International Women’s Day 2022 

Today, it is International Women’s Day. In my first job, long ago, in a different world, that day gave reason for being provided with flowers and prosecco. The flowers we took home or decorate the office with, the prosecco we drank together with all the other female and male human beings around, that very afternoon. And that was common almost everywhere, flowers and coffee, and perhaps something alcoholic – sparkling wine or advocaat (egg liqueur).  

Today, I think of all the brave women who try to rescue their children from war, from illness, from starvation, from fear. All the women who travelled and travel into a new world, foreign countries, hoping to give their children a better future. Many of them will struggle with the new language and requirements. Many of them will not be able to work or live in equal positions as those they left behind. Some of them will take on any kind of work – as cleaners, service, helping hands, to earn enough money for the family. In particular, those from Ukraine, who are leaving their husbands, partners, fathers, sons, and male friends, teachers, mentors, colleagues behind, right now. Yesterday, I heard a sociologist say that it will take the average Ukrainian female refugee about 6 to 8 years to regain a position and income as such they left behind. If.  

International Women’s Day is a day to remember all those women who fought for equality, rights, and acceptance. Equality is not equal to ‘likeability,’ as Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie already emphasised. She wrote also “Teach her to love books;” “it is important to be able to fend for herself.”  

Last Sunday, I went to an award-giving ceremony to honour Dr Hynda K Kleinman, who over 30 years served as the leader of the research laboratory at the US National Institute of Health. After she successfully fought to be allowed to do her PhD at MIT, she published throughout her career 440 scientific papers and obtains many patents for her scientific discoveries. In her speech, she described how she had to fight for her own rights, the rights for women in academia, and how she championed the rights and advancements of women in science. She presented a statistic saying that still only 20% of academics undertaking research are women and these only get smaller and fewer research budgets, as well as less relevant awards than male researchers. Very few, as Marie Curie, Nelly Sachs or Dorothy Crowfoot Hodgkin were awarded a Nobel Price, 58 women : 782 men.  

The same is true for women in film and tv. Still, only a few women are trusted with directing although a few got great projects during the recent years. For example, 166 films by women were released accounting for 30% of all UK film releases this year. However, this figure was up just a single percentage point from 2020 (29%). (1) In the US, women are accounted for 17 % of directors working on the top 250 films, down from 18 % the year prior. In the top 100 films, the percentage of women directors also decreased from 16 % in 2020 to 12 % in 2021. 

Women and Hollywood give this statistic:  (2)

1) Women account for 50% of moviegoers. (MPA 2019) 

2) On the top 100 grossing films of 2019, women represented: 

• 10.7% of directors 
• 19.4% of writers 
• 24.3% of producers 
• 70.4% of casting directors 

(Inclusion Initiative) 

3) On the top 250 grossing films of 2019, women comprised 6% of composers. This represents no change since 2019. (Center for the Study of Women in Television and Film) 

4) Kathryn Bigelow and Chloé Zhao are the only women to ever win the Academy Award for Best Director. Only seven women have ever been nominated (Lina Wertmüller, Jane Campion, Sofia Coppola, Bigelow, Greta Gerwig, Zhao, and Emerald Fennell). Campion is the only woman to be nominated in the category more than once (in 1994 for “The Piano” and 2022 for “The Power of the Dog”). 

5) In 2018 “Mudbound’s” Rachel Morrison became the first woman ever nominated for the Academy Award for Cinematography. 

6) 43 of 2019’s top 100 films featured a female lead or co-lead. (Inclusion Initiative) (what but not always give the female character agency about the story, from a dramaturgical point of view. Kst) 

7) 68% of all female characters were white in the top 100 films of 2019. 20% were Black, 7% were Asian, and 5% were Latina. (Center for the Study of Women in Television and Film) 

8) On the top 500 films of 2019, movies with at least one female director employed greater percentages of women writers, editors, cinematographers, and composers than films with exclusively male directors. (Center for the Study of Women in Television and Film) 

9) DIVERSITY SELLS: 

• In 2018, films with casts that were 21-30% minority enjoyed the highest median global box office receipts. In 2019, this honor went to films with casts that were 41-50% minority. 
• Films with casts that were 41-50% minority were released in the most international markets, on average, in both 2018 and 2019. 

(UCLA) 

10) During the 2019-2020 TV season: 

• Women accounted for 30% of all creators, directors, writers, producers, executive producers, editors, and directors of photography working on broadcast network, cable, and streaming programs 
• The number of women creators (28%) marked a historic high 
• 94% of the programs considered had no women directors of photography, 76% had no women directors, 81% had no women editors, 73% had no women creators 
• 20% of female characters were Black, 5% were Latina, and 8% were Asian 

(Center for the Study of Women in Television and Film)

Thus, I would like to encourage all my fellow female colleagues and students to continue or intensify their active engagement in research and practice to get your voice heard. To get role models shown, to give an understanding of experiences of life from the female perspective, it needs to get stories told from our perspective. That approach is not only related to women working in the creative industry, but we are also telling stories priming the minds of audiences, about life and roles, gender, and power structures.  

Let’s support, encourage, and recognise each other, together with the group of female members of staff, together as a group of male and female colleagues. Research allows an understanding and interpretation of relevant aspects of our world, and we need female voices heard as much as male voices. Therefore, dear academics, please make sure to use as many films directed by women as you can access, and make sure you use as many academic publications written by women as by the always preferred male authors. That would be already a great start, and feasible for everyone.  

 kerstin stutterheim, 8.3.2022

(1) https://www.southampton.ac.uk/news/2018/10/calling-the-shots-for-women-in-film.page

(2) https://womenandhollywood.com/resources/statistics/

(3) www.europarl.europa.eu%2FRegData%2Fetudes%2FBRIE%2F2019%2F633145%2FEPRS_BRI(2019)633145_EN.pdf&clen=1494198&chunk=true

Ash Tyler and Voq – are both captivating characters. Shazad Latif performs both. Each of them in their own specific guise is a central figure within the main cast of season one and two of Star Trek Discovery (USA 2017-). The Klingon Voq und the human Ash Tyler represent the story’s antagonistic conflict – those who are involved in a war with each other. How the creators of the series, Bryan Fuller and Alex Kurtzman, and their team^[1] designed Voq and Ash Tyler as characters, is of particular interest for this text from a dramaturgical point of view.

To contextualise the following discussion, I will give first a short summary of the dramaturgical context. As widely known, a combination of storytelling approaches can enrich productions by applying postmodern film aesthetics thus offering a specifically unique appeal.^[2] One of these dramaturgical options is that of the ’split/doubled protagonist‚. This allows for the provision of an inner self, an inner conflict with its richness of character traits, and other ways to define a personality or a personification.^[3] The other aesthetic approach of interest here is a film-dramaturgical variant of the ‚unreliable narration‘ which has its origins in literature studies.^[4]

These stylistic/dramaturgical methods of ‘unreliable narration’ were already used in SHUTTER ISLAND (Martin Scorsese), A BEAUTIFUL MIND (Howard), THE USUAL SUSPECTS (Singer) as well as in SHINING (Kubrick). In these movies; the writer/directors also operate with split or double characters. The protagonists of these films either imagine another character relevant to the plot or they evoke this character as a presumed real figure for the characters involved in the action. The very first split character was invented by Heinz Ewers and Paul Wegener for DER STUDENT VON PRAG (Wegener und Rye). In this movie, the main character (Paul Wegener) sells his own mirror image which transforms itself into a negative minded version of himself. Another example is ORLANDO (Potter UK/RUS/I/F/NL 1992), based on the novel by Virginia Woolf.^[5] In this story, the central character is designed as two different manifestations of itself, both played by Tilda Swinton. The Orlando of the first half of the film is male and transforms into a female character for the second half. Another example, also relevant to the construction of Voq/Ash Tyler is Kubrick’s Danny (Danny Lloyd) in SHINING. Danny imagines Tony, his friend, who speaks through him.^[6]  Tony is not exclusively in dialogue with Danny. In A BEAUTIFUL MIND or SHUTTER ISLAND, the doubled character is only visible to the main character. Tony answers Danny’s mother as well when asked. Later in the movie, Tony takes over Danny and his body.

In film productions, writers and directors often combine a split and/or doubled protagonist with the possibilities of an aesthetic strategy based on ‚unreliable narration‘.^[7] For movies like these – on the explicit level -, one constructs the cinematic plot in such a way that this initially seems in keeping with the narrative convention of the respective genre. However, in a key scene, the double perspective which is the result of the specific disposition given to the split/doubled character(s) is (more or less) revealed. One can set this key scene either within the middle of the story as part of the peripeteia (the moment of recognition)^[8] or during the denouement (also known as ‘showdown’)^[9]. Consequently, the previous action appears in a new light, and the audience must reconsider what it believes has been happening and understood so far.

The challenge and art of applying postmodern film dramaturgy to a production require integrating all references and hints/clues into the filmic narrative without imposing these too early.

As mentioned above, a variation of the doubled, split protagonist is the character Voq/Ash Tyler (Shazat Latif), which is central to the plot of the STAR TREK DISCOVERY series. In the following, I will restrict myself to the most relevant scenes in order to outline how this principle was utilised.

In Season 1, the figure going by the name Voq is relevant for the explicit dramaturgy of the overall action at the beginning of the series, and not only for the vertical level of the Klingon-story although it is placed within this narrative thread. The Klingons are introduced as antagonists to the Federation of Planets – those who want war against those who ‚come in peace‘. This character going with the name Voq is central to the construction of the conflict, as well as to the main plot’s horizontal dramaturgy for season one and two.

Resulting from the sequence of events arranged for the Klingon sub-story, this Voq gets banished from the Klingon Empire, a quasi-condemnation to death. Left alone at the abandoned ship he is shown speaking to himself – and hence to the audience: “They left me here to die (…).”^[10] Immediately after this sentence, we see his beloved Klingon princess L’Rell (Mary Chieffo) arriving. Since we know already that she loves him, she offers to save him, but the price Voq must pay is high. L’Rell was introduced at this point as a reliable and powerful character who is able to utilise her skills and opportunities.  To present her commitment and then to make this character disappear would not have met the dramaturgical quality of the composition up to this point.  Thus, Voq as the character must sacrifice everything, and in this way, the information is passed onto us as the audience.^[11] This is one of the key hints. This intervention is not to be underestimated. The series is from the viewpoint of the dramaturg well composed and written, has a good rhythm supporting the postmodern aesthetics and approach, as well as being well directed and edited.

