#the popculty podcast | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

popculty · 7 months

Text

🎧 New Podcast Episode: Midsommar

After a little unplanned hiatus, we're back with Part 2 of our Halloween crossover event! And, well, Carver and I really put the 'cult' in Popculty with this one, because we are talking Midsommar! (one film by a straight white guy we maybe actually liked??)

In this episode:

Final Girls

exploring grief through horror

good for her (?)

the dark history of dance marathons

Florence Pugh supremacy

Because Flo said, "It's the Year of Dani, bbs" and we mere mortal podcasters follow our May Queen! 🙌🌻👑

Listen now 🎧

Or read the interactive transcript below 👇

SJ: All right, Carver, the time has come-- Gonna talk about Midsommar. There's, like, no summary for this movie. [both laugh] Like, nothing happens! I don't know what to tell you listeners, if you haven't seen it. But basically, it's about Florence Pugh's character, Dani, who has just suffered an incredible loss. She has just lost her sister and her parents to a murder-suicide situation, that's, right off the bat, very intense, very triggering. I would say that's a big trigger warning. She is grieving that, and she has the shittiest boyfriend in the world. Oh my God, Christian suuuuuuuucks.

Carver: Mm-hmm. [laughs]

SJ: He just wants her to get over it and be fine. And he and his friends, who are all working on their masters project, want to go to Sweden to study this, basically, cult-- this commune in rural Sweden at the peak of summer, for the summer solstice. They have this whole ritual and all these customs that this group of college students wants to go and study, and Dani decides to tag along, and...weird shit ensues! [both laugh] That is Midsommar. Like I say, trigger warnings definitely for suicide...um, group sex with a girl of questionable age, I will say...

Carver: Mhm.

SJ: What else? Lots of suicide. Very unpleasant, very unsettling scenes of suicide. Can't emphasize that enough.

Carver: Yes.

SJ: Anything you wanted to add to that?

Carver: That's mostly it. Uh, I mean, also the ableism that we were talking about in Hereditary? Just go ahead and dial that up to eleven.

SJ: Oh, yeah. However, contrary to Hereditary, I really love this movie. I watched it for the first time in theaters and I was like, "Huh. That was interesting. What did I just watch?" It's like two and a half hours of a Swedish folk festival with very disturbing undercurrents. I went for Florence Pugh, which, I mean-- the Pugh in this movie is off the charts amazing. I basically went for her because I had seen her in her first movie, Lady Macbeth. Didn't know what I was getting into. Came away just being like, "I think I liked it ? But I didn't get it at all." And I recently rewatched it at the beginning of this year after I had suffered a loss. And I, for some reason found myself drawn to rewatch this movie. And I have to say it was so cathartic. It really felt like being held in my grief. So that's why I messaged you after I watched it, because I just felt like I finally understood the movie and I appreciated what it had done for me through that viewing experience. That's why I suggested it and why I kind of just, on a whim, was like, "Let's talk about Midsommar. I don't care if it's directed by a white guy!" Because it really moved me. They say what you come to a movie with often affects what you get out of the movie. And I very much had that experience with Midsommar. So that's sort of my context. It just clicked for me this time. What is your experience with this movie?

Carver: I also saw it in theaters right when it came out. I think I saw it if not opening day, I saw it opening week, because at the time, I was very impressed by Hereditary. I think now it's easy to see it as a drop in the bucket of these think-piece horror films. But at the time that it came out, it was really something that we weren't seeing a ton of. So I had been anticipating this movie. I had seen the trailers. I was ready for it. Um, that opening scene, as someone who has witnessed suicide attempts by loved ones, was so hard that I nearly left. At the scene where you see the sister, I was like, internally, 'Do I get up now and go?' And I think it is a testament to the movie that I did stay and that I was able to enjoy it, even if I was in a state of panic for most of it. Coming back to rewatch it, I didn't realize how adverse I was to rewatching it originally. I actually have been trying to watch this movie every night since you and I recorded last, and I was not able to make myself rewatch it until this morning.

SJ: Oh, really? Oh my god, you watched it this morning?

Carver: Yes.

SJ: Oh no, you didn't have to put yourself through that! I'm sorry!

Carver: I don't even think I realized it. It was just, 'Oh, you know, it's just not the time. It's not the time.' And rewatching it, knowing what happens did make it a lot easier. I think I also was able to notice a lot more in that scene, that really takes the story full circle.

SJ: Yes.

Carver: And I still really enjoy it. All of the elements of grief are there. Uh, the thing that gets to me most is what you were talking about earlier: Christian is such a bad boyfriend.

SJ: He's the worst! But not in a super obvious way, right? Not in the typical way we see abusive boyfriends, but he is so neglectful, does not care about what she's going through. He is surrounded by friends that are pretty shitty too, who are like, "Oh, just break up with her and find someone who actually likes sex." His dude bro friends are the worst, too. And they're just enabling him to be shittier.

Carver: They're also not the type of guys you would normally associate with that behavior. These are PhD students! They're educated, they're woke-- Well, some of them are. Mark is not.

SJ: Oh, yeah. Will Poulter's character. I mean, can he ever play a good guy? I don't think so. With that face?

Carver: He's going to play an idiot. That's the role he is given in this movie, is the idiot or the fool. And that is how I associate him, in film at least.

SJ: Oh, totally. He looks like the mean kid from Toy Story brought to life.

Carver: [laughs] Very Sid. I can see it.

SJ: But yeah, so Christian isn't-- It's a more subtle version of abusive, toxic behavior than we're used to seeing. It's not in your face. It's not like he beats her. It's shittier in a much subtler way, in like a gaslighty way.

Carver: Mm-hmm. In a 'your feelings are your fault and my feelings are your fault...'

SJ: He constantly makes her feel like she's holding him back because she's having a panic attack, or because she's grieving, or because she's the sad girl at the party-- Ugh, that's the worst! I hate that.

Carver: I was discussing with my roommate earlier that I think the kindest thing he could have done would have been to break up with her. Because then at least she would have had that anger to fuel and push her forward in ways that I don't always think grief can do. I think the anger part of the grief cycle is one of the things that, for me at least, will pull me forward and keep the momentum of healing going, because you've got that fire. Whereas grief on its own just feels like something that's pulling you down. And I think you can feel that in Dani's character this whole time. What she needed was just a little bit of fire to get her going.

SJ: Heh. There's some foreshadowing for ya. [Carver chortles] For anyone who feels the same way we do about Christian, I highly recommend and will link in the shownotes, someone on Twitter made a supercut of the movie that's just Dani looking at Christian like he's the shittiest boyfriend in the world, set to Wii music. It's *amazing*. [both laugh] It's the only cut of this movie you really need to see, if you haven't seen it. That's a big thing right off the bat-- He is so unsupportive of her in her grief. And you can tell even in one of those opening scenes where she's just sobbing in his arms and he's just sort of awkwardly holding her, like he just wants this to be over. And then you contrast that to the group wailing scene, which we will talk about more, of course, because it's my favorite. But the contrast between the way those women hold her and the way that he barely holds her is striking.

SJ: I wanted to ask you, because I was trying to think of another horror movie that takes place entirely during the day... Is this the first and only?

Carver: It is not the first. I think another-- as well as just a major influence that Ari Aster has said himself for this movie-- is the Wickerman, which is Folk Horror, this is Folk Horror... They have a lot of the same tropes. But I would say as far as movies that have been made recently, using it this way, where the sun is kind of symbolism-- the light is part of what is being foreshadowed in the opening panel... Because I will say something I noticed watching both of these movies is that Ari Aster loves to tell you everything that's going to happen so early, and then just still somehow surprise you with it at the end.

SJ: Oh, absolutely. I do really appreciate his foreshadowing. One of my favorite images of foreshadowing in film is from Midsommar, and it's that shot of Florence Pugh's character curled up on the bed in a fetal position, facing the wall. The camera makes a slow pan into the room, and above her is this giant painting of a girl with blonde hair, wearing a crown, opposite a large brown bear, holding its face and looking into its eyes. [laughs]

Carver: Mm-hmm.

SJ: If you know how this movie ends, you are both laughing and your jaw is, like, on the ground. It literally tells you how this movie is going to end, but then it just takes you on a ride to get there. It's the kind of movie that I think does benefit from having watched it once before, because then you can pick up on all those little clues he places throughout, which just enhances the viewing for me. Did you find that as well?

Carver: I did. So the first time I watched it, I remembered the bear from that painting. But on this watching, after the May Festival, when she witnesses the event with Christian and the naked women, when she is preparing herself to see that, the position she puts her body in as she leans over to look into the keyhole is the same position that little girl's body is when she looks into the bear's face in that painting.

SJ: [gasp] Right!

Carver: And her body language is so intentional when she makes that motion that it's just so clear to me that that was absolutely on purpose.

SJ: Oh, yeah. Again, Aster is very intentional with every shot of his films. I think you see that really clearly in this one. If anything, it's even more intricate and detailed than Hereditary. It simultaneously feels like basically we're just on Florence Pugh's face for two and a half hours, as she's experiencing whatever the fuck this is. So, in some ways, it feels almost like a documentary. But it also is a meticulously thought-out and staged film. There's so much symbolism, it's *so* precise in its imagery...

Carver: There are all those paintings on the walls in the room that they sleep in. And again, on this watching, I noticed that the mural above Christian's bed is the ritual that he takes part in later, with all of the women and the two in the middle.

SJ: Yeah, it is.

Carver: And I know all of that was hand-painted. All of those sets and things, hand painted. All of the clothes were embroidered. And actually, I was listening to something today-- They were trying to hire people from the area where they were shooting, so all of those clothes were designed and sewn by a Scandinavian woman. And it's very clear that those are so artfully designed and thoughtfully done.

SJ: It really comes through. Those sets do not feel like a typical Hollywood set. They feel like they were built by the people who lived there. There is just something very different about them. And the clothes do feel like they were hand-stitched, handmade, hand-dyed. I think it adds more of a natural feel. You don't feel like you're watching a Hollywood movie.

Carver: It's so polished, but it's also such a world that feels lived-in. There are these dramatic cuts, these swipes, there is this editing that is so hands-on, so purposeful, to bring you these emotions. Whereas the situations they're in, as extreme as they are, I think most people can relate to a time they've felt this way or that way. And I think anyone who's been through a bad breakup feels for Dani in this.

SJ: [stifling a laugh] A lot of people online are like, "Take your worst ex to this movie." [both laugh] I mean, I think we have to talk about the Florence Pugh of it all.

Carver: Oh, yeah.

SJ: Because she *carries this movie*. This would not have worked without her, I really, truly feel. Like, I'm trying to imagine any other actress of the same age in that role, and I just don't think it would have compelled me the way she compels me. I go off about her a little bit in my Black Widow episode-- We both love her, she's incredible, and she's such a naturalistic actor. She has no formal training, so she just kind of shows up and embodies the character, and she reacts the way that an actual person would. She's never thinking ahead to what the other actor's next line is going to be. She is so organic. I don't think there's any other style of acting that could have worked for this role. You really have to have that. And I can't think of anyone else like her that could have pulled that off. So I really just have to say, this is a masterclass in acting-- not even acting, it's like a masterclass in *being*-- from Florence Pugh. It is peak Frowny Face Florence Pugh. [Carver laughs] I think the regular cut is almost 3 hours long, and didn't have time, but I still want to watch the director's cut, which is like another half hour. This movie is ostensibly so long, and yet it goes by so quickly for me because I'm just mesmerized, really, by her and her performance. She just guides you through, as the viewer. This should be so boring, like, nothing happens! But I'm just riveted by her.

Carver: She has the exact opposite issue that we had with Charlie in Hereditary, where all of the emotions with that character were at arm's length, whereas there isn't a moment in this film where you aren't feeling what Dani is. And I mean, all of that has to do with The Florence Pout. [both laugh] But there are just so many instances that are great in this, even when she acts slightly out of character to what we know of her. Like when the group that came with Pele's friend have left, and she says, "You know, Simon left without Connie." And Christian's like, "Oh, that's so terrible, that's so terrible." And she's like, "I could see you doing something like that." [laughs] And I was like...

SJ: Yes! It's such a relatively tame line, but savage for her.

Carver: Oh, absolutely! And he takes it that way. She always has kid gloves on with him. Everything is her fault, every issue in the relationship she sees as her contribution, when she has this person who is effectively using those insecurities to manipulate her, when he doesn't know what he wants. They say in the beginning, "You need to get off the fence with this"--

SJ: Mhm.

Carver: And he refuses to.

SJ: He drags her along, and you see how it drags her down. Like you said, it would have been a relief if he would just fucking break up with her. But he won't even give her that, and it's so selfish of him, because he doesn't know what he wants, but he's going to hold onto her anyway. And from the opening scene of this movie to the closing, you just feel for her all the way. You feel exactly what she's feeling. It's such a testament to the remarkable performance she gives. Because like I said, I just don't see this movie working nearly as well with literally anyone else I can imagine in the role. I mean, even the most accomplished Oscar-winning actors-- it would be too untrue, too formulaic. It would be something we've already seen them do before. But she brings this freshness that really grounds the film. So, genuinely, I have to give her like 90% of the credit for this movie working for me.

Carver: Absolutely. Yes, there are so many wonderful things about this movie, all of the purposeful things that Ari Aster does. But that would all fall flat if you didn't have this person that was able to just grab your audience and push the emotion in their face. And I think she does that no matter what she's given. I do think the movie I was telling you about, Fighting with My Family is one of the silliest things I've seen her in...

SJ: Yeah, for sure. But she has the range, right?

Carver: My roommate and I were *crying* when she gets to go to Monday Night Raw! [both laughing] The culmination of that movie, when she is getting to be a professional wrestler-- Sobs in my living room! Just because we care so much about what happens to her. And again, it's because she is so good at what she does.

SJ: Absolutely. I've seen her in literally every genre and she just kills it in everything. And I can't remember the last time I saw someone that young do what she's doing. I mean, she's 26 years old, and in just the past five years or so, she has created a body of work on film-- and in television-- that tops most actors who have been working for decades. She just elevates everything that she's in. And even beyond her talent, I'm just really impressed by how discerning she is with the projects she does and how many women directors she's already worked with, in her very short career. That's actually depressingly rare for actors of any gender to have that awareness of gender equity behind the camera. [sigh] I could talk about Florence Pugh all day. How much time you got? [both laugh]

Carver: I know this is sort of a controversial topic around this movie... Do you consider this to be a Good for Her film?

SJ: Oh, my gosh, [nervous chuckle] That is so complicated... So, yeah, when everyone was watching this movie, I would say like 70% of the takes online were a variation of the Good for Her meme, right? Viewing this as a female empowerment film. Um... [laughs] Okay. That, to me, is-- Are you familiar with the Broke, Woke, Bespoke meme?

Carver: Somewhat...?

SJ: It has variations. Like, Galaxy Brain is another variation.

Carver: Okay.

SJ: Basically, you have levels of takes, and you start with your most basic take, and then you sort of elevate to the 'Galaxy Brain' or 'Bespoke' take. If I'm applying that to this movie, the reactions that I've seen are, like, 'Broke'-- which is "Good for Her"-- and that's just your base-level, knee-jerk sort of response, not thinking about it too deeply, kind of thing. And sure-- Is it satisfying to watch her burn her shitty ex-boyfriend alive in a bear costume? Yes. [Carver chuckles] Not gonna lie. And the way that she's literally crowned a queen, and it's like the movie is saying, "She was a queen all along and you should have treated her like one, asshole." There's definitely a satisfying element to the end. But, uh, does anyone really believe that Dani is in a healthy place, physically or emotionally, by the end of the movie? You know, to me, that ending is symbolic, the fire is symbolic. This movie is not actually suggesting or approving that you burn your ex alive as a legitimate form of closure. I understand the Good for Her take, but let's think a little deeper about it.

Carver: Yeah.

SJ: I might agree in passing, I might retweet a Good for Her meme. But no, if I'm thinking about it critically, not at all. She's achieved freedom in some sense, but I don't think the movie is suggesting that it's healthy or actually good for her in any way. I think she's just traded one form of abuse for another. And I think a lot of people miss that.

Carver: Yeah.

SJ: The other take that people have-- it's like a more woke take, this would be the next level-- is that, 'Oh, this is a movie that's condoning cults! This is cult propaganda. Wake up, sheeple!' You know? But I think the way the cult is portrayed is kind of a warning to us. They have all this rhetoric that sounds really good, but then it's all proven to be empty or false. So I prefer the Bespoke take, which is viewing this movie as like a PSA for how cults prey upon emotionally, or in other ways, vulnerable people. That's exactly where we find Dani in the beginning of this movie. She is prime cult bait. You know, so I don't see it as this healthy evolution for her. I see it as an evolution of sorts-- healthier in some ways, but... I mean, how do you feel about the end message?

Carver: I think a Good for Her message is complicated for me, because we've talked a bit about how much we hate Christian, he's a terrible boyfriend. Also, if you think critically about what has happened to him-- how he is given a drug he doesn't really want to take and put in a position that he doesn't necessarily want to be in and doesn't have the faculty to fully consent to, and then he's burnt alive for it-- I don't love that being how one of the first major depictions of a male survivor is shown.

SJ: Sure.

Carver: Also, I, uh, think it's easy to see it as a Good for Her if you think of it in the context of the beginning of the film to when the credits roll. But the moment you think of what this character is going to go through when the credits start to roll, when the movie is over...

SJ: Mhm...

Carver: How does she get home? They have said that they bring in new people to expand their gene pool. And so, at least in my mind, forced impregnation is in the future for Dani. I think the real terror for that character starts when the movie ends.

SJ: I would agree. And, you know, that's a pretty unsettling place to come away from. So I think a lot of people just sort of gloss over it and they'd rather see the female empowerment piece of it, but it's true-- Let's think about this. Practically speaking, what would the next scene be in that movie, if it didn't cut to black? I mean... it's not gonna be all sunshine and roses forever.

Carver: Yeah.

SJ: Florence Pugh was on a recent episode of the Off Menu podcast, and she shared some really interesting insights about Dani and the experience of playing her-- a lot of which I think echo our thoughts.

Male host: What do you think happens to her (Dani)?

Florence Pugh: So, she's had a psychotic break. That's what's happened. When she sees her boyfriend having, um, that orgy in the temple, I think that's like one of the last things that she can probably deal with. And I think through the mushroom trip and the this trip and the that trip... I think when everything starts-- for example, when she's on the throne with her flower dress and she's given the choice to either choose her boyfriend or the other sacrifice-- I always took it as like, she was kind of gone by that point, after all the pampering and the weirdness and the oddities of what was happening. So when she looks at him, I never thought she looked at him to kill him. I thought it was more of like, she was in a different place. She was in a different-- She wasn't her anymore. And she almost looks at him as if she's getting that recognition. She knows that it's someone she loves, and she knows that it's someone that's hurt her. So that whole zoom-in, for me, was her processing deep, deep from wherever it is that she's got lost to, that that is someone who has hurt her. And then it snaps, and then he's been chosen. So I always thought that she survived. I don't think she's probably ever going to come back, because to come back from a psychotic break, you have to have deep, deep treatment and work that obviously those people don't have--

Male Host: Yeah, they're not offering that.

Florence Pugh: No, they're not offering that. But I do think that they care for her, and I do think she's-- in a weird, twisted, horrible way-- she's in a place that people actually want her to be there. And I do think she will be getting respect and love, in a weird way, there. I don't think she's ever coming back from this break... It's funny, when I did it, I was so, um, wrapped up in her-- and I've never had this ever before with any of my characters-- I was so wrapped up in her that when I was making the movie, there were so many places that I had to go to, because I'd never played someone who was in that much pain before. And I would put myself in really shit situations that other actors maybe don't need to. do. But I would just be imagining the worst things... Because each day the content would be getting weirder and harder to do, I was putting things in my head that were just getting worse and more bleak. And I think by the end, I had, uh, probably most definitely abused my own self in order to get that performance. And when I left the shoot, they still had three days left to shoot, because I was off to Boston, to go and shoot Little Women literally straight away...

Male Host: [laughs increduously]

Florence Pugh: [with a weak laugh] I know. And I remember when I left, I said goodbye to everyone. And, um... when I was in the plane, I looked down-- and by that point, I'd traveled so much over the weekends to go and do press for Little Drummer Girl that I knew exactly where the field was when I was in the plane, because I'd follow the road out-- And I remember looking down and feeling immense guilt. Like, I felt so guilty, because I felt like I'd left her in that field, in that state.

Male Host: Wow.

Florence Pugh: And it was so weird. I've never had that before. I've always thought that all my characters, once I've left them, I'm like, "Yeah, but they'd be fine in the next situation. They know how to handle themselves." And this one I was like, "I've..." And obviously that's probably a psychological thing, where I felt immense guilt of what I'd put myself through, of course. But I definitely felt like I'd left her there in that field to be abused, to be... um, not to-- She can't fend for herself. And it was like I'd created this person, and then I'd just [snaps fingers] left her when I had to go and do another movie.

---

SJ: I would love to talk about race in this movie, because we sort of touched on it in our Hereditary episode... In the pro column, I do appreciate that this movie is using and appropriating the *whitest* possible culture, which, to me, is so refreshing, after the history of horror movies in particular using/co-opting/bastardizing things like indigenous lore and mythology. I mean, almost every movie about a haunted house or a haunted cemetery is based on, 'Oh, it's built near or on an Indian burial ground,' right?

Carver: Yeah.

SJ: So I'm almost okay with this movie being almost entirely white, because it's critiquing a very white culture, and it's not trying to appropriate a non-white culture, like we've seen in the past. Having said that, I think the casting of the few characters of color in this... I think it's a little problematic. What are you going to say?

Carver: Um, I think when you think of, again, the purpose this cult has, of bringing new people in, as they say, to extend the breeding pool, the genetic pool, and when you look around, it is still all white people. You know that they are bringing people of color here, but they are not using them for that. And so, it's hard to ignore that-- I'm going to say that they're a white supremacist cult.

SJ: I would agree. There is definitely a strong element of white purity, because who do they choose to mate with their girl? It's Christian, a white, redhead guy. Like, could not be whiter. The only people of color in this movie are the British couple, who they just kill. They are outsiders who were brought in, but they just use them basically as fertilizer. They don't use them for procreation. So I'm like, absolutely. This is, like, a white purity thing. To me, that works because I don't think the movie is condoning what this cult is doing at all. So we're like, 'okay, yeah, they're kind of an evil cult.' If we were meant to embrace the cult, or if people come away from this movie thinking, 'Actually, they have some good ideas,' that's problematic, because when we scratch the surface, we know that's not true. But I think as long as you're looking at the whole picture, looking at everything this cult is doing, you have a very clear understanding that they're not this utopia that they claim to be. And at the basis of it is this blood purity.

Carver: I do think the thought of bringing Connie and Simon is purposeful on the character of Ingemar. When they're first introduced, he says, "You know, Connie and I went on a date, and they started dating right after." And Connie is like, "We went on *a* date that I didn't *know* was a date." And he's like, "Anyway! And now they're engaged, and I brought them here."

SJ: Ohh, so you think that was payback, for Ingemar?

Carver: I think so. I think it relieved some of his own guilty conscience to be bringing these people, because he saw a slight in some way. And in the end, he volunteers to be one of the sacrifices and burns up there with them.

SJ: Yeah. I hadn't put that together, but I think you're right. The only main character of color is *Josh*, who-- okay, based on that name, I'm really going to assume that Ari Aster wrote the script with all white people, and at the very last minute, one of the producers was like, "You really should have a person of color." So he cast William Jackson Harper at the last minute, just so that people couldn't make the same critique of Midsommar that they do of Hereditary. [laughs] Um, but I have to say, I don't think the colorblind casting in that role works, because I don't think that a Black man, particularly an African American, would go to this other culture and pick it apart the way his white colleagues are doing. That seems like a very white colonialist mentality to have, and you're sort of drag-and-dropping that onto a Black character. That just does not equate to me, because I feel like, with that historical memory, being the descendant of people who were enslaved and who have had their culture appropriated by white people, I don't see how he would then turn around and exploit this culture the way his fellow white students were doing.

Carver: Exploit and also demand access to. Anytime a boundary is set about, "You can go this far, but no further," he is the most anxious to step over that line.

SJ: It's true.

Carver: And I don't think that someone who would have the cultural competence that that character would have, realistically, would do that.

SJ: Totally. Also, his name is Josh. [laughs] I'm sorry, but, like, whitest name ever. I really feel like that character was, at the last minute, cast as a Black person, just to kind of check that diversity box. Doesn't it read that way to you? Because I don't think anything about the character, as is written in the script, has any Black cultural identity or anything. I mean, he acts *just* like his white colleagues, and I just feel like that's Ari Aster doing some last-minute corrections, you know? [laughs]

Carver: I think it's the same as he said how he writes women, is he just puts himself into them. And I think that's very clear with Josh's character. Astor has no understanding of what it would be like to be a person of color, so he's like, "I'll just write you as if you were me!"

SJ: Yep. That's how it reads.

Carver: As much as I love to see that actor in any role-- I'm so happy to see him in anything. I think he also has a great amount of range. I think taking this role was a very smart thing for him to do after a show like The Good Place, because he is a *completely* different character.

SJ: Yes, he is.

Carver: I think he has an eye for creative media. I know if I see him on the cast, there is going to be something interesting about whatever's being made there. So, as much as I want to critique that character, I am always happy to see him working.

SJ: Always happy to see Chidi! Yep. [both laugh]

Things I like about this movie? Equal opportunity nudity-- That's rare! We get just as much schlong as we do full-frontal naked ladies. I also appreciate that there is a sense of humor running throughout this movie. A lot of people have this idea of it being a very self-serious sort of douer movie. But there are scenes that make me *laugh out loud*. The foreshadowing painting is one, but also the end scene-- [Carver chortles] where she's in this giant flower dress, running and stumbling and tripping on it. And she's crying and sobbing and puking-- I laugh so hard. [laughing] And I think it's meant to be funny. Ari Aster has said in interviews that he intended for a lot of this to be, like, absurd. He said one of the funniest things to him is master's students arguing over their theses. So I think there is an intentional beat of humor running throughout that I appreciate.

But also, like I mentioned, I think this is a really-- this and Hereditary, in a different way-- but this movie in particular I think is such a good portrayal of the stages of grief. Particularly the loneliness of grief, you know, how alone Dani feels in mourning, when everyone around her just wants her to get over it and be fine. Of course, the film presents this alternative to that in the form of the cult, which demonstrates this idea of collective feeling and radical empathy. Whenever one member feels pain-- or pleasure for that matter-- they all experience it together as if it was their own. That's a very appealing thing for Dani in the place she's at-- Again, a very vulnerable person, the cult is appealing to what she wants most... And I have to say, the wailing scene, where she's finally letting it all out-- the rage and the grief and the betrayal-- everything that she's feeling, on the floor, on her hands and knees, just *sobbing*, snot and tears dripping down her face. And every other woman in that cult is there on the floor with her, sobbing and screaming together in this one, moving mass...

youtube

SJ: It's such a powerful scene, I have to say. Both times I watched it, I felt it viscerally, and it was really cathartic. Also, just-- can you imagine filming that scene?? [both laugh] The lack of self consciousness you would have to have, because it's just so raw. I think for Dani it is the turning point in the film, because for the first time she's being held by people in the way that she needs to be held-- in the way that Christian couldn't, in the way that she probably didn't feel held by her family. Yeah, I think that's really her turning point. And it's, to me, probably the most powerful scene.

Carver: I absolutely agree with you there. The line I think of most often is Pele asking, "Do you feel held by him?" And I do think that is a question that in relationships we aren't told to ask. And so much of the success of things like that comes down to something so simple: 'Do you feel held? Do you feel that there is someone there to catch you when you need caught?' And I think that is the nail in the coffin of many relationships, is when you realize that you don't.

SJ: That was a line that stuck out to me, too. She sort of gets her answer in that scene: 'No, I have not felt held, that's why I need this.' And I think that's when she, consciously or unconsciously, makes the decision to stay with these people, for at least a period of time. I think a lot of it has to do with the way that American culture likes to isolate people who are grieving. We don't talk about death, and we certainly don't talk about suicide. So she's dealing with all of this on her own. And I really think the cult is speaking to the weakness in the way that Western culture deals with(/doesn't talk about) these things like death and suicide and grief. They are filling that need for her.

Carver: Yeah, they're showing her another way. You know, I think before, she couldn't imagine a world where she really felt held in that way. I think Dani was put in the position of being the one holding. And so, it really is the first time that she feels that other people are even just relating to her, besides Pele who is the first person to really even say, "Sorry for your loss."

SJ: Yeah. We talked in our mental health series-- my guest Megan, who's a social worker, was talking-- about how this really is a shortcoming of Western culture. It's this individualistic, sort of 'pull yourself up by your bootstraps' mentality that makes us feel so alone when we're feeling any type of extreme emotion. We're taught to just figure it out on our own, deal with it ourselves, carry our own water. And the cult, to me, represents more of, like, the Eastern cultural mentality, which is more of a collective, and 'we do things together.' This is something that came up in another episode we did on The Farewell, which is about how no one dies alone, no one grieves alone, we're all in this together. It's about the community, it's about the family unit, it's never about the individual person. So I think that's something we can think about and take as a critique from this movie about our individualistic American culture, which wants to deny these things and make people feel so isolated when they're in the worst emotional places in their lives.

Carver: We're a society that sees asking for help as a shortcoming. The fact that you need help in any way means that you're less than the people who don't ask for it. I mean, in our culture, even mental health is still so stigmatized that going to see a therapist is barely a part of the norm. And most people who need therapy won't seek it.

SJ: Right. That was a big impetus for doing the mental health series. So, oddly enough, I think this movie sort of piggybacks nicely on some of those themes.

Carver: Absolutely.

SJ: For me, another standout scene, other than the wailing, I think my other favorite scene is [chuckling] the dance-off?

Carver: Mhm!

youtube

SJ: 'Dance 'til you physically collapse' has got to be one of the most underused horror scenarios. But it got me thinking about the history of dance marathons, which is actually kind of dark and fucked up. The origin in the U.S.? It began in the Great Depression, as a means of survival for people who were otherwise literally starving. Atlas Obscura had a really interesting article on it recently, and they wrote: "In the thick of the Great Depression, the perverse entertainment racket of America's dance marathon craze was, to some, a survival strategy. Because dancing in a marathon didn't just mean the possibility of a cash prize, it meant being fed and sheltered for the duration of the contest." So I thought that was an interesting, equally dark parallel for what Dani is doing here, which is also probably dancing for her life, whether she realizes it or not at the time. Going back much further in a more global context, you also had these medieval dancing plagues. People would just start dancing, and they'd dance for days and days and days. And at the time, people thought it was demonic possession. Now they say that it was probably ergotism, it was a type of food poisoning, and basically these people were tripping--

Carver: Mhm. Bad bread.

SJ: --which, side note, was also what they think caused the Salem witch hysteria.

Carver: Mhm!

SJ: Atlas Obscura also does a podcast, and they had just done this episode that I had listened to right before I re-watched Midsommar, about the Harga, which is what this dance thing is...

Atlas Obscura female host: I'm standing at the top of a mountain in northern Sweden, and I'm looking at a ring in the rock. It's polished down into the stone almost like hundreds of feet did hundreds of laps around this circle and pounded the ground until it became smooth. According to a famous Swedish legend, that is exactly what happened. A group of doomed teenagers followed the devil to the top of this mountain. And as they danced circle after circle and wore their bones down against the rock, the devil sat in a nearby tree, watching them dance to their deaths, playing his violin... [creepy violin music]

SJ: So, that dance scene is based on this real legend, and I thought it was interesting the way they incorporated it. Those are just some of the contextual things I was thinking of when I watched this movie the second time around. The first time I watched it, I was like, "Oh, they're dancing! This is fun. It's all bright and cheery." But they're drugged! It is sort of like an LSD haze for Dani. Then you start thinking, 'Okay, what if she wins? What does she actually win? What does that entail?' And you just get this sinking feeling of like, 'I don't think winning this is going to be a good thing for her.' And of course, as we've said, it probably isn't.

Carver: To my viewing, it's the moment that really solidifies Dani's relationship with the cult. There are moments in that dance where she looks out at Christian and is afraid. And then she looks at the girl who pulled her into the dance and sees the joy that she's experiencing, and mirrors that feeling the same way that later they will all mirror her feeling. So I think that dance is her really crossing cultures and becoming one of them. That may be cemented later on, but I don't think that she would have done that willingly if it weren't for the way that she felt so included with those women, in a way that she was never included with the people who were already in her life.

SJ: Also, it's just like, really nice to see her smile for the first time in the entire fucking movie! [laughs]

Carver: Truly a relief!

SJ: Honestly. I was just so glad to see a smile on her face. For once, she looked like she was enjoying herself, for at least part of it-- even though she's drugged out of her mind. [laughs] But it is like the only moment of joy in this movie, for which she has just been bereft.

Carver: One other thing that I noticed, sort of tying these two films together-- which I don't always like to do. I personally like that Ari Aster made a movie and then wasn't forced to make a franchise. Which is, I feel like a lot of what's happening now, and there's a lot of pressure for people to find the connection and to put these movies in the same world. I think they're absolutely spiritual siblings--

SJ: Sure.

Carver: --but I don't think that they should be read as happening simultaneously. It is a different world that Hereditary and Midsommar take place in. But they do both focus around this theme of holding in and releasing grief, and I think that is an interesting place to draw fear from. I don't think it is usually grief we are focusing on when we're talking about our fears, when grief is such a huge part of it. I feel like anxiety is the culmination of fear and grief. And it's something that our generation-- and of course, generations before us-- were very vocal about the way that we experience that.

SJ: I have to say, I really love the end scene. I felt like such a cathartic culmination of everything, and the way that it's constructed is so effective. I mentioned the scene where the building with her boyfriend is up in flames in the background, and in the foreground, she's stumbling over this dress, and crying and puking. And I have to laugh, but that is like the final purging for her of those emotions that she's been carrying. Because then she looks around and sees everyone around her-- all the people in the cult-- are also screaming and crying and puking and wailing. And you can see the moment the burden of feeling like she has to carry all of that by herself is lifted. You watch the anguish on her face morphing into relief and a kind of joy, and you see her arrive finally at a sense of peace. The burning building crumbles into the flames, superimposed over a close-up of her face, going through this transformation. And she smiles because she's been released of her grief, of her shitty boyfriend who was never there for her, maybe even of the anxiety and the burden of having a sister who is suicidal and having to constantly worry-- There's some relief there. And there's a release of being constrained by American societal pressures. She has, for better and worse, a new family of sorts that will give her what she desperately needs, which is to be seen and held with no constraints.

youtube

And I felt that sense of catharsis with my own grief as well. Watching it, I felt like I had gone through the wringer with her and then kind of come out the other side, almost being exorcised of my grief. With that final scene, I just felt like I could [exhales] let it go, in a way. And that was really helpful for me. So, going into this movie in that profound state of grief allowed me to have that experience and view it through that lens. Again, it comes down to what you're going into this movie-- any movie-- with, but for me, it was like a grief doula, sort of guiding me through the stages. Now, obviously, it's not a perfect happy ending for her - We know this. But that was the experience I had, and it was very helpful for me. So I would recommend this movie to people who are grieving, which I think a lot of people are, as we're in this now third year of the pandemic.

