Though two new shows in the fall line-up – Once Upon a Time and Grimm – both use fairy tales as the basis for their narratives, blending the ‘real world’ with the ‘fairy tale’ world, the similarities pretty much stop there. The two shows are radically different – and especially so in their representation of gender. Grimm has far less of a female focus and frames women as victims, functioning like CSI: The Fairy Tale Version while Once Upon a Time is centered around strong female characters, functioning as a sort of Snow White: Disney Princess Slayer.
Much like Hoodwinked, Grimm functions as a fairy-tale crime scene retake. However, while Hoodwinked gave us a wise-talking Red and a go-to Granny, Grimm focuses on a male detective and thus far has put females on the sidelines – and, in accordance with rape culture – represents them as potential victims who had better “stay out of the forest” it they want to stay safe.
The season premiere opened with a young woman jogging in a red-sweatshirt listening to the Eurhythmics song Sweet Dreams, a song that will later be hummed by her wolfy attacker as he ominously adds another red sweatshirt to his basement wardrobe collection, indicating he has kidnapped and killed quite a few ‘litte Reds.’ As the use of the Eurhythmics song suggests “some of them want to abuse you.” Never fear though, as the intrepid male detective duo of Nick Burckhardt (David Guintoli) and Hank Griffin (Russell Hornsby) are on the wolf’s track, serving as would-be woodsmen to save red damsels in distress.
Earlier, these same two detectives watch women walking down a street. Hank asks David “What you looking at?,” to which David notes that something seems remiss about one of the women, noting her low salary does not match her Armani outfit. Hank scoffs in reply “Why can’t you just watch her ass like the rest of us?” This may be the most obvious moment of a sexualized male gaze in the premiere, but other aspects of the show indicate it will be more akin to Supernatural (where two male leads are the key demon hunters) than to Alias (where a strong woman was front and center).
Granted the premiere introduces us to Mary – Nick’s guardian since he was 12. She is the one strong woman thus far, telling Nick about his true “fairy tale hunter” identity and then battling a monstrous baddie. This fight lands her in hospital (and if male-hero Nick hadn’t shot the monster, would have likely resulted in her death). This, and the fact she earlier told Nick she’s been given only weeks to live, suggests Mary won’t be around for long – too bad, as putting (good) strong women at the helm of fairy tales is a rare occurrence – there are plenty of evil female villains, but not many heroines, unless you consider talking to animals or finding a prince a particularly heroic trait.
The most intriguing plot point of the premiere comes when Nick targets the wrong creature, a reformed wolf. The wolf/human insists on his innocence, angrily telling Nick “you people started profiling us over 200 years ago.” It will be interesting to see if the show builds on ideas of racial profiling or if (please!) it includes some strong women and non-prince charming detectives, until it does, I will get my strong-women-in-fairy-tales fix watching Once Upon a Time.
Once features not only a re-vamped Snow White, but her kick-butt daughter, Emma Swan.
While in Grimm, the setting is modern-day Oregon, in Once, the characters are trapped between two worlds – the fairy-tale past and the modern world, including the town of Storybrooke, where an evil spell cast by the Queen has frozen all the fairy-tale characters in time and taken away their awareness of who they are. In the modern world, The Queen is Storybrooke’s dictatorial mayor, and her adoptive son Henry is on a quest to save the day. He seeks out Emma Swan, the daughter of Snow White, who lives in Boston and works as a bail bondsperson that reveals the “evil” of philandering men. Not knowing her “true identity,” Emma goes with Henry to Storybroooke, staying there when he convinces her only she can undo the curse.
Thus far, it is not clear who knows they are stuck in a fairy tale and who doesn’t, but the lavish costumes, special effects, and attention to fairy-tale detail makes for a show that is far more enchanting than the film Enchantment – Disney’s attempt at a fairy tale redux that, in spite of excellent turns by Amy Adams as princess and Susan Sarandon as Evil Queen, ultimately gave us the same old message – someday your prince will come, he will “save” you, and your “happy ending” equals being a happy wife/mother.