In episode 5 of season one, we see Captain Lorca (Jason Isaak), this time acting captain of the Discovery, kidnapped by the Klingons. When the captain arrives in their prison, he meets a new character: Ash Tyler. The story which establishes this character tells us that he was captured by the Klingons during ‘the battle at the Binary Stars’, which took place in episode 2. Part of the dialogue and background information given to increase the tension, tells us that although the Klingons kill most of their prisoners of war randomly, he managed to survive. Ash Tyler must then be a human fighter of considerable intellect and strength to have survived for so long. On the explicit level of the vertical dramaturgical storyline of this episode, this character is introduced into the action to support Captain Lorca in escaping – or so it seems (at this point if the audience reads the credits they could become suspicious and start to watch this character more closely.*). Thus, we observe the character going by the name of Ash Tyler together with this Captain Lorca, overwhelming the Klingons and making it back to the Discovery, where Tyler becomes security officer and meets the central character, the main figure, Michael Burnham (Sonequa Martin-Green).^[12] These two are shown as they slowly but surely fall in love with each other.^[13]

As First Security Officer, Ash Tyler is supposed to provide security for her as well as the whole crew. The first task is to rescue the character going by the name of Sarek (James Frain), Michael Burnham’s stepfather with whom she is shown to be psychically connected. Seen as the task of this character the convention is met, but the story told in this series is different. Often, the figure Michael Burnham is the one who secures crew and ship are going to survive. The figure of Michael Burnham stands out from the ensemble of central characters. She is depicted as outstanding, both intellectually and as a fighter. In terms of courage, Burnham outshines many of the other characters within the actual crew. The character of Ash Tyler seems equal to that of Michael Burnham in courage and strength – until the moment when he is shown suffering a psychic attack that paralyses him during one of the missions when he comes face to face with the Klingon L’Rell. Thus, he cannot accompany Burnham any further to fulfil the mission or help the admiral Cornwell (Jayne Brook) whom they find injured and imprisoned at the Klingon ship with L’Rell.^[14] Tyler must be kept hidden as long as he seems to be shellshocked. The admiral diagnoses his seizure as PTPS resulting from the torture he suffered while in captivity. This is explanation is convincing to the audience too. From this moment on, Ash Tyler increasingly experiences flashbacks of situations that can be associated with the torture that he experienced during his imprisonment. So far, everything is logical and credible on the explicit level of the narrative.

In episode 10 of season one, we observe a moment when the imprisoned L’Rell activates, so to say, the ‘embedded’ Klingon identity within Ash Tyler.^[15] He steps out of the hypnotic-like situation with the words “What are you doing to me? I am not myself!” L’Rell asks for his other name which he denies having. Although, as we can see, Ash Tayler is not fully aware of what happens to him during this encounter, he understands that something strange must have been done to him. It is from this episode, which not only confuses the character Ash Tyler but possibly horrifies the audience as well, that it is shown how Tyler becomes suspicious of what the Klingons might have done to him. He is afraid that this is somehow connected to his terrifying flashbacks, guiding the audience to believe in them and to focus on them more closely.

Hence, he goes to see Doctor Hugh Culber (Wilson Cruz) and asks him to run additional tests on him.^[16] While the doctor checks Tyler, another character in the sickbay, Paul Stamets (Anthony Rapp) warns his partner: “Be careful. The enemy is here”,^[17] thereby foreshadowing the coming event, and triggering our attention. Shortly afterwards, the doctor discovers and reveals that he has detected another body imbedded in that of Ash Tyler. In other words, the body of Ash Tylor has been engineered on top of another body: “As far as I am concerned: You are not you”.^[18] This sentence awakens the Klingon inside of Tyler who murders the doctor as a reaction to his discovery – in this way, Ash Tyler is no longer a reliable character, and his revelation as a double(d) character also establishes the ‘unreliable narration’.

After this episode, the doubled character is shown reverting back the human called Tyler. This part of the double character, Tyler, is in love with Burnham. For the mission starting immediately after this event, Security Officer Tyler is commanded to act as her security guard. In this following episode, we observe Taylor encountering a double of Voq as he exists in the parallel universe, as almost all of the other figures do.^[19] When Burnham asks this parallel Voq, how he, as a Klingon, managed to work together with Vulcans and others, he mentions the Kahless. As we, the audience, might remember from the situation Tylor-L’Rell, this word is the signal that triggers the embedded Voq inside Tyler to take over. Hence, this Tyler-character loses his mind when the embedded Voq recalls the speech of the Klingon leader from the very first episode. As a result, the Voq inside Tylor attacks this parallel-Voq counterpart with the call, “remain Klingon or die”.^[20] Tyler-Voq is defeated in the fight and almost murdered. Burnham’s intervention saves his life. Later, back on board, in the key scene – as described above and here as part of the denouement of the storyline of season one and two – the character Tyler addresses his beloved Burnham to explain everything.^[21] With this scene, he connects and makes sense of all the hints and elements spread across the previous episodes which provided clues to understand the situation, that is the ‘unreliable’ narration. Here the dialogue connects all details that happened to the figure known to us as Ash Tyler from the moment when Voq was asked to sacrifice everything, as emphasised above. “They reduced the Klingon body to human. (…)” Moments of the surgery are shown to support his story. Burnham asks for more, to make sure everyone understands. Hence, all the events that happened to the figures of Voq and Taylor until now culminate in this episode and are expressed through a dialogue: “I feel him inside me. His thoughts, his pain, his wishes.” Shortly after, with a movement of his head as if he would ease his neck, the Tyler-character transforms into the Voq-character who tells Burnham – and the audience – how this intrigue fulfils L’Rell’s hopes that Voq might be able to win the war in the end. That would allow him to get back his power: “We needed to infiltrate your ship. Learn your secrets. You were willing to betray your captain to protect your people. I sacrificed my body and mind to protect mine. I have the humans’ face but inside I remain Klingon. (…) I remain Voq, son of none. The Torchbearer.” At the end of this proportionally long confessional sequence and Burnham’s reaction to it, the circle of those two seasons closes when Voq-Tyler remembers Burnham as the murderer of the Klingon-leader whose appearance opened this series. Consequently, this double character; now dominated by the Klingon, must try to kill Burnham. But, of course, she as the central figure of the whole series cannot leave the series yet, so the parallel figure of Saru (Doug Jones) comes in at the right moment and rescues her.^[22] Michael Burnham survives – but the love (story) between these two characters does not. The Voq-Tyler-figure is subsequently officially punished with a death-sentence but is beamed back to the Discovery and imprisoned by Saru (Doug Jones).

Whilst imprisoned, the conflict between the two characters that he is representing, is physically tearing Tyler apart.^[23] Consequently, on the explicit level of the story as told so far, and complying with dramaturgical traditions, only L’Rell, who initiated this transformation, can help. A little less stringent but necessary for the ongoing plot, the inside character of the Klingon gets deactivated through her hands and Tyler survives. Voq though cannot be removed, neither physically, nor from the story. From now on, this situation of the embedded but inactive Voq-remnants becomes useful and qualifies the restored Ash-Tyler-character to act as a ‘linking character’. The new Tyler can translate and establish a dialogue between humans and Klingons when needed.

From a dramaturgical point of view, as mentioned above, this double character represents/embodies the status of the antagonistic conflict of the first season and its aftermath in season two. Thus, using the concept of the split character in this way, the creators of the series managed to add a counterpart to the central character and thereby establishing a double protagonist for season one and two as well. Having the couple Burnham-Tyler shown as being in love with each other, serves the ‘American dramaturgy’,^[24] which is core to every US-production. This concept is supported throughout season one – until in the key scene, equivalent to a ‘showdown’ in this storyline, this dream shatters as described above. Establishing a path that is emotionally touching and that dominates the action, gives stability and reference to traditions of the linear-causal narrative. In addition, it enables the crew to be established as a manifestation of the concept of family. Based on that, the series can – dramaturgically speaking – continue with a multi-perspective structure with an ensemble of characters arranged around the centre figure Michael Burnham.

Kerstin Stutterheim, December 2020

—–

Bibliography

Amerikanische Dramaturgie (1962). Unter Mitarbeit von Horst Frenz und Claus Clüver. [1. – 7. Tsd.]. Reinbek b. Hamburg: Rowohlt (Rowohlt Paperback, 13).

Bayley, Sally; Brain, Tracy (2011): Representing Sylvia Plath. Cambridge, New York: Cambridge University Press. Online verfügbar unter http://site.ebrary.com/lib/alltitles/docDetail.action?docID=10502682.

Begley, Varun (2004): „Blade Runner“ and the Postmodern: A Reconsideration. In: Literature/Film Quarterly 32 (3), S. 186–192. Online verfügbar unter http://www.jstor.org/stable/43797175.

Booth, Wayne C. (2008): The rhetoric of fiction. 2. ed., [Nachdr.]. Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Pr.

D’hoker, Elke (Hg.) (2008): Narrative unreliability in the twentieth-century first-person novel. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter & Co (Narratologia, 14). Online verfügbar unter http://deposit.d-nb.de/cgi-bin/dokserv?id=3147736&prov=M&dok_var=1&dok_ext=htm.

Bryan Fuller und Alex Kurtzman (USA 2017-): Star Trek: Discovery, S1: 15 x 1h; S2: 14 x 1h; S3: 13 x 1h. Netflix.

Gelfert, Hans-Dieter (2006, c2002): Typisch amerikanisch: Wie die Amerikaner wurden, was sie sind. 3., aktualisierte und um ein Nachwort Amerika 2006 erg. Aufl., Originalausg. München: Beck.