If there's a moral to this story... I think there are a couple things, but one that really jumped out to me was the importance of balance in all things. Throughout the film, we're shown examples of how too much of even a seemingly good thing has negative consequences, right? Like even the constant sunlight, which, sunshine is supposed to be good and symbolize happiness and clear skies. But the *constant* sunlight, the heavy saturation of light throughout this movie, becomes disorienting and wrong, when there's no distinction between night and day. Similarly, too much empathy and sharing-- as we see with the cult having various communal experiences-- at a certain point, leads to the absence of personal boundaries and even consent.

Carver: Yeah.

SJ: Oh, we got to talk briefly about the Oracle character, because we were talking about ableism in Hereditary... But even the Oracle character-- if you're going to give that some meaning (because I really hate that that's a character, it doesn't need to exist)-- if you are to ascribe some meaning to that, you could sort of read it as, like, 'too much blood purity leads to physical disfigurement.'

Carver: That particular character is so secondary that they could have very easily been removed from the story and had basically no effect. I think it is there to trigger the Western cultural taboo of incest, to expose these Americans to something that is going to make them uncomfortable, that they see as morally wrong. And then also the fact that they are doing it purposefully, creating this person in a way that just seems manipulative, creating someone to be used. And they are the only person kept separate from everyone else. They live alone, in the religious house, but they are very clearly created to be kept apart from everyone else. Even if they're put on a pedestal and being told that they're holy, they're still not fully a part of the cult, which is the thing that we feel for Dani. Like, the compelling part of this movie is almost wanting Dani to join this cult, to be a part of something, and then they have created a person to keep away from them.

SJ: It's a striking contrast, and I agree - This character could have been completely written out of or edited out of the movie, and it would change pretty much nothing. I think there's like a total of 5 seconds of actual screen time for this character, at least in the theatrical cut. They're talked about in maybe two scenes, but it just seems so unnecessary. I guess if you're really [exasperated sigh] going deep on it, you could say the othering of this character is another warning sign against this cult being as inclusive as they say. But, uh, Occam's razor would say it's just Ari Aster's ableism showing up again.

Carver: Yeah. [chuckles]

SJ: It feels like the very old archetype of 'good equals beautiful and bad equals ugly.' It's just so regressive and uninteresting that I wish he hadn't included it. What is the point of this character?!

Carver: It really adds little to nothing to the film. It seems sort of like you were saying earlier, used for the same purpose of showing elderly women nude: It's a shock factor, it's to make the most common denominator feel some amount of disgust. It doesn't really feel like it fits even the themes of this movie.

SJ: I agree. And I mean, that's definitely one of the things I dislike. I also don't like that this movie-- *again*-- has, like, zero women involved at any level of production. Since it was filmed in Sweden, they just used a lot of Nordic white dudes... And Aster's next movie is equally white. He's just going to keep doing the same thing, I don't think he's ever going to learn. But, we shall see, Ari.

Carver: We'll see! [chuckles]

SJ: I did want to ask you, do you see Dani as a type of Final Girl? And if so, how does she fit into that canon?

Carver: I think, with the loosest parameters of Final Girl-- which I'm comfortable using here-- Dani is a Final Girl. She starts the movie with the same obstacles against her as everyone else, and because of something inherently different about her, she's able to make it through (at least the film). And the thing that Dani has that's different is *emotional complexity*--

SJ: [laughs] Right. It's true! That is her superpower.

Carver: --And, uh, that's not always what we're looking for in a Final Girl, but I do think it makes her just as tough. The things we expect to see them going through, she, in a way, does. She's put against these insurmountable odds, and just because they look way different than what we're used to doesn't exclude her from being part of that canon.

SJ: Yeah. Isn't the Final Girl also supposed to be the virgin, usually?

Carver: Yes. I'd say that trope gets subverted more and more since Scream came out...

SJ: Since people became aware that the Final Girl was a trope [laughs]. Then they started trying to subvert it.

Carver: Yeah.

SJ: I think there's an element of that to her character, because a comment that one of the douchey guys makes is that she doesn't want to have sex with Christian. That sort of made me think of your classic Final Girl-- as like, not sexual, right? Because the girl who has sex dies first, in your classic horror movie.

Carver: Yes. And I think-- if we're getting into Final Girls-- a lot of the basis of the idea of the Final Girl is because those slasher movies were made during Reaganomics, during an extreme time of demonizing women owning their sexuality. And so, the villain in many of those slasher stories is...Reaganomics. It's the oppressive force coming after people trying to live their lives. And the farther we get from that, the easier it is to subvert those notions.

SJ: Totally. And it's kind of interesting to see versions of Final Girls in different eras.

Carver: I watched a movie recently with a Final Girl who is so unlike anything else I've ever seen, that calling her a Final Girl is a stretch because it's like, is she the villain?

SJ: [intrigued] Mm.

Carver: I, uh, will not recommend it to the squeamish, but the movie Pet is definitely disgusting [SJ chuckles] and unlike anything I've ever seen before. If you really want to see a subversive Final Girl, it would be Holly from that.

SJ: Gotcha. It is interesting to see the evolution of Final Girls, because they started out being very stereotypical, and I think we are getting into more interesting territory with recent horror. The last thing I'll say about Midsommar is, one thing that really irks me? Ari Aster has said a number of times that he wrote this after a really bad breakup, and that he is basically Dani. Now, we know how he writes female characters-- I guarantee you the first draft of this script was gender-swapped. And so, I think about what that would have looked like, and... ew.

Carver: Mhm.

SJ: That would not have gotten made. Like, watching a man drug and set fire to his girlfriend would not play well in a mid-#MeToo era [laughs nervously]. So I'm sure that he got some notes or had some self-awareness to gender-swap those characters. But it really gives me pause to think of what the first version of this movie looked like, if it's taken from his own experiences and his own anger towards his ex-(presumably)girlfriend. I can't help but feel a little ick, ya know?

Carver: Yeah. I think we wouldn't have the same sympathy for Dani, if the roles were reversed there...

SJ: No.

Carver: ...But I also feel like we may have even had *more* sympathy for them, before everything happened.

SJ: Hmm...

Carver: I think because of the way we see gender and relationships, it's easy to kind of say, "Well, is she being a little naggy in the beginning? Is she calling too much?" They're able to put us in her shoes, where we're second guessing those things, whereas if a man was, like, calling and trying to be emotionally vulnerable with his girlfriend, we'd be like, [fawning] "Oh, good for him! Good for him, having a depth of emotion!" Because that's where our bar-- [laughing]

SJ: Ha, right!

Carver: --for the representation of men is.

SJ: Oh my God, it's so true. Well, I know on your show you always like to end with some recommendations, so would you kick us off?

Carver: Absolutely. This is a movie that, when I first saw it, Ari Aster was the first person I thought of-- specifically the shot in Hereditary where he's being followed down the hall, and it starts from behind him and goes over and turns, which I think is a very distinct shot that you don't see very often. There is an Australian film from 1982 called Next of Kin. It actually didn't get a worldwide release until 2019. It's available on Tubi, Shudder, and if you endorse the monster, Amazon Prime... [chuckles]

SJ: [through pursed lips] Myeah.

Carver: It's about a college student who returns to the small town where her family owns a home for the elderly, after her mother dies, and the events of her mother's diary start happening to her. It's part giallo, part haunted house story, and it is immaculate, especially for being made in a time where most films coming out of Australia were called "Ausploitation," because they were just purely exploitation films. And I think this really subverts a lot of what was happening there at the time.

SJ: Interesting. How did you come across that one?

Carver: Uh, I will watch everything on Shudder. Two years ago, I was living in a house without internet, and I watched 100 horror movies in a year-- 100 new-to-me horror movies, not including rewatches.

SJ: Wow.

Carver: And I feel like I really pushed my knowledge of the genre, by pushing myself that way.

SJ: That's very impressive. Henceforth, you will be my go-to horror person. [both laugh] You've watched everything, and I am still really a noob at this genre, so you've been a great reference. I haven't listened to every episode of your podcast, but I've been catching up on some older ones and I try to keep up with the new ones. But it always gives me something new to put on my list, or helps me reconsider a film I've already seen, from a different lens. So, I appreciate what y'all are doing on Spooky & Gay.

Carver: Thank you! So glad to hear it.

SJ: It's a good time, it really is.

Carver: I'm glad. You know, we sat together watching movies and we're like, "We have such a good time. Let's share this with other people."

SJ: I love that. I think some of the best podcasts are ones that just feel like conversations between friends. As a listener, you feel like you're there with them, like you're just having a good chat with your friends about something, or geeking out about something.

Carver: Always feel free to cook dinner with us in your ears. [laughs]

SJ: And I have! I have, actually. [both laugh] Um, I guess for my recommendations, I will try to cancel out the straightness, whiteness and maleness of Ari Aster's films. [chuckles] There's a TV show called Evil. Have you watched this?

Carver: I haven't watched Evil.

SJ: It's from a husband-and-wife creative team, Robert and Michelle King, who also created The Good Wife (which was excellent) and The Good Fight (which was even more excellent and got me through the tr*mp years). They're a fantastic satirical creative duo, and Evil is no exception. It's tackling all these really current, zeitgeisty things, using the genre of horror. It is a bit of a monster-of-the-week sometimes, but the monsters and demons tend to be more human than supernatural in nature, whether it's police brutality or incels going on shooting sprees. Every episode is different and kind of knocks your socks off in a new way. Sometimes it is *genuinely* scary, and sometimes it's mostly funny, but it's a great balance. And I'm just recommending it to everyone, because it feels really underrated. I don't know many other people who are watching it, but it's *such* a good show. And of course, there are a lot of really great women-directed horror movies, so I have listed some of our faves in the shownotes as well for people to check out.

All right! This was fantastic. It was really good to talk to you more in-depth.

Carver: Thank you so much for having me on, that was great!

SJ: Thank you for rewatching those movies even though-- [cracking up] --even though they traumatize you and, uh, you didn't necessarily like them.

Carver: You know, I got to the halfway point in Midsommar, and I realized I had stopped taking notes because I was just so engrossed by it.

SJ: Oh really?

Carver: I don't regret doing it at all. It just really took a lot to get myself to do it. But once I did, I enjoyed it again.

SJ: Oh, good. I'm glad at least one was a more or less enjoyable viewing experience. [chuckles]

Carver: I honestly think that article made my viewing experience of Hereditary worse--

SJ: Yeah!

Carver: --'cause I was really looking for the trans allegory, and where I found it, I did not like it.

SJ: Yes! Same.

Carver: And I hate to say that, because I love supporting trans writers, and I'm so glad that they saw themselves in that. But it is just not something I can see myself in...well. [chuckles]

SJ: It's a good example of how trans people are not a monolith, you know? We have varying opinions on things too, and something that resonates for them didn't resonate for us-- That's okay!

Carver: Yeah.

SJ: [faux-dramatically] We contain multitudes, don't we?

Carver: Truly. [both laugh]

SJ: Like all people! Imagine that.

Carver: Right? [chuckling]

SJ: Well, it's been a blast talking to you, Carver. I'm really glad we got to do this. Thanks so much for sticking with me for...2 hours? 3 hours, now? Oh my God. [tired and apologetic] Yeah, it's been 3 hours.

Carver: Happy to do so. I could talk about this forever, so you're with good company. [chuckles good-naturedly]

SJ: [smiling] Appreciate it. [determinedly] I will see you on TikTok.

Carver: Absolutely. [chuckles]

[Harga music from Midsommar plays in background]

SJ: For more discussion of all things horror, check out Carver's podcast, Spooky & Gay with Carver and Jay. And for more discussion of all things pop culture, hit the 'follow' or 'subscribe' button on this here podcast. I promise we really never talk about the stuff made by straight white guys-- This was a one-off. Following some of Midsommar's themes though, our next episode will be the continuation of our series on mental health representation in TV and film. Patrons of the show get first looks at new episodes, plus bonus content and listener polls. So if you enjoyed this episode and would like more, or just want to show your support for all the hard work that went into it, check out Patreon.com/popculty. Huge thank-you as always to our sustaining patrons: Suzy, Denise, Alexandra, and Mary. And thank you, dear listener, for spending time with us. You can spend more time with Carver on TikTok @acamp.slasher, and me over on Tumblr.com/popculty. Until next time: Stay critical, support women directors, and demand representation.

[music concludes]

SJ: Sorry, I feel like I'm going on. [dramatically] I have a lot of feelings! [both laugh]

#podcast #transcript #the popculty podcast #midsommar #florence pugh #horror movies

2 notes · View notes

popculty · 2 years

Text

🎧 New Episode: ‘Killing Eve’ Fans Fight to Bury a Deadly Trope

When the critically-acclaimed TV series Killing Eve shocked viewers by ending with the oldest homophobic trope known as Bury Your Gays, it re-opened old wounds for the LGBTQ+ community. But fans are turning their betrayal into action, to ensure the next generation of queer viewers get to see happy endings for the characters they love - and themselves. (photo credit: @evilvillanelle)

This episode was a global, collaborative labor of love. Huge thank you to @anevolutionarynecessity for being such an integral part of this project, and to @loving-villanelle for your tireless engagement with The Discourse. Thank you @horde-princess and @doks-aux for your contributions to my favorite segment, “Queers Read Mean Tweets About the Killing Eve Finale”! 😉

Wherever you are in the stages of grief, I hope you find sympathetic rage/comfort in this episode. You are heard, famdom, and our fight is not in vain. 🏳️‍🌈✊

🎧 Listen here, or check out the interactive transcript below 👇

✨ Follow the show: Twitter | Instagram | Youtube

🙏 Support future episodes of independent pop culture criticism by joining our Patreon!

SJ: Gay Pride is over, bebes. Buckle up for Gay Wrath Month!

[upbeat punk/rock music kicks in]

This is The Popculty Podcast where we are somehow still fighting for the radical idea that queer characters deserve happy endings too. I'm your host, SJ.

[music fades out]

It's been dubbed "the worst ending of any TV show in the last 12 years," and "the new Game of Thrones." (Ouch.) It's the physical manifestation of that meme where the back half of a horse has been drawn professionally, and its front half has been completed by a two year-old. Vanity Fair proclaimed it "atrocious." Yahoo! Entertainment called it "tired and unforgivable." "Insulting to the audience," said Vulture. Variety declared it "a total betrayal of what once made it great," and Bleeding Cool marveled that, "it didn't so much end as just...stop -- As if the writers just threw up their hands and wanted it over and done with." A conclusion so nonsensical and abrupt, it spawned conspiracy theories of a secret ninth episode - which never materialized. A petition to have head writer Laura Neal arrested for hate crimes has gotten nearly 5000 signatures. And another petition to have original showrunner Phoebe Waller-Bridge rewrite the episode accumulated 10,000 signatures in two weeks.

I'm talking about the Killing Eve finale that aired on April 10, 2022, which saw the main characters, Eve and Villanelle, embrace after accomplishing their series-long goal of defeating the evil organization known as The Twelve, only for Villanelle to be shot multiple times by an unseen shooter and bleed out in Eve's arms as the words 'The End' appeared across our screens, abruptly cutting to black. Four years of 'will-they-won't-they', four years of the relationship evolving from toxic to pure, and it was all for...THAT?? In its final two minutes, Killing Eve went from being one of the queerest shows on TV to a brutal morality lesson, killing off every single queer character, except for Eve, in one of the oldest and most damaging homophobic tropes, known as Bury Your Gays.

I mentioned Bury Your Gays tangentially in our Jessica Jones conversation on queerbaiting and queer representation, but we never really got into the history or the context behind it. Bury Your Gays has been an insidious staple of American film and television for both mediums near-entire existence. As AJ Willingham writes for CNN, in an article called 'The Harmful Trope That's Still Haunting Queer TV,' queer or queer-coded characters being "punished" by death was once the legal norm in entertainment: “In the 1930s, efforts by the Supreme Court, local governments and conservative censorship groups led film industry leaders to establish the Motion Picture Production Code. The Hays Code, (as it became known), effectively forbade depictions of homosexuality, which was considered a form of sexual deviancy. The code mandated that, ‘the sympathy of the audience shall never be thrown to the side of crime, wrongdoing, evil or sin.’ So characters could be (subtextually) coded as gay, but only if they were portrayed negatively, and received some sort of punishment. Bound by these rules for decades, gay characters on screen were evil, conniving, and ultimately doomed.”

The Hays Code was eventually replaced by the MPAA rating system in 1968, but its effect on pop culture is still deeply ingrained. And you have to remember that up until 1973, homosexuality was considered a mental illness by the American Psychiatric Association, and homosexual acts were federally criminalized in the US until 2003. Even as the number of LGBTQ characters on our screens has steadily increased over the past few decades, the majority of those have been side characters, not leads, and most have met untimely ends, often for the story progression of those straight leads.

Now, we're not saying that no queer characters can ever die in media from now on. Of course they can. We want them to be treated as human beings, same as any other character. The problem is that they're not treated the same, in two distinct ways: For one, they're killed off at a disproportionate rate compared to their straight counterparts. And two, the way they're often killed is markedly more brutal than their straight counterparts' deaths. For example, you will almost never see a queer character pass away peacefully in their sleep, or die of old age with their loved ones. Much more often, you will see them suffer an agonizing death from AIDS, in the case of gay male characters, or be brutally murdered, in the case of lesbians. For the latter, this often takes the form of the lesbian or bisexual female character being shot out of nowhere-- usually, notably, by an angry white man. Think Tara in Buffy the Vampire Slayer, think Lexa in The 100, think Root in Person of Interest. And now, think Villanelle. According to a list compiled by Autostraddle, to date, over 200 just lesbian and bisexual characters have been killed on screen. Considering the fact that there have only *ever* been a few hundred lesbian and bi characters in all of TV history, that's a mortality rate of like 80%. The mortality rate for straight characters, meanwhile-- of which there are arguably far too many-- is closer to 20%. So you combine the scarcity of queer representation with a high grisly mortality rate, and you've got a repeatedly traumatized demographic, who keep getting attached to the one or two characters they can identify with, only for that character to be murdered, often moments after finding happiness for the first time.

Queer characters *can* die without it falling into Bury Your Gays - Hannibal, The Haunting of Bly Manor, and the “San Junipero“ episode of Black Mirror are all really good examples of how to kill a gay character in a respectful, satisfying, and inevitable way. To be honest, I would have actually preferred that the Killing Eve writers had buried *both* gays respectfully, than one gay carelessly, like they did. I, along with many other viewers, kind of expected-- and would have been satisfied with-- a Thelma and Louise-type ending. Instead, we got a finale that “re-traumatized an entire community that was finally starting to believe it deserved better.”

When the entire world is already so hostile to queer folks, often our only refuge is in fictional worlds. When those fictional worlds reveal themselves to be just as cruel, dangerous, and bleak as the real world, where is our safe haven? For queer women, the lack of representation, combined with lack of opportunity to tell their own stories, puts them in a double bind. As one viewer put it, "Being gay and having next to no queer writers telling our stories is like, do I want my queer (female) characters to be sexualized by straight men, or killed by straight women?"

Straight women like season four head writer and showrunner Laura Neal. Ninety years after the Hays Code's explicit categorization of queerness as sin, that notion is implicitly reinforced by Killing Eve-- which utilizes a conversion subplot and religious iconography in Villanelle's death-- and explicitly confirmed by Neal, who insists it was necessary for the "rebirth" (her word) of Eve - the previously straight main character.

Even *if* you can set aside the big-ass BYG elephant in the room, the final episode of Killing Eve was a microcosm of the final season itself, in that-- it was a damn mess! Nothing made any sense. Things established in previous seasons were confoundingly ignored or reversed. Every creative decision was like a slap in the face to the series' very premise. From day one, the show had been about Eve learning to embrace her darkness, only for the writers to insist on her "rebirth" and "cleansing" at the literal last minute. Why this emphasis on a happy ending that looks "normal", when the whole point of the show has been that both characters-- and all of us-- contain light *and* dark, and they deserve to be loved for both?

From a narrative standpoint, the choices made were mind-boggling. We talk in screenwriting about constantly delivering what we call "inevitable surprises" to the audience. A good writer doesn't telegraph their plot twists, but when those plot twists happen, the audience should feel like, "Ahh, of course!" It should feel right and satisfying. This wasn't that. It wasn't original; It didn't deliver on its own foreshadowing (Scorpion and The Frog metaphor, where'd you go?); It didn't even make logistical sense-- You know, Eve has Villanelle's blood on her shirt, but the bullet didn't hit her...? Where was the shooter? They are literally on the water! And it certainly wasn't what fans wanted.

Despite a writers room largely comprised of comedy writers, and despite OG showrunner Phoebe Waller-Bridge setting a decidedly cheeky tone for the show in season one, season four is downright cynical. For all its claims of being about freedom, choice, and rebirth for women, it actually seems to be telling its largely female audience repeatedly that any attempt to break free of a cycle you've been trapped in is futile and will only end in death or loss. Which is not a revolutionary or helpful idea. But it is, ironically, a perfect metaphor for show that ended up continuing the cycle of re-traumatizing already marginalized viewers, when it had the opportunity to break that cycle.

In her excellent piece for Vulture entitled 'Killing Eve Chose Cruelty,' Angelica Jade Bastien further points out the strain of racism embedded in the show throughout its run, from its all-white writers room, to its lack of interest in the title character's interiority compared to her white counterparts. Eve herself was an Asian woman who defied the passive Asian woman stereotype, only for the show to punish her for that subversion. On top of letting its characters and audience down, the final season is also a direct betrayal of the original creators' vision for it. Author Luke Jennings has voiced his disapproval of the ending, and Phoebe Waller-Bridge, who first adapted his book series for television, infamously stated back in season one, "Every moment in the show exists so that these two women can end up alone in a room together. Really, it would have been a betrayal of the audience if they didn't come together in the end." She said it best.

Look, I could go on about the show's devolution of fashion, color palette, and cinematography. I could talk about how by the end, the production value was so bad, you couldn't tell Cuba from Margate. But enough from me. I'm actually going to let the internet speak for itself, in a segment I'm calling "Queers Read Mean Tweets About the Killing Eve Finale." It's like that bit from Jimmy Kimmel, except, you know, gay. Take it away, Twitter!

Queer Reader #1: (@alicia_desousa) Killing Eve really said "it was just a phase." [Twitter chirp]

Queer Reader #2: (@bertimic) Season four of Killing Eve felt like a homophobic corporation doing a pride event. [Twitter chirp]

Queer Reader #3: (@bigswisses) Killing Eve having Villanelle and Eve deliver the most passionate kiss in all of television history after five years of sexual tension, and then saying their relationship can be interpreted as platonic? Just say you hate gay people and go. [Twitter chirp]

Queer Reader #1: (@ke_sufferer) Whenever I think I'm overreacting to Killing Eve, I remember that Villanelle was brutally murdered at a gay wedding so the straight side character could get her job back. Eve left screaming in suicidal despair. Bonus Christian imagery. Conventionality and homophobia prevail. [Twitter chirp]

Queer Reader #4: (@fkacernes) Killing Eve season four did more for Christianity than the Crusades, and you really hate to see it. [Twitter chirp]

Queer Reader #5: (anon) The way they made Eve an allegory for biblical Eve and Vill the snake tempting her from the Garden of Heteronormativity with the fruit of queerness...? I expected subversion of the Evil Gay trope in the end, not an adaptation of the 1966 novel Satan Was A Lesbian. [Twitter chirp]

Queer Reader #6: (@killingeveeditx) I'd love to hold my girlfriend's hand in public, but I'm afraid the Killing Eve writers room will have me shot. [Twitter chirp]

Queer Reader #7: (@doks-aux) Wait, wait. [record scratch] I don't go here, but you're telling me Killing Eve is based on a series of novels that ended with the main characters in lesbians ever after, and the show specifically chose to ignore that helpfully provided conclusion to deliberately bury the gays?? Oh my God, ya'll. I'm so, so sorry. I only knew your fucked-up little gals from gif-sets, but I was really rooting for them. [Twitter chirp]

SJ: Now, I've never been a lesbian, but as a queer, non-binary trans person who hosts *this* podcast, their fight is very much my fight. And the most frustrating thing for me personally is that I've already fought this fight - six years ago, to be exact. And frankly, I thought we had won it. After The 100 fiasco-- or as I call it, Lexapocalypse-- I along with thousands of other hurt and outraged fans turned our grief into action. We mobilized to raise awareness of Bury Your Gays through every available avenue, emailing, sending letters, and tweeting, educating the TV industry of their complicity and perpetuation of the trope. We raised $160,000 for the Trevor Project, and established the nonprofit LGBT Fans Deserve Better, with the mission of responsible queer storytelling. Together, we created The Lexa Pledge, which acknowledges the damage of BYG, promises to include queer characters in larger roles, and to consult with sources within the LGBTQ community when writing queer characters, among other things. The pledge was signed and adopted by 15 current shows. That was a huge win. And for the past few years, thanks in large part to those efforts, queer rep on TV has steadily gotten better.

Which is why what Killing Eve did is so shocking. Gaining all that ground just a few years ago, and suddenly it feels like we're back at square one. All those calluses I'd built up to protect myself from getting too attached to any character that remotely felt like me were finally starting to fall off from disuse. And now I've just been tricked into watching yet another queer character I had grown to love be shot to death in her sobbing girlfriend's arms - reminding me of Lexa, and Tara, and Root. It's like the same fictional bullet just circles the Earth constantly, seeking out every lesbian character, putting them in their place as soon as they get too happy, or too comfortable, too close to a normal life. A giant, cosmic reminder that, "if you relate to this character, THERE IS NO FUTURE FOR YOU." As if we ever had a reason to imagine otherwise.

We all thought Killing Eve was different. From the beginning, it gave us its word it *was* different, introducing us to not one but two complex queer women caught on opposite sides of an international thriller. The way it let them be unapologetically dark and messy, and unapologetically attracted to each other, despite their differences and circumstances, was something new. This show baited us, promising to subvert tired tropes, and then played right into them. And as I watched those final minutes, I felt like an idiot. Psychology Today just published an article on the lasting effects of the finale on the queer community, three months later. The author, a licensed clinical psychologist, PhD, and queer and trans person of color themselves, normalized fans feelings of stress, anger, exhaustion, grief, and betrayal. They liken the experience to being dumped out of nowhere and then ghosted, or having a friend you considered a woke ally suddenly say or do something super racist. They write that, "Both situations require a person to question everything about the relationship. Should I not have trusted the writers in the first place? How could I have missed the likely reality that they never understood queer lives and stories to begin with?" I was once again made to feel stupid for having faith that the writers of one of my favorite shows would do the right thing. And THAT pissed me off. So I did something about it, because clearly, the fight isn't over after all.

Once again, the community rallied. Once again, we spent the next weeks in action mode, sending emails and letters to the network and production company, tweeting and messaging those responsible, again educating them, since they apparently missed the previous memo. No response. We demanded acknowledgement of the harm they caused. Crickets. Article after damning article came out, but they had nothing to say for themselves. With The 100, the showrunner eventually apologized, and they even brought Lexa back for an episode as a peace offering. This time, amidst continued calls for an apology or redaction, there was no sign of humanity, whatsoever. I sent follow-up emails, canceled my subscription to AMC+. I talked to many other fans who were doing the same. None of us was getting anything back, beyond an auto-reply. The network knew they were in the middle of a shitstorm, and they made the executive decision to pretend they weren't and just hope it would blow over. When it didn't, after a month and counting, then-- all of a sudden-- some of us did start getting replies - dismissive, patronizing and curt. Along the lines of, "We're sorry you weren't satisfied. That sounds like a you problem." The showrunner doubled down on her stance in subsequent interviews, and the writers meanwhile reveled in the backlash as some sort of badge of honor, mocking fans online. AMC and BBC America continued to promote the final season as if it were being well-received, except instead of live Q&As with cast and writers, everything was pre-recorded, to preempt any audience criticism or questions, and the comments were disabled. It was a one-two punch of silencing outcry, followed by gaslighting. A Trumpian playbook of 'deny, deny, deny.' It truly felt as if we were screaming into the void. Things have changed in six years, and not for the better. This time, we realized there would be no apology, no renewed pledge, no amends to the community. There would be nothing... *Except* for what we make ourselves.

When our repeated appeals to GLAAD-- the organization whose literal mission statement is to improve the depiction of queer characters on screen-- went unanswered, we realized we could not count on seemingly benign institutions to have our backs, when their very existence is built upon conflicts of interest - close associations with the same industry we are often fighting. We were in this alone, and we would just have to make ourselves heard. But in recognizing their limitations, we realized our extent. GLAAD's betrayal was the final straw for me. That's when I decided what I could do-- this episode-- to ensure that those who are hurting would be heard, to provide a space for anyone who had been stonewalled by the TV powers that be could say their piece, and to highlight the efforts being done to ensure this never happens again. When I asked folks online to share what this show and these characters meant to them, one of the people I heard from is Viktorija. She has written extensive critical analyses of Killing Eve over the course of its run, including an eye-opening piece on how the show has been queerbaiting us from the beginning, and she was often one of the most thoughtful voices I encountered in the post-finale discourse.

Viktorija: My name is Viktorija. I'm 27 years old. I was born in Serbia, and grew up in Canada. What Villanelle means to me is defying convention. Villanelle is such an important character, particularly for Slavic cultures, because so many are still entrenched in homophobia. And so many of us, like me, are still closeted, unfortunately, where we don't feel safe to come out to our closest circles, or, you know, social pressure doesn't allow us to come out. Despite this, Villanelle symbolizes hope. I think she gives us a sense of freedom and independence. And, you know, whether you identify with her charm, or her rude humor, her style, her flamboyant kills, just the panache that she carries wherever she goes, and her deep capacity for love, you can recognize the power of finding strength within yourself to overcome anything. And so, in situations where I find myself sad or angry, or just feeling trapped, I think about Villanelle and I think about how she overcame so much so that she could love Eve. Villanelle symbolizes defying convention, and confidence, and overcoming no matter what, so that you can live your life, on your own terms, and live freely. That's why she's important to so many people around the world - Across cultures, across time, and across homophobia. Villanelle transcends her fate. And she will continue to inspire generations of women to be who they really are.

SJ: That global resonance Viktorija talks about, that Villanelle had with viewers, was everywhere I looked in the weeks following the finale. Reactions poured in from every corner of the world. A group of fans started collecting these responses, and on May 23, the Killing Eve Open Letter Project was published online. The result is a nearly 100-page PDF compilation of 306 responses gathered from South Africa, Ireland, the Philippines, Argentina... Viewers of every gender, from dozens of different countries are represented in this document, along with the impact the show and its finale had on them, in their own words, I reached out to the Killing Eve Open Letter Project, to see if they would like to say something for this episode. They asked to remain anonymous, which I totally respect, but they did want to contribute and sent the following statement, which they asked me to read on their behalf:

"We started the Killing Eve Open Letter Project as a way for viewers to grieve. It serves as a physical manifestation of fans who are not only processing what they saw in the finale, but also discussing how Killing Eve helped shape their lives. As the introduction to the letter mentions, fans of Killing Eve thought the show recognized the weight and responsibility of having a queer audience. We thought we had finally found a show where its queer leads weren't destined for suffering. Which is what makes the ending such a punch in the gut. None of us expected such a critically-acclaimed show to have a Bury Your Gays ending. It's safe to say that Killing Eve impacted hundreds, if not thousands, of lives worldwide. While collecting responses, it was amazing to see so many people talk about how the show has helped them over the years, especially through the pandemic. Yet those same responses were also some of the hardest to read. Countless people detailed how the finale not only hurt them, but betrayed them. Over the years, Killing Eve became a refuge for those of us who yearn for representation. Those who searched endlessly for a show where they could see themselves reflected back on screen-- sometimes even parts of us that we hadn't even begun to discover yet. And in the end, not only did the show let us down, it truly betrayed the trust we placed in it."

The Open Letter Project perfectly demonstrates how the industry's silence forced us to get creative. If those responsible won't respond to us in private, we'll call them out in public. Billboards were a huge part of the public awareness campaign during our first fight, and one group of fans saw the need for them again now.

AV: Hi, this is AV. I'm from Canada. I use any pronouns, and I'm Two-Spirit. I came up with the idea to put up billboards about the Killing Eve ending, because the Killing Eve ending was *an atrocity*. It was absolutely horrendous. I know I myself felt very hurt after watching the ending, especially with the religious undertones. It was so harmful, so terrible. And after it ended, I went online, like everyone else, and I saw just how hurt people were. And it ranged from wherever you could imagine - Different places in the country, all age ranges... I just couldn't believe that people from like 18 to 50, and from the United States to Uganda, people were hurting about the Killing Eve ending. And so I felt like something had to be done. So I suggested the idea to make Killing Eve billboards, and a lot of people helped me with that - Mainly Ines and Kate, who helped make the GoFundMe account, because we didn't want to deal with overseas finances, as I am a Canadian and the billboard was put up in the Thames. We put up the billboard because this trope cannot continue - Not in the year 2022. Straight people don't have to go through this every day. Heterosexual people get so many diverse, creative stories. And the one time we finally get one, it becomes tainted with this Bury Your Gays ending. And that is just not acceptable anymore.

SJ: The first billboard went up at 53 Aldgate High Street in London, on June 7. I'll be posting pictures of it on social media - It's amazing. 400 meters from where Villanelle was killed, it says in large letters, in the Killing Eve font, "LET THE TROPE SINK TO THE BOTTOM OF THE THAMES. End 'Bury Your Gays' in media."

The Killing Eve Open Letter and Billboard Projects are just two examples of fan resilience, ingenuity, and collaboration that I've witnessed in the months following the finale. In working on this episode, I encountered so many other fans discovering how they can use their skills to help heal the community. Laura Neal may have killed Villanelle, but they brought her back to life - with comics, fan fiction, gif-sets and fan videos that gave Eve and Villanelle the happy ending they deserved, effectively retconning that bullshit finale out of our collective memory. I've seen incredible street art - murals of the kiss painted across rooftops. I've seen #VillanelleLives appearing on signs and T-shirts at Pride parades, and memorials to her sprouting up across London - flowers piled up at Tower Bridge, where she was killed, with handwritten letters telling her, "You were never evil." A memorial fund was started for the Trevor Project, the world's largest suicide prevention and crisis intervention organization for LGBTQ+ youth. On their homepage, they write, "We hope for a future where queer characters are not treated as disposable, and our tragic stories are told with the same reverence and respect as non-queer characters. LGBTQ youth are disproportionately impacted by these harmful tropes. Young people rely on fiction as a vehicle of self discovery, and it's for them that we should be speaking up when we see popular media continuing to make the same mistakes."

Between the (previously) escapist realm of Killing Eve and the real-world news, it's hard not to feel like 2022 has set us back 50 years. And I'll be honest, this episode almost didn't make it. Months of fits and starts; me trying desperately to maintain my sanity, let alone focus, while the rights of women and trans folks were being gutted in the country I live was...challenging, to say the least. But every time I started down the mental path of, 'How can I focus on a TV show right now?', I just go online, and the lasting effect of that TV show would hit me like a brick wall. And as the host of a podcast about the importance of representation in pop culture, I knew I had to see my part through.

Years ago, when then-Vice President Joe Biden unequivocally announced his support for same-sex marriage, he said he thought the TV show Will & Grace probably did more to familiarize the American public with gay people as human beings than anything else. This might sound like an exaggeration, but I think that's a fair assertion. As television historians have noted, TV is a unique medium, in which families allow fictional characters into their homes every night, enabling them to relate to those characters as they would a friend - Which was a revolutionary step in storytelling as empathy-building. The fact that American approval of same-sex marriage is currently at an all-time high, at the same time we have the most queer characters on TV, is not a coincidence. This is why I talk about representation so much. This is why I started this podcast. The thing is-- as this whole Killing Eve fiasco has reminded us-- representation cuts both ways. When it's done well, it can save lives. But when it's done poorly, it can cost them.

