesome, was that the actors apparently took this decision themselves:

SAG decided not to pressure its A-List actors about attending or not attending the WGA-struck Golden Globes on NBC. So I’m told the decision not to cross picket lines came from the thesps themselves. In fact, SAG leadership took a meeting with all of Hollywood’s publicists (with a similar collection in NYC via video conference) who told the union that the clients they represent will not cross the WGA picket line for the Golden Globes without exception.

Actors support has gone beyond not getting dressed in pretty gowns and telling their publicists to talk to their union, Actors have picketed, they’ve used their media pull, they’ve appeared in a video campaign.

The reason actors are doing this isn’t just because Hollywood is full of liberals (or radicals in a few cases). Even Patricia Heaton who thanked the troops when she won an Emmy in 2001 supports the writers. The reason the actors, who are all union members, do this is because it’s in their own best interests. The main issue that writers are striking over - payment for work broadcast over the internet is one that is as important for the actors as it is for the writers. If the writers lose then there’s no way the actors would get their residuals. The actors solidarity obviously make the writers stronger (the absense of the nominees for best screenplay wouldn’t torpedo an award ceremony.

In this case, the urgency of that solidarity is really clear. The contracts expire within months of each other and the issues are identical. But the principle of solidarity works the same way whether the workers are half a world away (solidarity of German dockworkers helped win the recent wharfie strike in Napier) or a completely different industry (wharfies helped win the Progressive lockout last year).

The concept of solidarity isn’t hard (it’d be unkind to suggest that if it was people who send their publicists to talk to their union probably wouldn’t be able to grasp it so I won’t), but often it can seem abstract. Which is why such a show of solidarity, even over an event as ridiculous as the Golden Globes, is pretty damn powerful.

On a less solid note, I’m was sad to see that The Daily Show and The Colbert report will be returning tomorrow without their striking writers. I understand that Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert are under contractual obligations; I understand that they have been very supportive of the strike, I understand that there are lots of other people employed by these show, but crossing a picket line is crossing a picket line.

I do want to say something about editors, grips, craft services, and all the other workers who are involved in making a television show. Those who worked on a television series that has stopped production because of the strike aren’t working and aren’t being paid.

The situation of those workers, while difficult, is not a stick to beat the striking writers with. It’s an obligation of solidarity. When the writers win they, and the actors, need to stand solid with the editors, grips and craft services. Those workers need to know that their picket lines will be honoured, that the actors and writers will stand on the picket line with them. Writers and Actors need to do that because solidarity is a mutal obligation, but also beause it’s in their own best interest. Unless solidarity extends across the industry the gains that are won with this strike will just temporary.

1. I’m more than a little jealous that, odds are, the only people who could afford a twelve hour flight to support a picket line with Joss, probably aren’t as into the picket line as much as they’re into the Joss.
2. It’s a little more complicated than that, it’s always a little bit more complicated than that, but that’s enough to get the point.

Maia pointed out this webpage to me. Brilliant. Plus, it allows me to choose “Buffy” and “Elections” as categories for the same post, which I might not have done before.

Feel free to use this thread to post anything you’d like. Linking to your own stuff is encouraged.

I’m reminded of the episode of “Buffy the Vampire Slayer” in which Spike commented, “If every vampire who said he was at the crucifixion was actually there, it would have been like Woodstock.”

A defensive Romney was peppered with questions today on exactly what he meant when he said — most recently on Meet the Press — that he “saw” his father march with Martin Luther King Jr. Recent articles have indicated that his father, the late Michigan Gov. George Romney, didn’t march with the civil-rights leader.

Admitting that he didn’t see the march with his own eyes, he said, “I ’saw’ him in the figurative sense.”

“The reference of seeing my father lead in civil rights,” he said, “and seeing my father march with Martin Luther King is in the sense of this figurative awareness of and recognition of his leadership.”