Howard, Ron: A BEAUTIFUL MIND. Universal Pictures, Dreamworks Pictures, Imagine Entertainment. USA 2001, 2 h 15 min.

Kubrick, Stanley: The Shining. Mit Jack Nicholson, Shelly Duval Danny Lloyd Scatman Crothers Barry Nelson Philip Stone. 1 DVD-Video (115 Min.), 115 min.

Martin Scorsese: SHUTTER ISLAND. USA 2010, 138 Min.

Nünning, Vera (Hg.) (2015): Unreliable narration and trustworthiness. Intermedial and interdisciplinary perspectives. Berlin, Boston: Walter de Gruyter GmbH (Narratologia. Contributions to narrative theory, 44).

Potter, Sally (UK/RUS/I/F/NL 1992): ORLANDO. Sally Potter (Regie). Online verfügbar unter https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0107756/.

Sharrett, Christopher (Hg.) (1999): Mythologies of violence in postmodern media. Detroit: Wayne State University Press (Contemporary film and television series).

Singer, Brian: THE USUAL SUSPECTS. Brian Singer und Michael McDonnell. USA 1995, 106 min.

Stutterheim, Kerstin (2013): Überlegungen zur Ästhetik des postmodernen Films. In: Kerstin Stutterheim und Christine Lang (Hg.): „Come and play with us“: Dramaturgie und Ästhetik im postmodernen Kino. Marburg: Schüren, S. 39–87.

Stutterheim, Kerstin (2015): Handbuch angewandter Dramaturgie. Vom Geheimnis des filmischen Erzählens ; Film, TV und Games. Frankfurt, M.: PL Acad. Research (Babelsberger Schriften zur Mediendramaturgie und -ästhetik, Bd. 4).

Stutterheim, Kerstin (2019): Modern Film Dramaturgy. An introduction. Berlin, New York: Peter Lang.

Stutterheim, Kerstin; Lang, Christine (Hg.) (2013): „Come and play with us“: Dramaturgie und Ästhetik im postmodernen Kino. Marburg: Schüren.

Wegener, Paul; Rye, Stellan: DER STUDENT VON PRAG, 85 Min.

Woolf, Virginia; Lyons, Brenda; Gilbert, Sandra M. (1993): Orlando. A biography /  Virginia Woolf ; edited by Brenda Lyons with an introduction and notes by Sandra M. Gilbert. London, New York: Penguin Books (Penguin twentieth-century classics).

——–

*already for earlier episodes, 1 and 2, in which no Ash Tyler is introduced yet, Shazad Latif is mentioned in the title credits as one of the lead actors.

——–

^[1] Full cast and crew here: https://www.imdb.com/title/tt5171438/fullcredits?ref_=tt_ql_1

^[2] Cf. (Stutterheim 2013, 2019; Stutterheim und Lang 2013); (Sharrett 1999; Begley 2004) a.m.

^[3] Cf. (cf. Stutterheim 2019, S. 89)

^[4] Cf.  (Nünning 2015; Booth 2008); (D’hoker 2008; Bayley und Brain 2011) and others

^[5] (Woolf et al. 1993)

^[6] More in detail in Stutterheim 2015, pp 65.

^[7] Cf. In more detail in (Stutterheim 2019) pp. 113

^[8] (cf. Stutterheim 2019, S. 43–46)

^[9] (cf.Stutterheim 2019, 47-49)

^[10] S1:E4 41:35 min

^[11] S1:E4 42 min

^[12] S1:E6 10 min

^[13] S1:E6 – E11

^[14] S1:E9 18 min

^[15] S1:E10 min 15:18

^[16] S1:E10 starting min 30:11

^[17] Ebd. min 31:32

^[18] Ebd. min 37:12

^[19] S1:E11 starting min 22:50

^[20] Ibid. 28:08

^[21] Ibid. starting min 36, runs for the whole sequence

^[22] Ibid. 39:50

^[23] Starting at S1:E12 min 12

^[24] Cf. (Amerikanische Dramaturgie 1962; Gelfert 2006, c2002; Stutterheim 2015), pp. xy

Now that the series is coming to an end, there are some comments of disappointment from fans and critics alike. The question of whether the series expresses feminist aspects or not, is a much-discussed one, as it has been in recent years already. In my opinion, it did not do so, both dramaturgically and aesthetically, even though one or other of the episodes may have played with it over and over again, and may have served such hope.

In terms of agency and empowerment of female characters in this series, in dramaturgical analysis, the figure of Arya is the only one actually allowed by the authors/directors to have a relevant influence on the plot. In order not to be misunderstood, other female figures have moments of power and strength within the events depicted and on vertical episodic plot sections in the explicit narrative, out of revenge or delusion, but not on the overall plot. In this respect, the figure of Arya is the only one, because she is established as the dramaturgical counterpart to Jon, since the second episode in old theatre tradition welded to him. (cf. Stutterheim 2019, 2017)

In the dramaturgy, in order to answer a corresponding question, one looks not only at what the respective figure is allowed to do at the moment, how powerful they might appear; but also at the influence that the authors and the director concede on the overall structure and development of the implicit theme.

Let’s take a quick look at the female characters who are still ‚in the game‘:

First of all, there is the figure of DANAERYS (Emilia Clarke). She got introduced into the overall plot via her brother, who instrumentalised her as a commodity. Her appearance is reminiscent of a Barbie doll and thus implicitly appeals to a broad group of the audience who may have played with her in childhood or have always wished to do so. On the other hand, it also reminds a little of Marilyn Monroe. Of course, the figure is blond and blue-eyed.

As at the beginning of the story, the figure of Danaerys get guided through the entire story by male companions and advisors. The only exception is Missandei (Nathalie Emmanuel), who also had to be brought out of the action in episode 8.4 in the sense of the dramaturgical balance of the overall plot. The fact that this happens brutally may not only serve the moment in which the increasing madness of the figure of Cersei (Lena Headey) has to be shown. This execution also reflects the brutality of the scenes in the context of which the character of Missandei got introduced. Also, Missandei is also classified as a sinful woman, in the sense of the moral concept that defines the series. Daenerys had an intimate advisor in her, who is now no longer needed from a dramaturgical point of view, but whose horrifying departure becomes dramatically relevant in the form of the background of Cersei’s cruelty.

The Daenerys figure was built up over the first half as a possible positive figure and future queen, but this turns in episode 4.4. From this episode on she is increasingly portrayed as unpredictable, domineering and cruel. This got prepared with the event in the tower of Undead and the encounter with the sorcerer (2.10), in which she gives up the dream of her own family for the dragons and the sorcerer, who welcomes her – albeit in a somewhat macabre way – by her dragons, kills her before he can explain himself more precisely. Since this encounter with dark magic, the character has become more and more a cruel and possessed egomaniac who would do anything to become queen without restriction. Underlining their power and position, they are carried away to use cruel violence and to declare it justice. This figure only makes good and positive decisions if one of her advisors strongly recommends this to her. The figure presents a supposed power that may be due to her qua birth, but she got guided by an intelligently staggered group of figures, which apparently only accompany her. Dramaturgically seen, these advisors let the figure act as a representative of male world view. If she does not follow the male counsellors, sooner or later it won’t end well for her.

Thus, concerning the figure of Daenerys, no independence in the sense of any current or theory of feminism is established.

SANSA. One of the favourite figures for a large part of the female audience. This figure presents all feminine qualities of the ‚good good woman‘ (cf. Gelfert 2006). This Sansa learns with ease everything a woman should know, sew and be submissive, behave, walk upright, smile. (cf. Fiedler 2017 ) Her dream was to find her place in the castle by the king’s side. She got harmed, and the figure represents all the more femininity in the sense of American conservative Christian moral. The ultimate goal is the continued existence and independence of the family. That’s what she lives for now. Winterfell must continue to exist and preserve its independence. Sansa represents the North with its moral rules and traditions (cf. Stutterheim 2017). That is what the Sansa character stands for. This figure serves a social context that is determined by fundamental Christian values and in which there is the role of the woman as the wife, princess/queen, co-director, who thinks independently but withdraws in the case of cases, but who must be protected and rescued in an emergency. Also, she gets shown as someone who takes this situation for granted.

CERSEI LANNISTER. This figure was designed from the beginning as immoral and selfish. Their only acceptable side, as Tyrion (Peter Dinklage) expresses in 8.4, is their maternal love for their children. This good nature, however, was also shown as overshadowed by her character and so she had to lose them, the children of sin. First to evil, then to an act of revenge, then to religious fanaticism.

BRIENNE of Tarth (Gwendoline Christie). This character is one of the variable characters with which the authors play with us. She is a classic secondary character who serves to better understand the character(s) of the main character(s), their motivation and actions. In particular, the figure serves to accompany Jaime and Sansa. Moreover, implicitly, it offers an identification for those in the female audience who cannot compare themselves with the beautiful girls and women figures, who are also too tall or find rather sporty or not pretty.

The fact that it get ultimately shown in detail as a relationship with Jaime (Nikolaj Coster-Waldau) has a dual function here. On the one hand, it is used to show the figure of Jaime after the court as a man still capable of love. After winning the battle side by side, in which we got shown that they had saved each other’s lives, this was only consequent. Then one had to sort Brienne into the camp of the female figures according to the overall layout in order to restore order. For this, she had to love, become jealous and even stand in the snow crying, which discriminates against the figure twice over, as I here and now boldly assume. For on the one hand, as mentioned in various critiques, as a crying abandoned woman, this Brienne is the opposite of the intrepid and capable warrior. Then, this is my hypothesis, she misjudges in her jealousy the actual reason, the true character of Jaime. She obviously didn’t listen to him. He’s not leaving for Kingslanding to save his sister blindly. The task of this character is to protect the subjects from insane actions. But on the other hand, this chracter is one of those the authors change and use as varaible, as one of the few who are arranged to install surprising and less logical elements in the narrative.