Which is why I pulled myself out of surgery recovery three weeks early to rejoin a fight I've fought before, in the hopes that one day it will end and we will be able to move on to other important battles; in the hopes that Gen Z won't even know what BYG is. I think that's why any of us are doing what we can in response to this mess. And hope is what I want to leave you with, dear listeners, because here's the thing:

Even without a response from the network, we have seen and will continue to see the results of our hard work. In the weeks following the finale, AMC Networks saw its stock fall to an all-time low and lost thousands of subscribers. Our letters and emails may have gone unanswered, but they haven't gone unread. Those responsible can log off Twitter, but they still have to live in the real world. They have to pass the billboards shaming them on their way to work, and the memorials to a queer icon they signed a death warrant for. They have to explain to their board members why they are now forced to cancel that Killing Eve spin-off due to-- ahem-- lack of viewer interest, to put it mildly. Primetime Emmy nominations were announced this week, and for the first time in three years, the show was rightfully ignored in all categories, except for double Lead Actress nods. And honestly, shout-out to Sandra Oh and Jodie Comer for their incredible acting and chemistry, in a show that did not deserve them.

Eve: Relationships are out a lot of work. They require effort. And you will have tough times. Sometimes you'll feel like you're losing your way, and sometimes you'll feel like you're losing each other. But the beauty in your relationship will be found in the ways you reunite. Have you ever heard of Kintsugi? Okay, Kintsugi is the Japanese art form of gluing-- stay with me here-- It's a way of gluing broken pots back together with gold. It actually strengthens the pot. It's a way of bonding to create something new. Something completely your own.

SJ: The final season of Killing Eve invoked many allegories it never followed through on - allegories which ended up being about us, the audience. In the wake of the finale, this community picked up the broken pieces of our imagined futures for these characters, our shattered faith in a show we trusted, and we started gluing them back together - with art, with words, with action. We rewrote this story, which is *our* story, reclaiming the happy ending we were robbed of yet again, of which other narrow minds could not conceive. True to the meaning of Kintsugi, we mended our broken pieces into something more beautiful than the original, something stronger - wholly new, and wholly ours. Not until we are allowed in the room to tell our stories authentically will they be treated with the care they deserve. And so our fight continues. And this podcast's mission statement has never been clearer or more necessary. To the community, I see you - all your hard work, your pain, and your resilience. To the networks, showrunners, and writers, it is past time to do better. Do your homework, hire queer writers, and-- for the love of God-- bury your tropes, instead of us. 'Kay?

[”Bury It” by Chvrches feat. Hayley Williams kicks in]

This was the most collaborative episode I've ever done, and it literally would not exist without the people whose voices you heard. I want to thank Viktorija, for being the first person to reach out to me for this episode, and for sharing what Villanelle means to her. You can follow her on Tumblr @anevolutionarynecessity. I want to thank AV for talking to us about the Killing Eve Billboard Project, as well as Sanna for putting us in touch, and the entire Killing Eve Billboard team, for their ongoing efforts to educate the networks and the public about the harmful legacy of Bury Your Gays. Listeners can help them reach their fundraising goal, which will allow them to roll out more billboards across the UK and US, by donating to their GoFundMe. I also want to thank the Killing Eve Open Letter Project for writing in especially for this episode, and for all the work they've done on behalf of fans. Thank you to the entire fandom for these long months of discourse, fanfic, fan art, et cetera, that has gotten us all through. Thank you Twitter and Tumblr-verse, for all your incisive and hilarious takedowns, especially the @loving-villanelle Tumblr and all y'all linked (above) for some of my favorite tweets. And a very special thank you to my Sapphic chorus, my queer readers, for giving voice to those tweets - Julianna, Laurel, Alyssa, Glenn, Trisha, Lisa and AJ.

Links to everything mentioned in this episode, as well as further resources, are embedded in the interactive transcript on Tumblr at popculty.blog. You can also find me on Twitter @popculty, and on Instagram @thepopculty. If you enjoyed this episode, please leave us a review on Apple podcasts - It really helps other people discover the show. You can also directly support the show by joining our Patreon for as little as $2 a month. Throwing us a couple bucks helps cover operating expenses and gets you some sweet perks as a thank you. Check it out at patreon.com/popculty. A huge shout-out to our sustaining patrons: Suzy, Mary, and Alexandra. Thank you all so much for your continued support. This episode was written, produced, and edited by yours truly. Thanks for tuning in, and please take care of yourselves - There's a lot of shit going down right now. This is Popculty, reminding you that self-care means watching that life-giving kiss on a loop and pretending the last few minutes of Killing Eve never happened. Until next time - Support women directors, stay critical, and demand representation.

“Bury it, bury it, bury it, and rise above...”

[song crescendos and concludes]

[beep]

Queer Reader #1: Killing Eve having Villanelle and Eve deliver the most passionate kiss of-- oops, let me take it again. Sorry. [beep] Killing Eve having Villanelle and Eve delivered the most passionate kiss in all of television history after five years of sexual tension, and then saying their relationship can be interrup-- [sigh] "Interrupted," oh my gosh.

[beep]

Queer Reader #2: Killing Eve season four is like your homophobic aunt rewrote the last two paragraphs of your gay romance novel. [beep] Killing Eve says, "You better stop hanging out with that butch girl, or everyone will think you're a lesbian." Byeeee! [beep]

#the popculty podcast #killing eve #bury your gays #fandom #villanelle lives #lgbtq+#lgbtq+ representation #wlw #new episode #transcript #orig

14 notes · View notes

popculty · 2 years

Text

Queer as Folk Horror: A Two-Part Crossover Podcast Episode

We really put the ‘cult’ in Popculty with this one... 👑🐻🔥😶

In a very special crossover episode, Carver Casey of the Spooky & Gay podcast joins me to slice and dice our favorite (and not-so-favorite) horror movies. We talk queer horror classics, the genre as allegory, and turn a queer lens on some A24 faves to answer the burning (heh) questions:

Ari Aster: Auteur or just another white guy? (Maybe both?)

Is Midsommar actually good, or is Florence Pugh just INCREDIBLE? (Maybe both!)

Hereditary: Transmasculine allegory or transphobic trash? (Maybe...just the latter.)

🎧 Listen to Part 1 now, and follow The Popculty Podcast to get Part 2 as soon as it drops!

Part 1 transcript below 👇

SJ: [sings] Spooky and gay, spooky and gay, spooky and gay, with Carver and SJ! [normal voice] Hey, Carver!

Carver Casey: [laughs] Hi! How are you, SJ?

SJ: I'm super excited to do this crossover episode! I don't think either of us have done one on our respective shows, right?

Carver: Absolutely, this is our first crossover.

SJ: And also, I was just realizing, this will be the first episode that's, like, all trans... And that makes me really happy. [both laugh] Listeners, you are in for a treat, because you will hear no cis-splaining in this episode.

Carver: It's a guarantee.

SJ: It's just going to be us awesome non-binary folks talking about horror movies! Which is not something that I typically talk about on my podcast, although you certainly do on yours. Do you want to introduce yourself to the Popculty audience?

Carver: I'm Carver Casey. I am one-half of the Spooky & Gay with Carver & Jay podcast, where ALL we talk about is horror. [laughs]

SJ: It's great. I love the title.

Carver: Thank you, thank you.

SJ: And I really enjoy the podcast. I would say it's gotten me interested in horror again, honestly. Horror is not really a genre that I pay a lot of attention to. It's in the periphery, and I'll go see, you know, your Get Out, your Jennifer's Body, love that kind of stuff. But it has to really permeate the mainstream, or what people are talking about, for me to really want to see a horror movie. But yeah, I would say your podcast kind of got me interested in it again and looking at it from a different perspective. So that's been fun.

Carver: I'm so glad to hear that. I think that's definitely one of the things that Jay and I wanted to do coming into this. Queer folks are often excluded from these communities. And there is a thriving and interesting and vibrant queer horror community that I love sharing with other people. I was gonna say, we have also been loving your podcast. I caught up on the Black Widow episode, which threw me on a whole Florence Pugh kick--

SJ: [excitedly] Oh!

Carver: I had my roommate watching Fighting With My Family--

SJ: Yas!

Carver: We're on a whole professional wrestling kick at my house now. [laughs]

SJ: All right! And I am responsible... [sighs dramatically] I feel honored. [Carver laughs] That is awesome to hear, because I am very much on my own Florence Pugh kick, which is actually why I really wanted to talk about Midsommar. Like 80% of it is because of Florence Pugh. [both laugh] So I'm really glad we're on the same page there--

Carver: Yes.

SJ: --because I am going to geek out about her so much when we get to Midsommar.

Carver: Glad to hear it.

SJ: So for Spooky & Gay listeners, I am SJ. I host the Popculty Podcast, which is pop culture with a 'y', both in spelling and in mission, where we highlight the stories being told by and about women, LGBTQ+ folks, people of color and those with disabilities. I thought we could just start off by talking a little bit more about our own personal relationships with horror. Do you want to tell us about your horror journey? How did you get into it, what's appealing to you, what's your history with it?

Carver: I come from a horror family. From as long as I can remember-- Like, the first movie that I have any memory of seeing any part of is Rocky Horror Picture Show. When Frank-N-Furter pulls the tablecloth off, and you know that they're eating Eddie for dinner, that's literally the first image of film that I have a memory of. I would be the kid sitting on the couch with a blanket pulled over my head, crying, so afraid of what I could see through my fingers on the TV, which was literally next to nothing. And as I got older, and I had the opportunity to sort of catch these films and see myself in them, as a queer person, as a closeted, egg-uncracked trans person, seeing people facing odds and being really beat down upon by these forces that were out of their control, I could see myself overcoming them, because I saw these characters overcoming these unimaginable things. You know, all I have to do is go to high school; this person is fighting a dream demon! Like, I don't have to do that. [laughs]

SJ: I love that. I love that horror films were like an escape for you, and also, I think the way you put it last time we talked was, "an exercise in being brave."

Carver: It absolutely is. You know, you see these things, and you're volunteering to have something larger than life, something oppressive, and interact with it. You can turn it off at any time. You don't have to interact, you can stop, you can not put it on. And so, by putting it on, sitting through, confronting this thing that you're afraid of, it gives you the wherewithal to be able to do that when you're encountering things you're afraid of in your real life.

SJ: That's such an interesting way to look at it. You literally have control over it-- you have *remote control*--

Carver: Mm-hmm!

SJ: --over a horror movie. And that can help you kind of prime yourself for those experiences in real life, which yeah, as queer people, as trans people, we are much more likely to encounter in the real world. I love that framing.

Carver: I know you said that this is usually a genre that you don't break into very often. Were there ever any standouts for you, throughout your life? And maybe some of those that you've revisited that you're like, 'Oh, this has a whole new meaning to me now'?

SJ: Yeah, actually, it's funny you ask, because just this past week, in thinking about our conversation and preparing for it, I was just thinking about my history with horror... Like I say, I didn't grow up with it. The extent of my exposure to the genre was one time, one of my uncle's put on a Chucky movie and scared the shit out of me, and I had nightmares forever, because I was too young. [laughs] I know you really love Chucky, and that's actually apparently a very queer TV series now. Love that evolution for Chucky. But, I mean, that just terrified me as a child, and I really avoided it for many years. I would go long periods throughout my life without watching any horror movies. I just never really felt compelled to scare myself like that. And I already have an anxiety disorder. Honestly, my brain is scary enough, and I just didn't feel the need to, like, add onto that shit-pile. [laughs drily] And so yeah, I just kind of avoided it for a while. But over the years, I have dipped my toe in more and more, and I've found that I don't scare easily at all anymore-- it takes a lot to scare me-- but I tend to go for the socially-conscious stuff, or horror comedy, that kind of thing. If I'm going to dip my toe in it at all, it kind of has to have a purpose. I hate slash-y, gory, just for gore's sake, kind of stuff.

Carver: Yeah.

SJ: The first time I had a real appreciation for horror was in college, I audited a couple of Film night-courses. One of them was looking at horror as it was used in various social justice movements, which was really, really interesting. And that was the first time that I had an actual appreciation for horror. Before that, I just thought it was base, not for me, just blood and guts, and didn't have much meaning, right? But in this class, we looked at Night of the Living Dead, you know, and how that is such a great race allegory. And we looked at Freaks-- that movie from, I want to say, the 1930s-- which critiques how people with disabilities were looked at by society. And then we did a unit on gender and sexuality, and the movie we watched for that was High Tension. Do you know this movie?

Carver: Yeah, I know High Tension. I haven't watched it yet--

SJ: [excitedly] Ohhh!

Carver: --I'm saving it for a very special day for myself. But I do know the plot, I know what happens. Spoilers don't ruin a movie for me, ever.

SJ: For listeners who don't know, this is a 2003 French slasher movie. It kind of made waves at the time it came out. It's pretty well known...

Carver: It defines a genre, French Extremity.

SJ: There you go. So, you know how it ends? Okay, I'm not going to fully spoil it for our listeners, just in case they want to go in blind. But when I watched this movie for the first time in that college class, I wasn't sure what I was watching, and I was not beginning to interrogate my gender at that point. So it kind of went over my head as just a slasher movie. I rewatched it last week, and it really hit me in a way that it didn't hit me on my first watch. And I feel like I appreciate it much better knowing the ending, because everything clicks into place. And also watching it from a trans perspective, it's just-- For me, High Tension is probably... I mean, you asked what horror movies have ever resonated with me? I would say, this, for me, is like, the pinnacle of queer transmasculine allegory and exploration. And the whole time I was rewatching it this past week, I was just like, 'Oh my god.' Baby-me had no idea, but now, I'm just so glad this movie exists. And I do think that knowing how it ends will actually give you a better experience of it. So I'm really excited for you to watch this eventually, one day. I think it's a really interesting movie. It is gory-- It's a slasher movie, there's some fucked-up stuff in it, for sure. But wow, I...

Carver: We nearly covered it last Valentine's Day on Spooky & Gay...

SJ: Ugh!

Carver: This close.

SJ: You gotta let me know when you watch it, and when you do that episode, 'cause...

Carver: Would love to hear what you have to say on it.

SJ: Maybe that could be our next crossover episode. [laughs]

Carver: Absolutely. [laughs]

SJ: That'd be so good! That'd be so good. Yeah, so that's my horror journey. And that's the big movie that comes to mind for me.

Carver: I find it really interesting that that particular movie is one that got to you, just knowing that it is such a violent, gory movie, that many people did write off as being just a blood-and-guts movie. That's a lot of what people said about it, and so I love that it was able to speak to your own personal experience in a way that was really...touching, right?

SJ: Yeah, it surprised me, to be honest. Because it's the exact opposite of the kind of movie that I look for. I hate violent deaths and cruelty just to be, you know, a shock factor. I hate that kind of stuff, and this definitely falls within that category. But-- the main character, the whole time, is wrestling with her gender identity and sexuality in a way that makes that violence necessary. You know, so I say, I don't appreciate horror for horror's sake, necessarily. But I like when there's some greater value or meaning, and for me, I found that this time around. I can totally see how a lot of people-- like, I would say, straight, cis people-- probably would just watch this movie and be like, “I have no idea, it's just a fun slasher movie.” But I think for queer viewers it means a whole lot more. And I'm just, like, grateful it's out there.

Carver: Absolutely. When I was in college, I had an art history class where the teacher said something along the lines of, “you can see what each generation is afraid of by watching their horror movies.” Horror has always been an allegory, just like you mentioned, Night of the Living Dead-- The day that movie was wrapped, George Romero had the film in the trunk of his car, and over the radio, he heard that Martin Luther King Jr. was assassinated. And he just knew what he had, and what they were ready for. And many people weren't ready for it - He got a lot of criticism for casting the actors he did. And he always said that [that actor] was the best person who showed up. This role wasn't written for a man of color, and almost all of the lines were rewritten by that actor. He was like, "I'm not going to play someone who's uneducated. I'm not going to play someone who's vulgar. Because I'm neither of those things. And I'm not going to represent myself this way." And the reason that that character has so much power is because these people were able to come together and use the little bit of platform they had to get their message across. And I love that that's always been happening.

SJ: Exactly. Horror has always been an allegory, you know, not just from the beginning of cinema, but really, from the beginning of the genre itself. If we go back to one of the original examples of horror literature, Mary Shelley wrote Frankenstein as an allegory about her own grief over losing her child. And I think that's what we miss, if we just write the whole genre off as, "it's slashers, it's blood and gore, it's haunted houses. That's not for me." I really would encourage people to give it a second look, and to realize that throughout history, the horror genre, just like any film or television, has its purpose in the current cultural moment.

Carver: Yeah. I don't think that the horror genre is for every person, but I think there is a horror movie that every person would resonate with.

SJ: Sure.

Carver: And that may be something like Get Out or Midsommar, or these things that are able, like you said, to really punch through the cultural zeitgeist. But it may also be... Well, a movie that I personally really love is All Cheerleaders Die.

SJ: I've heard of it...

Carver: It's very silly, but it's just like, a girl gets revenge for a friend's assault, and then her and all the people she associates with are murdered and brought back by her ex-lover, to really get revenge on the people who deserve it. It's campy, it's silly, it's like the horror version of But I'm A Cheerleader. I just feel that from it so much.

SJ: Interesting.

Carver: It's just a little low-budget, most people haven't seen outside of this community, movie. And there's one for everybody. [laughs]

SJ: I agree, I agree. And I think Get Out kind of proved that to a lot of people. Like, everyone saw Get Out, even people who would normally never go to see a horror movie in the theaters. Because it had something to say, and it said it very effectively. Yeah, I think there is a horror movie for everyone, whether they know it or not. I think that's a good take. Would you say [All Cheerleaders Die] is sort of your queer horror touchstone, or is there something else that really resonates with you?

Carver: Seed of Chucky is a movie that I saw the week it came out, waited, anticipated as a teenager. I was so ready for it, and I didn't understand for years why people hated it. I thought it was funny, it has John Waters in it, it's disgusting potty humor, like all the other things that were coming out at that time. But there's also this character who is struggling with their gender. They're a doll, they don't have anything, anatomically, to give them a direction on gender to go, so all they have is the ability to speculate. And when they're asked to put themselves in one category or the other, they say, "Can I be both?" And a doll says, "Well, some people..." And that tiny line in this terrible, low-budget, filmed-in-Ukraine-for-tax-purposes movie just lived in my head forever. Just that "Well, some people" line stuck with me. Every time I was like, 'Well, I don't feel right in this body...' 'Well, some people don't feel at home in their bodies.' And so, anytime I had this question, or I wanted to invalidate myself, I just had this little thing that could pop in my head and be like, 'Well, you know, some people do feel this way.'

SJ: Yeah.

Carver: And it lived with me forever. And I'm so glad that people are finally giving it that credit, because I know, at least I hadn't been exposed to a genderqueer representation before that. And yeah-- it just so happens to be a doll whose name is Shithead. [laughs]

SJ: Hey, sometimes it comes from the most unexpected places.

Carver: Yeah! [laughs]

SJ: We never know where representation will find us. [both laugh] That's great. I can totally see that. I can see how that would really stay with you, and just give you that nugget of validation for what you were feeling. Because so few movies at the time would have even had that tiny line. I can't think of any movies or TV that even acknowledged a nonbinary existence, prior to, I would say, a couple of years ago, honestly.

Carver: Absolutely. And you know, this was, I think, 2008/2009... Maybe 2007?

SJ: Wow.

Carver: Pre-2010 for sure.

SJ: I mean, that's early. That's early in the game.

Carver: Absolutely. And I think that can be wholly attributed to the fact that the creator of that story is a gay man, is someone who is in the community. And he saw an opportunity to bring just a tiny bit of information, even if it's mostly played as a joke. And I believe he had one of the first out gay characters in a horror movie, in his movie that came out right before that, Bride of Chucky.

SJ: Yeah, the person who's creating the film or show that we're seeing is so important. And that's why I talk about a lot on my show, who is behind the thing that we're watching, right? Because contrary to what fucking Matt Damon told Effie Brown on that season of Project Greenlight... [Carver chuckles]... diversity is not something that just happens in front of the camera; It also happens behind the camera. The person who is telling the story brings their own biases, their own prejudices, their own perspectives and lived experiences, to create the thing they're showing you. So everything is filtered through them, and when we're only getting to see things filtered through heteronormativity and cisgender people and men, that's so narrow! So it does mean something-- it means a lot-- when you have anyone from outside that perspective who gets to tell a story. And yeah, I think for sure the fact that he's a gay man had a huge amount to do with that - He was embedded within the community, he had probably met people who were nonbinary, and then he put that into the story, and look how much it helped you. Right? Like, that's an incredible cycle. That's incredible. And it never would have happened if he was not a gay man with this slightly different life experience to offer.

Carver: Absolutely. And I know in hindsight now, it wasn't just me. There were so many people who hung onto that representation for years, that now it is a cult classic. It gets played every Pride month at some dingy theater.

SJ: Wow.

Carver: It seems like a low-budget genre film, but every low-budget genre film has been the thing that kept somebody from taking a step off the bridge, you know?

SJ: Yeah. Yeah.

In the new ‘Chucky’ Syfy TV series, non-binary actor Lachlan Watson portrays the character Glen(da) from the original film.

SJ: Speaking of...

Carver: Taking a step? [chuckles]

SJ: Well...There is that. [chuckles] There is that, and we will get there. But no, I was gonna say, speaking of filmmakers and the importance of who is telling the story-- I have to confess that I feel a little guilty for choosing the movies that we are about to talk about today. [Carver laughs] It feels so off-brand for me. I never talk about straight white guys on my show - I'm not interested, they do nothing for me, their stories don't connect with me. And to be honest, Ari Aster is not an exception. I don't particularly care for him as a person, from all the research and interviews I've read. He just seems like just another pretentious fucking white guy. His success story is still very much a privileged one - He basically came out of nowhere and just *zooped* right to the top. And he just gets to make whatever the fuck he wants, handed a blank check to write and direct his vanity projects... I can't even think of a female director who has ever gotten that chance. I mean, he's on his third movie in a row, within the span of four years, that he is writing and directing, with studios saying, "Make whatever you want! You're Ari Aster, you're the auteur!" I can't think of a single female filmmaker, especially within the horror genre, who has gotten a chance to do that, can you?

Carver: Not really, no. Besides the woman who directed the Fear Street movies...

SJ: Okay.

Carver: She got to do all three, and she did those films back-to-back-to-back. But that was last year, you know? And they did not want her to direct all three - They actually only wanted her to direct two of those. And the male director they had for the third one wasn't available, so they let her do all three.

SJ: [scoffs] So when it does happen, women are only the second choice, never the first.

Carver: Yeah. [laughs drily]

SJ: Yeah, so, you know, I definitely come to this discussion a little frustrated with myself for brainstorming an entire list of incredible women-directed horror movies, and then at the last minute, going with a basic dude. But-- You know, it's an opportunity to do the flip-side of what I normally do. Normally, I highlight women directors and writers, and celebrate all the good that they do. The flip-side of that coin is to critique the things that we don't like so much. I have reasons for choosing these movies. Midsommar was the one that I first came to you and was like, "Do you want to talk about this?" And I have reasons for that, which we will get into. And we're definitely going to be offering some criticisms. But yeah, I just wanted to preface this discussion with that acknowledgement, that this is very much not in my typical wheelhouse.

Carver: Well, that's great, because if there's one thing I'm known for, it is making A24 fans mad, so... [chuckles]

SJ: Oh! Perfect. This is going to be that. [laughs]

Carver: Excellent. Something that we do on our show is we talk about horror movies in general. What makes them queer horror, and what makes us queer horror, is that we're queer people, and we're filtering our opinions through our lens. So we talk about lots of movies that most straight audiences are going to go to and not see most of the things we're seeing. But we can filter that through the experience of someone who has lived a different life than the movie was marketed for, than it was made for, and really flesh out what everyone else is seeing about it.

SJ: Absolutely. That is totally what I would like to do. Because everyone has seen these movies-- Mainstream audiences have seen these movies, and they have already come away with whatever opinions and experiences they've formed. But this really is, like you say, an opportunity for us to share our-- I think, going to be very different-- experiences of both of these movies, coming at it through a trans and queer lens. I think it is a valuable thing to do, to offer people a completely different take than the one they probably have. With that said, let's go ahead and dive in. So Ari Aster's first feature film, Hereditary, was released in 2018. Probably everyone listening to this has seen it, if they're going to see it. I don't really feel the need to do too much of a summary, other than maybe just a brief synopsis... I think you're probably better at those than I am, so I'll let you take this.

Carver: A family dealing with the grief of losing their eldest matriarch soon compound that grief with the loss of the granddaughter, Annie--

SJ: Oh, wait-- Charlie, right?

Carver: Oh! Charlie, yes. Annie is the mother. And so the film is really learning the truth behind the lies-- the lives-- of both the matriarch and Charlie. And maybe that involves some cult-y stuff. [laughs]

SJ: Yes. [laughs] Definitely involves some cult-y stuff. That was good! That was a really good synopsis.

Carver: Thank you!

SJ: We could print that.

Carver: [laughs heartily]

SJ: So that is Hereditary. Trigger warnings for this movie, I would say, are substantial - Suicide, decapitation, and self-harm... Those are the big ones I can think of, can you think of any others?

Carver: If you are especially sensitive to family dysfunction, this would be a very hard watch.

SJ: True. So, how do you feel about Hereditary?

Carver: I think calling Ari Aster an auteur is completely valid. These are incredibly well-made movies. The shots are intentional, the lighting is intentional. There are these wonderful elements that I think introduced a lot of people who are used to going to the movies and just having a good time, to sitting down and thinking more critically about what they're watching. And that is the credit that I will give him. [laughs]

SJ: Sure. I'll cosign, yeah.

Carver: But the thing with these films is that I sometimes feel like Ari Aster has his message, and then the movies have their own.

SJ: Yes.

Carver: And looking at them independently, it's kind of like if you're looking at a piece of artwork-- like a painting or a physical, unchanging artwork-- and then there's a three-page artist statement towards the side of it. You may read all of that and get the full intention behind it, or you may sit there and look at it, and feel what you feel about it. So that's what I'm doing with Hereditary. I had shared an article with you about people seeing themselves in Charlie.

SJ: Yeah.

Carver: And... it's very easy to see Charlie's character as a trans allegory. But I think that it contributes to one of the ways that trans people are depicted in horror. There are two main ways, in my opinion-- As either the villain and the monster and the thing you're supposed to be afraid of. And then there is the fear of the transition, the body changing, and what it takes to want to change a body. And I think that, in many ways, it is easier for trans people to see themselves in those narratives, but I think they're equally as harmful, because it's showing the actualization of a trans person living in the body they want to as a horror. And I don't love that parallel, as far as representation goes.

SJ: I... actually, am with you 100% on this. And I'm really relieved, because when you sent me that article... I don't know, I just kind of assumed that you really liked Hereditary, and I didn't want to have to fight you on this! [both laugh] But we are 100% on the same page. The article we're referencing, I will put in the show notes. It's an article from Them...

Carver: Yeah, Them.us.

SJ: They're a queer online outlet that I really like (usually). So they had an article written by Sasha Geffen, on how Hereditary is this trans masculine allegory. So I read that article, and I was like, "Huh. Do I need to rewatch Hereditary? Because I don't remember any of this." I mean, I watched Hereditary when it first came out, and honestly, it did nothing for me. I think it's very well-made - Like you say, the shots are very intentional. But I rewatched it after I read the article, and then I read the article again, and I was just like, "I see what you're saying, but I just have to blatantly disagree." I think, like you say, it's easy to see the trans allegory, but I hate the implications, right? Because I do think it plays into what you're talking about, and even what Geffen references themselves - This history, particularly within the horror genre, of having villains and monsters be trans people. We see this in Psycho, we see this in Silence of the Lambs with Buffalo Bill, right? There's this long history, and I just feel like this movie is playing into that. I don't think it's offering anything different or new.

So many of the things Geffen has to say about the trans masc experience are relatable - Their criticism of the Atlantic piece, that they're comparing Hereditary to, is spot-on. They're basically taking apart ROGD, the "rapid onset gender dysphoria" nonsense. So I think a lot of things Geffen is saying are totally valid. This one paragraph-- I'll just read it, because wow, I have a lot of feelings about it. [both laugh] They write, "Hereditary's transition allegory involves not only the violent death of a girl, but also the torture and eventual evacuation of a cis male body. Charlie does not merely change, but steals something that belongs to a man. That Charlie's transition requires so much physical violence speaks to a lingering anxiety among many cis people that transition is, at best, a form of mutilation, and at worst, a kind of death - a sloughing of one body in exchange for a new, different one. A girl dies so a boy can live as a boy. The impulse to transition is often interpreted as a form of self-destructive madness. And, in the case of trans masculine people, it can be read as a flocking to power - a magnetic pull away from the subjugated gender toward the one in control." Whoo! [both chuckle] There's a lot to unpack there. I think that reading of how cis people view the trans masculine transition is, unfortunately, more or less accurate-- as wrongheaded and reductive and harmful as that view is. You know, that's not the truth. That's not in any way our lived reality. But at the same time, I think the movie is just reinforcing those super transphobic, cisgender views. I don't think it's challenging them at all.

Carver: I absolutely agree. A movie that keeps coming to mind for me, as far as trans representation with this, is another movie where the character themselves never say they're trans. I don't know if you're familiar with Sleepaway Camp--

SJ: No...

Carver: --but it's a very controversial movie. It's a slasher, definitely not your thing. But to me, it's a queer classic. It is about a little girl who goes to summer camp, and all the people who bully her, or try to do bad things to her, start dying. It's sort of a whodunnit, and then at the end of the movie... And I want to say, this came out in the 1980s, 1970s... It's very old. And the crux of the movie is that... Gosh, this is hard to explain in a way trying not to be spoiler-y...

SJ: It's okay. I would say, spoil away if it takes the spoil to make the point.

Carver: So, in Sleepaway Camp, the ending of the movie is when you find out who has done it, it's Angela. And Angela is on the beach with the head of the boy who has been flirting with her on her lap. She stands up, covered in blood, his decapitated head falls from her lap, and she has a penis.

SJ: Hm!

Carver: And many, many people-- And it's a completely valid argument, to read this as transphobic.

SJ: Sure.

Carver: And I think the intentions around it were transphobic. But I saw this movie first when I was coming into my gender identity, and personally-- Angela never says that she's trans, and isn't given the choice to live as a woman. She and her twin sister were in an accident, where her sister died, and Angela was put in a house where the matriarch said, "I already have a boy. Angela is such a beautiful name." And so, I read that movie, at least, as the horrors of being forced to live as a gender you don't identify as, and the fear of keeping up with that...lie, you know?

SJ: Mm-hmm.

Carver: And so, when I think about the way I have to twist my mind around Charlie being trans... Charlie never says that she is trans.

SJ: Right.

Carver: Charlie didn't put Paimon in their body. It was all choices made by other people. And so I have a really hard time warping that idea into Charlie being trans. And when I do, I don't feel good about it.

SJ: Agreed. Absolutely agreed. Yeah, that's really the same way I feel. I think it's a bit of a stretch to say that Charlie is trans, to be honest. Because the thing that Geffen quotes as proof of that is when Charlie says, "Grandma wanted me to be a boy." Well, okay, that's not saying that *she* wants to be a boy. But this reviewer kind of takes that and runs with it as 'Charlie feels trans,' and I just don't necessarily see that for her. And then also, throughout this piece, they keep conflating and interchanging the names 'Charlie' and 'Paimon'. Paimon is the demon that is trying to possess a male body and doesn't want Charlie's female body, and so eventually-- Yeah, we're gonna spoil this movie. [both laugh] Y'all have seen it. So, Paimon is the demon, but Geffen keeps conflating Charlie with Paimon. And not only is that confusing the message, where I'm like, "Well, okay, so are you saying the demon is trans, or Charlie is?" But if you do conflate Charlie with Paimon, then you are *literally* saying that this trans person is a demon, which-- harken back to our previous argument! [both laugh] Trans people don't need to be vilified or demonized on screen any more than they already have been, historically, throughout film and throughout the entire genre of horror. And I just feel like, kind of any way you slice it, if you want to read a trans allegory into this movie, I hate what it has to say. I think it's just playing into that really tired, damaging, transphobic trope.

Carver: Absolutely, I agree with you.

SJ: And I think what would have made it feel different, what would have made me able to see Geffen's argument, is if we had at any point been invited or encouraged to empathize with Charlie. But we are never allowed to do that. I mean, she is weird, and creepy, and evil, and snipping the heads off birds for the whole 30 minutes that she’s on screen, and then she is gruesomely decapitated. We are never offered the chance to empathize or connect with her.

Carver: I think, as well, not only are we the audience not ever empathizing with Charlie, but none of the other characters seem to be either. Every relationship-- besides possibly the relationship with the grandmother, which we're never shown-- is very much at arm's length. It's the mother using her as a pawn to keep the son from drinking, but not considering, 'Does a 13-year-old want to be at a party with drinking and teenagers and unfamiliarity?' None of the characters have empathy for her until she's gone, and then they want to talk about how hurt they are. But they weren't giving her the time and attention when she was there.

SJ: Right. So how is that doing anything other than further othering trans people, if we are to infer that Charlie is trans, you know what I mean?

Carver: Especially the way the movie was marketed, where it was *only* this character and only the odd sounds that she makes. They hinged so much of the interest of this movie on this character that it seemed, frankly, uninterested in.

SJ: Very much so. And there's also possibly an element of ableism going on here... I wasn't able to fully confirm this one way or another, so I wondered if you might have some behind-the-scenes info that I don't. But Milly Shapiro, who plays Charlie, has a rare disability called cleidocranial dysplasia, which gives her kind of a unique look. And I'm wondering if there's a sort of ableism that came into the casting of this character. Because another thing that Ari Aster tends to do, for no reason and kind of randomly, he will insert these characters with some sort of facial deformity. And it doesn't seem to be for any purpose other than to unsettle us. It's just like an image of what he thinks is the grotesque, to lend more of a sinister, unsettling atmosphere. I don't know if you have any more background information, but the film seems to use lighting, makeup (or lack thereof), camera angles, and directing of her posture to emphasize her facial differences. Because if you see pictures of Milly Shapiro in real life, they're much more emphasized in this film than they are in real life. There's even possibly some prosthetics going on... If that is the case, I find that pretty troubling.

Milly Shapiro / Charlie

Carver: So, the information I have is that I follow Milly Shapiro on TikTok...

SJ: Oh, nice!

Carver: ...and she has said that they did use some facial prosthetics to accentuate it.

SJ: Oh, boy... Well, that's not great. To be clear, it's not a problem to cast a person with a disability, or who has facial disfigurements or burns, or anything like that. It's a problem to cast them and then enhance those differences, in order to make them appear more "monstrous." Charlie, as you said, was very much marketed as the creepy, evil entity in this movie. So that's why it's problematic.

Carver: Yes.

SJ: I'm so glad you have the insider scoop!

Carver: She also actually spoke *today* about how because of Hereditary, she was bullied mercilessly throughout the rest of her high school career, because she was "the ugly girl" from Hereditary.

SJ: Oh my god!

Carver: As far as I know, she does some acting now, but she's focusing more on her music. I actually believe they use they/them pronouns...

SJ: Oh, okay.

