hawkwing_lb (![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
hawkwing_lb) wrote2009-01-09 01:17 pm
hawkwing_lb) wrote2009-01-09 01:17 pm
Entry tags:
Thoughts on "Merlin" (2008), episodes 1-6
The problem of "Merlin" is not that it mangles Arthurian myth: many retellings have taken liberties as great. The problem is not that its plots are predictable, for television is frequently predictable; nor is the problem that its language and register are jarringly anachronistic: this is fantasy, after all, and not very tightly historically located fantasy at that.
No, the problem of "Merlin" is that it is lazy. It is lazy in its treatment of knighthood and courtly behaviour, and it is lazy in its treatment of women. It is especially lazy in its treatment of women. Morgana and Gwen are cyphers, blank pages whose motivations and desires are opaque to non-existent. They are not active players: occasionally they show a spark of agency, just enough for you to see how little the role is challenging the actor; but mostly they are tokens, existing to be rescued, or competed for, in the context of the homosocial world of Uther's court and the Arthur-Merlin focus. There are no strong, active women in Uther's court: the only women whose agency has impact on the story are the "evil" witches (who I actually find quite sympathetic. Nimue could even be likeable, if she wasn't such a cypher).
(It's telling, too, I think, that the only non-pale characters of note are Morgana's maid, and the blacksmith. Lazy. Why not let the court physician be a foreigner? A Moor, even, and use the medieval stereotype/fascination with Arab medicine. But I forget: all Arabs are terrorists, right? At least on most TV. Certainly they aren't sensible fatherly old men.)
So much for the problems. A half-minute's thought could come up with half a dozen ways to make it more complex and more interesting. (Personally, I think it would have been interesting if instead of being simply Uther's ward, Morgana was also a noble hostage of some kind. Because then even a half-decent writer could insert some emotional complexity.)
And Gwen. It seems all dramatic presentations of Guinevere are doomed to blandness. For gods' sakes, in the romantic tradition the women committed treason for the sake of love. With Arthur's best friend. How can you screw that up? But it seems you can.
Which is not to say I don't like "Merlin". I do. The actors have energy and comic timing and convey a sense that they are having incredible fun. (And Richard Wilson as Gaius can do more with a look than many actors can with a paragraph.) I find it ridiculously entertaining, and I would have fallen head-over-heels in love with it at age ten or twelve.
But that doesn't mean I'm blind to its faults. Which are glaring, and disappointing many.
(Of course, I still want to watch the rest of it.)
No, the problem of "Merlin" is that it is lazy. It is lazy in its treatment of knighthood and courtly behaviour, and it is lazy in its treatment of women. It is especially lazy in its treatment of women. Morgana and Gwen are cyphers, blank pages whose motivations and desires are opaque to non-existent. They are not active players: occasionally they show a spark of agency, just enough for you to see how little the role is challenging the actor; but mostly they are tokens, existing to be rescued, or competed for, in the context of the homosocial world of Uther's court and the Arthur-Merlin focus. There are no strong, active women in Uther's court: the only women whose agency has impact on the story are the "evil" witches (who I actually find quite sympathetic. Nimue could even be likeable, if she wasn't such a cypher).
(It's telling, too, I think, that the only non-pale characters of note are Morgana's maid, and the blacksmith. Lazy. Why not let the court physician be a foreigner? A Moor, even, and use the medieval stereotype/fascination with Arab medicine. But I forget: all Arabs are terrorists, right? At least on most TV. Certainly they aren't sensible fatherly old men.)
So much for the problems. A half-minute's thought could come up with half a dozen ways to make it more complex and more interesting. (Personally, I think it would have been interesting if instead of being simply Uther's ward, Morgana was also a noble hostage of some kind. Because then even a half-decent writer could insert some emotional complexity.)
And Gwen. It seems all dramatic presentations of Guinevere are doomed to blandness. For gods' sakes, in the romantic tradition the women committed treason for the sake of love. With Arthur's best friend. How can you screw that up? But it seems you can.
Which is not to say I don't like "Merlin". I do. The actors have energy and comic timing and convey a sense that they are having incredible fun. (And Richard Wilson as Gaius can do more with a look than many actors can with a paragraph.) I find it ridiculously entertaining, and I would have fallen head-over-heels in love with it at age ten or twelve.
But that doesn't mean I'm blind to its faults. Which are glaring, and disappointing many.
(Of course, I still want to watch the rest of it.)
no subject
Getting some colour into the fictional world... fine by me. But in this case it feels a lot like they made Gwen a servant, and then made her black, and not only failed to make those choices in any way meaningful to the story, but failed to make her a character. She's a cypher, and far too close to being a token (or even a pun) for comfort
* unlike Morgan who at least gets some decent flouncing and pining out of her semi-requited affection.
no subject
This. They completely failed to make her matter. (Make Gwen a servant. Okay. So why not give her radical politics, too? If you make her a workers'-rights activist, you might have actual story.)
I don't understand why they failed to give us properly realised characters. I mean, not that hard, people. Even CSI manages to give us women, who - when they are not being murdered to sate our appetite for drama - have things like lives and motivations of their own. And I do not hold CSI up as an exemplar of good fiction.
At least Morgana has moments. Although I suspect that eventually means she'll be the 'bad' girl/woman.
(I've just realised. So far, "Merlin" pretty much fails the Bechdel test, doesn't it? I can't recall any two women having a conversation that did not reference men. Apart from the witch and the girl in episode one, I'm not sure if there is an actual decent-sized conversation between two women in the thing so far.)
(Of course, I watched the commentaries, and was extra annoyed by the [male] director and producer patting themselves on the back about Gwen's and Morgana's characters. Bleh.)
Although it is feeding the story engines of my brain useful ideas for medieval/Anglo-Saxon flavoured fantasy using Arthur tropes. Or, hey, I could do more interesting stuff than these guys. :P
no subject
Totally. I'm not sure I'll ever see the commentaries because right now I'm not in love enough to pay cash money (maybe if it gets very cheap and series two forces me at gunpoint to write) but I can imagine them being very pleased with how they've changed the originals.
There is pleasure in Gaius and Uther getting some chewy bits further on in the series, but it is pretty much all about the men (oh, since they're women and thus motherly nurturing creatures, the girls do get to care about kids too) and I have to admit I rather enjoy the laddish relationship, including the lengthy denial of affection phase (and I'm pretty sure there'll be a whole lot of Merlin/Arthur out there ::keeps eyes closed:: )
no subject
Gaius and Uther are worth watching. And I like the boys. They remind me of puppies. Young, pretty, and stupid. :)