What remains is ARYA, the figure who is the only one allowed to unfold and live independently. She is the ‚Wonder Woman‘ of this series, like these ‚the Godkiller‘ (cf. Stokowski 2019). This character has worked, learned and fought to lead an independent and as far as possible self-determined life. Accordingly, she had to reject Gendry’s (Joe Demspey’s) long-awaited proposal. As mentioned above, Arya mirrors Jon, and therefore it is a dramatic necessity to keep this in dramaturgical balance to the male main character.

In this respect, it is consistent and little surprising that at the end of the series even more women from the ensemble are left behind, murdered, referred to the back seats.

bibliography

Fiedler, Leslie A. 2017 Love and death in the American novel. 3rd printing Dalkey Archive ed. Normal, IL: Dalkey Archive Press.

Gelfert, Hans-Dieter. 2006. Typically American: How Americans became what they are. 3rd, updated and supplemented by an epilogue America 2006. Aufl., original edition ed. Munich: Beck.

Stokowski, Margarete. 2019. „Wonder Woman & Hannah Arendt.“  Hanser Accents Miracles (66.1 May 2019):12-17.

Stutterheim, Kerstin. 2017 Game of Thrones – dramaturgy of a TV series. Paderborn Fink Publishers / Brill

Stutterheim, Kerstin. 2019. „Game of Thrones 8 Episode 3 – Armageddon. The Long Night.“ Glaz, 1 May 2019.

The second episode of the eighth season continues, on the one hand, the linking of arcs to situations from the beginning of the series as well as to relevant subplots, in which the authors let further characters arrive in Winterfell or let actions take place between those who are already there. In this sequence, several conflicts of previous strands of action are resolved to be able to reposition figures. To be able to continue the principle of ensemble dramaturgy with a central character, central elements of the central conflict are remembered in this series, realigned, and organised as tensions between the figures of this season.

On the other hand, this episode intensifies the tension in the sense of waiting for the central battle between the living, the human world, and the embodied death and its hosts. This is called as a theme in variants again and again – in the dialogue between Arya (Maisie Williams) and Gendry (Joe Dempsey) for example.

In their interaction the real battle, the challenge to face the angels of death, Satan’s hosts, is pointed out, but also the arc to the subplot and story of the character of Arya is created. Death can have a thousand faces and embody absolute evil as nobody (Arendt 2007, 101, Stutterheim 2017, 87/88). The adolescent Arya not only looked death in the face but also in his ‚workshop‘ (Season 5).

The theme of the confrontation with death and the possible total downfall and absolute oblivion appears again and again in this current episode. Here the central conflict of the Christian conception of the world is reflected as the elementary struggle between God and Satan, which determines this series in its moral code and the motivation of the characters. Good versus evil. To represent and stand up for the good ones, one must be morally good, get forgiven for one’s sins and free oneself or renounce them, put egoism and vanity at the back. For this fight, even the ‚For the Family‘, which otherwise determines the canon of behavioural norms, stands back. For the family would no longer exist after the victory of evil. (cf. Stutterheim 2017, 32-43)

As already emphasised in the last blog text, in these weekly comments I can only deal with selected situations, and only analyse them to a certain extent so as not to go beyond the scope. And, attention, unfortunately, from here it does not go without more detailed descriptions, spoiler warning for those who have not yet seen the episode.

First, however, embedding the scene between Arya and Gendry, Jaime (Nikolaj Coster-Waldau) had to be repositioned in this episode because he is one of the central and dramaturgically relevant flexible characters (cf. Stutterheim 2017, 94). It was not only introduced as a second figure at the complementary level of Kings Landing, but also as relevant to the conflict at this level of action. Actions of this figure are part of the conflict between the Lannisters and Starks, but especially for the central conflict, the question of the right to the throne. The character of Jaime Lannister keeps alive the basic situation of the problems surrounding the Targaryen family. And so implicitly refers to the Grail legend in which the land is threatened until the king is healed or a healed king reigns over it. Jaime embodies this conflict, is a living memory of it because he prevented a mass murder by killing the last Targaryen king and could deceive the successor, who was a morally ill, sinful king. From this constellation, he can be managed as a variable character and not assigned to a family line. He is the protector of the rightful king, he fights for the living, as expressed explicitly in his dialogue, and in the sense of dramaturgy, he is a character who, in the tradition of tragedy, stands for the survival of the community.

The scenes around Jaime Lannister represent the day of the last court for Jaime. He must answer for his deeds, his sins are balanced against his good deeds. Since, as Jon (Kit Harrington) sums it up in one sentence, every man is needed, and especially Jaime, who for dramaturgical reasons cannot be removed from the narrative right now, this character has to face his sins and survive this judgment. As already mentioned above and explained in more detail in earlier texts (Stutterheim 2017), conservatively Christian world views and traditions are decisive for the leading strand and its development. First, it is the young women who sit in court over him, then he faces Bran (Isaak Hempstead Wright) and finally Brienne of Tarth (Gwendoline Christie). The character of Bran gives Jaime absolution because he acted for his family at that time, which is understandable in the context of the moral code that the roles of the series follow; and now it is ultimately about higher things than the earthly. A further moment of increasing the tension on the progress of the series is also interwoven here, in that the authors let Bran, the seer, ask: „How do you know there is an afterwards?“

With Brienne, Jaime is also brought into a balanced relationship, which is carried over several situations and results in Jaime knighting her.

It also seems interesting to me how the constellation of Sansa-Daenerys is further developed in this episode. As a reminder, the most urgent wish of both women since the beginning of the series has been to be Queen in Kingslanding. The figure of Sansa (Sophie Turner) as the king’s wife, the character of Daenerys (Emilia Clarke) as the one who is convinced that she is entitled on her own right to the throne on inheritance law grounds. This is implicitly conceived as a conflict between the morally good Stark family in the north, living in harmony with nature, and the immoral and therefore insane Targeryen family from the south. The latter provoked their own downfall because they got involved with the ‚heraldic animal of the devil‘, the lindworm, i.e. the dragon. In the course of the plot, sufficient situations were built in which the figure of Daenerys was inscribed with irrational to excessively cruel decisions in her actions, which kept awake and confirmed this stigma of the family of the South and intellect and the associated impression of overestimating one’s own self. To prepare for this situation, Winterfell Tyrion (Peter Dinklage) and Jaime talk about Daenerys and Cersei (Lena Headley) in the inner courtyard, an analogy is also made here and above all the third woman, whose aim in life is also the throne, is remembered.

As so often in the course of the series, Daenerys is advised by one of her male advisors to do something relevant to the achievement of her goal, but which would never have occurred to the character herself. (Almost all positive decisions made by this character in the course of the action have been initiated, advised, or prepared by male companions.) „All my life I have known one goal: The Iron Throne.“ And it is very likely that for dramatic reasons they deliberately leave their brother unmentioned, whose aspirations determined the first years of their lives.

The moment the conversation revolves around their love for Jon, they get closer to each other, to the point that Daenerys lays her hand on Sansa’s, which, however, also expresses an embodiment of hierarchy. But the figure of Sansa does not allow herself to be captured by the gesture and brings the conversation back to the central conflict, the balance of power between the throne in the South/Kingslanding and The North/Winterfell.

Before Daenerys can respond, there is a reinforcement for the Sansas cause and its emotional power: Theon (Alfie Allen) arrives. Since the beginning of the series, these two figures have been dramaturgically linked to each other, as have those of Arya and Jon or Arya and Gendry.

Central to the further course of the explicit action is the scene of planning the impending confrontation in the middle of the running time of the episode. Since a time frame can now be given by the arrived fighters, one must make preparations for the forthcoming all-decisive fight. This makes it possible to unite all prominent figures in one room and to move Jon back into the centre of the action. He, as the Parzival of the narrative, is the one who can heal the country, end the threat. A fight for that is inevitable. That this must be wisely prepared since victory cannot be achieved by force alone, is evident on the explicit level of narrative, and implicitly a clash of the spiritual divine with the representation of absolute evil, Satan, is equally inevitable. Here we are also working on the figure gang, which has already been led over the whole season. Through Bran’s encounter with the Night King and the resulting physical networking of both characters, Bran can serve as a lure. Of course, the figure of Theon is the most suitable to be placed at his side. Explicitly for the reason that the character himself expresses: He conquered Winterfell when the child was Bran Burgherr, so now he has to defend her next to him. Implicitly, Theon is also the most suitable figure to stand by Bran’s side, as he also suffered a non-healing physical wound from the hand of one of the characters representing evil in the human world. Like Bran, Theon has been transformed into a different character through the encounter with the evil, according to the standards that apply to the cosmos of the series, a better character.

Arya and Gendry have been emotionally connected since episode 10 of the first season. The fact that the two become a couple in this episode is explicitly logical concerning the situation in this previous plot. This is already apparent in the events evolving in episode 8.1 and the scene at the beginning of this second episode. Implicitly this is also logical because in their relationship an arc is drawn to the friendship between the characters Robert Baratheon (Mark Addy) and Ned Stark (Sean Bean). Arya and Gendry take this relationship to a new level. So there is still another, an alternative future royal couple for the build-up of tension: Gendry and Arya.

As an echo to the scene in 8.1, in which Sam (John Bradley) in the crypt tells Jon of his true origin, at the end of the second episode of this season it is again the situation in the crypt, in which Jon now opens Daenerys that he is her nephew. This circumstance not only excludes a love relationship, the reason why the Daenerys figure was able to develop a gentle and peaceful side, as she expressed earlier in the conversation with Sansa. Moreover, if Jon is now Aegon Targeryen, he is the rightful male heir of the family throne and stands before her in the line of aspirants. This calls into question the entire previous striving and doing of the figure, as well as its position. This situation enables a further change in the action, with which a new conflict is built into another internal action in a specific constellation of characters. An excellent cliff hanger.