Carver: I can't remember, but I believe maybe both... Certainly 'they' somewhere in there.

SJ: Awesome. Okay, thanks for the heads-up. I just Googled it, and it says, "Milly Shapiro identifies as a lesbian and uses she/they pronouns." Okay, cool. Good to know. Wow, I had no idea about that background, but that's horrible to hear. And that sort of confirms my worst suspicions, that they did use prosthetics, and that had the exact real-world consequences for Milly Shapiro as one would expect. Again, to me, that's ableism, and that is Ari Aster, who now has this pattern-- because it shows up in Midsommar too-- of using these images of people with deformities or disabilities, or, in Midsommar... Well, actually, in both Hereditary and Midsommar, the aging female body he also thinks is disgusting, apparently.

Carver: [with distaste] Yeah.

SJ: You know, it just keeps showing up. And I really have a problem with what he thinks is "the grotesque," and the way that he uses it, and the way he enhances it for maximum shock value. Especially with this new information, I really hate the way that character was portrayed, and how that disability was played up, because that's just another way of othering them. And it really does not lend any credence to this Them article-- you know, to their thesis.

Carver: Yeah. [chuckles]

SJ: Wow. That just sort of cements it for me. That character, to me, is a combination of transphobia and ableism.

Carver: Yeah.

SJ: [sighs] I don't like it at all.

Carver: I think when you think about what we were saying earlier, about horror being a mirror of what people are afraid of at the time-- 2018 is the year after [with disgust] *the man* was elected... [SJ gives a humorless chuckle] ...and there was a constant bombardment against trans people and universal health care. And I think there is a way to see this movie as, yes, it is about grief and family, but it's also, in a larger cultural context, about being afraid of what the youth are going to accomplish, and what the youth's needs are. Because it is very much the older generation against the younger generation, and then the younger generation growing up and using those same tools to attack their children.

SJ: That's a really interesting lens to look at it through. I hadn't really thought about that. I just have to say one last thing about this article. The last line of it is, [dramatically] "Aster's fable understands just how deep gender goes." [regular voice] And I just have to say, absolutely not! As someone who has listened to and read more interviews with this man than I wish I had, [both laugh] Ari Aster is not a man who has put any time or thought into his own gender. This is not someone who set out to make a trans allegory, I'm sorry. I think it's basically an accident, and I don't think he put any sincere thought or empathy into this movie as a trans allegory. I don't think he is someone who understands gender at all. I mean, this is the guy who once said, "My method of writing women is just to put myself in them.” [Carver chortles] Are you kidding me? Like, this is not a man who knows how to write any gender other than his own. And I just think Geffen is giving him way too much credit. To me, this film is the embodiment of really the basest transphobic fears of the male cishet mind. And I think to give him more credit than that is just-- overly generous, to say the least.

Carver: This is my second watch of both these movies, and this time around I'm like, "These movies just *barely* pass the Bechdel Test."

SJ: Yeah. [scoff/laugh]

Carver: And I think they do because Ari Aster knew they had to.

SJ: Right.

Carver: Like, I'm sure there is an early draft of this where they didn't, and he was like, "I gotta give this person speaking lines, so they can talk to each other!"

SJ: A hundred percent! I guarantee you the first draft of both of these movies was genuine trash. And I guarantee you that he got some notes and had to rewrite the hell out of it. But even so, my other huge problem with this movie is that it is *so* white. There is not a single character of color in this movie. And I can't remember the last time I saw that in film. Like, this is 2018-- this is just a couple years ago-- and there was no consideration that we are only showing white people on screen here? And if you look behind the camera, it's the same shit. I went on IMDb, I'm combing through the profile pics, and it's just white guy after white guy. So that, to me, is a real problem. That's a huge red flag. Because what movie, post-2000, is this white?? Truly!

Carver: And I think when you think about race in Midsommar, it becomes even more problematic.

SJ: Whoo! Oh yes, indeed. [both laugh] I can't wait to talk about that.

Carver: Especially the world that Hereditary is in... Were there even people of color in the support group meeting that Annie went to?

SJ: Maybe, but they didn't have any lines.

Carver: Exactly.

SJ: If they exist, they're just so background that it didn't even register.

Carver: Obviously I don't know Ari Aster-- I can't say this with any certainty-- but I think it really reads as someone who is like, "I'm just not going to put people of color in this, because if I do it wrong, I'm gonna get in trouble."

SJ: [exasperated sigh] Yeah.

Carver: And it's like, do the work to put a good representation out there, instead of just being like, [whiny voice] "I'm scared I'm gonna get in trouble, so I'm just not gonna." [laughs]

SJ: It really does read that way. And you can tell he probably got called out a little bit for the whiteness of this movie, because, oh, there's one Black person in Midsommar! So we got that box checked. [exasperated sigh]

Carver: Yeah.

SJ: No, it's really glaring. This movie was co-edited by a woman, Jennifer Lame, but other than that, it's all-male below the line. So this makes a lot of sense, all the issues I have with this movie... There is a direct line between what shows up on the screen and what is happening behind the scenes. And I really believe that when you have a more diverse lineup below the line, behind the camera, that comes through in front of the camera. But here, it's just homogeny going both ways, and I think that's a big part of what makes this movie so blah for me, and even problematic. Because you don't have *anyone* with a slightly different perspective who's contributing. And then I also have to critique-- because we just came off on Popculty doing this mental health series, and we're talking about depictions of mental illness in TV and film... Guess which genre has the worst track record with this, by the way? [laughs]

Carver: Mm-hmm.

SJ: Yeah, so we talked about that. And this movie just perpetuates a lot of the harmful tropes you see over and over in media - The support group is not shown to be effective in doing anything other than facilitating Anne Dowd's character to weasel her way into Annie's life; Annie tells the support group that she has a history of mental illness in her family, like DID and schizophrenia, but then we learn in the end that that was actually attempted or successful demonic possession. That's not helpful for people with mental illness to see, and it also further others and vilifies people with mental illness by conflating demonic possession with things like schizophrenia. That's the exact type of thing that I talked to Megan in that mental health episode about, that we don't want to see anymore.

Carver: That's such a major thing in horror, specifically in the Exorcist/possession sub-genre, which is a genre that I really enjoy, usually. But it's something that I can't enjoy without really noticing the way that it vilifies these people. There's the one side of the coin that sees them as evil, or that they have evil inside of them. And there's the side of the coin that I tend to be on, where oftentimes what is being done to them is awful and beyond their control, and maybe inside of them, but isn't necessarily part of them. And as someone who has struggled with mental health, I relate often to those characters. But I can do that and still see how completely damning that could be for people who aren't seeing it from my perspective.

SJ: Horror has a lot to make up for-- I'll just say that-- when it comes to its mental health portrayal.

Carver: Mm-hmm.

SJ: To wrap things up with this movie on a slightly more positive note, I will say that Toni Collette's dinner table rant-- That is pretty iconic, for a reason. [both laugh]

Carver: Yes.

SJ: I think it also addresses the guilt and blame that happens within families, when one member is responsible in some way for another's death, or feels responsible. Ooh, that scene really encapsulates that blame/guilt dynamic she has with her son. You do feel that tension throughout the film, and I think that is really effective.

Peter: [mumbling] Just seems like there might be something you want to say.

Father: [warningly] Peter...

Annie: [calmly] Like what? I mean, why would I want to say something, so I can watch you sneer at me?

Peter: [more clearly] *Sneer* at you? I don't ever sneer at y--

Annie: [chuckles mirthlessly] O-ho, sweetie, you don't have to, you get your point across.

Peter: Okay, so, fine. Say what you want to say, then. [Annie gives an exasperated sigh]

Father: [more firmly] Peter.

Annie: I don't want to say anything. I've tried saying--

Peter: [slightly louder] Okay, so, try again. Release yourself.

Annie: Oh, release you, you mean?

Peter: [shouting] Yeah, fine! Release me, just say it! Just FUCKING say it!

Annie: [fists slam on table] DON'T YOU SWEAR AT ME, YOU LITTLE SHIT! [chair clatters] Don't you EVER raise your voice at me, I AM YOUR MOTHER. Do you understand? All I do is worry and slave and defend you. And all I get back is that FUCKING FACE ON YOUR FACE! So full of disdain and resentment, and always so annoyed. Well, now your sister is dead! [calmer, more sympathetic] And I know you miss her. And I know it was an accident. And I know you're in pain. And I wish I could take that away for you. [cruelly] I wish I could shield you from the knowledge that you did what you did. [shrieking] But your sister is DEAD! She's gone forever! [sobbing] And what a waste... If it could have maybe brought us together, or something! [accusingly] If you could have just said, "I'm sorry," or faced up to what happened, maybe then we could do something with this. [practically spitting the words] But you can't take responsibility for anything!! So now I can't accept. And I CAN’T forgive. Because... [catches breath] Because nooOBODY admits ANYTHING THEY'VE DONE!!!

Carver: Peter wants to blame himself-- He does already. And Annie wants to blame Peter, but she won't say it. She's not willing to take responsibility for anything that she's a part of in this movie. And that is not how mothers are normally depicted. Women are usually expected to have everything together and be planning for every emotional need of the men in their lives. And that is a role that Annie has refused to take on. Which is refreshing in some ways. [laughs]

SJ: Totally. I'm all here for female characters getting to be more complicated and nuanced and messy, and maybe unlikable, than we typically are used to seeing them. I'm here for mothers blatantly expressing to their children that they never wanted to have them. Because that's the complete opposite of the really idealized version of motherhood we so often get. And to me, this is a more honest one-- Like, a lot of mothers resent their children at some point, a lot of mothers experience postpartum depression. And that's just not something we acknowledge or talk about. So anytime that is hinted at or addressed head-on, I'm all for it. I love a complicated mother. [laughs] You know? I love a complicated female character.

Carver: Absolutely.

SJ: [over spooky synth music] That's it for this week. But don't worry, Carver and I still have plenty more horror to discuss. Stay tuned for Part 2 next week, when we talk about Midsommar - The Ari Aster film we maybe, actually, kind of liked? Be sure to follow The Popculty Podcast and Spooky & Gay with Carver & Jay to find out. In the meantime, Happy Halloween and Dia de los Muertos! I hope you're watching some good scary movies. We've left our favorite women-directed horror flicks in the shownotes, so have fun with those if you need some recs. Is there a horror movie that has really resonated with you? We'd love to hear about it. Tweet me @popculty and Carver @spooky_carver. You can follow me on Tumblr at popculty.blog, and Carver on TikTok @acamp.slasher. If you enjoyed this episode, please leave either or both shows a review on Apple Podcasts. You can also support The Popculty Podcast at patreon.com/popculty. Until next time-- Support women directors, stay critical, and demand representation. [music concludes]

Matt Damon: When we're talking about diversity, you do it in the casting of the film, not in the casting of the show.

Effie Brown: Hoo! Wow. Okay.

#the popculty podcast #podcasts #horror #horror movies #hereditary #midsommar #ari aster #transphobia #ableism #racism

0 notes

popculty · 2 years

Video

undefined

tumblr

Just my favorite segment from our latest podcast 🙃

Hear more mean tweets in the full episode 💀

#the popculty podcast #lgbtq+#mean tweets #killing eve #killing eve finale #orig

0 notes

popculty · 3 years

Text

New Episode of the Popculty Podcast!🎧

With the pandemic wreaking havoc on our collective sanity, what better time to talk about mental health representation in media!

In this episode, Licensed Social Worker and friend of the show Megan lays out the Seven Big Bad mental illness tropes that movies/TV just can't get enough of. Then we go hard on some classic but problematic faves, Hollywood's misguided obsession with "crazy"/violent white men, and the most irresponsible show ever to air (can you guess?)!

Listen to the episode here, or listen/subscribe on:

Apple Podcasts | Spotify | Stitcher | Google Podcasts

What are some of your favorite shows/movies/characters dealing with mental illness or addiction❓ Let me know and we might share your thoughts in the next episode! 📣 Tweet @popculty, or send a voice memo/email to [email protected].

✨Follow the show on Twitter and Instagram, or join our Patreon for bonus content!✨

~Episode transcript below 👇~

This transcript has been lightly edited for brevity and clarity. For the full, unabridged transcript, please see the ‘Transcript’ tab on the Buzzsprout page.

[upbeat intro music]

SJ: Welcome back to The Popculty Podcast, where we highlight the underrepresented in pop culture. I'm your host, SJ.

[music fades out]

Hey there, listeners, I hope you're hanging in there. It has been a tough year, to say the least. Between the social isolation and loss of nearly 3 million lives worldwide from this pandemic, we've all been through a global trauma. Even with the beginning of the vaccine rollout, experts warn that we haven't yet reached the "post" in Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder. We're still in the trauma phase. And the data has shown the effects of that on our mental health. In the U.S., rates of depression and anxiety have tripled since the beginning of COVID. ABC reported that opioid overdoses have risen by 29%. Calls to national hotlines have skyrocketed, and a Gallup poll found that more Americans rated their mental health worse in 2020 than any year in the past two decades. These effects have been felt hardest by women, communities of color, essential workers, the elderly and the disabled. On top of that, a spotlight on police brutality and the rise of anti-Asian hate crimes has only added to the fear, anxiety, and trauma for Black and AAPI communities.

All of these mental health concerns have been called the "hidden fourth wave of the pandemic." As you listen to this, you yourself may be - as a lot of us are right now - hitting that proverbial pandemic wall. As we wait patiently in line for our shot at the shot, the overwhelming grief of losing loved ones, of losing an entire year to sickness, violence and fatigue, is settling in. Once we get the jab, there's going to be re-entry anxiety, and it's still not clear what the long-term societal effects of this earth-disrupting event will be. I know all of this sounds dire, and I don't want to leave you with just the gloomy stats. So here's one more: A 2011 review of depression studies concluded that the majority of individuals who experienced depression will recover within one year. So most of us will bounce back from this. If this whole experience has proved anything, it's that humans are resilient creatures.

But the point is, for better and for worse, mental health has never been more of a pressing global concern than it is right now. Maybe we're finally ready to start having these long-overdue conversations that can move the needle forward on destigmatizing mental illness. In that spirit, I called up a friend of the podcast who happens to know a bit about this sort of thing.

Megan: My name is Megan Wykhuis, and I am a school social worker in the Northwest region of Colorado. I have my Master's in Social Work at this point, and I'll be going for my licensing exam this spring

SJ: When I talked to Megan a year ago, she had just had to postpone that licensing exam due to COVID. But in between the pandemic and having a baby, she did finally end up squeezing that in too, so I'm happy to report that she is now a Licensed Social Worker (LSW). You might remember Megan from her guest appearance in part one of our Jessica Jones series, where she praised the show for its depiction of sexual assault, addiction and PTSD. I wanted to talk more with her about how mental illness is represented in TV and film, overall. I struggle with bipolar type two disorder and have family members with related diagnoses, so this is a topic that's very personal to me. And given Megan's chosen profession, it's obviously very personal to her too. Both of us have a real stake in positive portrayals of mental health conditions, so we really wanted to go deep on this. We spoke for several hours, exploring the history of on-screen depictions of mental illness - the good, the extremely problematic, and the in-between.

SJ: [to Megan] The more I was thinking about these things and revisiting these movies and shows that I had a nostalgic place for in my heart, but then upon rewatching them I'm like, "Oh! Mental health rep, not so great." [Megan laughs] I can't wait to talk about this.

Megan: Yeah, when you start watching it with a different lens on you're like, "Oh shit, this is not how I remembered it... Little cringe-worthy." Yeah, uh-huh.

SJ: [to you] In this first episode, we travel the timeline of harmful stereotypes, from 1960's Psycho to 2017's 13 Reasons Why. Content warning for this episode: Obviously, this is going to be an in-depth discussion of mental health conditions and addiction. So if you have any sensitivities around those issues, just take care in listening to this episode. Pace yourself, or skip it altogether, if you find it's too much. We are mostly going to be talking about these things in a very clinical and analytical way. The only thing that I would really issue a trigger warning for is probably our discussion of 13 Reasons Why at the end of the episode, in which there will be a mention of sexual assault and some discussion of suicide. So just a heads-up about that. Feel free to skip that section if you need to. If this episode triggers anything for you, I really encourage you to schedule a session with your therapist if you have one, reach out to your local mental health services provider if you don't already have a therapist, or you can always call a national support hotline like RAINN or NAMI, which I will provide the contact info for in the show notes.

[to Megan] So, you called in for our Jessica Jones episode, and you talked about how that show subverts a lot of the common, inaccurate tropes we see in pop culture involving mental illness and addiction. I'd like to start this conversation there, and I wondered if you could break down those seven big tropes a little more for us, before we get into some of our examples.

Megan: Yeah, absolutely. So, one of the harmful and inaccurate tropes is that people with mental illness are violent. And I think we see this one time and time again. When I was doing some research for this, I was like, really any horror movie ever. And also, if you just look at the media, or the news, anytime school shootings or mass shootings of any sort come up, a lot of times people will bring up, "Oh, well, it's because they have a mental illness." And typically, with mental illness, people are victims of crimes. It's not as much that they are perpetrators of violence. So I think it's a pretty harmful trope that exists out there. And it's something that we do see a lot in film, television, as well as news.

SJ: Absolutely, that's a good place to start. When you look at the common denominator among mass shootings and school shootings, it's not mental illness, it's-- well, maleness, and access to guns, if you want to get real about it.

Megan: Yeah.

SJ: And most people with mental illness are more inclined to self-harm than they are to hurt others. The rates of self-harm are just incredible compared to the rates of committing violence against others. That's relatively very rare.

Megan: Right, exactly. And I'm not saying that those with mental illnesses can never be violent, because that can be the case sometimes. But it's a very small percentage. And it's not represented well, because when we're looking at things like, you know, The Shining and Psycho, and movies like that where we see really violent depictions of characters with severe mental illness issues - That's the problem, is that *that's* all we're seeing, is that like, 1%, versus the other 99% that are nonviolent.

SJ: Yeah. I was thinking about this with the recent Joker movie. And I really love the series Dexter, but I also realize that that's just another example of that, too. He's a sociopath, so of course that means he's a serial killer, too. I mean, I love him, but it's just reinforcing that [trope].

Megan: I know, it's so played out! It is! And it's like, "Okay, cool. Can we have another white man with a mental illness who's violent?" That is what it is, time and time again. And when I saw that, uh... Didn't Joaquin Phoenix-- he won the Oscar for Joker, right?

SJ: He did. Yeah.

Megan: And it's like, "Oh my God, are we not tired of seeing the same shit play out over and over again?"

SJ: I mean, I am.

Megan: Right? It's a little frustrating to me. Like, come on, let's come up with some original storytelling.

SJ: No, I know. Let's move on to our second trope...

Megan: Second trope is that people are othered by their appearance. And this happens, again, in a lot in horror films - masking, physical deformities, or people will start attractive, and then as they develop a mental illness, they become unattractive.

SJ: That is so interesting. And obvious.

Megan: Isn't it, isn't it? It's like the mental illness is coming out and being ugly. [laughs]

SJ: Right, it has to be physically manifested somehow. I know I've seen that in horror movies, but I was trying to think of a specific example.

Megan: Well, I think Psycho is a good example of that. And that is a little bit different, because it's not like his physical appearance is changing that much, but rather, he's taking on a different persona. He’s taking on his mom's persona. I would also think of The Shining though. Jack Nicholson at the beginning versus Jack Nicholson at the end of that film? Yeah, very different. His physical appearance does change. He looks more chaotic, his face gets redder, hair sticking up on end. He just looks really disheveled. Another trope is that all mental health issues are severe. This is one that really bothers me, because it's something that I do see tons, playing out over and over again. It's that there is no minimal mental health issue. It's all very extreme.

SJ: Nothing in moderation. [both laugh]

Megan: Yes, exactly. And again, I would just reference The Shining being an example of that...Psycho... And I love Psycho, I love Alfred Hitchcock. I took an Alfred Hitchcock class when I was in college. I was pursuing some film stuff at the time, and I loved Hitchcock's work and everything, but whoo! Talk about a problematic director. [laughs]

SJ: Oh, yeah.

Megan: For a lot of reasons. But yeah, so, Norman Bates in Psycho, the diagnosis there is DID, dissociative identity disorder - what most people think of as multiple personality disorder. (It was reclassified in the DSM later on as dissociative identity disorder.) It is *such* a rare disorder, and it's misportrayed in that film. It's not super accurate to how I would go about with the diagnosis, and then it's also just a very rare disorder. Like, there are still people who don't believe it's a disorder. So it's a contentious topic.

SJ: When I was looking into Psycho and the way that DID has been presented on screen, it turned into this rabbit hole. And we can talk about it more when we talk about Psycho as a problematic example, but Hollywood's obsession with DID is really interesting. And you also had these stories of people like Sybil, who, I think her case was ultimately proven to not be true. So I think that leads people to think it's not a real disorder. Because you have, on the one hand, these stories of people claiming to have DID, who were later disproven, and then you also have Hollywood taking that diagnosis and turning it into these really sensationalized movies like Psycho and Split. It is an interesting one.

Megan: Yeah, absolutely. And then any time you have schizophrenia portrayed on the screen, it's also very severe, typically. And it's usually paranoid schizophrenia that’s portrayed. And that is another one that is just repeatedly... Hollywood likes to show that mental health issue. I mean, it's probably one of the highest-tier mental health issues, for sure. As far as disorders go, you've *got* to be on medication to deal with that. So that's another problematic one.

SJ: And that's not to say that these aren't serious issues. It's just the way that movies and TV typically portray them, you only get one version of it, which is SO severe, coupled with that first trope of violence, and yeah, it's just not good.

Megan: Another thing that bothers me with within the severity trope is that a lot of times, it'll [just] be one disorder, and it'll be very severe. But [in reality] there's also a lot of crossover with mental illness. There's a lot of co-occurring disorders, which is one of the things I brought up with Jessica Jones. That's why I like Jessica Jones so much is because she's got co-occurring stuff going on, which is more realistic, and it's what we see more in the mental health world.

SJ: Absolutely. Should we move on to number four, then?

Megan: Yes, number four is that there is no recovery. This is problematic for a lot of reasons, but it's portrayed in the way that a main character (whoever is suffering with the mental illness) can't move forward, or their mental illness defines their character. And I'm thinking of things like Monk. And I love Monk. I'm a big detective show kind of girl. And, like, Tony Shalhoub? I just love him. I can't help myself. He's a riot to watch. It's funny, but man, in thinking about this podcast, I was like, "Oh... well, shit." [laughs]

SJ: "Gonna have to talk about the problematic Monk."

Megan: Yeah! And I didn't even think about this being problematic, but it is! And one of the reasons is because, [for] that character specifically, there's no recovery showcased in it. It's just really stigmatizing in the mental health world, when people don't believe that recovery is possible. And when they see it shown that this person is going to a psychiatrist every week, they're going to therapy three times a week, and they're not making any progress - That's a problem. When we are showing therapy on the screen as not being effective.

SJ: Mm-hmm. As an endless process.

Megan: Exactly.

SJ: Which, therapy can be a lifelong thing that is helpful for a lot of people. I'm a big believer in therapy. It's helped me a lot. But to not show therapy having a positive effect on the patient, to just kind of be rehashing the same thing over and over, week after week, in a show like Monk, gives people the impression that this is just something that is always going to be at the forefront of this person's life. That it's never going to get easier for them to deal with. But that's just usually not true. If you put in the work, and if you seek treatment - whatever that means for you, whether it's medication or therapy - you can absolutely get better. And that's just not something that we see [in media]. It doesn't seem to be something that Hollywood is interested in showing, or that TV writers are interested in writing about, because that's not the juicy, dramatic stuff. What they want to see is someone suffering and struggling, or, in Monk's case, being funny with his diagnosis. And I get that that's "good TV," but again, it gives people really the wrong idea.

Megan: I totally agree. I feel like mental illness is either sensationalized or it is made to be a joke, a lot of times.

SJ: Which leads us to...

Megan: Our next trope is that therapists are a joke. [slight pause] Oh, yes! I love that you put First Wives Club and Freaky Friday on here. [both laugh]

SJ: Those are the first two that came to my mind. Granted, I love both those movies--

Megan: Totally.

SJ: --but you know what I'm talking about? Like in First Wives Club, her therapist is the woman who's cheating with [Annie's] husband. And the whole therapy session is really a joke - It's meant to be laughed at. And then Freaky Friday is the same way. It's just, "...And how do you feel about that?" And we're supposed to laugh, you know?

Megan: I know. I know, totally. And I did also include on here-- which, I don't know if people will agree with me on this, but I included Good Will Hunting.

SJ: Yeah, can you talk about that?

Megan: I include it on here because when I think of the terminology "therapists as a joke," I don't always mean in a comedic sense. I mean that they're not professional and that they're not ethically following their roles as a therapist, that boundaries aren't a thing. And that is absolutely the case with Robin Williams' character.

SJ: Yeah, you're totally right.

Megan: The first time I watched it, I wasn't in grad school. I was in my early 20s at the time, and just livin' a carefree life, and I loved it. I thought it was great. And then I watched it again when I was in grad school, because we were talking about ethics and boundaries and things like that. And I was like, "Oh! Oh, god. Okay. Well, it's not great for that reason." It's kind of a problematic therapist/client relationship in a lot of ways. Because Robin Williams' character I think is a good mentor role. But as a professional therapist, you wouldn't want to do a lot of self-disclosure, you wouldn't want to have a lot of big reactivity to what your client is saying, and things like that.

Megan: I also included on here 13 Reasons Why. Full disclosure, I haven't seen the show--

SJ: That's fine, neither have I. I have no problem tearing it to shreds, though.

Megan: Okay, great!

SJ: I've done enough research on it that I feel like I have seen it, and I hate it. So feel free to include it.

Megan: Agreed. I've read a lot of articles on this show, and I've read the book, because I work with kids - kindergarten through 12th grade. I work predominantly with secondary schools though, so it's mostly middle and high school. And a lot of suicidality and suicidal ideation increased after that show aired, so it's very problematic for a lot of reasons: It glamorized suicide, it glamorized self-harm, all this stuff. But one of the other things that came up is that-- and I don't know if this happens in the show, but in the book, she tells her school counselor about her rape, and he doesn't believe her.

SJ: Yikes!

Megan: Yikes, indeed. Yikes, indeed.

SJ: How many layers of bad can you put into this show? It's just wrong choice after wrong choice, on the part of the creators. What are they thinking??

Megan: Right? That was one of the things that really stuck out to me when I read the book. I was like, "No counselor would ever do that!" And I've talked about it with some of my counselor colleagues/friends and other school social workers. It's that unrealistic portrayal, and that's the portrayal that kids are getting - that if they tell somebody they were assaulted, nobody will believe them. And that is...messed up, to say the least.

SJ: And that's the position you're in with these kids. If they watch the show and they feel like, 'Well, I can't go to my counselor because they won't believe me'... I mean, that affects how you can do your job. That is just such a cycle of... [makes sympathetic noise]

Megan: Yeah, exactly. I mean, it's hard enough, because you're already in a position of authority as an adult, right? So getting kids to trust you? You have to put in the time and the effort. And for things to so quickly take away that trust, just at the ground level, by watching a TV show, it's like, "Really?? Come on! And how did you not think of the ramifications of this?" Clearly they did not have somebody consulting on mental health.

SJ: Nope, not at all. God, that is just not the representation that mental health professionals need. And kids are so impressionable at that age, it's already an uphill battle.

Megan: Yeah. Absolutely.

SJ: Ughhhh, 13 Reasons Why. We will hate on you some more later. [laughs]

Megan: Our next trope is that mental hospitals are evil places.

SJ: [chortles] I love this one.

Megan: Right? This is the case in a lot of them. And I didn't even put this on our list, but A Beautiful Mind also has a section with a mental hospital that's not great. But yeah, this is shown in horror movies, this is shown in One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest, this is shown in Girl Interrupted. Time and time again, [we're shown] that mental hospitals are not good places, that nothing good happens there, that it's horrific, that the workers are abusive... And I should acknowledge that in the past - like, a long time ago - yes, mental hospitals? Problematic places. You didn't want to get sent there. They were pretty awful. And used electroshock treatments and other things that are super outdated, that we wouldn't do now. So institutionalized care hasn't always been the best. That's fair. However - again, when we only see that depicted, and we never see it being a positive thing, that's a problem.

SJ: I think you're absolutely right about the legacy of asylums and places like that. Because they were such scary places in the past, I think we really can't let go of that idea. Especially horror movies love that. There's a mental hospital near where I live where John Carpenter shot one of his horror movies. To be fair, some of those places are really creepy. But yeah, we're not helping ourselves by constantly defaulting to this image of evil places where people get hung out to dry and electroshocked. Which, electroshock sounds scary, and it used to be, but they don't do it like that anymore. They actually know what they're doing now. So we also have to take into account modernity. Moving on to our last trope... Do you want to break that down for us?

Megan: Our last trope is that you should be able to overcome your mental illness by pulling yourself up by your bootstraps.

SJ: Good old 'murica!

Megan: 'Murica! I didn't have a whole lot of specific examples in media for this, because I think it's just so ingrained in our society. This is just, I feel, like an understood thing. For a lot of reasons, I think this affects men disproportionately than women. Because with women, there is more of a sense of community and being able to talk about things. And I think the stigma with mental illness with men is greatly elevated by this inability to talk to other men, and the stigmatization that if you ask for help, you're "weak," or "girly," or however you want to quantify that statement - a lot of problematic things, obviously. And we'll talk about the gender differences in mental illness, because there's some good examples that we'll bring up. But this is one of those that culturally and societally, it plays out on those levels many, many times over.

SJ: You know, I jokingly say, "'Murica," but I do believe the whole "pull yourself up by your bootstraps" thing is a distinctly American phrase or invention. I don't know if you have seen media from other countries that maybe doesn't have this concept so deeply embedded in its mental health representation?

Megan: I think it's westernized cultures. Any culture that's individualistic, in the sense that they don't want to ask for help, and there's less of an emphasis on community and more emphasis on self. I would say those communities are more the "pull yourself up by your bootstraps" type. But, for instance, I'm thinking of anime. I went to Denver Pop Culture Con last year, and there was a panel on the "magic girl" character in anime. And I thought that was a really interesting concept, because it was a superhero in a totally different way than I had ever visualized superheroes. Because in Western culture, we've got a very different idea of what those things mean. And in Eastern cultures, it's more about like, feelings and working with your friends. I'm thinking of, like, Sailor Moon, you know? I don't know if you ever watched Sailor Moon. I loved Sailor Moon as a kid.

SJ: I never really got into anime. But I saw enough to know exactly what you're talking about, yeah.

Megan: So, I would say when you're looking at cultures that deal more with the community and family, those sorts of things, you have less of the "pull yourself up by your bootstraps" mentality.

SJ: Interesting. Cool. Okay, so now that we've got our tropes down, I would love to get into some specific examples. A few we've already mentioned, but we're going to get into them more. You and I compiled this list, more or less a timeline going back to the 1960s, of how mental illness has been depicted on both the big and small screen. We tried to pick examples that were representative of their era; ones that are pretty iconic, that most listeners will be immediately familiar with; and we also tried to present a range of mental illnesses. So starting with our oldest example and proceeding in chronological order, first up we have Psycho in 1960.

SJ: As we mentioned, that film was sort of the beginning of Hollywood's obsession with dramatizing dissociative identity disorder. When I was researching about DID and the history of its representation on screen, The Guardian had an article called "From Split to Psycho: Why Cinema Fails Dissociative Identity Disorder." And it was talking about how our obsession with it goes back all the way to Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde, written in 1886. And it can be seen in superhero movies today, with characters like the Incredible Hulk and even Superman versus Clark Kent!

Megan: Yeah!

SJ: I thought that was so interesting. I had never thought about it that way.

Megan: I've thought about it in that way, only because there's this podcast called Feeling Super, and they talk about mental health in pop culture as well. They talked all about The Incredible Hulk and DID, and I was like, "Okay, this is great. I love it. Let's dive in." Because that's actually a pretty accurate representation of DID, unlike most other representations. Because a lot of times what happens is they fail to actually show the dissociative part, and there's this awareness of other personalities, and people can just pop in and out of their personalities or whatever - That's not DID. You have to have the dissociative part in order to be diagnosed with that disorder. And Bruce Banner absolutely has that, right? He comes out of that Hulk state, and he's not aware of that other personality, right? He doesn't know what he did.

SJ: So people have no memory of what they did while they were this other personality? That's how that works?

Megan: Yeah, so typically, you have your dominant personality, who is aware of the other personalities, and then the submissive personalities, who are not aware at all.

SJ: Ohhhhkay. That's such a different way than I'm used to seeing it represented in movies.

Megan: Yep. [laughs]

SJ: I think we all appreciate Alfred Hitchcock as a filmmaker. Psycho is obviously a classic, but as this article was saying, "Psycho is a horror masterpiece, but as a portrayal of a real-life mental health condition, it's nonsense." I kind of have to agree. It sounds like you do too.

Megan: Yes. Strongly.

SJ: Unfortunately.

Megan: And for the time period too, you know... I mean, when did Psycho come out?

SJ: This was 1960. So granted, this was 70 years ago... Er, I can do math-- Sixty years ago.

Megan: I just am gonna agree with you, because math is not my strong suit either.

SJ: I mean, who knows what year it is anymore? [both laugh]

Megan: Right? But yeah, in the '60s, I'm sure it wasn't a horrifically absurd portrayal of mental illness at that time. I mean, it's terrible by our standards today.

SJ: Though, to be fair to Psycho, the portrayal of DID has not exactly improved over time. I mean, we just had Split in 2016, which again, rehashes pretty much all those tropes that we were just talking about. Moving up several years, then - One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest in 1975. I...am a little ashamed to say that I haven't seen this. But I know it's a classic... I can't tell if you're rolling back because you're pregnant or because you're ashamed of me. [laughing]

Megan: I'm rolling back because I'm pregnant. I'm uncomfortable. [laughing] I am not ashamed of you. I mean, I haven't seen One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest in a long-ass time. I think I watched it early in high school, and I haven't seen it since.

SJ: What's your recollection of it, or your conception?

Megan: The big negative trope that it falls into is that mental hospitals are evil places. I mean, that's pretty much the premise.

SJ: Oh, boy! Another one of those.

Megan: I know, right? And again, it's Jack Nicholson who's the main character.

SJ: He just loves these roles!

Megan: [laughing] He does. He does. That portrayal of a mental health facility is... I mean, it's probably one of the worst. They have kind of a power struggle. And then all of the other people in the mental hospital with Jack Nicholson are either totally comatose and not responsive, or they're flying off the handle in a rage and being violent.

SJ: One end of the spectrum or the other. Again with the extremes.

Megan: Yes, exactly. So it doesn't get into the depth and complexity that is mental illness. It doesn't really give voice to the people that it should, because it's more of a conflict between Jack Nicholson and the director of the facility. That's kind of the overall conflict going on there. So you kind of lose the nuance of mental illness, which is a big fat bummer. It was praised at the time for a lot of reasons. It's a good film. You know, it's definitely a good film. It's well worth your watch, so if you haven't seen it, go out and watch it. But problematic with mental health representation, as a lot of things are.

SJ: I'll definitely still keep it on my list to watch. It's one of those classics that... See, unfortunately, I didn't grow up with a TV. So when we finally had a TV in our house when I was in high school, ever since I've been constantly playing catch-up on watching the classics, and it's this never-ending thing. So that's one of those-- The Shining is another one, which you're gonna talk to me about next. That's another one I have not seen--

Megan: No shame.