Where Enchantment failed in a typical Disney way – by trying to “modernize” a sexy message and make it palatable via the inclusion of catchy tunes and cute talking animals, Once succeeds by NOT being cute – instead we have the nasty Rumpelstilskin morphed into the modern evil capitalist Mr. Gold, the newfangled Snow as an excellent, caring elementary school teacher, little Red and the Fairy Godmother as hotel proprietors, and Jiminy Cricket as child therapist. Further, though the show accords with the “evil stepmother” meme of fairy tales – it complicates it as well, suggesting that “evil” women might just be the result of a society that does not value single mothers and questions powerful women in the workforce.
But, the biggest difference is the fact Emma Swan is framed as the heroine – that her “happy ending” is NOT about finding a man or going to a ball all gussied up, but about detective work, about building a relationship with her son Henry, and about seeking the “truth” as to why time stands still in the corrupt Storybrooke world. For once a female is poised to be the hero – and with no prince charming by her side. Woot!
The themes and content of the show thus far circulate around issues of gender, class, education, mothering/parenting, beauty, aging, and power – yes, these are common fairy tale concerns, but the difference is Once – at least so far – takes fairy tale tropes and give them a feminist/social justice twist.
The queen/mayor is not just an evil witch of the all powerful women are bad, but a woman stuck within capitalist patriarchy – where Mr. Gold (Rumplestilskin) calls the shots. Even more intriguingly, Maleficent (played by True Blood’s Kristin Bauer van Straten) is portrayed as recognizing the bind inherent in the good/evil binary and the way it too simplistically frames some women as witches, and others as princesses. In one humorous scene, The Queen and Maleficent complain about Snow White and Sleeping Beauty, noting how those prissies ruined their lives. Underneath this banter lies the suggestion that what really turned them evil was neither Snow or Sleeping, but patriarchy and the marriage imperative imposed by fathers.
The show also interestingly puts a new twist on “true love” – the focus of so many fairy tales. When the Queen wants to release her dark curse, Rumplestilskin tells her she must sacrifice “the heart of the thing you love most,” which we soon discover is not some Prince Charming character, but her father. Just before she kills him, her father tells her “Power is seductive, but so is love, you can have that again…I believe given a chance we can find happiness again, but the choice is yours.” Alas, she chooses power over love and kills him, using his heart for the curse that transports the fairy tale inhabitants to Storybrooke and freezes them forever in time.
Henry, who bears the namesake of the slain father of the Queen, seeks Emma out to release the curse, telling her she is the only one who has the power to do so. Embedded within this quest is Henry’s own search for true motherly love. However, the show is careful not to suggest that Emma’s love is “better” or “natural” because she is his biological mother – rather, it suggests that, as a good person, she cannot help but help Henry, and in doing so, she disproves her claim that she is “not fit to be a mother.” The show also is careful not to demonize her for putting Henry up for adoption and notes the age/class factors that contributed to her decision. Moreover, it opens out what “mothering” means – it is not about having money and power (like the Queen/Mayor), but about the type of nurturing both Emma and the newfangled Snow White (Henry’s elementary school teacher) offer Henry.
Emma of course doesn’t believe she can save Henry nor Storybrooke, but, as Henry points out, “the hero never believes at first, if they did, it wouldn’t be a very good story.”
As for me, I believe this is going to be one heck of a good story, and I hope against hope that it will lead to the “happy ending” of finally FINALLY! having a mainstream fairy-tale that doesn’t sideline females or suggest they are only good for cleaning up after dwarves, marrying princes, or beautifully sleeping. As for me, I am not awaiting “true love’s kiss” – nope, I am counting the days until episode two of Once Upon a Time.
Comments 10
Ari — November 4, 2011
Excellent review. :) I watched both and I must say I am enjoying Once Upon A Time more so than Grimm.
gwp_admin — November 5, 2011
The second episode of Grimm aired last night - anyone view it yet? I have not had the chance but am hoping it will have less of a "woman as victim" meme...
Richard — November 5, 2011
My only problem with OUAT is that Jennifer Morrison doesn´t deliver. The show is great and her character is beautifully written but i just can´t get into it. She will probably get to understand her character as time goes by and will make the show more enjoyable. At least that´s what i hope because i think the show is very promising.
Natalie Wilson — November 5, 2011
Richard,
I quite like Morrison in the role, maybe cuz I was a House fan when she was on the show.