This replacement does not come as a surprise, as it has already been prepared for a long time. Dramaturgically, this can first be deduced from the sequence and form of the introduction of the figures. The figure of the Daenerys has taken over the claim to the throne from her brother and now – in the sense of how the series is arranged – gives it back to her next male relative in a dramaturgically logical manner shortly before the end of the plot. And, in the course of the plot, it was not for nothing that Jon was familiarised in time with the dragons, which he can now take over from Daenerys, and with them determine the final battle. The figure of the Daenerys seems to me to be a transitional figure who enriches the plot between the two male heirs to the throne and gives it a necessary facet, but possibly according to the dramaturgical balance, has to give up her claim to the throne at the end to the central male figure. We’ll see, but there’s a lot to be said for it. Because with the parents, Lyanna Stark (Aisling Franciosi) and Rhaegar Targaryen (Wilf Scolding), the conflict between the south and the north would be solved, and the country could be healed, if the figure Jon/Aegon would become the new king.

I’m curious to see what happens next. The Night King was already ready in the last shot to advance the plot in the next episode.

Kerstin Stutterheim

Bibliography

Arendt, Hannah. 2007. Über das Böse. Eine Vorlesung zu Fragen der Ethik [Some Questions of Moral Philosophy]. Ungekürzte Taschenbuchausg. ed, Serie Piper. München: Piper.

Klotz, Volker. 1980. Geschlossene und offene Form im Drama (1969). 13 ed, Literatur als Kunst. München: C. Hanser.

Stutterheim, Kerstin. 2015. Handbuch angewandter Dramaturgie. Vom Geheimnis des filmischen Erzählens, Babelsberger Schriften zu Mediendramaturgie und Ästhetik /. Frankfurt am Main u.a.: Peter Lang Verlag.

Stutterheim, Kerstin. 2017. Game of Thrones sehen – Dramaturgie einer TV Serie. Paderborn Fink Verlag / Brill

Once again, a SciFi movie – or rather writer-director Ryan Coogler and his team – shows that the world could be better than it is today, and at the same time they do their part. In the postmodern film „Black Panther„, which is wonderfully entertaining for me as a dramaturge and film scholar, the author/director Ryan Coogler and his co-author Joe Robert Cole have created an interesting construction for their ensemble arranged around a central figure. The central character is a prince, T’Challa/Black Panther (Chadwick Boseman), whose becoming a king leads as well onto a kind of world rain. This character is very skilfully led by a group of women, without whom he would not have survived nor never made it to the top of power.

In this narrative, the women of clever military men, spies, advisors as figures in the ensemble are of decisive importance for action, most of all the character of his little sister going with the name Shuri (Letitia Wright). This character is the scientific superbrain, a Q[1] of the future. Yes, all this is already laid out in the comics, but nevertheless, it is a transformation into a cinema film, to which my attention is directed here.

Ryan Coogler and his team will present traditional patterns of filmic narration in the Hollywood-influenced space of experience with a postmodern wink of the eye.

The plot around the king’s question provides the impetus for action, establishes the conflict because the change on the throne is triggered by mishandling in the family (classic American dramaturgy)[1] and must be atoned for before the country and the world can be healed – as already in the Grail myth.

Epic and classical American dramaturgy are interwoven here, the basic patterns of myth-based tragedy and Christian worldviews serve as a basic structure that conveys a sense of familiarity to the audience.[2]

In the centre there is a male hero who is responsible for the welfare of the country and the world. Here, he is following advice by his female company. That is, of course, first his mother (Angela Bassett Broke), then the woman he loves, Nakia (Lupita Nyong’o). Then it is General Okoye (Danai Gurira) and last but not least his little sister who secures his survival more than once. Of course, like „The Student of Prague“ (Wegener and Rye D 1913), he has to face the embodiment of his negative reflection, his cousin going with the name Erik Killmonger (Michael B. Morgan) in a direct battle. At first the becomes defieted; because as a good man he hesitates to kill his cousin who was unfairly left behind when T’Challa’s father killed his own brother. That cousin, angry and trained by the CIA/ American military to be a fighting machine, does not hesitate to kill to get onto the throne. The character T’Challa still is being saved. First by a fisherman – with reference to the Christian tradition, then by his first contender, whose life the Black Panther character spared during the earlier „Challenge”. But the actual rescue happens through the Trinity of Mother, Beloved, and Little Sister, who guide this character of T’Challa/Black Panther through the plot and ensure his progress/survival. The young king thus represents a postmodern central figure by embodying the typical male hero, who also is a variant of the split hero by being inseparable from the character of the sister to get through the action. The little sister and the king are an inseparable unit, neither could develop their abilities without the other. They form a variant of a split main character.

In this context, the male figure, on whom our emotional interest is directed as well as the narrative tradition, is designed in such a way that he apparently experiences a so-called ‚journey of the hero‘ and emerges from the adventure as supposedly stronger and more knowledgeable. He’s definitely improved his duel technique. On this ‚journey‘, in the course of the arguments, he learned to listen above all to what the character of Nakia tells him, to whom the authors conceded the statesman’s thoughts.

In this film, as already mentioned, the female characters are those who dramaturgically advance the plot and, to put it another way, are equipped with agency.

There is more to discover and describe in the more wide-ranging dramaturgy of this postmodern film, such as references to many well-known feature film scenes, such as from „Metropolis“ (Lang, D 1927), „The Fifth Element“ (Besson F 1997), and „Game of Thrones“ (Benioff and Weiss, USA 2011-2019) analogies, whose analysis may be presented elsewhere or in a later blog entry.

[1] Cf. (Stutterheim 2015)

[2] Cf. (Stutterheim 2019)

[1] The technician of the James Bond universe.

Films:

Benioff, David, and D.B. Weiss. 2011-. GAME OF THRONES. USA.

Besson, Luc. F 1997. THE FIFTH ELEMENT.

Long, Fritz. D 1927. METROPOLIS.

Wegener, Paul, and Stellan Rye. D 1913. THE STUDENT FROM PRAGUE.

for further reading regarding the mentioned context in dramaturgy:

Stutterheim, Kerstin. 2015. Handbuch angewandter Dramaturgie. Vom Geheimnis des filmischen Erzählens, Babelsberger Schriften zu Mediendramaturgie und Ästhetik /. Frankfurt am Main u.a.: Peter Lang Verlag.

Stutterheim, Kerstin. 2019. Modern Film Dramaturgy. 1st ed. Basel – Frankfurt – Oxford – New York Peter Lang Publishing.

by Kerstin Stutterheim

Gertrud Stein once wrote that it takes hundred years, three generations, to change habits and narratives. Is Generation One still in charge? And, can the American Way of Life (and thinking) and thus film productions using following the “American Dramaturgy” (cf. Frenz 1962, Stutterheim 2015, pp153) give us a model for living today and the future?

Fatherhood, motherhood, and the biological family are core elements of the “American Narrative” (cf. Fiedler 2017 , Gelfert 2006). And that specific form of designing the narrative, and much more importantly the implicit dramaturgy, mirrors the culture and feeds back into the understanding of gender, hierarchies and more into the Anglo-American film industry, thus the global world as well.

An unwritten rule of designing a successful movie or series for US-American or British audiences involves the narrative referring to conservative Jewish-Christian believes, which are mingled with historical experiences thus priming the Cultural Memory (cf. Assmann 2010, Assmann 2002, 2004, Gelfert 2006) of these nations. And, apparently, one can find here traditions, topics, and themes from the American Novel transformed into elements of “American Dramaturgy”. The novel emerged as the new mass medium. (Fiedler 2017 44) It’s core elements are a result out of the shift from Catholicism (or other religions respecting female Goddesses) towards the father-cantered Protestantism, which was the religion of the new mass of that time in the developing United States of America. (Fiedler 2017 44)

Other elements of “American Dramaturgy” reflect the influence of ‘the Code’ and its moral stakes for representational spaces towards Hollywood (Maras 2016, pp1) and film productions elsewhere.

The series Top of the Lake is an American-British co-production for Sundance TV and BBC One. Jane Campion and Gerard Lee wrote the series. Season one is directed by Campion and Garth Davis.

Although the main character – at least for season one – is a young female character, Robin Griffin (Elisabeth Moss), the overall narration again follows the ‘American dramaturgy’ – a version of that old story. The first season is about sexual abuse and paedophilia intertwined with questions of fatherhood, relationships and family. Young Robin, who usually lives in Sydney, is visiting her dying mother Grishina (Skye Wansey) in New Zealand. The mother-daughter-relationship is overshadowed by an event from their past, fitting the model of an analytical drama as well as a crime story. Robin remembers her father as the better parent. Soon after her arrival Robin becomes involved in a case of sexual abuse of a very young girl, Tui (Jaqueline Joe). Tui is the 12-year-old daughter of a bad macho and drug dealer, Matt (Peter Mullan) and an Asian woman who no longer lives with Matt’s patchwork family. Since Robin’s character is introduced as a specialist in cases involving children, this is in the beginning reasonable enough to make us believe she could be asked to join this department; besides which, the story is situated on the South Island, where the capital is located and thus very likely there may exist a specialist too.

Robin is set up as a detective who tries her best to solve the case. In the beginning, her character acts professionally in as much as she has to keep voyeuristic policemen at a distance and to be the only one Tui is communicating with. The promising start, reminding one of such series as The Killing (here I refer to the original Danish production, not the US adaptation), is soon interfered by Robin’s backstory and diminishing the gestus of professionalism, inviting the audience to fall back into or a typical critical-incredulous look at her.

Thus, the narration is split into different levels – central is the case, secondary the private story of Robin. In dramatic tradition usually telling a story this way – divided into a ‘collective’ or more general level and one private thread – would indicate an ‘open form’. But within this model of narration one doesn’t need a backstory and definitely not a Happy Ending. The way the narrative is set up for Top of the Lake mixes traditions of narration but focussing more on drama traditions derived from the hero driven tragedy in combination with ‘the journey of the hero’. The latter brings us clearly back to patriarchal Christian-puritanical worldviews (cf. Campbell 1949). As one can see, these are dominant against the modern approach of using an open form.

In the backstory, in the private thread, it is told that Robin was raped as a 16-year-old girl and got pregnant as result of it. Her Catholic mother did not allow an abortion. Thus Robin became a mother but gave her baby away for adoption the very next day after giving birth.