SJ: --because I was deprived as a child. So I will let you take this one away, as well. We've got The Shining in 1980. Tell us about that.

Megan: Yeah, so-- [laughs] Sooo, The Shining. *Again*, Jack Nicholson.

SJ: Mm-hmm!

Megan: It's a really excellent film, I will say that. Also, it's a great film to watch right now, because it's about isolation. [laughs]

SJ: Oh, hey!

Megan: As we're all social distancing and stuck with our loved ones. If you're sharing a space with one or two people, this might feel similar.

SJ: Right. I haven't seen this movie, but I obviously know the scene where he's breaking down the door with an axe and his wife is screaming. Maybe not something to aspire to, in these times of isolation.

Megan: No.

SJ: But certainly something that we can maybe empathize with.

Megan: Yes. Absolutely.

SJ: Good to know.

Megan: So, The Shining depicts schizophrenia and OCD. With Jack Nicholson's character, he has a lot of-- And this is something that comes up with schizophrenia pretty often, I would say. It's something that comes up in A Beautiful Mind, as well. They like to depict visual hallucinations, instead of auditory. And auditory are a lot more common with schizophrenia. The Shining is a really great horror film. However, it's the violent trope again, and the physical change of Jack Nicholson's character. As he develops more with his psychosis, then it becomes more about his physical appearance changing. He's not the attractive guy that he was at the start of the movie. But there's a lot of cool symbolism and stuff in there. There's a cool hedge maze, which kind of denotes being trapped in his own mind, and things like that.

SJ: Sure. It is Stanley Kubrick, who I really admire as a filmmaker.

Megan: But as far as the schizophrenia diagnosis goes, they show-- And I get it, in film, you want to show more visual stuff. So I think that's why it's a common trope with showing schizophrenia on the screen - you show more visual hallucinations than are common. But it's also not super accurate. That's not the most common thing with schizophrenia, so...

SJ: Right. That's a good point about the medium. When you're working with a visual medium, your default is to show things. It's unfortunate that that lends itself to inaccuracy. But film is also a sound medium. You would think they could work with some aural cues and do some sound stuff. There is an Oscar for sound mixing. So it's not like it's outside their wheelhouse.

Megan: I feel like that would be more interesting, to be honest. Because then you kind of question like, "Wait, what is that? Where's that coming from?" And I think as a viewer, you're just kind of dropped more into the world a little bit, and it's more experiential for you. So I think that would be really cool.

SJ: No, totally. I agree. I think it just requires directors and writers to think outside the box and not get stuck in these well-trod paths. Just experiment a little, and in doing so, you can maybe do more justice to the thing you're presenting.

Megan: Yeah.

SJ: Okay, so Fatal Attraction after that, in 1987. This was an interesting one, when I started looking into it. Now, have you seen Fatal Attraction?

Megan: I've seen clips, and I know the premise.

SJ: So I have seen Fatal Attraction. I saw it many years ago. Alex, Glenn Close's character, is presented as having borderline personality disorder. And over the course of the movie, she becomes obsessed with Michael Douglas's character, stalks him, and in the most famous scene, boils his kid's pet rabbit in their kitchen. Now, what's interesting about Fatal Attraction is that, unlike every example we've talked about so far, this movie actually gets the symptoms of BPD technically correct - intense fear of abandonment, unstable/intense relationships, impulsive and risky behavior, suicidal threats or self-injury, intense mood swings... All of these behaviors are symptoms of BPD that are embodied in the character of Alex. But it's SO extreme, and she's SO violent - Again, those two big tropes, right? And the biggest problem with this film is that she is 100% the villain. We're never rooting for her. We are always thinking, "Poor Michael Douglas. He's being stalked by this crazy woman who's trying to kill him." Mental Health America has a good summary of it, and they write, "Because of its Oscar nominations, Fatal Attraction is one of the best-known illustrations of a person with a mental health condition in pop culture. The problem is that it's one of the most stigmatizing. By making the villain of the movie a person with a mental health condition (whose behavior is caused by that illness), we've enshrined mental illness as a villainous thing - a trait that belongs to people who need to be killed by 'good people'. Her actions are used to illustrate borderline personality disorder because they follow the textbook symptoms so completely. Her story arc mirrors the slasher movie villains of the time, right down to the 'he's not dead' jump at the end. At no time in the movie does anyone think to get her help, even when she attempts suicide, or even to call the police about her behavior. The movie never mentions mental health, except to call her a 'crazy bitch' repeatedly."

SJ: Another article I came across gave a little more context for this characterization: "To please 1980s test audiences, the movie avoided a possibly sympathetic backstory for Alex (that she was molested as a child) and stripped away any psychological complexity that could help explain why the character obsessively stalked a married man and targeted his family. The final ending the movie used - not the intended original - completed Alex's transformation into 'femme psycho-killer' and one of the screen's most memorable villains." Which is a really good way of summarizing what happens in that movie. Glenn Close actually has gone on record many times saying that she regrets that depiction of her character. She said, "That did nothing but feed into the stigma. They made her into a psychopath." She has a sister with bipolar and a nephew with schizoaffective disorder (which is elements of schizophrenia and a mood disorder), and she has since become an advocate for mental health. In 2009, she co-founded Bring Change to Mind, a nonprofit whose mission is to "encourage a more open and empathetic discussion of mental illness." So, good for her for owning her role in that movie. But also, to find out that she wanted a different ending for her character, and that it was like, the male director and these test audiences who were basically like, "No, we don't need to sympathize with her. She's just crazy" - That's so frustrating.

Megan: I agree. Ugh, man. I have read articles with Glenn Close talking about that.

SJ: She has also said that it would be way more interesting if that movie was remade today, from Alex's point of view. And I 100% agree.

Megan: Yes!

SJ: I think that's one of those classics that would definitely benefit from a modern retelling, with a perspective switch.

Megan: Agreed.

SJ: Maybe Hollywood is listening. Let's put it to the universe.

Megan: I like it.

SJ: So, moving along several years then, jumping to 2000. [apprehensive sigh] Oh, my God... Requiem for a Dream.

Megan: Yep.

SJ: Oh, boyyyyyyyy...

Megan: I know. And this is Darren Aronofsky, right?

SJ: It sure is.

Megan: And I-- I like Darren Aronofsky. I don't know how you feel about him.

SJ: You know, I have...I have complicated feelings about him.

Megan: That's fair.

SJ: I think some of his films are borderline brilliant. I also think that Jennifer Lawrence was too good to date him.

Megan: [laughs heartily]

SJ: I also don't understand why he wears a scarf constantly, as if his head will fall off if he doesn't. [Megan continues laughing] There's a lot of things about him that I just find very weird. He also directed Black Swan, which we might talk about later.

Megan: Oh, we gotta talk about Black Swan.

SJ: We should, we should. Yeah, he can be very polarizing, as a filmmaker.

Megan: He sure can.

SJ: [apprehensively] This... movie... [exasperated noise] Look, all I will say about this movie is that I watched it when I was too young--

Megan: Oh, no!

SJ: --it traumatized me, and I will literally never watch it again.

Megan: How old were you when you saw it?

SJ: Oh, probably...early teens.

Megan: Okay. I was like, "Please tell me you were at least a teenager."

SJ: Yeah, at least a teenager, but...

Megan: Still horrifying. Oh, yeah.

SJ: I mean, I think I would be scarred if I watched that movie for the first time now, honestly. I just remember it being really upsetting.

Megan: It's horrific. It really is.

SJ: I will never watch it again. I don't think I'm alone in feeling that way. I wish I had watched it when I was a little older, but I think this is a common feeling about that movie, right?

Megan: Yeah, no, I totally agree. I think that is a film that you watch *one time*. And then you're good, you know?

SJ: Yep. It's not one you buy on DVD. [laughs]

Megan: It's one of those that does scar you forever. I did own it on DVD.

SJ: [appalled] Oh my god! Why??

Megan: [breaks into laughter]

SJ: Why would you do that to yourself? My god. Masochist!

Megan: Because I was a sick, sick person. [both laughing] I don't know. I think I saw it for the first time in college. I was in film school at the time, doing film classes... Listen, it was a very-- maybe a more pretentious time in my life, and-- [both laugh]

SJ: Hey, fair enough. We all went through that 'pretentious film student' phase.

Megan: Yes, yes. I do think it's a very interesting depiction of addiction.

SJ: Okay. Do tell.

Megan: Okay, so you've got a couple of different storylines that are going on, right? Oh my God, and I don't remember anybody's name right now. So, sorry about it.

SJ: I mean, I just remember the actors.

Megan: I don't even remember the actors. [laughing] So, that's where I'm at.

SJ: Okay, you've got Jared Leto as, like, the main guy. You've got Jennifer Connelly...

Megan: That's right.

SJ: ...as the cocaine addict? One of the other addicts. And then the poor little old lady-- I want to say it's Ellen Burstyn, but I'm going to look it up real quick [computer keys clacking in background]-- who gets...

Megan: On diet pills, right? [squeals]

SJ: ...addicted to diet pills. That was, like, the saddest storyline. I had such a hard time with that, 'cause I just felt so sorry for this little lady.

Megan: Yeah.

SJ: It is Ellen Burstyn, by the way.

Megan: You've got coke, heroin, and diet pills, are the three. And it's different addiction storylines for each person. With Jennifer Connelly's line, it's that she ends up soliciting herself for drugs. With Jared Leto's line, he ends up getting an amputation from an infected wound...

SJ: I forgot about that! That wasn't even the most horrific thing, in my mind! I completely forgot about it! [Megan laughing] Or maybe it was so horrific that my mind was just like, "Nope!"

Megan: Oh, that was the most horrific scene.

SJ: Honestly, I probably blocked it out. But that does happen, yes, it sure does. I just remember the little old lady vacuuming her room on speed, and that has stuck with me.

Megan: [blows out a heavy breath]

SJ: Every single storyline is just so deeply, um... [brief silence] fucked up! [laughs]

Megan: Yeah, exactly. And I think this is where you get the 'no recovery'...

SJ: Yep.

Megan: ...Everything is really severe...

SJ: Mm-hmm.

Megan: And I think part of this was to showcase how much of an issue addiction is, and how it can make you become a totally different person, blah, blah, blah. I think now we understand that addiction is a mental illness, at least, in society that I like to be a part of. I think some people still have a problem with that, are still like, "It's a choice." Which, you know, I mean, on some level - yes, we're responsible for our choices. But on another very different level, there's a lot of things like genetics that play a huge role in addiction.

SJ: Sure.

Megan: My biggest issue with Aronofsky is I feel like he's so brilliant sometimes, his work is so beautiful, the style with which he directs is phenomenal--

SJ: Oh, he's got style for days.

Megan: He does! He does. And it makes it really cool to watch.

SJ: Oh, yeah. I mean, Black Swan is, like, fucking incredible to look at.

Megan: I know!

SJ: His movies are so visually incredible.

Megan: Yes. But then it's like, "Oh my god, what am I watching?!" [laughing] You know?

SJ: No, I hear you. The content of it, the storyline, the actual ramifications for these characters... And it's the same with Black Swan, honestly. I'm seeing a pattern here.

Megan: Uh-huh.

SJ: The end message that you're left with as a viewer, for both Requiem for a Dream and Black Swan, is just so garbled and kind of trash!

Megan: Yeah.

SJ: In Requiem for a Dream, there's no hope of recovery. You're going to fall into this downward spiral of self-destruction, you're going to end up ho'ing yourself out, or amputated, or trapped in your living room, hallucinating and talking to your TV. There's no escape. It's a theme with him, where he doesn't like to give his characters an out. He's instead more interested in the visual style.

Megan: Yeah, I think he really likes to focus on 'How fucked up can I make this movie?'

SJ: "How far can I take this?"

Megan: Exactly. It is that sensationalism. I think it's focusing on 'How can I make this story the most outrageous that I can, within the confines of this really beautiful storytelling?' It's packaged just right. But it's...it's really horrific. I agree, there's no recovery. Everybody is their worst selves in that movie. When you watch Jared Leto steal his grandma's TV to sell--

SJ: [pitifully] I knowww.

Megan: --I was like, [agonized] "Oh, God. She has to buy it all over again." And they go through this, it seems like every couple of months.

SJ: It's soooo sad.

Megan: So that's Requiem for a Dream! [laughs]

SJ: That is Requiem for a Dream. Oh my god. I'll never watch it again. I'll never put myself through it. But that's also another common thread with Aronofsky's movies - I feel *bad* after I watch all of them.

Megan: Oh, yeah.

SJ: This movie, Black Swan, Mother - They all leave me feeling gross. And at a certain point, I'm like, "Why would I put myself through that?" But again, the-- Mm, the style! It slaps.

Megan: I know.

SJ: Argh! I wish it didn't. You know what this movie actually reminds me of? It really screams those anti-pot messages that we were hearing in the 1950s. What am I thinking of? Uhh, Reefer Madness! It screams Reefer Madness. I don't know if you've ever watched the original?

Megan: I HAVE WATCHED IT! IT'S AMAZING! [both laughing]

SJ: There you go! Oh my god, I'll never forget that scene of the girl slowly walking down the hallway, pondering what she's gonna do-- And then she THROWS HERSELF OUT THE WINDOW! [laughing] Because she smoked one joint and her life is now ruined. That movie is bonkers. But this movie was like the 1990s version, or the 2000 version, of Reefer Madness a little bit.

Megan: It was! It's so extreme!

SJ: It's really reductive in a lot of ways, too. For someone who's such a "visionary" filmmaker, I can't believe that [Aronofsky] fell back on this 'Drugs will ruin your life' kind of propaganda that we've seen since the '50s and '60s. I just don't get it!

Megan: I don't either.

SJ: It's such a 'Don't do drugs' message. Like, 'Just Say No.' Do you think Nancy Reagan put up money for this movie? [laughs]

Megan: [jokingly] She's got a producing credit. It's minor, it's fine. [both laugh] Should we move on to our next movie?

SJ: Yes. Much less feel-bad is A Beautiful Mind, which came out just the year after, 2001.

Megan: Yes. And I put this on the bad list, however, I feel like it's probably debatable. It does follow the story of John Nash, who did actually have schizophrenia. Russell Crowe's the main character in this one. It's a good movie, I think it's solid. There's just some problematic elements. Some of it I've already mentioned, like the visual hallucinations. That was not the case for John Nash. John Nash did not have visual hallucinations, he had auditory hallucinations. And they chose not to portray that. They made it a more extreme example, they made it a more severe example, of what John Nash was dealing with, as well. And my big issue with A Beautiful Mind is that they show that he is hospitalized at one point, but they don't say he stops working, that this affects his life...

SJ: Yeah, he's still a math professor, right? Throughout the whole thing?

Megan: Yeah. It tackles a little bit of his personal life, for sure. There's scenes with his wife and his child, things like that. But I don't feel like it gets at how mental illness really does impact the different areas of your life. I think they wanted to make it like, "Hey. Even if you have schizophrenia, man, you're gonna do okay." Which is...good-- I mean, that's hella more refreshing than a lot of the other stuff we've talked about, right?

SJ: Right, much better than the 'no hope' thing.

Megan: Exactly. They talk about recovery, they talk about medication, they talk about treatment - All good things. However, they don't show the very real struggle that was years and years. It's on a very condensed timeline of, 'He went to the mental hospital for like a week, and they told him to do medication, then he's better.' It's not that simple. So, it's just that simplification piece that really helped me put this in the negative category. There's not those layers that need to be there for me, in order for me to say it's a *good* mental health representation.

SJ: That's fair. It is still kind of romanticizing it in a way that's not helpful. It's not maybe as damaging as some of the other tropes, but it's still not accurate.

Megan: Right.

SJ: Just a year or so later, we got the TV show Monk, which we have talked about a little bit here already. That was on the air from 2000 to 2009. I never really watched it, but I've seen clips and promos. And every promo I've seen is like, "Isn't it so funny how every [object] has to be in its place? And he's such a good detective because he has OCD!"

SJ: The whole thing is very gimmicky. And that's what I had an issue with and why I never really watched it. But you actually watched the show and enjoyed it, right?

Megan: I did. I was watching it, I think, as it came out. So, I would have been in middle school, early high school. Again, I love terrible detective shows. I don't know what's wrong with me.

SJ: We all have our guilty pleasures.

Megan: Right? I can't help myself. It's just what I like.

SJ: No shade.

Megan: But anyhoo. No, I watched Monk when it was coming out and I really enjoyed it. And it was definitely that trope of using mental illness as a comedic element. It's also one of those where if you were to take out the OCD, you would not have a show.

SJ: Yeaaaah. That's a problem.

Megan: Yep.

SJ: Because again, people are not their diagnosis. They have lives outside of this. They have lives outside of their therapists office, and outside their jobs. Everyone has so many different dimensions to their lives and to their identity. To pigeonhole them into this one thing and say, "You are your diagnosis" is so harmful for people, and might make them afraid of getting that diagnosis - Which can be helpful, as we'll talk about with Crazy Ex-Girlfriend.

Megan: [gasps in excitement] Yes, absolutely. With Monk, that's the main issue for me, is that if you were to take that diagnosis away, that's the major plot points every episode. We also talked about how it's untreatable, which is another issue, right? Monk goes in-- I think you see him in his therapists office almost every episode.

SJ: Really?

Megan: Yeah. And he makes zero progress. I mean, he is *the same*. I think he develops as a character a little bit, but his diagnosis, his treatment, and his mental illness does not seem to change.

SJ: That's so interesting that they would go through the trouble of having him be in his therapist's office every episode, but not allow him to do the work, to not allow it to progress in any way. That's such a weird writing decision. I'm also wondering, his therapist in the show - would they fall into that trope of therapists being a joke? Or are they more like the 'straight man' to Monk's 'funny man'?

Megan: Straight man.

SJ: Okay, gotcha.

Megan: In this show, it seems like the therapist knows what they're doing.

SJ: Interesting.

Megan: The other thing with Monk is that, sometimes in showing mental illness on the screen, we use it almost as like a superpower. We kind of amplify some of those things, so that his hyper-awareness that comes with OCD and his extreme attention to detail become almost this positive, like, "Well, if he didn't have [OCD], then he wouldn't be able to be such an amazing detective." Which is fine, in some ways. But also, that's kind of bastardizing what a mental illness is, and that there's very real consequences that go along with having those [compulsions] when you have OCD. And it is an obsessive compulsion to do X, Y, and Z. *That* doesn't feel like a superpower.

SJ: Not at all. And that touches on something I'd like to revisit when we talk about a movie like The Hours, which is when you show people with mental illness being creative or being really good at their jobs, I think that's really important. But at the same time, when you're only portraying it as a gift to the world, that's a problem. Because the day to day reality for the person with that illness is that it doesn't feel like a gift. It feels like an enormous curse and a burden and something that they might not survive. OCD, I don't have it, but I have talked to people who do, and it sounds *horrible*. They're constantly second guessing themselves. They have to quadruple check dates and times, and everything has to be confirmed a certain number of times in a row. It's so tedious, it's so exhausting for them. And it's something that they are compelled to do everyday. It does not sound fun.

Megan: No.

SJ: And it is not funny for them in it. So, a show like Monk just kind of feels like it's making light of the daily struggle that people with OCD actually have.

Megan: And with some of these disorders, too, I think when we say these things, almost as a colloquial term - When people are like, "[high-pitched voice] Oh, I'm so OCD! I do this, that, and the other!"

SJ: [exasperated sigh] Don't get me started on that.

Megan: Right? I'm like-- I'm a little triggered by it. [laughs] I don't love it.

SJ: Mm-hmm.

Megan: I really don't like it when people do that shit. And they do it with "bipolar" all the time, too.

SJ: Yep.

Megan: Ugh, god. And when you do that shit with somebody who has that diagnosis, let me just tell you - It's really awful for that person. You know?

SJ: Yeah.

Megan: So, listeners, this is my PSA for the episode--

SJ: Yes, please!

Megan: Check your language around mental illness. Because I think people do it totally unintentionally. I don't think it's meant with harm or ill intent, by any stretch. I think it's just something that has kind of gotten looped into our language, as a culture. But it's not okay. And, like, you need to stop. [laughs]

SJ: Cosigned.

Megan: Please don't do it! Don't say diagnoses like they are *traits* that you have.

SJ: Thank you, yes. I wonder how you feel about the word "crazy"? I find myself saying, like, "That's crazy!" all the time. And I know that's one of those words that some people are very sensitive to. So I've tried not to use it as much. But it has become such a commonly used term in our everyday language, I find it almost unavoidable.

Megan: Yeah.

SJ: Especially when you're talking about politics right now. [laughing] I mean-- that is actually crazy! I don't know any other word to describe it. And maybe I just need to pick up a thesaurus. But there's nothing [else] that quite captures what I'm trying to say, or what I'm feeling about a situation. How do you feel about that word?

Megan: No, I-- I think it's a really good point. I'm glad you brought it up. It's something that I've tried to be more conscious of, too. I'm a trainer for a program called Youth Mental Health First Aid. It's a national program. And we talk about language. And we talked about the term "crazy" in that class, actually, because it can feel so stigmatizing. And it can feel not great to people who have been diagnosed with mental illnesses, specifically, I would say, because at some point, somebody has told them that they're crazy. And that is really harmful. But I think you just have to know the difference between connotation and denotation, you know what I mean? Like, I think if you say that things in the political landscape are crazy, that's very different than calling a person crazy because of their behavior.

SJ: Oh, sure. Yeah.

Megan: It's more when it's that direct usage that I have an issue with it.

SJ: Gotcha.

Megan: I try not to say the word "crazy" as much either. I'm trying to replace it with the word "wild", because that feels a little bit better to me.

SJ: Same, I'm definitely trying to use that one more. But you're right, connotation and denotation is really important. I definitely don't go around calling people crazy. It's always about a situation, like, "This thing that happened to me was crazy!" It's always very abstract, and that's probably less harmful. But it is a word that I'm watching out for, and we should all probably just try to use a little less.

Megan: Totally.

SJ: Let's go to our last problematic example, which is... [sighs] Oh, [sarcastically] the *beloved* 13 Reasons Why, which came out in 2017. It's a Netflix series that is somehow still on the air...

Megan: Yeah!

SJ: Uhhhh... Where do we start with this show? [both laugh] I guess we kind of touched on it in our first segment on tropes, because it plays into a lot of those, as you were saying. I also went to a pop culture conference, and there was an entire panel on allllll the ways that this show *fucked up* and how--

Megan: [claps] [bursts out laughing]

SJ: I'm not even kidding you! An entire panel!

Megan: I love that.

SJ: It was just paper after paper, citing all these studies - "It did this, and it did this, and it neglected to do this. And *this* was the real-world consequence."

Megan: Yeah.

SJ: And I mean, in my very first episode, I referenced the fact that this show caused something like a 30% increase in the number of teen suicides-- was it the month or so after its debut?

Megan: I believe so, yeah.

SJ: It is something staggering like that. You can look up these studies. The real-world harm of this show has been well-documented. *And* the show is still on the air.

Megan: Yeah.

SJ: Um... [pause] [clicks tongue] [sardonically] How does that make you feel?

Megan: It's pretty-- it's pretty messed up. And I think one of the bigger issues for me is that if you're tackling a difficult topic like this, number one: Get somebody who knows what the fuck they're doing in the field.

SJ: Right?!

Megan: Like, please. And have them inform you on this stuff, because...

SJ: How-- Why couldn't they have an on-set counselor, psychologist, psychiatrist-- any number of "-ists" to be on set? Any number of authorities who could give them some pointers. Most shows and movies that deal with this type of thing will at least have that. I couldn't believe that they didn't at least do the bare minimum of that. And then, the other thing I couldn't believe they didn't do is offer any resources before--

Megan: Yeah, the warning?

SJ: Yeah! Those warnings that you see at the beginning or end of episodes that deal with suicide. Most shows are so good about that, because it's literally the lowest bar to cross. All you have to do is put some on-screen text with the national suicide hotline number. It is so easy to do.

Megan: Yeah, they don't do a trigger warning at the beginning, and they don't do a resourcing at the end. And those are both huge problems. I think one of the issues that Netflix ran into with that, is that if you are bingeing it, they have the autoplay...

SJ: Hmm...

Megan: That was one thing that I've thought of in the past, and I was like, "Maybe they had an issue with that?" But that's-- that's a problem! You've gotta include that in your wrap time then, if that's the case.

SJ: Uh, yeah. There are ways around that that don't require much work. That's not an excuse.

Megan: No, it's a pretty minimal bar.

SJ: It really is. It just makes me feel like they were willfully thumbing their nose at not only the standards of television shows that have come before that deal with sensitive subject matters, but it was almost like, "We're too cool for those warnings," or something like that. I get a really bad sense about the creators of this show. And the fact that it hasn't been canceled, despite the number of studies that have been done, despite the outcry from parents whose children have attempted or committed suicide because of this show... I don't understand how it's still on air. How is Netflix okay with this?

Megan: You know, I'm pretty sensitive about this show because of the work that I do. And it is something that I've-- I've had multiple kids bring up that show.

SJ: Really, have you?

Megan: Yeah. It's usually regarding self-harm. It's usually regarding suicidal ideation.

SJ: [bracingly] Oh, boy...

Megan: Yeah, no, it's really serious stuff usually. And I've had a number of kids who've attempted, and I've had to do some hospitalizations with kids, and it's really scary. It's a horrific thing. Those are-- Those are the worst parent phone calls I ever make, is telling them, "Hey, I think we're gonna have to hospitalized your kid."

SJ: That's awful.

Megan: When the show came out, I had just started my position at the school, and everyone was watching it, and it was so glamorized, and the kids loved that show. They loved it. It's gross to me, because I think they felt so seen and so heard by the main character's struggle - by Hannah Baker and her struggle - and I think they want to see themselves in this stuff. And then to come to that conclusion that, 'Okay, well, the only conclusion that's worth drawing is to kill yourself'...

SJ: Oof.

Megan: You know, that-- that's the message that our *children* are walking away with. And I mean, I was working with seventh and eighth graders who were talking about this stuff. This is like twelve, thirteen years old.

SJ: [breathes] Oh my God.

Megan: Yeah. Um, I had a kid who had self-harmed in school, I had to go get him stitches. And he referenced this show too, and I was like--

SJ: Oh my god!

Megan: “--Great." [laughs drily]

SJ: This is sooo fucked up.

Megan: It is.

SJ: Wow. I mean, you're really confirming all the stories I've heard, counselors saying, "Yeah, I've had so many kids come to me and talk to me about this show." To hear you confirm it from your own experience is really hitting home. And I can only imagine how helpless you must feel, knowing that this show is on the air, and you can't stop these kids from watching it. But you're the one who has to deal with the fallout - you and these kids' parents. It's just-- [sympathetic sigh] I can't even wrap my head around it.

Megan: No, it's really hard. And I think the worst cases I had were the ones that were the closest to Hannah's story. And by that, I mean kids who experienced sexual assault or rape, and then also had some suicidal ideation because of that trauma. The ones who really closely identified with her... Those were the roughest cases. Absolutely. And again, we're talking about how representation is so important - It's something that you bring up on your podcast all the time. And to see a young girl going through something of that caliber, that, you know, they've probably never talked to anybody about this stuff before. Talking about sexual assault and rape is, shockingly, not a fun topic, right? It's a really hard thing to disclose. And when you're finally able to voice that, and then no one hears you, or believes you... That's the issue, you know? And I think they identified so closely with that, which is horrifying. The last thing I want a kid going out of my office saying is, "Well, Megan didn't believe me." So the counseling aspect of that show really bothered the fuck out of me, to be totally honest. Because it just-- It zaps your credibility. It zaps your ability to have that relationship with kids and have them trust you.

SJ: I can only imagine. What a frustrating position to be in.

Megan: [sighs] Yeah.

SJ: So then, what do you tell kids that come to you, who are talking about this show, saying that it's encouraging them to self-harm, or they're thinking about suicide? How do you deal with that? What do you tell them? And does anything get through? Media is powerful, so I can imagine it would be really hard to combat the messages that they've already been receiving through the show.

Megan: Something you're taught when you go to school for this kind of stuff is just checking reality, I guess, is the best way to put it. If a kid comes in saying, "Well, clearly, the only answer is to kill myself," being like, "Well... I hear what you're saying there, sure. And also, what makes you say that? What makes you think that the only way out is through killing yourself? Why do you feel that way? Tell me more about what's brought you in today for that reason." So kind of getting at the motivations and the core values and things like that, and picking apart what is it that really brought them in and is making them feel that gravity of the situation, that extreme.

SJ: Right. 'Cause it can be so easy to get sucked into that negative thought spiral. And once you have it in your head, it can be all-consuming. You really need someone who is outside of your experience, a third party coming in and being like, "Well, hold on. Let's re-examine the situation from an omniscient perspective," and kind of challenging your view on things, which can become warped.

Megan: Right.

SJ: Now, you read the book - Was that recently? Do you remember the book very well?

Megan: No, it was probably like seven years ago, that I read the book. So, it's been a minute.

SJ: Fair enough. Do you remember the book having similar messaging? Or do you think the show took some liberties?

Megan: I think the book is very similar. I mean, the counseling piece that I told you about was in the book. So that's horrifying to me.

SJ: Yeah, that's bad.

Megan: Because I've read other... A lot of times kids will recommend books to me, like Y.A. stuff, and I'll read it, so I know what the hell they're doing. And there's plenty of other stuff that has decent representations of mental health in it. There's a book called Forgive Me, Leonard Peacock that is actually a pretty decent depiction of mental health. Also a suicidal kid, and there's a homicidality/suicidality component to it, so there's the threat of some school violence and stuff. But that one - I read the afterward in it and holy shit, they had so many psychologists, psychiatrists, social workers, therapists on board with this.

SJ: Good!

Megan: And they did a really good job of showing symptomology throughout, which was really interesting. So I'm hoping that kids pick up things like that instead. [laughs] And it ends positively, with the kid getting help.

SJ: Oh, good. That's the exact kind of thing that we need more of. That's good to know there is something positive out there.

Megan: And apart from all of [what we mentioned], looking at the actual mental health represented in [13 Reasons Why], statistically speaking, completing suicide with self-harm, by cutting your arms open - That is not super common. Okay? And also, it's not super common for girls to die that way. I'm just thinking if you're showing a suicidal teenager, and you're showing a girl committing suicide-- And I should say "completed suicide." That's the language you want to use, not "committed." "Completed." I'm still working on my lingo. It's years of built-up rhetoric trying to get out of there.

SJ: Oh, sure, yeah.

Megan: So, we're not perfect either. [both chuckle] We're doing our best, guys. But when we're talking about teenagers and suicide completions, that's probably not the way that it would go down, statistically speaking. So, I don't think it's a super accurate representation. And I'm trying to remember if she had made any attempts before... I don't think that was the case, though, either.

SJ: And that's really uncommon too, right? Most people who complete suicide have attempted a number of times.

Megan: Yes.

SJ: It usually doesn't happen out of nowhere.

Megan: No, no. There's usually signs, yeah. And so, the fact that it missed all of the symptomology - That's a problem for me. That's why I liked that other book. I think it showed the progression of mental illness and the progression of getting to that point of feeling like they wanted to take their life. It's a very serious feeling! It doesn't come out of nowhere.

SJ: Yeah, exactly.

Megan: There is a certain impulsivity with youth that definitely contributes to that. But no, I don't think it was a very accurate representation, though. The other thing with this, when I talk to kids about this stuff - You cannot demonize this show.

SJ: Oh, they won't hear it.

Megan: So, if we've got parents listening, and you're going to try and talk to your kid about this, I suggest really not going hard in the paint against this show. Because it will not go well for you.

SJ: [trying not to laugh] Oh my God.

Megan: Because kids really relate to it! You need to come at it from like, "Okay, I hear what you're saying. I hear why you like the show. Let me bring up some questions." That's the approach I would suggest. 'Cause I've talked to a number of kids about how it's problematic-- and I'm not their parent, you know. They're automatically going to hate you, as the parent, coming at it from a 'This isn't good for you' [standpoint]. So I would just caution: If you're going to have that conversation... Go gently.

SJ: Seriously. That show is such a good example of the scarcity of good representation for young people. They don't have many shows that they can watch and feel like they relate to the characters, or see characters that experience things like them, so they're latching onto this show because it's all they have.

Megan: Yep.

SJ: That is a huge part of the problem. And if we had more representation that was real and honest and relatable for kids, that they could recognize themselves in, they wouldn't be so quick to jump on-board the first thing that comes along, even if it tells them to kill themselves! It really does boil down to representation.

Megan: That's exactly right. And I think that's why your podcast is so important and why we need to have these discussions. We need to talk about representation of minorities, of LGBTQ people of color. We need to be telling these stories and let them have representation of *themselves*, right? Like, you shouldn't have to always relate to a white dude on a screen. Sorry, you just shouldn't have to do that.

SJ: Exactly. I'm really looking forward to talking about and contrasting this show to something like Euphoria.

Megan: Yassssss.

SJ: Because I think it is leaps and bounds ahead of this show. You know, it pushes some boundaries, but it centers a queer black girl, who struggles with mental illness, who is dealing with just being a teenage kid also-- It's doing all the things. And that's why I really like it, but we'll get into that later. But yeah, this show just makes me super appreciative for things like Euphoria... [sing-song voice] even though I can't think of anything else like it!

Megan: Uhh, yeah...

SJ: I say, "things like," but that's about it.

Megan: For real, for real.

SJ: Just looking back over these problematic examples that we've gone through, what jumps out to you about gender representation and how it relates to mental illness?

Megan: When I'm looking at films like Psycho and One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest and The Shining, all of those films have the main character as a man. All of them also have a component of violence to them, and I think that is something that is really played out - That mentally ill men are violent. And that is, again, not the case. Does it happen? Yes. But typically, again, mentally ill people are victims of violence and not perpetrators. It's also all white dudes.

SJ: It really is, and that is a glaring issue. I mean, this list could not be whiter. Uhhh, I don't think there's a person of color in... Let's see, nope, nope, nope, nope... I don't know all the characters in 13 Reasons Why, but I know the two main characters that I've seen are both white... Yeah, there's not a character of color in any of these.

Megan: That's like a main cast character.

SJ: Yeah, no main characters.

Megan: In Requiem for a Dream there is a person of color that plays a significant role, but I...

SJ: Wait, the drug dealer??

Megan: Yeah. Yeah!

SJ: [laughing] Oh God, that's such *great* representation!

Megan: [laughing] I know. I was like, "Do I even mention this?"

SJ: That is not the racial representation that I'm looking for.

Megan: No.

SJ: Fail! Yeah, it's bad. Normally, I would say [the whiteness of this list] is probably the result of some bias on our part, as white people. But in this case, I think that's saying more about Hollywood. Apart from Tony Shalhoub, who is of Lebanese descent, but I think is often cast and read as white-- Other than him, yeah, it's all white guys. And we'll talk a little more about race when we get into our good examples, for sure. You know, the other thing is, looking over this list, a lot of these men with mental illness - You mentioned that a lot of them are violent, but I also see this trend of men with mental illnesses fairly often portrayed as geniuses, in something like A Beautiful Mind, Monk; whereas women with mental illnesses are kind of portrayed as just destructive, either to themselves or others, like in Fatal Attraction or 13 Reasons Why. I wonder if you agree with that.

Megan: I would agree with that. Yeah, absolutely. I think that they're considered destructive. I think something that also commonly plays out when you're showing women with mental illness is that they're overly sexualized.

SJ: Yes.

