A new game has sprung up from the depths which may make games like Rapelay look like Nintendogs. It's taken me too long to write about this game. Every time I start to, I get sick to my stomach and filled with disgust and impotent rage. Imagine the sadistic depravity of games such as Tsuki Possession, Rapelay, Virgin Roster, or 7 Sins and combine it with the real-film look of The Guy Game and you may be getting close to understanding the sick trash that is Stockholm: An Exploration of True Love (Released 27 May 2009).
Stockholm is an interactive DVD in which you play a sadistic and creepy (even though it's first person) kidnapper. The point, as the name may suggest, is to get your victim to fall in love with you. This goal is to be accomplished through fear using torture, rape, forced nudity, suffocation, gassing, etc. Charming.
Billed as "The Controversial Masterpiece that was Banned from Amazon", Stockholm doesn't just trump other games featuring the domination of women in content alone. There are some things which challenge my beliefs. I don't believe in capital punishment, but Ted Bundy is a man I believe wholly deserving of that and more. I don't believe in torture, an eye for an eye, but I believe that the creator of Stockholm may deserve it.
I'm assuming since many of you play video games, you have a healthy imagination. And I'll go so far as to infer that many of you are, like me, nerds who also enjoy fantasy/sci-fi cartoons/books/movies, etc. Maybe even a little anime once in a while.
And as different as those mediums can be, there is one element that they all have in common. The very element that allows all of those things to be successful: suspension of disbelief. And as far as that goes, I think that as gamers/nerds/whatever, our imagination is probably very developed. If our imagination could be toned, it would probably look like one of those unnaturally large bodybuilders. And if we can't suspend our disbelief for something, then it probably really sucks.
So while I was checking an old email account on yahoo, I noticed a story in the little news section. It read: Transgender Wife gets 4 years for killing husband. And I thought to myself, what does her being transgendered have to even do with that? But I clicked it anyway and searched again for it to see what other news sources had to say about it. This actually made for an even more interesting discovery. If you search for this story on the MSNBC website it says "Transgender wife gets 4 years for killing a man". But on most other news sites of not so self proclaimed leftist views the title reads that she killed her husband. Kinda strange. It is possible that the only reason the story made national news was because it involved a transgendered person and LGBTQ (which I'll refer to as queer after this) tensions are high awaiting the California Supreme Court decision ? But what I think- and you can call me a pessimist- is that this story has national coverage because it paints a transgendered person in a negative light.
The name Disney has always been synonymous with children's entertainment and more recently, sub par sequels of once successful films. While much of the work coming from Disney is family entertainment and seemingly devoid of any greater purpose besides amusement, I can't help but feel there is much more than meets the eye. The best example of this is the The Little Mermaid (1989). The first time I watched the film as a kid, I was admittedly more captivated by the idea of singing mermaids and tridents that could blow things up than the social commentary behind the film. Indeed, if someone unfamiliar with the film were to pick it up at a local video store and read the back of the jacket for its description, there would not seem to be anything special about it. However, this movie is far more than a watered down version of a Danish fairy tale with a simpering text book happy ending and a bazooka like trident in the hands of a merman closely resembling Santa Claus. When viewed critically, this film can be seen as a feminist satire even by the first time viewer. Truly, anyone interested in subtexts within films not often critiqued seriously and fans of Disney or assorted sea creatures would find this film absorbing and intensely interesting.
On the surface, this is a film about the relationship between a rebellious daughter, Ariel, and her father, talking fish, and a particularly wily cecaelia thrown in. But beneath the surface, there appears to be a myriad of social issues that make the film a scathing and insightful commentary on sexism and the nature of feminism. First, there is the character of Ursula who, upon closer inspection, actually plays the part of a Byronic hero rather than a villain. Secondly, there is Ursula's song, which is a blatant assault on traditional gender roles and sexist theories. And lastly, there are two of the over arching themes of self-acceptance and the limitations of women in a patriarchal society as revealed by conversations between Ariel and Ursula.
The witch is an ancient archetype that has been used in almost every fairy tale. While evil wizards and warlocks play a large role as villains, more often it is a vile witch character who is behind all the mayhem. In fact, the closest comparisons to Ursula's character are the sorcerer Viziers in tales like those from A Thousand and One Arabian Nights. While it seems like a harmless archetype meant more for the intent of cliche amusement than anything else, there is a darker depth to it. Accusations of witchcraft in association primarily with women were often used as a tool of demonization and solidification of oppressive social hierarchies. This usually had quite a bit to deal with a great fear of female knowledge of remedies and skill in cooking by men (who were not often taught or made to have any understanding of these skills). Therefore, it is not surprising that the villain of this piece is a supposedly 'evil' sea witch. Several characters call her a monster and a demon, but the audience is never really given any back story as to why she is so detested. Ursula does admit that she has done some deplorable things, but unlike Ariel's father, who is her male counterpart in the film, she admits to her transgressions and claims she has reformed. When she is first seen, she does seem to aesthetically fit her words, "They weren't kidding when they called me, well...a witch". A large, purple cecaelia with six tentacles is probably not the visual standard audience expect of a 'good' character. Vilifying women by making them either overtly sexualized or ugly was not a new concept at the time of the films production, so it is unsurprisingly she was made outwardly a villain by this physique. And to match this physique, she does act in many ways that could be seen by the casual viewer as evil throughout the film. She goes about her own agenda almost ruthlessly and in a calculating manner but her behavior may only seem out of place because she is not conforming to the stereotypical gender ideal of women. While Ursula is definitely a plotter, she does not really seek out any sort of trouble directly and pursues only legal channels for her ambitious plans.