There is also an additional storyline of a group of women who set up a community close by in a place called ‘paradise’. These women have different stories to tell and to overcome, all related to relationships with men. At some point as well Tui and Robin have to ask for shelter there. Paradise is situated at the end of a dead-end street close to the end of the world surrounded by a most beautiful landscape. Is this a place to be compared with monasteries from Middle Ages, which accommodated women having physical, psychological or monetary stigmas from a male point of view, labelled as ‘unfuckable’?

While Robin is working on the case, she has to encounter not only voyeuristic colleagues but as well an increasingly abusive boss and one of her rapists. With a closer look, it becomes evident that the action of season one is designed in such a way that the enthusiasm Robin is investing in solving the case appears more and more like displacement behaviour to processing her own traumata and not so much the action of a professional detective. This approach by the authors/directors of telling her story supports two other old stereotypes within Anglo-American narratives. The first one is that working women are acting more emotionally than logically and that they are working intensely and passionately (only) to overcome trauma, disappointment or misbehaviour excluding them from their social group – as becoming a single mother no matter the circumstances. One influential novel in this regard is The Scarlet Letter by Nathaniel Hawthorne (Hawthorne and Murfin 2006), which shines through the pattern of the construction of Robin’s story as well. For example, when Robin finds out that everyone in the police department knows she has been raped as a young girl and Elisabeth Moss as Robin is directed as sitting there stunned and tears forming in her eyes or stunned and tearful.

By surviving all this she is not only proving her ability to solving the case, rescuing the girl and the baby, but as a reward, the prospect of sentimental love lies ahead for her. The happy ending as establishing a man-woman-relationship in love is another traditional element of American Narratives, grown out of the American Novel representing the worldviews of the protestant/puritan bourgeoisie (Fiedler 2017 pp 44) transformed for the movies by the founder generation of Hollywood (Gabler 1989).

Season two was broadcasted recently, again written by Gerard Lee and Jane Campion; directed by her and Ariel Kleiman. China Girl tells the story of Robin coming back to Sydney, after years of having a not-much-defined break from the police work. The authors trigger a presumption seeing her having been at home with her beloved Jonno. An intense emotional private disappointment spurred her to return to the police force she left years ago, but no one other than her boss seems to know her from these earlier times.

With the very first episode, the character becomes damaged. Firstly, when Robin is inappropriate reacting to a provocation in a common situation, in front of the whole department and some superior men observing the event. Secondly, she is presented drinking beer regularly after duty. By doing so, she is endangering her brother who managed to overcome his drinking habits. Soon she gets her new case – a murdered China Girl. She is supposed to solve this case together with her colleague Miranda Hilmarson (Gwendoline Christie) and all other staff of the department, one of them attracted to Robin from the very first meeting at the corpse. He is trying every possible way to start any kind of relationship with her.

The murder case leads Robin and her team into a milieu of prostitution and surrogacy. Correspondingly, the theme of season two mirrors and potentiates themes of season one – now it is biological motherhood, prostitution, abuse, and men seeing themselves as superior to women.

From a dramaturgical point of view interestingly, Robin is no longer the main character. As a very dominant antagonist to Robin, a pimp called ‘Puss’ (David Dencik) is established, and besides the actor speaking with an East-European accent, he is also called ‘the German’. Pervasive is the character not only as lousy character dominating and exploiting a group of women, terrifying people around him but more importantly as a character who is designed to be controlling the progress of the action. Actions this character got from the author-directors bolstering him driving the story, not the detective. She is designed as a much more reacting character than in season one.

This pimp has a similar hairstyle to Matt in season one, and he appears as an incarnation of the “Eternal Wanderer of Misogynism”. That Puss is designed and directed as a character, who lives in and from the conviction that it would be man’s destiny to enslave women. He has a stream of dialogues written, and the character can present this thinking in a variety of argumentations. Accordingly, he can declare prostitution as a profession and portray himself as a feminist who is supporting women to earn money to be able to support their families. This character is situated as the antagonist to Robin on both levels – the murder case and the private level of the narration. Sure, a bad persona has to say and do terrible things fitting the designed character; this is not the point I want to question here. There are decisions to be made within the process of how to use dramaturgy to balance the dynamic between characters. Interestingly, dialogues and actions between the pimp and the detective are following the traditional “Western”-model more – the male outlaw being the more exciting persona, having the potential to become the one who is acting out the morally better one. By invoking that model in a combination of giving that persona this ample opportunity to make the point of the misogynist, he gets more influence on the action, thus he is a main character. Consequently, this persona ‘Puss’ is not only challenging the character of Robin, he is a dramatic opponent too but as well – from a dramaturgical point of view – diminishing the importance of the persona Robin within the structure and hence the effect of that character. From a dramaturgical point of view, the character of Puss is designed as the potentially morally good outlaw, in which he is allowed to see himself, hence the one questioning the Sherriff. One could write all this that way and contrast it with the directorial approach and the representation of that character, but that isn’t happening here. On the contrary, Puss is shown as the active and smart persona, while Robin is deliberately designed as a most vulnerable Female.

The main task given to the character of Robin by the creators Campion and Lee is to understand herself as a mother. She has to get to know her daughter Mary – incorporated by Jane Campion’s daughter Alice Englert. Campion and Lee designed Robin’s character as being haunted by her past and working to forget her pain. Her salvation is to understand and accept her motherhood and to get a new perspective on herself. (Bonus Material, Making Robin. Campion and Kleiman 2017) Thus, she has to meet her daughter Mary and her new parents. Through her actions, and since she is designed as another most vulnerable and at the same time exceptionally stupidly-behaving young woman, Robin is brought into challenging situations – in the private as well as the crime level of the narration. Throughout this action, her character is again and increasingly taken into circumstances in which she is challenged to react on her emotions or to act professionally.

In addition to the conflict between the detective and the pimp/murderer, Robin is set into a conflict with her subordinate colleague Miranda. Another stereotype is employed with setting up this conflict – women can’t work together. The persona of Miranda is outlined as a bit naïve, not well-educated, but longing for love and being loved. Since this character was deliberately designed for Gwendoline Christie (Bonus Material, Making Miranda. Campion & Kleiman, 2017), her problem is apparent – she is taller than everyone else, hence misperceived as a female monster. Her character also gets no chance to become a role model. Her character has been set up as being in a new relationship with her married boss, lying to Robin and others. And much worse – after the boss declared his relationship with Miranda as true to Robin, Miranda seems to be flirting with Robin’s brother Liam (Kirin J. Callinam). Consequently, following the rules of the American Dramaturgy, Miranda has to be in real danger when she is wearing Liam’s shirt. Cheating against the new relationship and wearing a visible sign of it, like a ‘scarlet letter’, makes her dramatically vulnerable and punishment – for her sin – is inevitable.

A similar traditional layer of traditional, as well as conservative American Dramaturgy pattern, is recognisable for the development written for Robin within the action. In addition to aspects mentioned earlier, two other issues can be emphasised here as well. Firstly, the promise of a sentimental love-relationship is used as reward for Robin, of a man who appears as a mixture of her father and Jonno (Thomas M. Wright) as we remember both from season one. Interestingly, the dynamics of the relationship between Robin and Mary’s father Pyke (Ewan Leslie) according to her motherhood success. When Robin is shown as understanding herself as the mother of Mary and acting accordingly, the dynamics between her and Pyke are good. In situations, Robin is working as the detective, and given the construct of the crime story acting against the interests of Mary, Pyke has to backtrack from her. And, since this relationship is against standards of morality, the situation when they are having sex has to be interrupted by a call of high importance.

The other weird issue, dramaturgically speaking, is the situation of the encounter of Robin and her former senior Al Parker (David Wenham) for a hearing. The overall story gives the impression that some years lay between the end of season one – Robin shooting Al – and beginning of season two. Robin had three miscarriages, and as we can see, Al has a new family and two children. The boy must be about five or at least four years old, to estimate from the appearance and dialogue. What made them wait so long to set up the hearing about the events happening at end of season one? What took the authorities four to five years to arrange that? That situation – of meeting again for the hearing – enables the authors and the director to display a violent attack against Robin. Although it may have been planned as a situation showing Robin’s strengths and cleverness, it shows first of all that the man in his wheelchair still is stronger than her, and very much determined to abuse her – and all of this is demonstrated much in detail and length supporting a voyeuristic view.

After Robin’s character suffered this much, accepted her motherhood and was able to solve the case, she is rewarded with being trusted by her boss to deputise for him for some time. Mary manages to free herself from her relationship with Puss and goes back to her adoptive mother; who herself has returned to her marriage and gets rewarded for doing so by getting Mary back.

Just the Thai-women are still in the hands of Puss, and all those couples that were about to buy themselves the service of substitutes were penalised as well.

Thus, the dramaturgical analysis disappointingly reveals a white-male supremacy worldview dominating the layout and construct, the motivation and design of the narration and characters; as well the aesthetic representation.

Both seasons of Top of the Lake were perceived as exceptional productions making a difference in presenting female characters within TV productions. Nevertheless, it is pleasant to watch excellent actresses in exciting, challenging and rewarding roles; the implicit message is still questioning women in their rights and their economic, social as well as mental independence.

Bibliography

Assmann, Aleida. 2010. Memory in a global age: discourses, practices and trajectories. 1. publ. ed, Palgrave Macmillan memory studies. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

Assmann, Jan. 2002. Das kulturelle Gedächtnis: Schrift, Erinnerung und politische Identität in frühen Hochkulturen. 4. Aufl. dieser Ausg. ed, Beck’sche Reihe. München: Beck.

Assmann, Jan. 2004. Religion und kulturelles Gedächtnis: zehn Studien. Orig.-Ausg., 2. Aufl. ed, Beck’sche Reihe. München: Beck.

Campbell, Joseph. 1949. The hero with a thousand faces. New York: Pantheon books.

Campion, Jane, and A. Kleiman. 2017. Top of the Lake – China Girl. In Top of the Lake. UK/USA: BBC.

Fiedler, Leslie A. 2017 Love and death in the American novel. 3rd printing Dalkey Archive ed. Normal, IL: Dalkey Archive Press.

