Film student. Speaks french, spanish and tries to speak english. I love many films and TV shows (Game of Thrones, Doctor Who, The Hour, Firefly...) So I mainly post film and fandom stuff.Ask me anything
Anónimo ha dicho: How do you know it's d&d? isn't there something about a "controversial" sansa chapter in TWOW? maybe it's actually going to be something from the book
because Sophie has read her scripts for season 5 and she was talking about the show and knows nothing of the next book.
Honestly Sansa ~using her sexuality~ is just… not /her/ at all, she doesn’t knowingly or independently do this in the books, and she doesn’t really show any inclination to other than to just go along with what Petyr wants (and she isn’t okay with it, nor is she using it to some advantage). imo, I’ve pictured her manipulation of him being more along the lines of going along with his plans, publicly aligning with him (i.e. the Alayne facade) and playing up the innocent girl image rather than a sexualised one. It’s such a complex dynamic and it does both characters a disservice to make it some kind of femme fatale thing, Sansa is FOURTEEN (thirteen in the books and at the very oldest I would estimate fifteen in the show). D&D seem to struggle a lot with writing female characters who aren’t a hollow, poorly conceived “badass” or “seductress” trope and it looks like they’re going with the latter with Sansa. To make her more interesting to dudebros now that Sophie is 18, I suppose (and hey, it’s working with all those maddening comments about how Sansa is “finally” interesting and “finally” playing the game).
Sansa is not Cersei or Margaery 2.0, she grows into her confidence through realising she is smarter than everyone has been telling her. Like George reiterated here, Sansa has her wits, just like Petyr does. imo it’s primarily her wits she uses as a weapon, not her sexuality - at least at this point, as she is a child. I had my worries about all this when she stepped out in that sexualised maleficent looking costume and it looks like my suspicions were correct.
They also skipped over so much of Sansa actually learning the game and figuring stuff out, and being taught by LF, so having her suddenly be this master manipulator and being “better” than LF has just done her development - and his, but most importantly hers - a disservice (and yes, I know she’s been manipulating for a long time, but it just went up a notch far too quickly).
So like, I don’t expect her to be in any R rated shenanigans next season, but Sansa suddenly being confident and sexual and manipulating him (and him not realising what she’s doing, jfc) is just really weird to me and I don’t feel good about it? I don’t quite know how to express myself about it because it’s uncharted territory and we don’t know what’s happening in TWOW. I just don’t think it’s this. It doesn’t feel genuine and it’s like they’ve seized the opportunity to make Sansa more interesting (in their eyes) and they’re veering off course with her development and turning her into something else.
I think the reason that lots of people think Steven Moffat’s version of Doctor Who is sexist is because it repeatedly acts and sounds sexist. It may be that Moffat consciously tries to craft his Who as feminist or pro-feminist. If so, I don’t think there’s any better illustration of the crucial point that, in a sexist society, however much of an ‘ally’ you may be, if you’re a man then you still enjoy male privilege, and probably don’t realise it half the time.
The Doctor describes Clara as “a mystery wrapped in an enigma squeezed into a skirt that’s just a little bit too tight”. The Doctor describes Marilyn Monroe as though she really was nothing more than the stereotypical ‘man crazy’ ditz she played in some of her movies. Rory likens being married to Amy to being trapped inside a giant robot duplicate of her. We get dialogue like “Why did she try to kill you and then want to marry you?” “Because she’s a woman”. Osgood, a scientist, is shown to be secretly obsessed with jealousy towards her prettier sister. A Dalek develops a female alter-ego, and she spends her time cooking.
In Moffat’s show, women are overwhelmingly defined by their traditional gender roles or bodily functions. It doesn’t matter that their excellence in these gender roles is praised by show and lead character. It doesn’t matter that we’re supposed to be impressed by the virtuosity with which River tricks people using her feminine wiles. It doesn’t change anything that the Doctor goes into rhapsodies about the wonders of motherhood. That isn’t liberating; it’s still the mapping of male, patriarchal conceptions of female value onto female characters.
River exists entirely because of the Doctor. Who the hell is River? She is an assemblage of gender essentialist tropes and wisecracks. When does she ever – beyond, arguably, her first appearance – behave like an academic or a scientist? When does she ever display anything resembling erudition or intellectual curiosity? When does she ever do or say anything to show or engender love? Admittedly, the Doctor seems to be sexually aroused by the way she shoots people… which is just charming. In ‘Let’s Kill Hitler’, she is incarnated as Mels, a character we’ve never seen or heard of before, and plonked unceremoniously into the story out of sheer, brazen convenience. She stalks Amy and Rory (her unwitting mother and father) for years, pretending to be their friend, all because of her pre-programmed monomaniacal desire to get to the Doctor. She regenerates while “concentrating on a dress size”. She spends the rest of the episode obsessing over her hair, clothes, shoes and weight. River’s instability is finally conquered by the love of a good man. This seems intensely hostile and patronising. If that isn’t what was aimed at, then somebody is a very bad shot.
It doesn’t matter that River is ‘powerful’. Fetishizing ‘power’ in women characters – having them kicking ass and always being ready with a putdown - isn’t the same as writing them as human beings.
[…]The reason I feel ill when the Doctor snogs River’s ghost at the end of ‘Name of the Doctor’ is not that I hate emotion in Who, or that I want – because I’m a sexually and emotionally repressed nerd or something – Doctor Who to be emotionless. Rather, the opposite of this is the truth. The reason I feel ill at moments like that is rather that I hate fake emotion, cheap emotion, unearned emotion. Commodified emotion. Packaged, marketed, profitable, sugary, junk emotion. Sentimentality, in other words.Sentimentality is disgusting because it’s not fundamentally about other people, or relationships. It’s about oneself. It’s self-regarding, self-comforting, self-pleasing. It isn’t social. It’s narcissistic. This is precisely what is so horribly wrong with all those Moffatian emotional tornadoes. How can they be touching when the characters and relationships are so shallow? When we’re watching narcissists adoring their own reflections in their partner’s eyes?[…]I don’t like having to hate this show. I want to love it.