Megan: There are certain mental illnesses that do get at sexualization, but like Fatal Attraction?! [lets out a laugh/sigh]

SJ: No, totally. That's a prime example. And we didn't get into Skins, but that falls into the same trap. So, yeah, it's a thing.

[to you] We'll pause our discussion there for now. Next time, it's going to be much less of a downer, as Megan and I get into some of our favorite *positive* examples. I hope you'll join us then.

[up-beat outro music kicks in]

What are some of your favorite good and bad portrayals of mental illness? Tweet at me, @popculty or email the show at [email protected]. You can support the show by leaving us a review on Apple Podcasts, or by becoming a patron for as little as $2 a month. With your help we can keep this show awesome and ad-free. Time to shout out our newest patrons - Alexandra, Lisa, and Zack. You three have been amazing friends, especially this past year, and I can't tell you how much I appreciate your support, both through the podcast and just personally. As always, a huge thank-you to our sustaining patrons - Suzy, Mary, and Alexandra. The Popculty Podcast is produced and edited by yours truly. Cover art by Max Badger. Until next time: Support women directors, stay critical, and demand representation. ✊

[music fades out]

#the popculty podcast #podcasts #mental health #representation #psycho #one flew over the cuckoo's nest #the shining #fatal attraction #requiem for a dream #a beautiful mind #monk #13 reasons why #mental illness #addiction #tropes #transcript #glenn close #darren aronofsky #forgive me leonard peacock

6 notes · View notes

popculty · 4 years

Video

undefined

tumblr

In the final episode of our ‘Jessica Jones’ series, we break down all the ways that series finale let us down. Moment of silence for Jessica and Trish - They’re not dead, but complex female friendship on tv is. 😒☕

Listen to Part 3, or catch up on the whole series:

Apple Podcasts | Spotify | Google Podcasts | Stitcher | more

✨ Want more JJ? Good news! Just a $2 Patreon subscription gets you the bonus episode for this series - where we spill the tea on what happened behind the scenes of that finale - plus all other bonus eps, AND helps out a struggling artist!

If you enjoy this blog and/or podcast, please consider supporting the work! 💖

#jessica jones #podcasts #the popculty podcast #female friendship #jessica x trish

7 notes · View notes

popculty · 4 years

Video

undefined

tumblr

I talk a lot about how representation matters. In fact, that’s basically the raison dêtre for this blog and podcast. But my guest on a recent episode perfectly broke down how awareness and intention shape representation. This is what the creators of responsible media are hyper-aware of (e.g. Alex’s coming-out narrative in Supergirl), and what creators of harmful portrayals are either ignorant of or careless about (*ahemLexa*). This idea will resurface in Part 3 of our Jessica Jones discussion next week, when we talk about how the series finale let women down.

Catch up here first: Part 1 | Part 2

#representation matters #representation #jessica jones #the popculty podcast #orig

2 notes · View notes

popculty · 4 years

Video

undefined

tumblr

In our last episode, I talked with a sociologist (and fellow Jessica Jones fan) about the queer subtext of the show and its presentation of gender/sexuality. Needless to say, things got interesting...

Listen to the full episode on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, Overcast, or more.

And subscribe for Part 3, dropping this month!

#the popculty podcast #jessica jones #podcast #gender #sexuality #queer subtext #trish walker #trishica

1 note · View note

popculty · 4 years

Text

New Podcast Episode! Jessica Jones, Part 2: A.K.A. She Said “Smile”

In the second part of our Jessica Jones retrospective, sociologist/friend-of-the-show Bethany and I dig into the queer subtext of the series (#Trishica) and David Tennant as Kilgrave. We relive the life-giving season one finale (Jessica did that!) and the game-changing second season finale (Trish did that!). Special guest, author Reuben “Tihi” Hayslett shares his own story about intimate partner violence in “We Don’t Need Another Hero: How Netflix’s Jessica Jones Saved My Life.”

Listen here.

Or read the full episode transcript below.

(TW: General discussion of sexual assault and domestic abuse.)

Next time, in our final JJ episode: Sallinger, Hellcat, and THAT finale! There's still time to submit your thoughts on Jessica Jones! Send a voice memo to [email protected] or tweet @popculty to have your voice included in the next episode! Please help us reach our Patreon goal, to keep this show going! Become a Supergirl-level patron or higher by May 15th, and get a signed copy of Girl of Steel: Essays on Television's Supergirl and Fourth-Wave Feminism!

SJ: Welcome back to The Popculty Podcast. I'm your host, SJ. How's everyone doing? The world's a little topsy-turvy these days. I hope you all are safe and well as you listen to this. First I want to apologize for having to take such a long break from the podcast. That wasn't planned, it was just kind of a snowball of life stuff, which obviously turned into, you know, global pandemic. So I got a bit caught up in that, found myself in a bit of a hot-spot and, uh, shit's been crazy. What can I say? But recently I have found that just throwing myself back into the work is really getting me through this. So that is what I'm doing. It's times like this when escapism and diversion and entertainment can be our saviors. We need them more than ever. So I'm gonna do everything I can to bring you more great discussions on the pop culture you love that is getting us through quarantines and crazy times.

Before we jump back into our Jessica Jones convo, one big announcement at the top: The Popculty Pod has launched a patron drive to determine its future. We, and by 'we', I mean currently me, but hoping to be we, if this patron drive is successful. That's kind of the purpose of it. We're trying to get up to $250 a month through our Patreon. If we reach that goal, I'll be able to finally hire an assistant for the pod. I'm looking for a college student who's having a hard time right now, but who is really good at social media and promoting and editing and all these things that are really slowing me down. It's just not sustainable to run a podcast all by yourself - Anyone will tell you that. You really have to have a team, and I've kind of gone as far as I can go on my own. That's why I'm having such a hard time getting these episodes out. There's a backlog of content and I just can't push through it. So in the spirit of making this more of a team effort and getting you episodes more regularly, we really need to hit that $250 goal as soon as possible. The patron drive is going through May 15th, so please donate by then. We're already more than halfway there. We really just have to keep this momentum going. If everyone listening chipped in $2 we would easily make that goal. So I really need you guys' help to get us past that finish line. You can see all the tiers we have set up as well as the rewards that each tier gets you - Everything from on-air shoutouts to personalized TV recommendations. And for the next two weeks only, a special bonus offer: If you sign up at the Supergirl level or higher, I will send you a signed and personalized copy of a book I recently co-authored that was just released called Girl of Steel: Essays on Television's Supergirl and Fourth-Wave Feminism.

I want to give a huge shoutout to those listeners who have already stepped up: Wayne, you rock buddy. Cat, I've gotten so many good pop culture tips from you. Kara, I really miss our TV nights. Charles, thank you for becoming my very first Supergirl level patron. Aur, one of our very first supporters. And lastly, I want to shoutout my family - Mom, Dad, sis, Auntie Suzy, thank you all so much for supporting my work, my writing, giving me a place to stay... I wrote the chapter in the book on the importance of chosen family, but sometimes bio family really comes through for you, and you guys have. You too could get a little personal shoutout in the next episode, if you sign up at the Ms. Marvel level or higher. That's just $5 a month that goes directly to supporting the show and gets me closer to taking this thing to the next level. Together we got this, let's do it!

All right, let's get back to my conversation with Bethany about Jessica Jones! Last time, we left off talking about the relationship between Jessica and Trish. This episode, we're gonna dig more into those nuances, before we talk about David Tennant as Kilgrave. Obviously, some trigger warnings for when we get to that part of the episode: we will be talking generally about abusive relationships and sexual assault. We'll end our season one discussion by hearing from a special guest and then get into season two a bit before we break for the final Part Three. Last thing before we jump in, you're gonna be hearing the word 'queer' a lot in the first part of our discussion, and I just want to give some contemporary context for that. For LGBT folks of previous generations, the word 'queer' was often used as a slur against them. My generation though, Millennials and Gen Z-ers, have really reclaimed that word as a great umbrella term to encompass the entire LGBTQIA+ spectrum. It's also really helpful for people who are still figuring out their sexuality, or who just don't want to be labeled as one thing, because we now understand that sexuality is fluid. The term has become more or less mainstream, and it's used by not only members of the LGBT+ community, but also by scholars and academics. Relevant to our discussion today, it can also just mean a general subversion of a heteronormative text. All right, here we go! Part two of Jessica Jones starts now.

[Jessica Jones theme music plays]

SJ: So I think it's worth mentioning at this point that a lot of people saw the relationship between Jessica and Trish as more than friends. They saw romantic undertones to that. And I have to say, looking back at season one in particular, there is an enormous amount of queer subtext going on. I was wondering if you picked up on that?

Bethany: If you could just jog my memory with some of the examples? I think you've watched the first season more recently than I have.

SJ: Well, right off the bat, their very first scene together on the balcony...

Trish: You could have used the door.

Jessica: I wasn't sure you'd answer. It's important.

Trish: It must be.

Jessica: It's, uh, for a case.

Trish: Right, you became a private eye.

Jessica: You've been keeping tabs on me?

Trish: Making sure you weren't dead, since you never called.

Jessica: I need money.

Trish: Wow. Uh, I don't even know what to say.

Jessica: It's important.

Trish: You said. But I don't hear from you for months - six months, actually--

Jessica: I needed breathing room.

Trish: You shut me out. And now you show up here asking for money?

Jessica: This was a bad idea.

Trish: No, you talk to me! You tell me what the hell is so important.

SJ: There's very much a..."je ne sais quoi" to the things they're talking about, and the way that they are with each other. I was not alone in thinking that they were exes or had some type of romantic history. I saw a lot of reviewers who had only been given the first episode to screen writing articles like, "We may have gotten our first queer superhero!" And in fact, Krysten Ritter has said that she thought the exact same thing after she read the pilot. This is her talking to Gold Derby in June 2016.

Krysten Ritter: I mean, there was some stuff that I worked on with a different thing in mind than... For example, I didn't know that Rachael Taylor's character, Trish, was going to end up being my sister. I knew there was, like, real history there. I actually couldn't tell if they maybe were lovers at one point, just because their relationship was so dynamic and complex and so real and so alive that I just felt like there had to be more there.

SJ: So a lot of people read into that, including her. I remember the actress Chloe Grace Moretz tweeting at Krysten Ritter:

A lot of people were on board with this ship. It was almost mainstream within the fandom, because there's so much within the show that supports that reading of it - Everything from that first scene to their jealousy over each other's partners, and then the season one finale is pretty darn romantic, in my opinion. Telling the girl you love her and then killing the bad guy to save her? I mean, that's the typical hetero hero move at the end of every movie, right?

Bethany: As she's falling mid-air.

SJ: Right? All that was missing was Jess catching Trish falling off a building, Lois Lane style. [both laugh] And then there's even a lot of sexual undertones, especially in season one. The thing that always jumps out at me is how every time Trish is having sex with someone, Jessica either ends up physically or figuratively in the room, in a really obvious way.

Bethany: [laughs] Right.

SJ: For example, Simpson is going down on Jessica-- [record scratch] Or, sorry - Simpson is going down on Trish!

Bethany: I was like, "Wait, I missed that episode!"

SJ: Nope, that was a deleted scene! [both laugh] Simpson's going down on Trish and Jessica barges in. Or Trish and Simpson are having sex and Jessica calls and then Trish starts talking about her in bed. Or even in season two, when Trish and Malcolm are post-coitally laying in bed...

Malcolm: Where are you?

Trish: I'm right here.

Malcolm: No, you're not.

Trish: [sighs] I can't stop thinking about Jessica.

SJ: Like, every single time! There seems to be some sort of insertion of that relationship into the bedroom [laughs], and it seems very deliberate. I don't see how you could do something like that, from a creative standpoint, without knowing how the scenes were coming off. Did you pick up on that? Do you remember that?

Bethany: Yeah, now that you're mentioning it, I do. And I think maybe why I wasn't thinking as critically about it in that sense is because the show does a really interesting thing, playing with their relationship as siblings - especially in the first season when you understand that Trish is the adopted (whether that was official or not) sister of Jessica - there's a play on the incest taboo. The History of Sexuality talks about how much of a taboo incest in any form is, but the fact that they're not actually related by blood kind of adds this extra dimension where they can play with that incest thing. Because you kind of ask yourself, "Is it incest? Is it actually bad?". It seems like it's also playing with female intimacy, which I think is sometimes rightly and sometimes wrongly coded as being sexual, when it's actually just a different type of intimacy, you know?

SJ: Yeah, for sure.

Bethany: Or when you talk about gender differences, it is. And so I think that's kind of an interesting thing to push those boundaries: What is female intimacy without it being overtly or explicitly sexual? And then is it sort of queer? Is it romantic? Or is it just intimacy in a way that we're not used to being presented with? And I don't know the answer to that. I think it could be any or all of those things.

SJ: Totally. That's kind of the other thing that I keep coming back to, is that we were just so taken aback by this presentation of a relationship between two women that we had never seen before, right? And that's exactly how Krysten Ritter talks about it, that's how Rachael Taylor talks about it in one of their very first cast interviews at New York Comic-Con with Entertainment Weekly...

Rachael Taylor: You know, the relationship between Jessica and Trish is just so wonderful, damaged, complicated, loyal, there's shades of jealousy... There's so many honest, human, relatable little iterations of this relationship as the show progresses. So it was just kind of a pleasure to play something that I've never seen in a script between two girlfriends. It just doesn't fit into the traditional kind of patriarchal form of what girlfriends are supposed to be like together.

SJ: Bonus points for calling out the patriarchy. But she's absolutely right. It's usually these male creators writing what they think relationships between women look like, while really having no clue about the complexities involved. It's always either been explicitly gay or explicitly like best friends. And this relationship does not fit into either one of those really neatly because, like you said, it's also playing with a familial dynamic. Their relationship absolutely exists on multiple levels and can be interpreted in many different ways that are all just as valid. That's kind of what I love about it, at the end of the day. I'm totally fine with the fact that Jessica and Trish never got together or whatever, because the show never lost sight of the fact that they were the most important thing about it. But the cynical part of me still kind of sees it as a little bit of queer-baiting, especially in season one, because it is so heavy-handed [with the subtext] and then they do seem to back-pedal in season two and three. They start laying down actual definitions for their relationship. It's the first time they actually call each other 'sister' - They didn't do that in the first season, they really left it open.

Bethany: Ohh-kay.

SJ: Then in season two, the show's like, "Whoa, whoa, whoa - No homo, bro! They're sisters." That kind of irks me a little bit, just knowing the history of shows using queer-baiting to get viewers, with no intention of actually following through on exploring that type of relationship. The only time the show directly addresses the queer subtext is in season three with that scene with Dorothy:

Trish: Mom, it's complicated and actually kind of private.

Jessica: I think you should tell her.

Dorothy: Please, don't tell me: You're a couple.

Trish: What?

Dorothy: There are much better lesbians out there.

Trish: Mom, I'm not-- No!

SJ: Look, I laughed, it's funny. Especially Jessica's incredulous reaction like, "Really?" Part of me appreciates that they even addressed it at all. But another part of me is kind of sad that they just wrote that whole aspect off as a joke. They knew that people were really invested in that particular reading of this relationship between Jessica and Trish and they just used it as a punch-line. That really doesn't sit well with me. It kind of has a bit of a 'gay panic' vibe to it. Do you see any queer-baiting in the way that it's portrayed?

Bethany: Yeah, I do see that. And I see it not even just in the relationship with Jess and Trish, but I also see it in the presentation of Jessica. She doesn't represent your stereotypical feminine female character in some ways, and I think that could attract people to make stereotypical judgements about her sexuality based on how she looks or how she acts. What's so interesting about Jessica and Trish for me is that they do play with a lot of sexuality and kind of queer stuff and female intimacy, but then they both present them as extremely hetero in a lot of ways - I mean, really, pretty explicitly. Jessica is with men who are very stereotypically masculine. And Trish is too, for that matter, although I think her brief relationship with Malcolm is a little deviant from that. I think his sexuality is a little more queer or fluid. And then there's the support characters where that is much more overt - Jeri... who else am I forgetting?

SJ: I mean, her wife, Wendy, her girlfriend, Pam, her myriad other girlfriends throughout the series... There's the cop, Detective Costa, in season two and three...

Bethany: I have kind of torn feelings about it, because I feel like with Jessica, if she has her androgynous style and she has some of these "masculine" traits - like aggressive and violent and very confrontational - in some ways it would be falling into the stereotype of a butch lesbian, in a way that I think would be kind of disappointing. Like, we've seen that, right? That's something that some people would expect.

SJ: I see what you mean.

Bethany: So in some ways, I like that she represents not stereotypical femininity, and then has a sexuality that isn't necessarily stereotypically in line with that. But then at the same time, I'm kind of disappointed that they fall back to such a hetero-explicit character, when there is this subtext. I don't know if that was intentional or if it was just maybe them not knowing how to, or being comfortable with, allowing it to be fluid. It sort of seems like they didn't want it to be ambiguous.

SJ: Yeah, I do wish that they had played more with Jessica's sexuality. It didn't necessarily have to be with Trish or anything - There are many interactions with other female characters throughout the show where there is some sexual tension or something going on. You see that with Jeri sometimes... When Rosario Dawson comes in at the end of season one as Claire, A.K.A. Night Nurse, there is some serious flirtation going on there, which I was not hating.

Claire: If your leg gets infected, you're not going anywhere. Take off your pants.

Jessica: I usually like a little more romancing.

Claire: Don't we all.

SJ: The show just never followed through on any of that. It's an interesting thing, and I don't think that there's a right or wrong answer, really. I have mixed feelings about it, and I know the fandom does too, as to whether this falls more into queer-baiting or more into just subverting our viewer expectations.

Bethany: And I think the hype or debate or disappointment or people talking about it at all points to the larger cultural phenomenon of us feeling like we need to understand people's sexuality, or that we need to have access to it, particularly if it's not normative.

SJ: That's a good point.

Bethany: For me, it's okay that I didn't see all representations of her sexuality, because part of me is sort of like, "Well, what does it matter? That's her sexuality, and we shouldn't give a shit." But, of course, part of it's about representation, part of it's about accurate representation... But then there is that other piece too, of recognizing that there's something a little bit voyeuristic, in my opinion, about how much we demand answers to people's gender or sexuality.

SJ: Right. It is this tricky line between representation and voyeurism. And that was actually something that Melissa Rosenberg, the showrunner/creator, mentioned when she was asked, "Are Jessica and Trish going to get together at some point?" She said something like, "Well, we're sort of hesitant to go down that road because I feel that it's often this prurient thing." And I think she's right, to an extent, like you're saying. But to be fair, I don't think the people she thought were clamoring to see this where who she thinks they were, i.e. a straight male audience who wanted to see two girls make out or whatever. That's not who it was. The people who were really interested in seeing Jessica in a queer relationship were women, queer and straight. Every woman I know who watched the show was like, "Yeah, I kind of wanted to see that." So I think you also need to know your audience in order to better understand why they want something, and to decide whether or not you should give it to them. It does strike me as more relating to representation in this case though, because this was never a show that was pitched for straight guys. It's very much a show that skews female and queer.

Bethany: I think that's a really good point. And I think it also highlights that it's really important for us to remember that if you're gonna create any kind of art form, like a movie or television show, ultimately you're making decisions about representation. So what you choose to show or not show, or what character arc you follow, has a big impact. It's what people see. It's not like those things are just arbitrary or somehow organic, like people in the real world. They were fabricated in a very intentional way.

SJ: [to listener] I'm really glad Bethany brought up this idea of the responsibility of representation. That's something that's gonna come up again in our discussion of season three. [to Bethany] Okay, we got to talk about the purple elephant in the room, obviously. So Kilgrave has kind of become an iconic villain by now. He's definitely one of the creepiest and realist villains we've ever seen, especially in the MCU. He's not some Thanos character who could never possibly exist. He's very much rooted in reality, and a lot of women in particular recognize him as that stalker/harasser/abuser that unfortunately most of us have encountered. So he really resonated with viewers as a very real threat in this fictionalized world.

However, I also saw sympathy for Kilgrave, from what I would call a minority of the viewership, that I was not expecting. And they would point to things like his backstory, how his parents experimented on him as a kid. But I look at those scenes and I think, "Wow, this show is striking the perfect balance of creating this fully fleshed-out villain, and explaining his behavior without ever excusing it. I mean, this show refuses to let Kilgrave off the hook for his actions. Jessica is constantly calling him out on his bullshit.

Kilgrave: Jessie!

Jessica: Do not call me that.

Kilgrave: We used to do a lot more than just touch hands.

Jessica: Yeah. It's called rape.

Kilgrave: Which part of staying in five-star hotels, eating in all the best places, doing whatever the hell you wanted, is rape?

Jessica: The part where I didn't want to do any of it! Not only did you physically rape me, but you violated every cell in my body and every thought in my goddamn head.

Kilgrave: That is not what I was trying to do.

Jessica: It doesn't matter what you were trying to do. You raped me again and again and again.

Kilgrave: How am I supposed to know? Huh? I never know if somebody's doing what they want or what I tell them to do.

Jessica: Oh, poor you.

Kilgrave: You have no idea. I have to painstakingly choose every word I say. I once told a man to go screw himself, can you even imagine?

Jessica: Jesus.

Kilgrave: I didn't have this - a home, loving parents, a family.

Jessica: You blame bad parenting? My parents died. You don't see me raping anyone!

Kilgrave: I hate that word.

SJ: But then you have a handful of people who cite that little backstory the show gives us to incur sympathy for him. Do you see Kilgrave as sympathetic at all? Do you think the show treats him as sympathetic?

Bethany: I mean, I basically agree with you. If we're watching this kid be abused in real-time, obviously you're going to sympathize, you're gonna be horrified. But we have this character who is an awful, murderous human being. I mean, at the point that we are introduced to him, he's committed countless acts of murder, violence, rape, and god knows what else, right? We get hints that he's used his mind control in any sorts of ways. I just feel like, "Okay, fine, give me a backstory for this awful person,” but he's a psychopath, and I just don't think you can have sympathy for someone at that point. I don't think any kind of backstory somehow redeems or justifies or excuses [his behavior]. You must follow all these forums where people are talking about these things. I had no idea that there were people who sympathized with him. Because as far as I'm concerned, he's a total villain, and I don't see him as a villain who has some kind of redeemable qualities. And I do think that there are villains, in Jessica Jones and a lot of other shows, you feel sympathy for. I never felt like Kilgrave was one of those characters.

SJ: I mean, neither did I. But you're right that I do pay attention to fandom discussions and what people are saying on social media about this stuff, because I often find those reactions and discussions are almost as interesting as the media itself. And in this case, I'm kind of sitting on the sidelines, watching people have this back-and-forth on how sympathetic Kilgrave is, and I realize that it basically boils down to one thing, which is casting. David Tennant is such a beloved actor, from especially Doctor Who, you have a lot of fans watching Jessica Jones because of David Tennant's presence. They come into the show loving him and project their positive feelings about the actor David Tennant onto his character, Kilgrave.

Bethany: That's so interesting to me, because I can see that that makes sense. I love David Tennant as an actor. I loved Broadchurch, I'm a big fan of that show. And he, in some ways, is kind of playing the opposite of Kilgrave in that show. He has some remorse about how he's affected people's lives... Then, of course, I'm a big Harry Potter fan, so I've seen him be Barty Crouch, Jr. He's just a really compelling, fun person to watch on screen. And it kind of makes me wonder if people would view his character differently if they had chosen somebody who maybe wasn't such a beloved actor.

SJ: I wonder, too.

Bethany: I do wonder how [casting a familiar actor] changes the way we think about their characters. I think another good example is the actor who plays Moriarty in Sherlock. He's been in Fleabag recently--

SJ: Hot priest!

Bethany: [laughs] Yeah. He's been in a variety of things, and he just did a Black Mirror episode. And people like him so much, but Moriarty is the villain of Sherlock, and he's a horrible person, but people love him as a villain because they love him as an actor. So you get the same feeling of, "How are you, in a sense, rooting for or enjoying watching somebody who, at their root, is the embodiment of the most evil thing you could think of?"

SJ: Yeah, he (Andrew Scott) is another really good example. And I think for people who do have a hard time separating the actor from the character, it lessens the impact of a character like Moriarty, or like Kilgrave. By the same token, I think it was really important to cast someone as charming as David Tennant in this role, because from what I've heard from people who have had an experience like Jessica's, that tracks with their own abusers. How they present themselves to kind of lure you in - They might be enigmatic, they might be charming, they might be good-looking. And that's a trap, right? And people really responded to Kilgrave fitting that profile. He's good-looking, he's British, he's a natty dresser - all these superficially attractive qualities that a lot of people recognized in their own abusers.

Bethany: Maybe part of the brilliance of the show is that the casting of David Tennant in that role specifically does that. It gives you a sense of wanting to like a character who you really should hate. Although the one thing I don't think it quite captures is you can know that he's done these things, but you still don't actually have a sense of experiencing it in any real way. So it does sort of complicate wanting to like him. Most of the relationship picture that you get about Kilgrave and Jessica you get in this retrospective way. That also changes how you view it, because you're not watching these things in real-time, you're watching these memories or things Jessica is blocking out.

SJ: And memory is subjective. Yeah, there's that great scene towards the end of season one... We get a flashback of this moment where she's with Kilgrave and they're on this terrace overlooking the city. And for just a few seconds, he stops mind-controlling her.

Jessica: I had waited so long for that moment.

SJ: She imagines jumping off the building and riding away on a white horse. But then we realize she didn't actually do that - She's still standing on the terrace. Of course, in Kilgrave's mind, he sees this and thinks, "Oh, I gave her two seconds of freedom and she didn't run away, so she must have wanted to stay with me." And Jessica sets him straight:

Kilgrave: You didn't jump.

Jessica: Because I wasn't fast enough. Getting you out of my head was like prying fungus from a window. I couldn't think.

Kilgrave: I know your face. I saw you.

Jessica: You saw what you wanted to see.

Kilgrave: I remember!

Jessica: I remember everything.

Kilgrave: Come down now, Jessica! Why don't you listen to me?

Jessica: Because I don't want to.

Kilgrave: If you don't listen to me, what is the point of having ears? Answer me!

Jessica: To listen to someone else.

Kilgrave: You never appreciate anything I do for you. If you can't listen, you don't need ears. Cut them off.

SJ: She starts to do it, before he stops her.

Kilgrave: You wanted to stay with me, admit it!

Jessica: You admit this.

SJ: When she pulls back her hair and shows him the scar, it's undeniable at that point. There was no consent, because she had no free will, and what he was doing to her was rape. But what we don't see, which is absolutely revolutionary in a show that is inherently about sexual assault, is the actual assault. We don't see the act of rape at all in this series. Melissa Rosenberg has said that was something very intentional from the beginning. She never wanted to show it. There's way too many scenes of sexual assault on TV, it's constantly in our faces, and it's triggering left and right for the quarter or more of people in this world who have experienced sexual assault. So Melissa Rosenberg said from the get-go, "I never want to show it. We don't need to show it in order to show the consequences of it." And I thought that was such a smart thing to do, and I so appreciated it, as someone who is so sick of seeing rape on TV--

Bethany: Yeah, same.

SJ: --someone who stopped watching Game of Thrones for three years because it got so rapey.

Bethany: That was gonna be the same example I was going to use. Sensationalizing it for the sake of putting it on the screen, to be at best, provocative and at worst, just triggering and almost glorifying something like that. The decision to not put it on screen I don't necessarily think has to be a gendered thing, but I think this particular show, Jessica Jones, making that decision does feel like it was a decision made by a woman. Because there's a sensitivity to it in the way that it's constantly referenced and it's constantly in your mind, you know that it's part of the story, but it's never put in front of your face. We're never watching that scene. Yeah, there's something that's realistic and poignant about that. It really tackled that issue in the forefront, it was never trying to hide, it was never trying to pretend like that wasn't a part of her relationship with Kilgrave, but also it didn't need to constantly have it in your face for it to still be completely acknowledged.

SJ: Totally. The show is not afraid to call a rapist a rapist. It doesn't tiptoe around anything, but by not focusing on the act of sexual assault itself, that actually requires better writing. Because that's honestly a pretty lazy tactic that we have seen over and over and over, and I think it is totally affected by gender. Women are much more sensitive to the effects of what they are showing other women in particular. I think male directors are very quick to have their female characters experience sexual assault or at least reference the fact that they have had this trauma in their past. Male directors fucking love that. You see it a lot in the form of the "Women in Refrigerators" trope, where the female character is raped or murdered or tortured or whatever, solely for the purpose of moving a male character's storyline forward. It's one of the oldest tropes in the book - You see it in the Bible, you see it in comic books, you see it in all those male revenge movies. But we so rarely see any kind of resolution for the victim. There's no exploration of what something like that does to a human being on a psychological level or an emotional one. It's so often framed as, "Here's this horrible thing that happened to this poor woman, and here's how the men in her life reacted." So most of the time you see this being done, it feels, like you say, very gross and voyeuristic. That's how it always came across in Game of Thrones, that's what happens when you have an all-male writing room. That's what happens when you have all male directors. You don't have input from women who are much more sensitive to this sort of thing saying, "Hold on, do we really actually have to fucking show this and re-traumatized people who are watching? Is that really necessary? And could we actually tell a better story and do better character work by talking about what happens after?" And I think that's exactly what Jessica Jones does.

Bethany: I completely agree with that, and I think especially because so much of the first season in particular is about her dealing with the after-effects of it, and how it has shaped the way she views relationships and the way she approaches people. So it really isn't about the fact that it happened to her as an act, it's more about the effects that it had because it was a thing that happened to her. You know, it destroyed what little trust she had in humanity and in people she was close with. And because Kilgrave's power completely removes consent, it amplifies that feeling of powerlessness that I think comes hand-in-hand with so many experiences of sexual violence

SJ: Now I have also seen the argument made that not showing the rape was not the right call. Some people say that it should have gone there and just shown it explicitly, so that people could stop saying these things that we've been talking about - sympathizing with Kilgrave, or "I just really love David Tennant." I have heard some people say that that could have all been avoided if the show had just straight-up shown it and laid the entire thing to rest. What would you say to that?

Bethany: I mean, I disagree with that. I think that is sort of along the same lines of victim blaming or victim questioning, [in real life]. When we hear about these things happening to people, there's these questions of like, "Do you have proof of it?" or "Can you tell me exactly how it happened?" As if there needs to be some kind of thing that people can tangibly see or hear to validate it. That's just my own take.

SJ: No, I totally agree with that because when I was initially presented with that argument, I kind of doubled down on my position of, "Melissa Rosenberg made the right call by not showing it." Because it's basically a giant fuck-you to not believing the victim and to rape culture in general - How we ask what she was wearing, we ask for receipts, we ask [a victim] to recount the experience in graphic detail, and even then we don't believe her. It's like, would it really have made any difference if we had seen it? I'm not entirely sure that's true, and, like we said, it would have been triggering to people to watch. I think the benefits of potentially showing that are far outweighed by the harms it would have caused. And I think this show made a stronger statement by ultimately not showing the assault itself. I can see where people who would make that argument are coming from. They kind of just want to stop hearing people make excuses for Kilgrave, and so do I! But I don't think that's the solution.

Bethany: I think for people who also have to question, "Was sexual violence part of their relationship?" To me, that's kind of naive. Or wanting to err on the side of caution like, "Well, we don't really know. They didn't show us." I mean, how much do you have to allude to something to know that that's what it's getting at, what it's saying? I think that's pretty clear. It doesn't need to be in your face to be effective. And they did some really interesting things, even past the physical violence and the rape - They also do these flashbacks where Jessica is dressed really differently, and you get a sense of how he was forcing her to present herself as a different type of woman. And what a woman looked like for him was a very demure kind of person who he could control.

SJ: Right! That great scene we were talking about, where she's in the yellow dress...

Bethany: Yeah, that's what I'm thinking of.

SJ: Yeah, that's true! Jessica Jones would literally never wear yellow or a dress of her own free will. That, to me, was more effective than any sexual violence that we could have been shown.

Bethany: This is a really interesting piece too that ties into representations of femininity in the show: I think if you had removed Trish's character from the show and you had this arc where Jessica, when she was with Kilgrave, was being forced to wear these dresses and looking extremely stereotypically feminine, and then you see her character after she's not under his spell anymore (and she, of course, dresses more androgynously, she's kind of a badass), your conclusion might be that there's something kind of wrong with that more traditional feminine dress. But I like that Trish is there, as a character who was still really, really classically feminine in the ways that we often understand it, because I like that the show doesn't leave you thinking that to be strong, you have to dress like Jessica Jones, or as a woman you have to reject traditional femininity. Because Trish doesn't, and Trish is still an extremely powerful and effective character. And whether it was intentional or not, I thought that was a really cool piece of the show that was kind of important for some of the gender representations.

SJ: I never even thought about that! That's such a good observation. Okay, the moment we've all been waiting for: Season one finale, A.K.A. the most life-giving thing I have ever seen on my TV screen. To set the scene for you, just in case it's been a while: A few minutes before the big showdown, Jessica and Trish are in Trish's car making a plan on how to deal with Kilgrave.

Trish: I'll wait here. Just text me.

Jessica: You won't know if I'm a minion of evil.

Trish: Well, we need a signal. Something you would never say, like "sardines" or "pickle juice"... You say it, you're still you.

Jessica: Something I never say. Like, "I love you." [car door opens and then shuts]

Trish: [quietly] That'll do.

SJ: That comes into play in a big way, just a few minutes later in the final showdown between Jessica and Kilgrave. I've never been more nervous watching anything than I was when I watched the scene at the docks. Kilgrave has taken Trish under his control, he's sexually assaulting her right in front of Jessica, he's about to kidnap her and sail away on a boat...

Kilgrave: If Patsy or I ever hear from you, ever see you, see anyone who looks like you, she will slit her own throat. It's the ultimate contingency.

SJ: The stakes couldn't be higher. He's about to get away with everything he's done. Jessica only has this one tiny chance of convincing Kilgrave that he still has control over her, so she can get him close enough to save her best friend and take out Kilgrave once and for all.

Kilgrave: Oh god, it’s true, isn’t it? You would let me take your beloved sister? My god...It's finally over. You're mine now. No more fighting, no more--no more of these ugly displays. You'll be with me now. Look, after a while, however long it takes, I know-- I know you will feel what I feel! Let's start with a smile. [he laughs, pleased] Tell me you love me.

SJ: She looks directly past him, right at Trish and says...

Jessica: I love you.

SJ: And then! [Kilgrave yelps, music intensifies]

Jessica: Smile. [neck snaps, body thuds on pavement]

SJ: I literally gasped, had to rewind the scene to make sure I had actually seen this happen, and then I was just on my feet cheering.

Bethany: [laughs] Yeah.

SJ: I mean, line 'em up, knock 'em down: the safe word coming into play, the "smile" motif being turned back around on Kilgrave, the sound of his neck snapping?! Just boom, boom, boom. Oh, my god. Do you remember your reaction to the finale?

Bethany: Oh, yeah. Throughout that whole first season, I was shocked at how quickly and just without a second thought, Jessica would beat somebody up or Kilgrave would have people commit violence. Because I don't think we're used to seeing things happen at that speed, right? Usually there's some kind of suspense that builds up, which in some ways is unrealistic, compared to how it would happen in real life. So there's this added shock factor of things just hitting you in the moment they're happening. You don't get prepared for it at all. I was so excited when I watched that scene. You knew it had to resolve, in some way, but you didn't know how it was exactly going to happen. But you know the season is ending, the show is called Jessica Jones, you know that she has to triumph. But she really, really triumphed. I almost wanted to, like, cheer and cry at the same time, because it was just... It was exciting.