Frenz, Horst, ed. 1962. Amerikanische Dramaturgie. Reinbek bei Hamburg: Rowohlt Verlag.

Gabler, Neal. 1989. An empire of their own: How the Jews invented Hollywood. New York: Doubleday.

Gelfert, Hans-Dieter. 2006. Typisch amerikanisch: Wie die Amerikaner wurden, was sie sind. 3., aktualisierte und um ein Nachwort Amerika 2006 erg. Aufl., Originalausg. ed. München: Beck.

Hawthorne, Nathaniel, and Ross C. Murfin. 2006. The scarlet letter: complete, authoritative text with biographical, historical, and cultural contexts, critical history, and essays from contemporary critical perspectives. 2. ed, Case studies in contemporary criticism. Boston u.a.: Bedford/St. Martin’s.

Maras, Steven (Ed). 2016. „Ethics in Screenwriting – New Perspectives.“ In Palgrave Studies in Screenwriting, ed Steven Maras. London, UK: Palgrave Macmillan. http://dx.doi.org/10.1057/978-1-137-54493-3.

Stutterheim, Kerstin. 2015. Handbuch angewandter Dramaturgie. Vom Geheimnis des filmischen Erzählens, Babelsberger Schriften zu Mediendramaturgie und Ästhetik /. Frankfurt am Main u.a.: Peter Lang Verlag.

many thanks to Sue Warren for proof reading

by Kerstin Stutterheim

These days’ discussions about ‘the culture’ in Hollywood and elsewhere are directing the focus towards interaction between male executives and female actresses or team members. The word goes that more women behind the scene would change the way women are treated and represented. Yes, that is step one, long overdue. But will that be the definite solution – or do we think of some further aspects to change this kind of behaviour?

What about productions written and directed or produced by female professionals? Agnieszka Holland, Vera Chytilova, Deepa Mehta, Chantal Ackerman and Agnes Varda are for sure some and they are important role models in this regard, but other female writer-directors are still telling the same old stories. Gertrud Stein once wrote that it takes a hundred years, three generations, to change habits and narratives.^[1] Is generation one still in charge?

Media productions, in particular mainstream TV and cinema productions, are in more or less subtle ways influential in priming gender constructions. And they have their freedom to tell stories in grandfather’s style, since neo-liberal thinking forbids criticising successful productions from the Anglo-American World. This is true in particular for productions made in Hollywood or by HBO, which are seen as working opportunities as nearest to heaven as one could imagine. The ‘Bechtel-Test’ is a nice first tool but it does not really indicate the importance of female characters within a narrative. Nor can dialogues meeting the ‘Bechtel-Test’ give these characters a true appreciation, which will make them embodiments of modern independent women who are allowed to live an autonomous life.

Fatherhood, motherhood, and the biological family are core elements of the ‘American Dramaturgy’.^[2] And that specific form of designing the narrative, and much more importantly the implicit dramaturgy, mirrors the culture and feeds back into the understanding of gender, hierarchies and more into the Anglo-American film industry, thus the global world as well.

The last decade or two one had to experience an on-going backlash in presenting female characters – in TV as on the big screen.

The unwritten rule of designing a successful movie or series for US-American or British audiences involves the narrative referring to conservative Jewish-Christian beliefs, which are mingled with historical experiences thus priming the Cultural Memory^[3] of these nations. And, apparently, one can find here traditions, topics, and themes from the American Novel in film narratives. The American novel is a result of the change from Catholicism (or other religions) towards the father-cantered Protestantism, which was the religion of the mass of that time in the developing US. The novel as medium emerged as the new mass medium.^[4]

Other elements of ‘American Dramaturgy’ reflect the influence of ‘the Code’ and its moral stakes for representational spaces towards film productions in Hollywood^[5] and elsewhere.

One can understand how influential the priming of conservative Jewish-Christian gender construction is when it is found in the implicit dramaturgy of modern productions, when one looks at most recent productions. Examples could be endless, I am choosing here randomly some out of the highest ranked and most discussed productions of this year 2017, so far. In Dunkirk (Nolan, USA 2017) for example women exist only as ‘extras’ – representing nurses and handing out bread and tea, which does not represent their roles within the historic event. In this movie, all women have to die amongst the wounded and/or terrified soldiers since they are in ships which have been bombarded and are sinking at the shores of Dunkirk. One can find several layers of association given the style the film is made in – the Nazis were brutal and bombarded Red Cross ships, but also: the weak are first victims, always.

Another example is Blade Runner 2049 (Villeneuve, USA 2017), which is opulent and strikingly disappointing. For this sequel, women are reduced to appearing either as an attractive killing machine, or predesigned after the physical appearance of that figure but as most lovingly acting holograms. One other female character is set up as an asexual being focussed on her duty, thus she has to die early. But in total, the movie is dedicated to men and their desires for power and total independence, which allows just as much love as it can to enable them to become part of a real biological family, although this may happen just for a short time, not for life. (Spoiler!: hence in the end father and daughter were united. Implicit, that makes the biological/family relation the most important aspect of the implicit dramaturgy. The ‘moment of catharsis’ is the solution and fulfilment of the whole action – father will meet his daughter after many years not knowing if she made it and survived. The option indicated in an earlier scene, that this young woman is a result of true love and hence not designed, could just by her existence change the life of female characters shown as living underground, is not strong enough to be part of the solution – or a set up to develop another sequel. Those women hoping for change are shown as prostitutes and spies in one, which is an old figure one can always find, for example in Deuteronomy (the Old Testament), as the story about Rahab and the Canaanites.^[6]

will be continued – one day, here or elsewhere

[1] (Stein, 1990)

[2] (cf. Frenz, 1962; Stutterheim, 2015)

[3] (cf. A. Assmann, 2010, 2012; J. Assmann, 1992; Gelfert, 2006, 2011)

[4] (Fiedler, 2017 )

[5] (Maras, 2016)

[6] (Raṿeh, 2014)

Assmann, A. (2010). Memory in a global age: discourses, practices and trajectories (1. publ. ed.). Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

Assmann, A. (2012). Memory and political change (1. publ. ed.). Basingstoke, Hampshire u.a.: Palgrave Macmillan.

Assmann, J. (1992). Das kulturelle Gedächtnis: Schrift, Erinnerung und politische Identität in frühen Hochkulturen. München: Beck.

Fiedler, L. A. (2017 ). Love and death in the American novel (3rd printing Dalkey Archive ed.). Normal, IL: Dalkey Archive Press.

Frenz, H. (Ed.). (1962). Amerikanische Dramaturgie. Reinbek bei Hamburg: Rowohlt Verlag.

Gelfert, H.-D. (2006). Typisch amerikanisch: Wie die Amerikaner wurden, was sie sind (3., aktualisierte und um ein Nachwort Amerika 2006 erg. Aufl., Originalausg. ed.). München: Beck.

Maras, S. E. (2016). Ethics in Screenwriting – New Perspectives. In S. Maras (Ed.), Palgrave Studies in Screenwriting (pp. XXV, 263 p. 219 illus). London, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.

Raṿeh, I. (2014). Feminist rereadings of rabbinic literature (K. Fish, Trans.). Waltham, Massachusetts: Brandeis University Press.

Stein, G. (1990). Erzählen (Narration. Four lectures by Gertrude Stein). Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp Verlag.

Stutterheim, K. (2015). Handbuch angewandter Dramaturgie. Vom Geheimnis des filmischen Erzählens. Frankfurt am Main u.a.: Peter Lang Verlag.

many thanks to Sue Warren

Stories are all around us – in the books we read, games we play and films we watch. The best stories are those that draw us in, captivate us and make us empathise with the characters and their situations. But can you create a story that will thrill and engage your audience?

Professor Kerstin Stutterheim, Professor of Media & Cultural Studies at Bournemouth University, is an expert in dramaturgy – the study of the different elements that make up a story. As part of her inaugural lecture, Professor Stutterheim will share insights from her research and professional practice as a documentary filmmaker. She will explain how to tell a story that will interest, inform and excite your audience, illustrated with a wide range of examples from documentary film, and the games industry.

Professor Kerstin Stutterheim joined Bournemouth University in 2015, where she teaches a range of subjects, including film studies, directing of documentary and fiction films. She is currently involved in a research project exploring the cultural legacy of the Paralympics, as well as undertaking research into the storytelling of HBO hit TV show – Game of Thrones.

Bournemouth University’s inaugural lecture series aims to celebrate new professorial appointments and the depth and breadth of research produced by the university. For further information on the inaugural lecture series, please visit www.bournemouth.ac.uk/public-lecture-series

https://research.bournemouth.ac.uk/2017/03/inaugural-lecture-secrets-of-storytelling-in-documentaries-movies-and-games/

Game of Thrones sehen – Fink Verlag

Handbuch Angewandter Dramaturgie

Every frisson is a response to surprise, to an unexpected comparison or the revelation of a hitherto unnoticed reality. Here, it is the meeting of kitsch and death.

Kitsch, that >pinnacle of good taste in the absence of taste, of art in ugliness—a branch of mistletoe under the lamp in a railway waiting room, nickeled plate glass in a public place, artificial flowers gone astray in Whitechapel, a lunch box decorated with Vosges fir—everyday ‚Gemütlichkeit‘, art adapted to life where the function of the adaptation exceeds that of innovation. All this is kitsch, the hidden, tender, and sweet vice—and who can live without vices? And this is where its insinuating power and universality begin…<[1] (…)

It is the juxtaposition of the kitsch aesthetic and of the themes of death that creates the surprise, that special frisson so characteristic not only for the new discourse but also, it appears, of Nazism itself.

Is it necessary to see in this the will to reconstitute an atmosphere or a fascination? Both, no doubt. Beneath today’s reflection, one catches a glimpse of certain fundamental components of yesterday’s Nazi hold on the imagination.