Piper Hoffman — November 6, 2011
Fantastic analysis of Once Upon A Time; I haven't watched Grimm and now I don't plan to.
My one quibble: Emma doesn't work "as an undercover detective revealing the 'evil' of philandering men" -- she's a bail bondsperson, and the fugitive we see her (very stylishly) bust happens to be a philanderer. Rock on, Emma!
Natalie Wilson — November 6, 2011
Piper, Thanks for your reply and correction! I had her as an "undercover detective" with a "?" in my notes, but as soon as I read your comment I remembered that she is indeed a bail bondsperson - I will fix this in the post.
veronica — November 9, 2011
Great review! I've been mulling the two myself for the past week. I tend ti like OUAT over Grimm due to the story & relationships. Waiting to see if Mr. Grimm ditches his fiance or not.
Chuck — November 14, 2011
After reading this review, I wonder if I'm even watching the same two shows as Dr. Wilson. I find the social and political comparisons she makes to be a long stretch. For example, in "Grimm," attributing the use of the 'red riding hood' character and the foreboding forest to 'rape culture' seems a particularly hard sell, especially in light of Nick's experience as he walked alone while searching for the little girl, Robin. Plus, the warning that he received from his aunt, telling him that he's vulnerable now and must be careful. That he must be careful even to the point of ending his relationship with Juliette. Nick and anyone associated with him are at equal risk. Is that also in accordance with rape culture?
Also, the conversation between Nick and Hank was not quite as you state in your review. Nick said, "No, she wears Armani, makes low six figures, drives a BMW, and is falling for a senior partner at her law firm. Nothing but trouble, Hank." At first I thought this was an attempt to establish Nick as an observer on par with Sherlock Holmes, apparently intuiting volumes of information from a momentary exposure and setting him up to be some sort of super-cop. The irony here is that at the end of the episode, the Armani wearing exec turns out to be another fairy tale monster, which coupled with Nick's misidentification of the kidnapper, and the fact that Hulda was his first shooting makes him seem more the rookie than the steely eyed veteran.
I wouldn't count out Juliette. Though she received limited exposure in the pilot, I thought her reaction to Aunt Marie's trailer was inexplicably mild. I haven't seen the subsequent episodes yet, so I could be completely off base, but it seems that Juliette may know more than she's letting on.
Regarding "Once Upon A Time," the attribution of the misery of the Queen and her only friend, Maleficent, to the patriarchy is an entirely unsupported observation. The dialague explicitly refers to the Queen's apparently genuine love for her dead paramour and I don't find a lot of room in the scene for the suggestion of an off camera motive.
Equally unsupported is the assertion that the Queen/Mayor is purely the victim of some capitalist patriarchy. The Queen levies the curse to achieve her own happiness in the misery of others. She commits murder, killing the person she loves the most, in order to achieve a goal that is solely hers. She is presented with a number of opportunities to turn aside from her vengeance quest, yet continues of her own accord. Of course, the show would have come to an abrupt end if she had, so I guess she is really trapped within a capitalist script-writer conspiracy, intent on having us spend an hour each Sunday evening.
Finally, how many strong woman butt kickers must make an appearance in pop culture before the concept becomes a trope of it's very own? Granted, I don't make a career out of watching movies and television, but without consulting the internet, and just in the realm of sci-fi and fantasy, I can recall Ellen Ripley, various women of the Star Trek Next Generation franchise, Princess Leia, Buffy and most of the other women in Joss Whedon's productions, the women of Charmed, Dana Scully, Shane Vansen, Ellen and Jo from Supernatural...maybe I do watch too much TV.
I think that the era of the single dimensioned female character is over, and has been for quite a while.
Natalie Wilson — November 14, 2011
Chuck,
Thank you for your detailed response to my post. I am wondering though, do you expect all audiences to have the same reaction to texts? Might your reaction differ from my own without you suggesting I am wrong and you are right?
Further, the rape culture we inhabit is different for different people and how we react to depictions of gender, sexualized violence, and so on, is going to vary depending on our own social positioning and experiences. In literary theory, it tends to be termed the “indetermenency of texts” or linked to reader response criticism (where the reader, not the author “determines” meaning).