SJ: Yeah! I mean, I felt the same way. I was on the verge of tears of joy, and I have never had that reaction to a TV show before. Never seen anything like it. And it was so well-earned. You know, we feel like we've been on this journey with her, and she's been suffering so long, and this fucking guy has been in her head, causing her all this pain... To have her just silence him once and for all, and in that way - The whole season he's been telling her to smile and mind-controlling women to smile at him and fall in love with him. And what does she do right before she snaps his neck? She says, "Smile." And it's like [sings choir note]. What a satisfying moment, as a woman. We are all so sick and tired of being cat-called, street harassment, being told, "Smile, you'd be prettier." That was such a fuck-you to this stuff that we have to put up with. There was so much catharsis in that scene... I'll never be over it!

Bethany: Yeah, even if it was a little bit almost cliche, just in the sense that "stop telling women to smile" is such a buzz-phrase now. Even though it really was that, it was still so satisfying to see. I didn't care that it was maybe a tip to that. And again, I feel like it fits in with the fact that it is still a comic book, and we expect there to be some of these kind of quippy phrases, right? I think that's part of why people like comics so much is because the dialogue is fun. And the sense of relief. Kilgrave's character hangs over you the whole first season. As soon as you realize who he is and what he has the capability of doing, I was so anxious knowing that he could make somebody powerless in an instant. And realizing that he was finally once and for all dead - especially because we so often don't get that finality with comic book characters, right? Like, we see them in a crash and then their hand moves or something, right? So to see him really dead, I was just really relieved. And I just let go of that tension.

SJ: Yeah, completely. I honestly wasn't sure that they were going to kill him off in the first season because David Tennant is so beloved. I thought maybe they would keep him around. And honestly, I'm really glad they didn't because it felt like his time had come. I didn't want him hanging over Jessica anymore, because, like you said, it felt like he was hanging over us, and it was so stressful! Honestly, we deserved closure, and she deserved closure, so I'm really glad that they didn't try to extend his stay on our screens, just because it's a well-liked actor. I really appreciated that they knew when it was his time, and they called it, and let her do her thing in a very satisfying way.

[to listener] I wanted to wrap up season one with a special guest. If you remember in the last episode, I mentioned an essay called "How Jessica Jones Saved My Life." Well, that article was written by Reuben "Tihi" Hayslett, a queer writer, activist and storyteller living in Long Beach, California. I reached out to him for this podcast to see if he'd be so kind as to read that article for us, and he graciously agreed.

Reuben: This is Reuben "Tihi" Hayslett, reading an article that I wrote for The Mary Sue, published on December 15th, 2015 titled "We Don't Need Another Hero: How Netflix's Jessica Jones Saved My Life." Like you, I'm addicted to Netflix. So when Jessica Jones started appearing on subway ads during my daily commute, I knew I was watching. What I didn't know was that Jessica Jones would save me in ways I didn't know I needed saving. You see, Jessica and I (we're on a first-name basis) are both survivors of intimate partner abuse. For over a year in my early twenties, I was powerless to escape my attacker. That is, until, like Jessica, suddenly I wasn't. It's been nine years, and I still didn't know that I had undiscovered triggers until my first binge-watching session. Jessica Jones explores, more than anything I've seen, the true terror of intimate partner violence. It's the mind control. But even further, Jessica as a character explores her fear, shame and baggage more authentically than even I have. If you know a survivor, you know, mind control. When my abuser told me not to go anywhere, I froze. I recalculated. That's how much power he had over me. In the beginning, our relationship was mind-numbingly easy. He decided what we'd eat for dinner, where to go on weekends, he even picked out the clothes I wear every day. In the beginning, his charisma and confidence were hypnotizing. He was like a choice drug, or a favorite drink I could order up, kick back and get lost in, which made that first blow to my face all the more startling. Even immediately after, in those first few seconds that it took to register, his will was more powerful than mine. A simple, "I'm sorry. I'll never do that again" turned into, "It never happened. You did something wrong." I don't know what a one-off encounter with mind-control feels like, but I trust the experiences of the Kilgrave support group. My life, though, was more like Jessica's, where being controlled, no matter how you feel about it, becomes the new normal.

Months before my escape and his last attack, I tried to run. My coworkers at the time, helped me develop a plan: wait for him to leave work first, even if that meant being late, then come to work, cash my check, take the first cab to the airport, buy a one-way ticket West, doesn't matter where, and start over. I kept counting through my $100 bills, Googling flights to Los Angeles or Texas, but at the end of the day, there I was, still at my desk, confused. How could I not get up? Why can't I leave? Instead of boarding a plane, I came home, confessed, took my licks. A couple of months later, when I finally told him I was done with him, he stabbed me. Life is over or beginning when you leave your abuser. Where Jessica has cheap whiskey, I have 40 ounce malt liquor. Where Jessica counts street names, I count old college classmates who made me feel safe. I've been struggling like Jessica for nine years with this idea of heroism. Hers is super-powered, fueled with strength and not-quite flying. Mine is political activism, social and economic justice. It's not possible for Jessica or I to rewrite history, to undo what was done to us, but it is possible to try, when we can, to do better for others. I work in activism because I want to prevent the system from creating the same kind of man that abused me, in the same vein that Jessica fights for Hope's innocence. But let's not get confused. Neither one of us is a hero. The first time I spoke out publicly about my abuse was at a Take Back the Night rally. A good friend pulled me aside after and told me that she too had an experience but couldn't talk about it. I was her hero, she told me. But what that felt like in the moment was nothing like a hero. It was shame. Talking about your abuse doesn't change that it happened. And helping others doesn't change that it happened to you. I never get to be the same again, not since him and all the times he hit me. For years, I thought I was okay with that. But Jessica taught me better and gave me tools that, in hindsight, I always knew were there but never thought to try.

Spoiler alert: Jessica at one point goes back to her attacker in a house that he set up for her in hopes of rekindling whatever relationship they had. An outside observer could say that this move was unwise, and a keen outside observer could say that Jessica's act with selfless, that she was trying to save others. Both of these are wrong. Jessica needed to go back for herself. She did what I could never think to do. Meet her attacker on open ground, as much as equals as possible. The harsh side of abuse is that it's always about power, about mind control. You can never really be equal, but Jessica bucked up and faced the kinds of fears that I still have nightmares about. Watching Jessica confront her attacker honestly, without shame or reservation, was like an exorcism for me. More than all the therapy sessions I sought, Jessica Jones allowed me to mentally play with the idea of closure in ways I never thought possible, and in ways that I'm sure she never thought possible - You know, she has her whiskey and I have my forties. I tried for years to move on, only for a Netflix series to glaringly and embarrassingly show me that all I've ever done was cope. Heroes, Jessica and I aren't. What makes a hero is the central emotional arc of the show. We're given lots of examples, good and bad of that: We have Malcolm versus Simpson, Hogarth versus Trish. But everyone is flawed because at the core, the hero is a facade. It's a role we play.

I hate being called brave, especially in reference to my abuse. I've attempted to date men who used "brave" as a term of admiration, a compliment to throw out before the clothes come off. But brave would have been leaving my attacker the first time he hit me. Brave is resisting mind-control, and even the super-powered, super-sexy Luke Cage couldn't do that. In my experience, brave is what comes after, not what you do in the days following your last attack, but in the years. Brave is the idea of opening yourself up to love, when the first person you loved tried to literally kill you. Brave is what I wish to be, and maybe, hopefully, can become, because of what Jessica taught me. Jessica never knew she was immune to Kilgrave, (sorry, that's another spoiler alert) and neither did I until I was watching the show. We become immune because our bodies, not our minds, not our hearts, build up a resistance. I'll confess that sometimes I still display really odd behavior while sleeping next to someone. Sometimes I'll unconsciously insist on not being touched, not being near anyone. This has happened to one-night stands as well as men that I've been in years-long relationships with. It's my body, unconscious yet somehow still mind-controlled, trying to immunize.

So Jessica wins the day, not by being a hero. She doesn't sacrifice herself. She doesn't triumph in a punch-trading battle. Yet somehow, more than even watching King Joffrey's death, Kilgrave's death became cathartic and necessary, even in its quick unceremonious end, and I'm starting to understand why: Our abusers don't need to see us live happy, productive, rewarding lives, and they don't deserve a thousand cuts either. What they need - what we need - is for them to end. For Jessica, that's murder. For me, that's something I'm still left to discover. I need the ghost of my attacker to end. Nine years has been far too long. I need a release and I don't know how to get it. But Jessica has been more than a role model for me. She's become a beacon of the kind of hope that only somebody traumatized can understand. Jessica faces her past with all the ugliness, with all the danger. She doesn't have a plan, she isn't always sober, but she stands and she faces her attacker. She says to Kilgrave, "You raped me." And one day, [takes a deep breath] I will, too.

SJ: Reuben's fiction and nonfiction has appeared in the Splinter Generation, the Oregon Literary Review, the Surreal South Anthology 2011, and Translit magazine. His debut collection, Dark Corners, received a coveted star review on Kirkus. We'll be hearing again from Reuben in our last episode, to reflect on what the show means to him all these years later. We've talked a lot about abusive relationships in this episode, and I want to take this moment to speak directly to listeners who may be in quarantine with their abuser right now. A number of reports have come out recently, indicating that there has been a steep increase in domestic violence, and I just want to offer some resources for anyone who is dealing with that right now. If you're in a dangerous situation, please reach out to the National Domestic Violence Hotline, @ndvh or call 1-800-799-7233. You can also chat with someone at thehotline.org. We'll take a quick break and be right back to talk about season two. [contemplative music]

SJ: As Bethany and I got into season two, we realized we didn't have as much to say about it as we did about season one. And not because it wasn't as good or we didn't like it as much, but just because so many of the things that we loved about the first season were still true for the second, and we didn't feel the need to rehash all that. I just rewatched season two again in quarantine, and I was reminded of how much I really liked it. It perfectly bridges the gap between season one and season three, dealing with the same elements, just within a different context - Questions like, "Can I control this monster?" "Am I a killer?" "What is a hero?" It also continues to be prescient in ways, like the subplot involving Trish confronting a director who assaulted her when she was a child actress. All of that was being written well before the #MeToo Movement really exploded. The two things we did end up talking about a lot were Jessica's mother, Alisa, as the antagonist and the season two finale.

Bethany: Jessica's mother is a character that I do feel like I had some sympathy for at some points. She goes through this really traumatic accident where she loses two of her family members - her husband and her son - and then kind of effectively Jessica too, because she becomes this monster. She's in the hospital for a number of years, and by the end of the season, we see her lose her other current love interest, Dr. Carl. So she's dealing with all of these extremely traumatic things. She's also portrays different representations of impulses or struggling with demons, wherein she has these outbursts. And she too is a murderer, she's extremely violent, she's done some really awful things. I don't think she's all good. I didn't like her at times, I felt like she was just a bad person, or a bad character even, but I definitely had more sympathy for where she was coming from. I felt like she had moments that were more redeemable, and I think Jessica's attitude towards her mom was almost like a reflection of the redeem-ability of her character. We didn't see Jessica have that at all towards Kilgrave (which I think is what we would expect), but we do with her mother. And I think not just because it's her mother, but because Jessica is always trying to pick to make sure that innocent people don't get hurt. She doesn't know what to do with her mother, because she doesn't know where her mother falls on this scale of innocent to guilty.

Jessica: I don't know what to do. What's the right move here? Because I don't know.

Trish: There's only one thing you can do - You gotta put her down. You're the only one powerful enough to do it. If Carl had finished what he started--

Jessica: [scoffs] Are you serious?

Trish: If I was powered, I wouldn't hesitate.

Jessica: Bullshit. How many times have you forgiven Dorothy?

Trish: Dorothy is not a mass murderer.

Jessica: But that's not who my mom is.

Trish: Jess, if you don't do it, how many other people are gonna die trying?

SJ: That was, for me, the most interesting crux of season two in general - Trying to figure out is this person really even still her mother? How much of her mother is still there? And does that mean anything, in the face of everything she's done and all the people she's killed and will continue to kill? And, you know, Alisa is another really good example of female rage: Over the course of the series, you have Jessica, really in season one, you have Alisa in season two, and then Trish in season three. It's this great trifecta of ways in which different women express their anger. And Alisa is very much the uncontrollable rage incarnate. Even Jessica can barely get through to her.

Jessica: Look at me.

Alisa: [long pause] I almost put your face through the floor. Where's your sense of self-preservation?

Jessica: You're still my mother.

Alisa: No. I just have her voice. Carl is all I've got.

Jessica: Then you're a goddamn idiot.

SJ: For most of the season, Alisa kills anyone who's a threat to her or will expose her. She very much wants to remain free and will do whatever it takes to do that. Meanwhile, Jessica and pretty much everyone around her is convinced that she needs to be put away. She's simply done too much damage, and she's not controllable in a consistent way. By the very last episode though, that's essentially been reversed, with Alisa now coming to realize that she is a liability to everyone around her, including her daughter. But Jessica has started to become attached to the idea of having her mother back, and this hope of running away together and being able to keep Alisa in check. In the climax of season two, after being on the run, with the police closing in on them, Jessica and her mother have a final conversation on this ferris wheel at an abandoned amusement park that Jessica's family used to go to when she was a kid.

Alisa: "Hero" isn't a bad word, Jessica. It's just someone who gives a shit and does something about it.

Jessica: Well, I don't. I don't give a shit.

Alisa: Yes, you do. You do. It sucks and it hurts, but you do. You are far more capable than I ever was. Maybe I don't have to be amazing. Maybe I just made you.

Jessica: No, I won't-- [gunshot, body thuds]

SJ: Jessica looks out of the moving ferris wheel car to see Trish down on the ground, holding a gun. She leaps over the side, enraged.

Trish: No!

Jessica: You killed her!

Trish: Before she could kill you! [sound of impact, Trish cries out in pain] The police would have shot you both. I had to save you! [suspenseful music] Jess! Jess...Jess...

Jessica: [voice almost a growl] Run.

SJ: Trish really did that! I mean, she kept talking about it, but she literally got up out of that hospital bed and shot Jessica's mother in the head. That was pretty shocking to me.

Bethany: I almost feel like it was a necessary plot choice that Trish be the one to make that decision for Jessica. Because I think the alternative for that would be that Jessica has a period of time where she picks her mother and is with her, but because we come back to Jessica's actions every time being about her sense of morality, being there for innocent people, being a protector as much as she's begrudging about it, I don't think that would have been a sustainable resolution. And I think that the show didn't have the ability, or wasn't going to give us a whole season of her struggling with that. But I think inevitably, regardless of what she chose in the second season at the end, I think ultimately she would have been the one to somehow do that to her mother. But the plot, out of necessity, has Trish do it, one, because it's interesting for the relationship between Jessica and Trish, but also because it it closes what, in my opinion, eventually would have been kind of the same conclusion, but taking that responsibility away from Jessica.

SJ: I agree, it felt inevitable. And not only is it seriously foreshadowing where Trish is headed next season, it's also such a clear example of the way Trish has all these different motivations to do the same thing. Rachael Taylor talked about this in a Build Series interview at the beginning of season two:

Rachael Taylor: In the first couple of episodes, you know, Trish really pushes Jessica to dive into her very painful past. And I think there's a little bit of betrayal in that. It's something Jessica would rather not look at. She's been through some incredible trauma, and I really push her to go after that. And I think Trish has some-- and this is what I love about the the way Melissa writes: she always writes characters that want more than one thing at the same time. I think Trish really is trying to help Jessica heal, and I also think Trish has an ambition for personal gain.

SJ: I think that's a really good observation that pretty much all the characters in this show have more than one coexisting motivation, but especially Trish. And it's so clear in this scene where she shoots Alisa that she does want to save Jessica, she does want to be the hero, she does want to remove Alisa from the equation (and perhaps from getting in the way of Jessica and Trish's relationship), and she also wants to spare Jessica having to do that herself. All of these things can be, and I think are, true for Trish in this moment.

Bethany: Jessica's mother, for me, was a stand-in in some ways to develop Trish and Jessica's relationship more, like you said. Because her mother comes back not really as her mother as Jessica remembers it, and so she has this brief moment of hope, right? Jessica's entire persona that we meet in the first season is a loner. She's lost her whole family (or her whole given family, I should say), and is sad and shutdown about it. And then she has this brief moment in season two, where maybe her mother is gonna be back and she can have this life that was taken away from her. So in some ways, Trish doesn't really take her mother away as much as she takes away that hope for Jessica to no longer be the person she was in the first season. Trish destroys that for her.

SJ: And that's maybe a more unforgivable thing.

Bethany: Although I think we, as viewers, already knew that there was no hope. That's part of the reason why they had Dr. Carl end up killing himself in the lab explosion - he was the hope for us that Jessica's mom could potentially be cured, right? So when you take away his character, you realize that Jessica is stuck with this person who is very flawed, has these uncontrollable fits of rage and murder. I think Trish knows that because she was there at the laboratory, which is another thing that maybe allowed Trish to shoot the mother is that there was no foreseeable hope that she was gonna get better.

SJ: And I think Jessica knows that too subconsciously, even though she's not really able to articulate it for quite a while. A couple episodes into season three, Trish not really apologizes, because she still believes it was the right thing to do, but she says, "I wish I didn't kill your mother." And Jessica says, "I wish she wasn't a mass murderer." That's the closest Jessica Jones is going to get to saying, "I forgive you." But even right after Alisa dies and her blood is still drying on Jessica, first she looks like she's gonna beat the shit out of Trish, but she doesn't. She tells her to run, so that she can take the blame or the responsibility from the police of having put her mother down. To me, that was a really clear indicator that she also knew in her bones that it was the right call, and this was kind of inevitable. I see that as even the first steps to forgiveness for Jessica, even though she will not say it for what we find out is a year later.

Bethany: That scene with her on the ferris wheel with her mother, right after Trish shoots her, and she's in that little car thing, and her mother is dead across from her, and the police are on their way... That was probably one of the scenes actually out of the entire series that has stuck with me the most. Because Krysten Ritter's acting was incredible in this scene, but also for Jessica, we're seeing her in this devastated, vulnerable state. When the cops find her, she's like curled up... The idea of being stuck in this little container with this person who you love, but they also were this really awful person in some ways, and you just dealt with significant loss and trauma... Yeah, that scene really stuck with me, and I think was probably one of the most powerful scenes for me of the whole series.

SJ: I can see that. It was definitely something I found myself mulling over for several days afterwards. It was really heavy. And again, like the season one finale, the staging of that scene is so precise, so as to hit you with maximum emotional impact - The fact that Jessica and her mom are on this ferris wheel from her childhood, talking one minute, and then the next it's Jessica and her dead mother's body... The layers of tragedy on top of nostalgia here are just...oof. You're right, it's devastating.

Bethany: We don't see on television that moment of death with a lot of main characters, when it's that sudden. We either miss the moment of death and see them a few moments after, or you see it happen slowly in some way, or you just hear about it. We see it [here]. And it's really shocking and traumatic. This is a totally random show to tie it to, but one of those last scenes in Breaking Bad, where we see--

SJ: I haven't finished Breaking Bad. I've only seen a couple episodes. Sorry!

Bethany: Okay, I'm not going to say anything then. You have to watch Breaking Bad!

SJ: Yeah, I know. I know.

Bethany: Krysten Ritter's in it. That was how I was familiar with her first, I saw her in that show, where she has a semi-significant role.

SJ: Right.

Bethany: Anyway, so we'll go back to--

SJ: So the last season of Breaking Bad is similar? We don't have to get into spoilers, but people who have seen Breaking Bad will know what you're talking about maybe?

Bethany: Yeah, we don't have to get into it or whatever. But basically, seeing this character, who you don't know if you're ready to say goodbye to, and then [they die] and it is a tragedy and a total devastation for the main character... Yeah, it affects you. It's like when you're reading a good book and you lose one of your favorite characters. You know, there's a sense of loss. And Jessica's mother wasn't one of my favorite characters, but the impact it had on Jessica kind of was [the equivalent].

SJ: [to listener] We really feel the weight of Alisa's death, continuing into the next season. At the beginning of season three, Jessica is still kind of in mourning, and we find out she hasn't spoken to Trish in over a year. Join us next time for the conclusion of our Jessica Jones series, when we break down all of season three: Sallinger, Hellcat, that finale, which...we both had a lot of feelings about. Next week we laugh, cry, rage and say goodbye to the show that meant so much to us.

If you'd like to share your thoughts on Jessica Jones, you can still do that. We'd love to hear from you. Just record a voice memo on your phone and send it to [email protected], or tweet at me @popculty. I'd love to include your voice in the next episode. Many thanks to Reuben "Tihi" Haylsett for sharing his writing with us. You can find his book Dark Corners available on Amazon. Thank you again to L'orchestra Cinematique for letting us use their great Jessica Jones main theme cover throughout this series. Check out their album Geek Tunes available on Amazon. If you've been enjoying the show, please consider chipping in just a few dollars to help us reach that goal. Your support keeps the show ad-free.

The show is produced by yours truly. All clips used in this episode are property of Marvel and ABC Studios, used herein under the Fair Use clause of Section 107 of the Copyright Act. Interview clips used in this episode are courtesy of their aforementioned, respective owners. Until next time: Support women directors, stay critical, and always demand representation!

[Jessica Jones theme plays out]

#the popculty podcast #podcast #transcript #jessica jones #kilgrave #david tennant #trishica #alisa jones

1 note · View note

popculty · 5 years

Text

Call for voices: What does Jessica Jones mean to you?

On this, the four year anniversary of the day this life-affirming show premiered on our screens, I’m calling all Jessica Jones fans to share your stories. Do you see yourself in Jessica? How do you think she’s impacted the culture, media, or superhero narratives? What are you favorite Jessica-isms? Which scenes get you in the feels every time? Does anyone else out here just wanna hug Trish Walker?? And hOw ArE yA’LL fEELinG ABOuT ThAT fiNaLE?? 👀

In the next few episodes of The Popculty Podcast we’re gonna talk about it all. And I want you to be a part of it. Let’s come together one last time to show our appreciation for this series that has meant so much to us. We need to process. We need to both grieve and celebrate. We need to let the creators/cast/crew know our gratitude.

So share this post! Use #ThankYouJessicaJones on social media! Tell your JJ-loving friends! Best of all, record a voice memo with your thoughts and send it to [email protected] to be heard on air!!

I want this to spread to the far corners of the earth, and I want to hear every single one of you. I will read/listen to each and every story, and incorporate as many of them as I can into this episode.

I can’t wait to hear your voices 💜

#thank you jessica jones #call for submissions #the popculty podcast #jessica jones

0 notes

popculty · 5 years

Text

Introducing The Popculty Podcast!

That’s right, friends - This blog is now also a podcast!! So we can go even deeper on all the reblogs and gifs, and continue the conversation - Literally. I’m gonna be sitting down with fans and creators alike to talk about all the things you follow this blog for: women-centered stories, movies/tv/art by creators of color, queer rep, geekery, all of it!

The first episode has it all, cuz it’s all about SDCC 2019!!! That means...

Female Thor!

Linda Hamilton huntin’ Terminators

A #Skimmons AoS spin-off??

Lin-Manuel Miranda with a Texan accent and an arctic hare, riding in a hot-air balloon???

Listen here.

The podcast is already available on Spotify, so please follow on there! If you’re an iOS person, hold tight - We hope to drop on iTunes within the next week and I will update you then! In the meantime, feel free to share your thoughts here or send a voice memo to [email protected], and I might play you on air!

A full transcript of this episode can be found here, and Popculty will always provide episode transcripts for our deaf/hoh friends ❤️

Fresh art by @wxdmnd 🙏

And psst, here’s your teaser: This month I’ll be chatting with @isthemusictoblame about The Farewell!! So in case you’ve been sleeping on that masterpiece, go see it now!!!

#news!#popculty #podcast #this was so much work #please support #<3

13 notes · View notes

popculty · 5 years

Text

The Popculty Podcast, Episode 2: ‘The Farewell’

For the very first of our Culture Convos, I had the privilege of chatting with Tumblr’s very own @isthemusictoblame about Lulu Wang’s The Farewell and Asian representation in media. We talked about her experience immigrating to Canada as a child, why the film resonated with her so much, and Asian characters in popular media that hit and miss the mark.

(And because no discussion of Asian rep would be complete without throwing shade at Scarlett Johansson, there’s some of that too 🙃)

Listen on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, or Buzzsprout!

#popculty #podcast #the farewell #asian representation

7 notes · View notes

popculty · 4 years

Text

A ‘Jessica Jones’ Retrospective: Part 1 (AKA The Superhero We Were Waiting For)

Happy International Women’s Day, dear followers! We’re celebrating by looking back at one of the most iconic female characters ever to grace our screens. In Part 1 of our epic, three-part Jessica Jones debrief, we talk about why Jessica was such a revelation in the TV landscape and how she has impacted the culture since. Then we share listener stories on what the show has meant to people all over the world. Join us for Part 2 (coming soon!), when we'll talk queer subtext, David Tennant as Kilgrave, and season two! And hey - Don't miss out on the bonus episode! Become a Patron of the show at just $1 a month and you'll automatically get a very special Part 4! (Trust me, you’ll need it by the time you finish this series...) TRIGGER WARNINGS FOR THIS EPISODE: Mentions of sexual assault; discussion of alcoholism and child abuse. If you need someone to talk to about anything brought up in this episode, please call 800-656-HOPE or visit rainn.org.

Listen to the episode.

Or read the full transcript below.

SJ: Welcome back to The Popculty Podcast, where we highlight all things female and diverse in pop culture. And this week is finally the week: the much-awaited, long-anticipated, painstakingly and lovingly put-together Jessica Jones debrief. I am so excited to finally bring this conversation to you all and to share the stories that we've gotten from listeners, to talk about all the things that we could possibly cram into these next few hours. And honestly, I could have made this a 10-part episode and still had a million things to talk about. There is just that much going on in this show. We did our damnedest to cover it all and do justice to one of the best shows of the decade. Stay with us - It's going to be a ride.

[Jessica Jones theme music plays]

SJ: Marvel's Jessica Jones debuted November 20th, 2015. It was the second series in the Marvel Netflix Universe, or MNU as some of us like to call it, after Daredevil and preceding Luke Cage and Iron Fist. Those four shows then came together in a crossover called The Defenders. The show is based on the Alias comics by Brian Michael Bendis from 2001, and it marked a steep departure from other Marvel fare. In fact, Marvel had to create an R-rated subdivision called MAX just to roll out Alias, because it was dealing with such heavy themes (and because Jessica really likes to swear). Created by Melissa Rosenberg, the first season of the TV series adapts the broad strokes of the comic, following a super-powered private investigator, Jessica Jones, played by Krysten Ritter, after the events of the first Avengers movie.

The cultural impact of Jessica Jones can't be understated. She was basically the first female superhero who had any real mainstream success and staying power in the 21st century. She paved the way for Wonder Woman, Captain Marvel, Black Widow, and now all these Disney+ shows that have been announced - Ms. Marvel, Hawkeye, She-Hulk... Jessica Jones broke that glass ceiling and showed the studios that people were actually interested in seeing female superheroes like this. And it was the first in so many other ways: It was part of the beginning stages of the #MeToo Movement; it introduced the first queer characters in the Marvel universe, and still to this day the first openly gay characters; it introduced us to Luke Cage, one of the first black superheroes on screen, who got his own series two years before the massive hit that was Black Panther. It was also one of the first shows to be created, show-run, and mostly written and directed by women. To my knowledge, Jessica Jones season two and Queen Sugar are the only two shows on TV to be completely directed by women.

All of these things, we can look back to at this exact point in time, when this show debuted, and witness a sea change in the media that came after and in the cultural conversations that it sparked. Ever since the show debuted back in 2015 I have been wanting to do something like this - Have these conversations, come together to share our experiences of the show, our thoughts about the characters and representation, celebrating the things we love and critiquing the things that maybe could be a little bit better. Because no show is perfect, not even my beloved Jessica Jones (although it comes damn close). This is my favorite show in recent memory. I just remember being absolutely gobsmacked the first time I sat down and watched all of season one in one sitting. It was unlike anything I had ever seen before, and even though it has inspired a lot of other things - better representation of complex female characters, more female superheroes - nothing has ever quite compared to Jessica Jones. She's kind of the O.G. And this show tackled things that other shows are still too afraid to tackle.

A bit of a refresher on Jessica's backstory, going into season one: When Jessica was 13 years old, her family died in a car accident, which also gave her powers like super strength and *technically* the ability to fly (even though she hasn't really mastered it and it's more like "guided falling," as she says). Basically, she can jump real high, she can punch people through walls, and she can heal a little bit faster than normal humans, but she's not invincible. After the accident, she was adopted by the Walkers - Trish Walker, AKA "Patsy," a young starlet, and her manipulative and abusive mother, Dorothy. Jessica grew up with the Walkers, she and Trish became best friends, she protected Trish from her mother's violent outbursts, Trish dealt with her own traumas - addiction, predators within the industry - and Jessica tried to put her powers to use briefly, helping the helpless. That kind of backfired though, because it put her on the radar of a man named Kilgrave, who has the ability to mind-control people and make them do whatever he tells them to do. He kidnapped Jessica and held her for months against her will, mind-controlling her to fall in love with him, to kill people, to do whatever he wanted. She finally broke free of him and returned to her life, but she’s a serious alcoholic with PTSD, just trying to make it through the day. And now, at the beginning of season one, Kilgrave is back and she has to figure out how to deal with him, once and for all.

I do want to say, we will be talking in this episode about mostly the first season of the show, which viewers will know deals heavily with sexual assault, as Jessica is a survivor herself. So trigger warning for general discussion of sexual assault, alcoholism, and child abuse. We're not going to get into super graphic detail with anything by all means, but it is a major theme of the show and we're probably going to be talking about it in some capacity in every episode. So just be aware of that. And if you are a survivor yourself listening to this and you're triggered by anything here, I really encourage you to call RAINN at (806) 565-HOPE, or you can go to https://www.rainn.org/ and chat with someone if you're not comfortable talking on the phone. That stands for the Rape, Abuse and Incest National Network. They're a nonprofit organization that supports survivors. So I just want people to be aware that there are resources out there. If you are someone who has dealt with any of the things that Jessica has, help is available, and other people who have been through it exist.

For these episodes, I really wanted to talk to someone who's as big of a Jessica Jones fan as I am and who also has a background or a perspective that complements mine. And I was super lucky to get back in touch with an old friend of mine, Bethany, who lives in Philadelphia. She is currently working on her PhD in sociology, focusing on gender and sexuality. She's interested in feminist theory and social inequalities as they relate to intersections of gender, class, and race. Her current research examines reproductive inequalities in U.S. legislation on abortion, how different populations are targeted and affected by laws and how they relate to the larger processes of sexism, classism, and racism. She's also involved with local union activities at the university, fighting that good fight for fair working conditions and freedom from the oppressive capitalist model that is modern day higher education.

SJ (to Bethany): I'm so glad that I discovered you are as much of a Jessica Jones fan as I am!

Bethany: I know! Well, thank you, really, for letting me do this with you. I feel honored that this is a show that means so much to you that you would want to talk to me about it.

SJ: Aww, for sure! You and I had a very similar experience of the show, but it's so nice to just be able to commiserate with someone else about some of the things that were going on, and to also have some of my feelings be validated because one of the real problems with this new binge culture that we find ourselves in is, no one experiences entertainment communally anymore. You know what I mean? Everyone's off watching a different episode...

Bethany: Yeah, that's a good point.

SJ: ...And I really just wanted to just catch up with everyone and be like, "Can we all just sit down and have a conversation, and be coming from the same place at the same time?" Because I just feel like, between the lack of promotion for the show and the way things really fell apart with the Marvel Netflix shows towards the end, people are all over the place in their experience. And maybe now that it's been a few months since the show ended, people have finally caught up, and I'm hoping that this is a good time to take a breather and just reflect on the entire series.

SJ (to listener): I had so much fun talking to Bethany about this, and she was such a champ. She put up with so many phone calls and messages from me. She was so helpful in helping me to articulate these things that I feel like I have been trying to say for years, really, since the show debuted. We spoke for almost seven hours total over the course of three months. So that two-part Jessica Jones conversation I promised y'all? Yeah, that's become a three-part and a bonus episode. So stay tuned for the next two parts of this conversation that are to come in the next few months. And then if you want the bonus episode - which I promise you do - that will be available for patrons of the show. So now's the time to head on over to our newly-launched Patreon page, help a girl out, celebrate the season of giving, and get yourself that Jessica Jones bonus episode. If you even sign up to give $1 a month to the show, you will always get bonus episodes, including this first one. I kept that bar super low because I want as many people as possible to enjoy those bonus episodes. All right! Without further ado, here is part one of our Jessica Jones debrief.

SJ (to Bethany): Well, thank you so much for agreeing to do this with me. I've been wanting to do this for a really long time because as you know, it's a show that's very near and dear to my heart. You can see, I've got my Defenders t-shirt on, with Iron Fist crossed out.

Bethany: Oh, yeah! [laughs] That's great. Yeah, well thanks for having me. I'm excited to be here too.

SJ: Awesome. So tell me, how did you come across Jessica Jones?

Bethany: Jessica Jones was advertised to me [laughs] on Netflix, because I started watching Daredevil originally. Which was, I guess, a superhero I'm a little bit more familiar with. I mean, I love the Marvel - and DC, for that matter - whole comic book/superhero universe. As a kid I loved X-Men, and as an adult, I still think the idea of having super-powers, but still being a relatively normal person in other ways, is like the coolest thing. So I watched Daredevil, and then Jessica Jones sort of immediately followed that release. And I was so into the idea of this young, kind of badass woman doing her thing. And it wasn't fancy - I've always been more attracted to these dark characters who are not your classic good-guy superhero. So I was there for it. But I honestly had not heard much about Jessica Jones before the show got big and people started talking about it everywhere.

SJ: Okay, so you weren't familiar with the Alias comics then?

Bethany: No.

SJ: Me neither, actually, until I started seeing [the show] advertised, and I was like, "What is this show?? It looks amazing!" And the more research I did then, I found that it's actually based on a comic. So I was like, "Well, I have to read everything." So I did, in preparation. But yeah, same - Even from the trailers, it was apparent that this was going to be a superhero that was unlike any other that we had ever seen, especially in the Marvel world. Like you said, she's so much darker. She's very flawed and damaged. Like in Daredevil, these characters struggle with more human problems, instead of fighting aliens from other planets and that sort of thing. They're more focused on protecting their neighborhood, protecting their family, and dealing with their own traumas, in Jessica's case. So I really liked that, and I was a fan of Daredevil before as well. And also at this point in time, we hadn't had any female superheroes, really. This was 2015, so this was well before Wonder Woman and Captain Marvel, Black Widow - all these other movies that are just now starting to come out. I want to say Supergirl had just debuted the month before Jessica Jones, so they really kind of came out at the same time. We have to think back several years to the status of things in the superhero world at that time.

[*ding* to indicate side-bar]

SJ (to listener): I wrote a primer for the blog on the history of female superheroes in media at this point in time, back in 2015. But cliff-notes: there were almost no female superheroes in mainstream pop culture, and there were no female superheroes on TV, with the exception of Skye/Daisy Johnson/Quake on Marvel's Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. Who is a great character played by an actress of color, and we should not have Quake eraser by any means, but she is on this ensemble show led by a white man. So Jessica Jones was like *mind explosion*. She was really the first to be the title character of her own show. It was a big deal.