During the mid part of the film, Ursula sings a song to Ariel, offering her an outlet for her desires. At first glance, this song may appear to be a mere trick to draw a naive Ariel into a bargain she does not understand the ramifications of. And in some respect, it is. However, close attention should be paid to the actual lyrics and the conversation between Ariel and herself. When Ursula explains relatively directly what she does and Ariel voices some concerns, she replies, "You'll have your looks! Your pretty face! And don't underestimate the importance of body language!". She goes even further to cite the treatment of women in the world above, and most likely below, and what Ariel can expect when she reaches the surface voiceless. Far from being evil, this is useful and honest advice- albeit severe. She informs Ariel that she will have to leave her family if her plan succeeds, what will happen if she fails, and the possible dynamics between Ariel and the male gender. Her song details theories held still to this day that suggest a woman should be docile, quiet, and naive or pure in order to be considered a good woman or marriage material. This can also suggest the dismal views of the man-hating side of feminism which assert that each man will behave stereotypically; thus contributing to sexism in the same way.
Ursula's song and her and Ariel's conversations also reinforce the film's commentary on the dangers of self-hatred and female limitations. In her own description of her role as the sea witch, Ursula states that she uses her sorcery for good, and there is definitely something beneath her words. She certainly has a harsh way of dealing with her customers, but it is ultimately very fair. She sings, "Now it's happened once or twice/ Someone couldn't pay the price/ And I'm afraid I had to rake 'em 'cross the coals/" after citing two examples of people who sought her out for help with the desire to fix their lives quickly with the use of magic instead of either accepting themselves or improving themselves on their own. And when their plans, rooted in self-hatred, failed and they couldn't pay, Ursula had to follow through on the terms of the contract. It is also worth noting that the two visual depictions of these examples (a merman and woman) both ended up that way because they were trying to conform to sexist ideals. Hence, the thin, 'wimpy' man want to be made handsome and muscular while the large woman wanted to be turned into some ultra thin model. I'm reminded of those commercials for Cymbalta- Where does sexism hurt? Everywhere. Who does sexism hurt? Everyone. Anyway, in the case of Ariel, she comes to Ursula to escape her father's rule and explore the world to find love. Unable to expand her horizons and sate her curiosity about another culture because of her controlling father, she is forced to employ the use of Ursula's magic to accomplish her goals. This leads to the display of an obvious but apt metaphor for the status of women in the world and in the film by the absence of her voice. Throughout the film, she must accomplish most of her goals mute and attempt to better her situation without any real expression of her personality. As it is suggested by her not writing anything down, she is most likely semi-illiterate and with this added limitation she must heavily rely on her physical assets and other forms of stereotypical femininity.
While many may argue that the film is merely what it is and nothing more, there is wealth of evidence to contest otherwise. Whatever the opinion of the viewer may be, it is still an achievement in animation (ground breaking at its time), and beautiful to behold for its use of color and music. But beneath the vibrant colors and crooning crustaceans may lay a more serious subtext, waiting to be discovered by those who, at the very least, are curious about films and their role in social commentary.
People are talking the internet over about Thom Creed, the new superhero coming to town. Stan Lee, of Marvel fame, is apparently creating what is being called the "world's first gay superhero." Of course, there is the orientation of Bat Girl - but this stands out because Thom Creed will take to the screen as the main character in a British T.V. series.
Super!
...probably.
And for the big surprise? Lee's efforts are being met with a lot of contempt. Bizarre! You'll have to forgive my sarcasm. Blatant bigotry against the LGBTQ community is so prevalent that it somehow still blows my mind. It's the openness of it, really.
"MCCAIN at RightPundits for example, explains what Thom's superpowers will be:
"Rumor is that Thom Creed can bend his wrist which will tastefully redecorate the interior of a building, causing momentary confusion among the bad guys while he binds them in chains and leather. Creed’s cape is by Versace, while he forgoes the usual hood for an impenetrable layer of gel. Like superman’s phone booth, Thom’s superpowers are at full strength after emerging from a closet."
Wow. Thanks for that enlightening speculation. MCCAIN follows up with, "Just kidding. You know." Oh, okay. Well, at least the humor is original and smart.
According to the Daily Mash, "Thom Creed will be a New York interior designer with incredible superpowers including an ability to pick out the perfect cushion and transform even the dullest of parties with his infectious personality." Providing this picture: 
he won't, they say, look as "gay as Batman."
I guess originality is forfeit when employing stereotypes of the other for humor. I'll have to take note of that.
In a more serious tone, Janet Shan of The Hinterland Gazette claims that, "The issue I have with this is why do we need to define the sexuality of our superheroes? I don't think children are wondering why we don't have a gay superhero or a Mormon superhero, for that matter. Is Warner Brothers next to unveil a gay character? Who cares if Bugs Bunny is gay because he wears dresses in some cartoons? It is sad that we have moved into an age where being politically correct means more than just letting kids be kids."
I get it. But being "politically correct" should mean being inclusive. Growing up LGBTQ in a completely heteronormative society means growing up feeling alone, isolated, and freakish or abnormal. Why is it important to identify characters sexuality? Because sexuality is constantly being defined. Namely, heterosexuality is constantly identified - families on TV and movies, superheros, video game characters, books - the whole gambit - includes heteros. It isn't as though children are allowed to learn that gay is ok in school. The education system frowns on this, parents rebel against it, and teachers are uncomfortable with it. Keeping children ignorant means teaching them hate and bigotry. They are left instead with the stereotypical and demeaning images of LGBTQ and deprived of any positive images - such as superheros. Sexuality has been thoroughly defined: Heterosexual is normal. Anything outside of that is so freakish that it shouldn't even be talked about. I just never understand what isn't obvious about that.
XML Feeds