“I’ve tried to be as accurate as I can be,” he continued, smiling firmly. “If you look at the literature or look at the dictionary, the term ’saw’ includes being aware of — in the sense I’ve described.”

The questioning did not relent. “I’m an English literature major,” he insisted at one point. “When we say I saw the Patriots win the World Series, it doesn’t necessarily mean you were there.”

Of course, since the Patriots play football, no one would see them at baseball’s World Series. (If Kerry, Gore or Edwards made that error, it would haunt them forever — elitist! girly-man! faker! — but Romney will be given a pass.) That aside, however, what a pathetically lame defense.

Incidently, Romney’s lie about marching with Martin Luther King Jr used to be more extreme. This week, he only lied about his father marching with MLK. Thirty years ago, he claimed that he himself marched with MLK.

As I’ve said before, since conservatives lack credibility on race, they cite MLK to “borrow” MLK’s credibility for their own purposes.

This is a useful tactic for politicians¹ because the large majority of Americans have forgotten the policies MLK actually advocated for. So claiming allegiance with MLK’s memory is a good way for politicians to pretend they’re against white supremacy without actually committing to any policy positions that might have the effect of reducing white supremacy at all.

UPDATE: Mark Schmitt points out that “in fact, Governor George Romney had an extremely impressive civil rights record.” But he also asks:

Is there the slightest reason to believe that in the same position as his father, as it was becoming clear that the Republicans’ path to the presidency ran through the South (Goldwater secured the nomination in 1964 in part by opposing the Civil Rights Act, and Strom Thurmond switched parties that year), [Mitt Romney] would have shown similar courage? Mitt Romney’s shape-shifting adaptation to whatever the Republican prejudice of the moment is (anti-immigration rhetoric, or denouncing the kind of health plan he enacted as “socialized medicine”) suggests that he wouldn’t have been doing any marching.

1. Democrats and Republicans alike

A week ago today the New Zealand police invaded homes all over the country. They arrested 17 (or 18) people with breaches of the Firearms Act. But the search warrants were issued under the Terrorism Suppression Act. Those arrested were called terrorists.

The police invaded Ruatoki, a Tuhoe community. They set up a checkpoint along the confiscation line. Those who wanted to go in or out of this community had to stand by their cars and have their picture taken. Armed police officers boarded the bus that takes kids to Kohanga Reo.

That paragraph may not make much sense to non-NZers. Maori are the tangata whenua, or indigenous people of New Zealand. Kohanga Reo is immersion kindergarten. Tuhoe are an iwi, or tribe, from the North Island of New Zealand. This is an attack on the indigenous people of New Zealand. On the indigenous people who are fighting colonisation. This has dominated the news in New Zealand for a week. It is the first time the Terrorism Suppression Act (the New Zealand version of the Patriot Act) has been used and it is being used against indigenous people who have been terrorised by the New Zealand state.

If that was all that had happened I would have written sooner. But the police also invaded a house I’ve spent many, many hours in. They took three of my friends.

There is an element of ridicule to all this. The police took a backpack that people had taken to the farmers market - with avocados and potatoes, later they brought it back because they decided it didn’t contain any evidence of terrorism. The paper claimed that groups from all over the country working on many different issues were going to launch co-ordinated attacks. They clearly don’t know us very well (anyone who has ever worked on the left will understand why).

But when I laugh it is only to relieve the stress, because my friends still aren’t free. In New Zealand almost everyone gets bail. The day that our friends were arrested the other news included a man who had serially raped prostitutes who was out on bail. That they are still there, that we are still going out to the prison everyday, would have seemed unreal a week ago.

I have closed this post to comments. I’m sorry, but I cannot handle abstract discussion about people I love, when I don’t know when we’ll get them back. I will be writing more about this, I will be writing about some of the issues involved. Right now I just wanted to let people know why I hadn’t been posting, and explain some of the background for when I have the energy to write about what is involved.

* There is no situation, no matter how serious and stressful, for which I don’t have the perfect Buffy quote.