You seem to miss my point about the male gaze in regards to Nick’s discussion with Hank. Also, I hope Juliette does indeed become a more central character, but this review was based solely on the pilot episode.
In terms of my “entirely unsupported observation” that OUAT critiques patriarchy, I beg to differ - and your points about the “dead paramour” don’t refute but go along with my reading – that the “true love” and “marriage is all” message of fairy tales is being critiqued in the show. Also, I wouldn’t say I read her the queen as “victim of some capitalist patriarchy” but as a symptom of it. As you note, “The Queen levies the curse to achieve her own happiness in the misery of others. She commits murder, killing the person she loves the most, in order to achieve a goal that is solely hers.” Hmmm, is greed not an offshoot of capitalist patriarchy? Is capitalism not about the success of some at the expense of others?
And, of course there are many strong female characters – but they are still more hyper-sexualized than male characters, still often paired with a male love interest, and they are still outnumbered around five to one. See, for example, the Bechdel Test…
Chuck — November 15, 2011
I do not expect all audiences to have the same reaction to texts. I expect audiences to seek and possibly find personal resonance in the art that they take in. The more abstract the art, the more room for personal interpretation. However, I don't think the artist's intent is disposable. Indeterminancy does not mean that a viewer ignores the author's intended message.
If you made a subtler point regarding the exchange between Nick and Hank and what they were each looking at in that early scene, I absolutely did miss it. You point out the overt sexual nature of the gaze and subsequent exchange, and apparently find it disagreeable. How many interpretations of that action can there be? As many as there are viewers. If you subscribed to a different -ism, you might have noted that Nick attempted to demonstrate his intellectual superiority over his black co-worker and also warned him away from looking at the white woman. I imagine we could easily identify other interpretations if we looked through different lenses.
I still have not watched the other episodes either. My tangential observation about Juliette was noting that she did not 'freak out' at the sight of the supernatural paraphernalia in the trailer. This type of scene has been used in other shows, such as "The Sarah Connor Chronicles," to foreshadow a character's true level of involvement in the plot.
I stand by my contention that there is scant evidence to support a "...suggestion that what really turned them evil was neither Snow or Sleeping, but patriarchy and the marriage imperative imposed by fathers." What turned them evil was thwarted desire. You assume that their desire for love and ultimately marriage was imposed upon them externally by a culture and by their fathers, in the absence of any direct evidence. Further, in the scene in question, Malificent observes, regarding Snow White and the Queen's intentions, "Well, it's her wedding night. I doubt she's suffering right now." This indicates that these women are not meek or downtrodden, but rather have more modern expectations regarding their personal lives. That's what I'd expect from a modernized version of the story, which doesn't automatically make it a critique of the cultures illustrated in prior versions of the same tale.
Also, note the four main characters in the scene: the Queen, Malificent, and the absent Snow White and Sleeping Beauty. The conflict was among them. The resolution, apparently a violent one, was among them. If there's a capitalist patriarchal system at work here, they are apparently part owners and willing participants. They certainly have the power to remove themselves from a flawed system or change it to their liking.
Greed is a product of human desire. Greed for possessions, power, or fame are all symptomatic of human imperfection rather than a particular culture or belief system. You point out Mr Gold as "an evil capitalist" which works in the context of his supernatural status and its transposition to modern New England. But he could as easily have been an evil commissar, an evil ayatollah, an evil political officer, an evil revolutionary, or an evil celebrity, depending on the cultural wrapper containing him.
The Bechdel criteria are an interesting attempt to quantify a certain type of female role, but for measuring the presence of strong female characters, they seem arbitrary and not definitive. Also, what exactly is a strong female character? Is it only a Buffy style strength, where she can kick ass at will, or is it a certain presence, such as numerous characters rendered by Shirley MacLaine? I note that your own review of the recent Harry Potter movie pointed out numerous strong female characters, yet the film received the second lowest rating on the Bechdel Test movie list.
I would go beyond your statement regarding the portrayal of female characters and say almost all television and film characters are unrealistically portrayed, male or female. That is apparently part of the appeal of mass market art. Unreal reality shows notwithstanding, we lap up the improbable, the unusual, and the grotesque. The consumers have voted, not with their feet, but with their remote control.