[*ding* indicates side-bar over]

SJ (to Bethany): We're being very much inundated right now, but it was not like that even four or five years ago. So personally, I was like, "Holy crap, we're finally getting a female superhero!" And not just that, but she's the opposite of Supergirl in a lot of ways - she's very gritty and realistic, and an alcoholic...So yeah, I hear you. It was just this realistic representation of a woman that we had never seen before.

Bethany: I think Catwoman has had some good representation. I think there's been some successful portrayals of Catwoman... There's been some bad ones too. And then, you know, there was the major Elektra flop. But other than that, we didn't really have a lot of female superheroes that people were really there for and were excited about.

SJ: Which is really a shame, because Elektra's an awesome character, so that flop was really disappointing. Obviously the Catwoman movie is... a mess. [laughs] Totally bonkers - it's directed by a guy with one name. It's a total bizarre movie. Yeah, [at that point in time], every time we'd had any sort of female superhero on the big screen or on TV, it hadn't really gone that well. It was either poor quality, or people just didn't respond to it, for whatever reason. And I think Jessica Jones - and Supergirl - they both have had really positive, strong viewer reactions. And I think it's both a testament to the quality of both those pieces of media, but it's also the timing. I think maybe we, as a society, were ready for these iterations. Do you think if Jessica Jones had come along either earlier or later, that we would have reacted to it the same way?

Bethany: So no, I don't actually. I mean, if Jessica Jones had come around earlier, I don't think there would have been the same appreciation for her. Or maybe she would have been the catalyst for things that already happened then that led to her creation. If she came later, I think it would have just been seen as "riding the wave." To me, her representation on Netflix was itself a product of things that were already happening socially, that led to the need for that. And I just have to say, since we're on the topic of female superheroes, one of the things I love best about Jessica Jones is that she is wearing realistic superhero clothing. I can't tell you how many female superheroes I'm tired of seeing with their hair down, and they're wearing heels...Just extremely impractical kicking-ass attire!

SJ: Oh my god, yes. And I think part of that is the fact that she's, at best, a reluctant superhero, which has a lot to do with how she presents herself - the way she acts, the way she interacts with people, the way she dresses. I mean, she just doesn't give a shit. Her pants are literally the same ripped jeans in the entirety of the show! The only change in her wardrobe is that her pants have more holes in them by the end of season three.

Bethany: [laughs] Right.

SJ: It's always ripped jeans, a tank top, leather jacket, and her boots - That's her superhero costume. So it's functional, it's realistic, and she obviously doesn't put a lot of thought into what she wears because she just doesn't care, which says so much about her as a person. One of the many think-pieces written in the wake of this show pointed out that it's not just her superhero costume, it's also her armor, her form of protection to keep people at bay. This look that says, "I don't give a shit. Stay the hell away from me."

Bethany: I think it's consistent with her character too, because so much about her look is very utilitarian and just practical for her. She wakes up and throws on the same things that she always wears, that are on the floor or whatever, and then she goes about her day. It wouldn't be consistent with her character to be, like, getting ready and...

SJ: Putting on makeup, wearing heels... It's just not her. Usually she's sleeping off a hangover and then promptly getting drunk again, you know? Bustle said in their initial review of the show, "Jessica is one part Veronica Mars, two parts salty old P.I. from an 80s movie, and ten parts someone who wouldn't give a shit about anything I just said. She's not exactly what I would call a 'nice person', but she's a person that I'm ready to give up fourteen straight hours of my life and all the sunlight that normally comes with it for. At one point she threatens a pipsqueak with the line, 'You turn that thing on and I'll pull your underwear through your eye,' and my heart soared. This is the female superhero we've been waiting for." I'm just like, "Yep, same!"

Bethany: That was one of those lines that got me hooked on the character right from the beginning. You know, it was just the attitude. It was the general vibe of the character. There's something that's really fun about it, it's empowering, it's a little bit vindictive...

SJ: Totally. This is a show that is very dark, it tackles very real issues that are very serious. But it does it in a way that’s not painful to watch. Even when she's dealing with Kilgrave and her past trauma, she has this way - and it's the character, but it's also the performance by Krysten Ritter - she's so snarky about everything and she has these great one-liners...

Jessica: You shoot at me, I'll pull the bullet out of my ruined jacket and shove it up your ass with my pinky finger, and who do you think that's going to hurt more?

Self-respect! Get some!

SJ: It keeps the show from being too preachy or too heavy. And it's this perfect balance that I think is really hard to strike when you're trying to talk about these serious issues in a long-running show like this, because that can get pretty intense over a long stretch of time. I mean, I was grateful for the season breaks for sure, because after every finale I was like, "I need to process this." But I never felt like I was being sucked into this black hole that was Jessica's life or anything.

Bethany: Yeah. One of the things I loved most, just in terms of production value, was that it still delivers on the kind of campy comic book thing that you expect, right? These one-liners, this energy...Some of it's kind of funny, maybe a little bit even absurd. And it is still kind of fantastical - there's this supernatural element to it, right? They have powers, this isn't a world that we really live in. But at the same time, this did actually feel more rooted in the real world than some comic book things do. It didn't feel as blockbustery, which was very refreshing. I thought it balanced that line between delivering on what we love about comic books but also not having it be this crazy-action-fun movie that we usually see in theaters or something. I love that.

SJ: It just had everything I was looking for, you know? Female superhero, but also just a main character who's this scrappy mess of a woman, kind of an asshole, but also really funny. And then it's also about female friendship, which is something that's very near and dear to my heart, and I'm always on the lookout for decent representations of because it's so often overlooked or mischaracterized. It was something that I'm not quite sure that we'll ever see anything like again, honestly. Even in the years since it's debuted, there's been a lot of attempt to imitate what Jessica Jones does. It's been interesting to see how it's influenced other characters in the MCU and also just TV in general.

Bethany: I think Jessica Jones is a character that people want to be like, as much as she kind of glorifies some really not-so-great human qualities. There's something kind of empowering about a lot of the things that she does embody, at least for me. Like, I remember thinking, "Oh, I want to be meaner! And I want to be stronger! And I want to be able to drink more whiskey!"

SJ: Right? Gotta build up my tolerance! I know, it's kind of a weird thing to see her as a hero, but a lot of people felt that way. I mean, if you go on social media, people are just like, "Jessica Jones is my everything. I just want to be like her," even though we all know that's kind of problematic - you know, please take care of yourself. But yeah, there's something that really has resonated with people just because she's so human.

Bethany: And I think even more than human too. Like, to see a woman be that openly angry, that aggressive, physically violent... I don't think she glorifies physical violence, which I was really happy to see actually because I do think that superhero movies are very flippant about portrayals of violence. I don't think she's like that at all, but we don't see outward expressions of contempt and anger from women that often. And for me, that was something that I personally loved.

SJ: Definitely. I am also really fascinated with the "angry woman" on TV right now, because that's something that's very new. Women have not been allowed to be angry, in society or in media, for a very long time. And that's changing now, because we (women especially) are at this cultural, societal, full-on rage-boil. And that's seeping into our media, and I think Jessica is very much a representative of that. But I also think Trish represents that also, in a slightly different, kind of parallel way. So when we get into season three, I would like to talk more about that, because I think the dichotomy that the show sets up between two different versions of female rage being expressed, and which one we are supposed to root for, is super interesting. So we'll definitely get back to that, because that's something that I really, really feel strongly about.

Bethany: That sounds great.

SJ: The other thing that really resonated with so many people when this show first debuted is the fact that it's talking about some really real issues: PTSD, rape/sexual assault, addiction, abuse...I mean, it's tackling a lot of things, and it's doing it very well. I kind of knew that the show was going to be awesome, just based off the things I was hearing and the promos. It looked like it was gonna be great, and then when it actually debuted and I binged the whole thing, thirteen hours straight in one night, I was like, "Holy shit, this actually was as good as I thought it was going to be." And I wasn't the only one - Within 24 hours of that show dropping, you saw people take to the internet to write these really thoughtful, personal essays and think-pieces about what the show meant to them. Women were coming out of the woodwork to say, "Me too," before there was even a #MeToo Movement. I don't think it's an exaggeration to say that this was very much a part of the beginning stages of the #MeToo Movement, because women were feeling like they could finally have a place to talk about these things, and I think the show allowed us to do that.

Bethany: I think all of these media things really led to part of the shared culture of the #MeToo Movement happening, because they were all signifiers that these were topics we were going to start talking about more publicly, that people wanted to bring into the public eye. Yeah, absolutely. So I was like you, I watched it in probably like a weekend or maybe a week or something. I watched it very, very quickly, and the reaction was just enormous. And that was maybe a year before the #MeToo thing really picked up.

SJ: Yeah, it was right around the 2016 election, all that stuff happening, and then the Weinstein thing came out... But it was just incredible to see all these people coming forward with their stories. And honestly, I shouldn't gender it, I shouldn't say it was just women coming forward, because it wasn't. In fact, the article I read that stuck with me the most was called "How Jessica Jones Saved My Life." And it was written by a man, Reuben Hayslett, who had his own version of Kilgrave and was writing about how this show was the first time he had ever seen his story reflected back to him in a way that he could process his experience. So when I say women coming forward to talk about their experiences, yes, it's mostly been women I've seen, but not exclusively. Let's not forget that sexual assault and domestic abuse know no gender. So just to see the way that she's empowered people to start having these conversations has been so incredible, and a huge reason that the show means so much to me.

So, touching base on the other characters in the show and the other things that are going on, this was also the first queer representation in the Marvel universe. There had never been any openly gay characters, and here we have Jeri Hogarth, openly gay, and in not one, but two lesbian relationships. So all of a sudden, we have all these queer characters. And the show continues to bring in side characters that are queer, and it's all part of creating this world that looks more like the world we actually live in and not just this hetero-normative hellscape [laughs] that the other MCU things do. So that was a big step. And well, I appreciate Jeri Hogarth for a number of reasons. I think you do too, right?

Bethany: I do.

SJ: I love to hate her.

Bethany: Yeah, I feel the same way. I love to hate her. One of the reasons I actually like her portrayal is because she's frankly kind of a terrible person. She's selfish, she's ruthless, she's kind of predatory, honestly. So we get this great representation of another really strong female character who's smart as hell, but then she's also just really immoral. She's sort of like a side-villain that runs through the whole series. You're constantly wondering, "Wait, do I like her? Is she changing? Is she not?"

SJ: She's one of the most interesting characters to watch for me on the show because you never quite know whether she's going to learn and grow from her mistakes. You're always kind of hoping, but she just keeps disappointing you. Just when you think she can't sink any lower, she gets a shovel and goes deeper.

Bethany: [laughs] Yeah.

SJ: There's a long history of queer characters, especially queer women, in media being the villains, being demonized. And she could have fallen into that trap, but the show never gets close to that because first of all, she's not one thing. She's not just evil. And she does have moments where she shows some humanity and she has some semblance of a moral code. And then like I said, there are many other queer characters throughout the show who are all complex and exist on varying places on the morality spectrum. So I love that it's not, "They gave us this one queer character and oh, of course she's the villain." Honestly, when you think about all the characters that exist in this show, every single one of them is morally complex. None of them are all hero or all villain. Every one of them is so nuanced and complicated: Jessica, Jeri, Trish, even Malcolm. That's another thing that I really love, because we don't get characters that are that richly developed and that nuanced, especially female characters.

Bethany: Yeah. Actually some of the characters who, to me, were the most shallow ended up being some of the male characters. Which, in a good show, any shallow character is a disappointment, but I wasn't totally hating that it was the male characters (here).

SJ: Did you see that tweet that went viral? This guy said:

Bethany: [laughs] Exactly.

SJ: [laughs] It was so nice to see that the show was resonating not only with female audiences (for very obvious reasons), but men were appreciating it too. It was giving them a reference point that they've never been given before, like this sort of thing, where female characters are so few and far between and they're not fleshed out - This is the type of media that we're so used to seeing, as female viewers. So to have the shoe be put on the other foot, for men to experience what that feels like, and for them to get it finally, was really amazing.

Bethany: I think it's just become so normal now for you to watch something and the one female character - maybe two, if you're lucky - they're just so disappointing. They're like these shells of real people. They're unrealistic. They say things and they act in ways that are inconsistent. And you can tell that they are written by someone who is nothing like that character. It's just such a disappointment. And one thing I love about Jessica Jones is that not only does it have these amazing female characters that have depth and are realistic, really complex, but the show is so popular that it didn't become classified as a "woman's show." I think that's really unique, because there are other shows with some really great female characters, but I'm not sure that there are a lot of men watching those shows.

SJ: That is so true. I never saw it get pigeonholed as a "woman's show." Of course I've seen a few trolls be like, "That show's stupid, it sucks," whatever. And it's ALWAYS men, always...

Bethany: [laughs] Of course.

SJ: But for the most part, I feel like it resonated with a pretty broad audience, because it was just so different. People were thirsting for something that was outside the realm of what we normally see, not just in terms of superhero narratives, but in terms of television and entertainment in general. I think people were so ready for something this radically different.

Bethany: I do think it helped too that it was a superhero show though--

SJ: Oh, totally.

Bethany: Because that is such a popular genre. It used to be...not even like a niche thing, but people would say, "Oh, you know, it's for comic book people." Or like, "nerds" or whatever. But it's just such a common thing now, right? It's a wide fan-base. Everyone loves superhero stuff - or a lot of people do. So I do think that helped, and I think it also helped that it had these connections to these other shows in the Marvel universe. But yeah, that was the one thing that for me was really unique about Jessica Jones, was to have the show be dominated and really driven forward by female characters. And to not have it be considered a "woman's show."

SJ: Bit of a Trojan move there - Coming in as, ostensibly, a superhero show, an action show, a noir. But then, whoops, it's actually a super nuanced portrayal of female characters! And relationships between women! And a treatise on sexual assault! All these things hit you, but it's so smart to package it under the guise of just another superhero show in the Marvel Universe.

Bethany: Yeah, [laughs] you almost wonder if they were trying to, like, trick people who may not want to watch it, had they known that they were going to get that piece of it.

SJ: I mean...

Bethany: I'm not upset about it!

SJ: I'm not upset about it either! I thank Melissa Rosenberg every single day. [laughs] No, it's brilliant.

Bethany: One thing I think was extremely successful about Jessica Jones, aside from the superhero thing, her being a badass woman, is just that she has The Cool Factor that has been such an icon in TV and film for basically forever. People love to watch these kind of epitomes of Cool. She has The Cool Factor.

SJ: I can't tell you the number of people I saw dressed up as Jessica Jones that first year it premiered. And I'm still seeing Jessica Jones cosplay at Comic-Cons. I'm seeing pictures on social media, people dressing up as her. Yeah, she's awesome. She's a fucking badass! Like, who doesn't want to be Jessica Jones? Obviously we both do! [both laugh]

Let's talk about the other two main supporting characters: First there's Malcolm, speaking of the few male characters. He was someone that people were definitely really skeptical of at first because it's like, "Oh, you have the one black man character and he's a drug addict." But as the season progresses, you realize Kilgrave did this to him. He wouldn't have been an addict if Kilgrave hadn't gotten to him, basically, and he's being blackmailed. And he ends up pulling through and getting clean and helping Jessica, and he becomes a huge part of Alias Investigations. Then he really branches out into his own thing and works for Jeri, going through his own very complicated moral crisis later in season three.

Bethany: I didn't actually care for Malcolm at the beginning for that same reason that you just said - that people saw him as this kind of token character. Just his whole onscreen thing, I was not getting, I wasn't buying it. But once you realize what was happening with Kilgrave... I don't wanna say it humanizes him, but it gives you context. And then he becomes more of a real character, and I really, really liked his arc actually, especially through the second season and into the third as well. But yeah, as he gets more complicated and becomes a more main character, I liked him better and better.

SJ: So what are your thoughts on Trish Walker? I think you know that I really like Trish, for various reasons. And not because she's always likable, because she's definitely not. I just think she's a fascinating character, especially as we go through the seasons and we get more of her backstory, her traumas that really kind of mirror Jessica's in a lot of ways. I love watching that character progress, even though it did get a little painful in season three for sure, as we will discuss. But what do you think about Trish? Because I know that there is a very vocal subsection of the Jessica Jones fandom that really hate her, in a way that they don't hate any of the other characters.

Bethany: I didn't know that that existed. It doesn't surprise me to hear that though. I like Trish even though she annoys me, but she annoys me for the reasons why I think she's a good character. And it's because I think she's a product of her environment. She has this abusive mom, this extremely high-pressure childhood, having to perform. She's been socialized in a very particular kind of femininity. You know, she's uptight, she's pushy, she's relentless, and there are times where I'm watching the show and, frankly, she just annoys the hell out of me! But at the same time, I like her for that because her character is extremely realistic with what we end up finding out about her history through the three seasons.

SJ: I like the way you said that and that's a really good way to describe Trish I think, because she's not always likable, but she is one of the most believable characters I've ever seen. I mean she's been through almost as much shit as Jessica has. Her childhood was abusive, thanks to Dorothy, and was really embroiled in that "casting couch culture" that we're hearing so much about now, especially with the #MeToo Movement and everything. That was her childhood, growing up with those predatory producers and men in the industry who took advantage of her. And her mom was no help - she basically pimped out her own daughter. Trish then becomes addicted to drugs when she's in her teens and struggles with that for a long time. I mean, she's had a rough life, and I think because she is so put-together when we first meet her in season one, she's done a lot of work to get to this point, and sometimes people forget just how many traumas of her own she's survived. And yeah, that's going to mess a person up, that's going to make them act in certain ways, that's going to make them not always the most palatable character. Whenever I hear someone say they don't like Trish, it's immediately followed by, "Well, she's annoying," or in season three it's, "She's just crazy!" But I kind of take issue with both of those adjectives. They seem a little sexist to me because I don't hear fans calling any of the other characters on the show who are way worse in so many ways than Trish Walker... No one calls Kilgrave, the rapist, “annoying” or “crazy”, even though he's both! Something about the way that some viewers of the show attack Trish really kind of puts me off a little bit, because I just question where that's coming from, and I feel like there's a strong element of probably unconscious sexism to it. But I also ask people to think about, if your best friend was a survivor of child abuse and addiction and sexual assault, would you ever call them "annoying"? I mean, I know we're talking about fictional characters, but these characters have lived through things that many people in the real world have lived through, so I feel like they deserve some measure of sympathy on our part.

And the haters are always more vocal, but I know there's also a lot of people out there who sympathize or empathize with Trish and see their own struggles reflected in her. As someone who also had an abusive person in her childhood, I can tell you that navigating what kind of relationship I now want with this person, if any at all, now that they have supposedly changed has been one of the most difficult things I've had to do in my adult life. And watching Trish navigate that relationship with Dorothy, her former abuser who is now somewhat reformed, trying to do some good, but still inherently the person she always was... I feel that.

Trish: What are you doing here, mother?

Dorothy: I was worried. You've never missed a show, so when Trish Talk got preempted this morning--

Trish: You listen to my show?

Dorothy: Well, of course. I'm afraid I berated your station manager into telling me where you were.

Trish: You're good at verbal abuse.

Dorothy: The nurse told me you took something.

Trish: I'm fine.

Dorothy: [skeptically] Hmm.

Trish: I didn't relapse. I'm fine.

Dorothy: That's good. You know, I would listen to Trish Talk even if you weren't my daughter. You're so smart and incisive--

Trish: I don't need your approval, mother.

Dorothy: Tough shit. You got it. People still look up to you. I get calls about you all the time.

Trish: I'm not your client.

Dorothy: As you made abundantly clear years ago to me - privately, publicly, internationally...

Trish: I didn't want you getting your claws into another starlet.

Dorothy: Fair enough. I was a god-awful mother back then.

Trish: And not now?

Dorothy: How would I know? You never gave me another shot at it.

Trish: I'd like you to leave now.

SJ: Trish can be very extra, but I always feel like this is just a person who is dealing in the best way she knows how. And that's again, like Jessica, just such a human, relatable character, with all her flaws and all her moments of dislikability, and her questionable choices. As the show goes on, we get these flashback episodes that give us a much better understanding of why she is so dogged in everything she does. Rachael Taylor, who plays Trish, has talked about how especially in season one Trish's main motivating factor is that guilt of “Jessica needed me and I wasn't there for her, and now I can be, now that Kilgrave is back and I know the score, and I'm going to do everything I can to make up for last time.” We do see her go a bit overboard on that desperation to save Jessica sometimes, as we'll talk about in season two and three. The show does a great job of foreshadowing her trajectory as well. From that very first scene that they have together, Trish is pushing Jessica to be a better hero, to use her powers in the ways that Trish thinks she should use them...

Jessica: You know what he can do. You know what he made me do.

Trish: So you're running?

Jessica: Yeah, I sure as hell am. If he gets ahold of me again?

Trish: If you leave that girl with him--

Jessica: What would you have me do? What exactly should I do?

Trish: We'll figure out a way to protect you.

Jessica: We? He's coming for me, not you.

Trish: I know!

Jessica: You don't.

Trish: I know one thing: You are far better-equipped to deal with that animal than some innocent girl from Omaha. You're still the person who tried to do something.

Jessica: Tried and failed. That's what started this. I was never the hero that you wanted me to be.

Trish: I'll get your money. [fading footsteps]

SJ: We see this resentment and almost jealousy progress in these incremental ways over the course of the series. Anyways, I just have a lot of sympathy for Trish and I find her really fascinating to watch, especially in the end when a lot of people are like, "Oh, she's really gone off the deep end." But to me, it just actually feels like a very organic, natural evolution for this character.

Bethany: Yeah, I completely agree with that. And I know we both have feelings about the finale, so I'm just gonna pretend that that's not in my next statement, but yeah, her trajectory as a character felt completely natural to me. And I found that some of what was most annoying about her character sometimes was the juxtaposition of it being a barrier for Jessica's character. Because you want to root for Jessica Jones as your primary character in the show, right? Like, you're on her side, you're rooting for her, and Trish is someone who sometimes gets in her way or makes things more difficult for Jessica. And it's built into the show itself - You're supposed to be annoyed by any character who does that. And it's not just Trish, it's Malcolm at various points, and even Hogarth. So I think it's natural that you, at times, are like, "Trish, come on, what are you doing? You're making this worse! Jessica has this, just let her do it!" But I think it's what you said: Trish has such a strong sense of this inner moral compass and such a strong idea about how things should be done, how Jessica should be using her powers, combined with this resentment that she can't do that, and this desperation of like, "If I was the one in your situation, I would do it so differently." I think her character completely makes sense...until the very, very, very end [laughs].

SJ: Right. Exactly. And we will certainly get there. [laughs] Lots of thoughts on that. But yeah, even if you don't particularly like her or the direction that she goes, I think it makes sense for her. And she's a really good foil to Jessica in a lot of ways because of that. The two just see things very differently. Jessica's like, "I just want to get through the day. I didn't ask for these powers." And Trish is like, "Come on! You're a superhero! If I had your powers, I would be saving the world!" And I think that's really relatable.

Another thing that I really love about the show and have loved since the very beginning, is the way that it sets up their relationship as really the heart of the show. Even the villains every season are strategically used in order to really get at the main theme, which is this dynamic between Jessica and Trish. I love the seasonal progression of their relationship - In season one, it's very much reconnecting after this period of Jessica pushing Trish away to protect her, in season two we have Jessica's mother as the antagonist, which introduces a biological-family-versus-chosen-family dynamic, and Jessica is kind of forced to choose between the two... So if you look at every single season, when you boil it down, it's about the two of them. And I really love that, because shows about female friendship...I mean, movies are hardly able to pass the Bechdel Test, and this show not only passes the Bechdel Test in almost every scene, it raises the bar.

Bethany: Yeah, their particular relationship as adoptive sisters is interesting too because I think it allows more people to identify with their relationship. Because you can see it as they're sisters, or you can see it as they're best friends from childhood, which almost makes it even more dynamic because they do toe this weird line between chosen family and given family. I didn't expect the whole arc with their relationship the way that it ended up happening through the second and the third season, just with the first season as a standalone. I almost felt like Trish in that first season is like this...I don't want to call her a sidekick, but she is in this supportive role. And then she became much more central into the second and third season as the juxtaposition for Jessica Jones, as the kind of reflection of morality, right? Where they have these different understandings of justice, morality, they have different motivations.

SJ: Totally. They’re such different characters that it creates this really rich, fraught dynamic that is always unfolding and constantly surprising you and so engaging to watch as a viewer. There's a lot of butting heads and having different ideas about how to do things and all that, which is just good drama, right? But then because they're so different, they also complement each other really well in terms of their skills, their methods, their fighting styles, so that when they do team up a little bit in season one, more in season two, and then quite a bit in season three, it's so fun to watch them work so well together. Honestly, their relationship is unlike any other I've ever seen on TV. They will always be, for me, kind of the pinnacle of human interaction between two fictional characters. It just doesn't get more complicated and emotionally genuine than this.

Trish: I won't let you go to prison, you're not a murderer.

Jessica: Yes, I am.

Trish: You're still punishing yourself for that woman's death.

Jessica: And now more people are dead - Hope Schlottman's parents, Reuben, Riva - and someone has to give their families closure. And until the real killer shows up, that's going to be me. I have to pay.

Trish: There are so many ways this could go wrong.

Jessica: There's one way it'll go right. No one else will die because of me. I'm taking myself out of the equation. [long pause] I'm still not the hero that you wanted me to be.

Trish: [quietly] You're exactly the hero I wanted you to be.

SJ: We're going to pause our discussion there for now. We'll pick up again next time talking more about that relationship between Jessica and Trish, whether there are some queer undertones to that. Then we'll get into David Tennant's performance as Kilgrave and how the show deals with sexual assault. And don't worry, we will also be discussing that epic season one finale - the neck-snap heard 'round the world! That's all still to come. Join us next time.

I'd like to end the episode by hearing from some listeners on what the show has meant to them. Hannah from Salt Lake City writes, "I love this series so much. Finally, a woman in the traditional male role. I felt for her as a woman and as a superhero." Hannah really appreciated the first season's storyline in particular. She says, "the twist of the abusive boyfriend - all he's done for her and she's so 'ungrateful'! I think this storyline resonates with a lot of women who have had trouble shaking their abusive ex-boyfriends. And the guilt Jessica feels when she sees Hope has been taken hostage by Kilgrave is symbolic of many women's experiences when one sees her ex with another girl." That is so true, and I think that's a big part of why Jessica feels so compelled to rescue Hope. She sees herself in Hope, but she also knows what Kilgrave is capable of and she doesn't want him to do what he did to her to another girl.

Wayne from Chicago wrote in. He says, "I didn't come into Jessica Jones with much expectation other than it would be a relatively high-quality serial drama, and it didn't disappoint. Some specific aspects of the show that resonated with me include the portrayal of substance abuse and the kind of disoriented downward spiral that can lead a person on. More than once, I had difficulty watching Jessica drink all that liquor - like, a physical aversion to watching it. I really felt this part on two levels: First, I grew up in a family with a variety of addiction issues and second, I feel my own predisposition for substance abuse when it comes to weed."

Yeah, this is a big one. I have heard from several viewers of the show who have battled their own addiction issues, especially alcoholism, say that it is really difficult sometimes to watch Jessica drink so much. I've never struggled with addiction personally, but even for me, watching Jessica just drink constantly, and knowing what it's doing to her body and knowing where that need to drink is coming from... sometimes it is a little unsettling. There's this scene in season two where Jessica dreams she wakes up in a bed with an IV in her arm. And she follows the IV line with her eyes up, up to where the IV bag would be, but instead of an IV bag, it's an upside-down bottle of whiskey. That was such a powerful visual for the way she feels about her own alcoholism, and I think probably the way a lot of people feel about their own addiction. Wayne also brings up Jessica and her relationship to family - being adopted at a young age, feeling like an outsider and growing up in an abusive household. Absolutely. I think a lot of viewers who are adopted can probably relate to Jessica's experience of coming into this new family, feeling like an outsider, and then on top of that there's abuse going on in the household. I think for anyone watching the show who has their own experience of childhood abuse, there is a very satisfying element of wish fulfillment in watching this character, Jessica, who is super-powered, be able to stand up to her and Trish's tormentor, Dorothy. She can throw her across the room and that's that - It never happens again. When you're a kid and you're in a violent situation, you often think, "If I just was stronger than the other person, they would never mess with me again. This would never happen again." You're constantly wishing that you were strong enough to defend yourself or intimidate the other person, so it is really satisfying to see Jessica just straight-up put a stop to Dorothy's abuse.

Wayne writes that his favorite aspect of the series is how the relationships between the characters transformed over time. That was one of the things that I also found most enjoyable too. In our next couple episodes, we're going to get into those evolving dynamics, especially the one between Jessica and Trish, whether you see that as an adoptive sibling relationship or a best friendship or something more, it sort of exists on all of these different levels. And however you see it, it goes through this transformation over the course of the three seasons. Thanks so much, Wayne, for writing in with your experiences and addressing these aspects of the show that resonate with a whole lot of people. Another listener called in with her thoughts - As a social worker, she was really interested in the mental health representation of the show. Let's hear from her.

Megan (caller): Hey, Popculty Podcast! This is Megan here from Colorado, and I wanted to call in with some thoughts on Jessica Jones and mental health representation in pop culture. So, full disclosure: when Jessica Jones first came out, I had a hard time getting into it. The reason being I had my own personal experience with sexual assault, and it was too close and personal with the portrayal of her relationship with the Purple Man, AKA David Tennant's character Kilgrave. And so I had a hard time watching it at first. But as I watched more of the show, I was also in my Master's program in social work at the time and some things really struck me about mental health in the series. So a couple of really important takeaways, but first let me talk a little bit about context of this issue. So mental health portrayal in pop culture has been pretty bad for a pretty long time. I could list a lot of problematic examples, but just a few are To the Bone, 13 Reasons Why, even critically-acclaimed films like A Beautiful Mind have problematic portrayals of mental health. So you get the picture, but why are these portrayals inaccurate and wrong? Couple of points: 1) Oftentimes, people with mental illnesses are portrayed as violent, but usually people with mental illnesses are actually more prone to be victims of violence than to be the perpetrators of violence. 2) They're also depicted as different or are othered by their appearance. 3) All mental health issues are portrayed with the same level of severity, and spoiler alert: they're all portrayed as very, very severe. 4) People with mental illnesses are shown to never recover. 5) Mental hospitals are depicted as evil places where people are tortured and hung out to dry...It's not a good time. And 6) therapists are often portrayed as a joke, and the person afflicted should try to overcome their mental illness on their own - Kind of a "pull yourself up by your bootstraps" approach.

So, as this podcast and everyone in their right mind acknowledges, representation matters. So when we're showing these depictions of mental health in our pop culture, we're setting a very biased, heavily stereotyped and factually inaccurate depiction of what mental health really looks like. And guys, mental health in our country right now isn't looking so great. Suicide rates are on the rise, school shootings/mass shootings... We don't have the best track record of mental health here in the US. So what does Jessica Jones do that other shows don't? Like, why do I care about this show specifically? What does it bring to the table? One: they not only show what trauma looks and feels like, which I feel is a very good depiction of trauma, but they also show the recovery process. This is crucial because recovery is possible and people need to know that. An example of this can be seen in how Jessica copes: she uses the mantra from her therapist and also goes to the support group for Kilgrave victims. And that's something that is also formed out of the show - the support group - that's really interesting and cool to see that organically occur too. Two: they also show the very real problem of co-occurring mental illness and substance use disorders to deal with trauma. Jessica drinks a lot, and guess what? According to the National Institute of Mental Health, almost half of the population that has mental illness also has a substance disorder. Yet most of the time in pop culture we don't really focus on these two interlinked problems. Three: even though she has superhuman strength, she is a victim and identifies with the others who have been controlled by Kilgrave as well. This humanizes our heroine in a very real way and makes mental health problems accessible to all, not a product of being "too weak to deal with it." Four: Kilgrave himself is the perfect metaphor of mental illness - having people act out of their character and waking to wonder if it was their fault or an issue that was intrinsically within themselves the whole time. Sounds sneakily like victim-blaming to me, which this show also had the gall to tackle. Number five: casting the role of Kilgrave with David Tennant was a stroke of genius. I actually got to see him speak at a Comic-Con here in Denver and the man is incredibly charming, witty, and talented, and casting someone like him to play Kilgrave is a phenomenal choice, because oftentimes people want to believe abusers are these horrible humans, and can't understand how people (mostly women) can't seem to break free from these "monsters." Well, most perpetrators come across as normal people, often charismatic and charming. Kilgrave is no exception to this rule and the show does an excellent job at teasing this out in his interactions with Jessica when she confronts him about raping her, using mind control, etc. In conclusion, Jessica Jones is the badass lady superhero we need in the forefront of mental health representation. I'm really impressed with how the show tackled such difficult topics. Thanks, guys, for letting me chat with you about mental health and Jessica Jones!

SJ: Thank you, Megan, for sharing your experience of the show and exploring a little bit deeper something that Bethany and I mentioned at various points in our conversation, but which absolutely deserved greater detail. I'm also really interested in the representation of mental health in pop culture, and I absolutely agree - It has a terrible track record. I mentioned in my very first episode of this podcast, the 13 Reasons Why debacle, which I won't reiterate, but it will come up again because it is just such an egregious, horrendous real-life consequence of poor mental health representation on TV. And in fact, I'm planning on having at least one or two episodes of this podcast focusing specifically on mental health representation in media, because it is so important to me and I really want to highlight the few things out there that get it really right versus the ones that get it so wrong that it's causing real-world damage. So I actually reached out to Megan and asked her if she might want to revisit this topic in another full-length episode and she was really excited to do that. She and I will get that in the works, so stay tuned for that conversation hopefully later this year.

All right, that's it for now! Join us right back here next week when we'll finish out season one and dive into season two. In the meantime, if you enjoyed this episode and want to show your support for the show, there's a couple of ways you can do that: One, pull the main show page up on Apple Podcasts and scroll down to rate and review. You can give us a couple stars, which takes two seconds or you can be extra super awesome and write a little review. Tell me what you like about the show, maybe give me some constructive feedback - It's all good. Would love to hear from you. You can also scroll down a little bit further and there's a link that says "Support the show." That'll take you to our newly-created Patreon page where you can become a monthly patron of the show, which will not only show your support, it'll help me out financially to pay for the tools I need to actually produce the show. AND it'll get you all kinds of good stuff including bonus episodes, and there is going to be a Jessica Jones bonus episode. So throw me a dollar on the Pateon and that bonus episode will be yours! The more listeners who give and support, the better the show is going to be, in terms of frequency and production quality, so thank you, patrons!

Huge thanks to everyone who wrote in and called in this week - Megan, Hannah, Wayne - thank you so much for sending in your thoughts. Huge thanks also to L'Orchestra Cinematique for providing the music you heard in this episode. They very generously allowed us to use their cover of the Jessica Jones main title theme in all three of these episodes. Definitely check out their other covers on an album called Geek Tunes, which is available on Amazon. The show is produced and edited by yours truly. All clips used in this episode are property of Marvel and ABC Studios and used herein under the Fair Use clause of Section 107 of the Copyright Act. Thank you, dear listeners, for joining us in this new year. We'll see you next time. And in the meantime: support women directors, stay critical, and always demand representation.

[Jessica Jones theme plays]

#popculty podcast #jessica jones #trish walker #representation #podcast #orig

1 note · View note