There is a kitsch of death. (…) The death of heroes, too (…). There is even a kitsch of the apocalypse: the livid sky slashed by immense purple reflections, flames surging from cities, flocks and men fleeing toward the glowing horizon, and far, very far away, four horsemen. And yet this kitsch of death, of destruction, of apocalypse is a special kitsch, a representation of reality that does not integrate into the vision of ordinary kitsch. (…)

As I have just mentioned, whatever the kitsch images are surrounding one, death creates an authentic feeling of loneliness and dread. Basically, at the level of individual experience, kitsch and death remain incompatible. The juxtaposition of these two contradictory elements represents the foundation of a certain religious aesthetic, and, in my opinion, the bedrock of Nazi aesthetics as well as the new evocation of Nazism. (p. 25-26 )

Now, this fusion is only the expression of a kind of malaise in civilisation, linked to the acceptance of civilization, but also to its fundamental rejection. Modern society and the bourgeois order are perceived both as an accomplishment and as an unbearable yoke. Hence this constant coming and going between the need for submission and the reveries of total destruction, between love of harmony and the phantasms of apocalypse, between the enchantment of Good Friday and the twilight of the gods. Submission nourishes fury, fury clears its conscience in the submission. To these opposing needs, Nazism—in the constant duality of its representations—offers an outlet; in fact, Nazism found itself to be the expression of these opposing needs. Today these aspirations are still there, and their reflections in the imaginary as well. (…)

Neither liberalism nor Marxism responds to man’s archaic fear of the transgression of some limits of knowledge and power (you shall not eat the fruit…), thus hiding what remains the fundamental temptation: the aspiration for total power, which, by definition, is the supreme transgression, the ultimate challenge, the superhuman combat that can be settled only by death. (pp. 135-136)

In: Saul Friedländer: Reflections of Nazism. An Essay on Kitsch & Death. New York, 1984.

[1] Abraham Moles. Psychology of Kitsch. The Art of Happiness. Paris: Denoel, 1971, pp.19-20

One achievement of so-called Scandinavian Noir, the specific aesthetic and dramaturgy of contemporary TV series made in Sweden and Denmark[1], was the invention of independent and convincing modern characters. Designed like contemporary modern men and women in democratic societies in Europe, these characters are created as active parts of stories dealing with the challenges we have to face today in Europe, not just in the single country that action is situated in. Female and male characters were arranged to act on eye-level, not only in the action but as well within their dramaturgical impact. In these productions men and women have to solve same problems, on duty and at home with their families. The stories were dealing with current levels of crime—from trafficking, terrorism, to international acting mafia-like organizations. The family life of the detectives as part of the action were set as a dialectic contrast to the crime stories to be investigated by them. Thus, these productions still inherited a moment of hope, of normality, the utopian moment of modern, democratic, civilized society.

Consequently, they were filmed in a more modern or postmodern aesthetic[2]. No false illusion of realism or naturalism is given the way these productions are designed.[3] To count here are productions like Forbydelsen (DAN 2007-2012) or Arne Dahl, 1^st Season (S 2011), The Bridge (S/DAN 2011-) and Wallander (S 2005-), or to mention another series, Jockare än Vatten (S 2014).

New productions are released, designed in a way it is obvious they want to follow the trend, and to participate in the success productions mentioned above have had achieved internationally. Those two to be discussed within this essay were expected with high hopes or rather announced as high-quality Noir-like productions. First example to be discussed in this post, is the BBC production From Darkness—broadcasted during the last weeks.

From Darkness was classified as a “psychological crime-drama”[4]. It was announced to be a dark thriller with a strong female protagonist. To call this character a ‘Strong Woman’, means to show that female character acting outside social rules, unable to become an acceptable member of the bourgeoisie society. (Stutterheim, 2015b) Claire Church (Anne-Marie Duff) is a blond, athletic Ex-Detective; one can see here borrowings by Sara Lund (Forbydelsen) and Saga (The Bridge), to be worked out but a character completely different from both role models. The design of the whole production is dark, but the crime is the usual TV crime—tortured and murdered prostitutes. All together we are again confronted with helpless and emotional overacting women in high numbers throughout the four episodes of the mini series.

With this text no full analysis can be given, but some central aspects discussed from a dramaturgical point of view for this production, and in opposition to the above already mentioned productions, make this misogynistic. First is the design of the main character Claire Church, her motives for behaving and acting given within the story; second the murder, her character and motives; third the crime and the victims; another aspect to be discussed this way is the last sequence of the season. Before starting the analysis I want to keep in mind that characters are always designed to support the overall idea, they are written to service the action, they are neither real nor independent deciding human beings. (Stutterheim, 2015a)

Claire Church (Anne-Marie Duff) as a former police officer is a runner. Is she training for ‘Iron Men’, or running away or running her trauma through she suffered along that case 15 years ago? Already the first sequence shows the character Claire after woken up by a bad dream and fleeing the husband joint bed, running, intercut with pictures of prostitutes and tortured women. Within the second sequence, a body is to be found, marked by a red high heel, and setting of the detective and his assistant driving to the new home of Claire Church, who 15 years ago was in charge of the case of a missing prostitute, a less important case. The detective went away after the case was closed without solving it. For some reasons her former superior kept the file in his archive. Now he comes to her new place somewhere in Scotland to pick her up. An Island with rough landscape, a loving husband and stepdaughter are her new home.

Clara is slightly shocked by meeting her former superior unexpectedly again. Filmed in front of a mirror it takes her time and a pill to overcome her physical reaction to this encounter. Later she resists all his demands and luring until he forces her to go with him. The character of Claire Church is designed as an external closed and rough person, hiding her emotions to everyone. This is set in contrast to her husband, a loving father and caring husband. She has to take antidepressants.

Back in Manchester she becomes heavily involved in the investigation, as some consultant or external investigator and as target as well. The antagonistic character is a woman who is suffering a trauma after she was raped 15 years ago, but not murdered. She has been first mistaken for being a prostitute, and survived, but hating since then the young female detective Claire Church. In a flashback it is told that this Claire Church and her partner arrived at the scene, Claire promising to the surviving victim to come back to help her, but on her way back young Claire forgot this completely, and went away kissing her partner instead of helping the raped woman. No one else had this victim in his or her mind either. This sequence makes the new series of killings a personal revenge of one woman to another woman, and just as well the young detective a woman more driven by desire than being professional. To increase this designed side of the character of Claire, it is told that she became pregnant out of the relationship with her superior detective. She was not brave enough to tell him this, but quitted her police career, and attempt suicide, survived, but lost her baby. This situation shows that character in a different dramaturgical approach to most of the female detectives in Scandinavian Noir Productions. Those characters are worked out in a way, that they either become mothers, and tries their best to find a balance between job and motherhood. Or, in a more similar situation to the constructed for the Claire character, the young female detective gave her baby, result out of a difficult and violent relationship, in the care of adoptive parents. After the couple had died, she fought him successful back.[5] Not Claire Church. This character is situated in a story constructed following and repeating traditional conservative role models as well as misogynistic clichés.

About the mentally disturbed other woman, who became a murderer after she heard the news about the discovered bodies, we get not many information. Both female characters are designed as acting out of her uncontrollable emotional apparatus and in blind revenge. John, her former partner and lover, is married, has a son, and owns a house, a car, like it should be. He never acts out of an emotional status, although he sometimes is stretching the rules a bit.

The overall construction culminates in the last sequence of the mini-series: when they—John and Claire—separately understood what happened and probably will be the next step the murder will take, the catastrophe takes place. John arrives first at the scene, and due to circumstances given with the last episode, unarmed. The murder shoots him; he is not dead, but seriously wounded, heavily bleeding. Claire arrives, first acting professional—but after she spots her former love that way, she is losing her self-control, takes the gun and shoots her enemy to death. This, she destroys not only the fictional life of Claire Church and that of her family, but also the chance to let her develop into a convincing professional female detective. She is overacting, driven by desire and emotions, absolutely unprofessional. Besides this aspect, that sequence is as well a misogynistic answer towards the end of The Killing. With first glance it seems to be similar in that way, that the female detective is killing the murderer out of a spontaneous situation. The difference is obvious: in The Killing the female detective, Sarah Lund, is a professional investigator, fighting against crime suspects, struggling with political intrigues and circumstances not always easy for women in her position. Her motivation is based in her understanding that law and professional investigations are confronted with a powerful enemy, and she as detective never ever managed to get a hold of him. That makes her kill the man. Not caused in a situation, where she herself is private and emotionally involved; not because her long ago lover is in danger. The system the character Sarah Lund worked for as professionally as possible had failed; thus, she as well is stepping out of the system, acting equally powerful. And she as a women is shown in a situation less powerful then that Old-Boys-Group, what implicitly makes a difference as well, giving the situation a more metaphoric subtext.

Literaturverzeichnis

BBC ONE. 2015. From Darkness [Online]. Available: http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b06h7yy4.

STUTTERHEIM, K. 2013. Überlegungen zur Ästhetik des postmodernen Films. In: STUTTERHEIM, K. & LANG, C. (eds.) „Come and play with us“. Marburg: Schüren.

STUTTERHEIM, K. 2014. Häutungen eines Genres – skandinavische Ermittlerinnen

Generic Metamorphosis – Scandinavian Investigators. In: DREHER, C. (ed.) Autorenserien II / Auteur Series II. Paderborn: Fink, Wilhelm.

WAADE, A. M. & JENSEN, P. M. 2013. Nordic Noir Production Values. The Killing and The Bridge. akademisk Kvarter. The academic journal for research from the humanities [Online], 07. Fall 2013. Available: http://www.akademiskkvarter.hum.aau.dk/UK/contact.php.

[1] WAADE, A. M. & JENSEN, P. M. 2013. Nordic Noir Production Values. The Killing and The Bridge. akademisk Kvarter. The academic journal for research from the humanities [Online], 07. Fall 2013. Available: http://www.akademiskkvarter.hum.aau.dk/UK/contact.php.

[2] cf. STUTTERHEIM, K. 2013. Überlegungen zur Ästhetik des postmodernen Films. In: STUTTERHEIM, K. & LANG, C. (eds.) „Come and play with us“. Marburg: Schüren.

[3] cf. STUTTERHEIM, K. 2014. Häutungen eines Genres – skandinavische Ermittlerinnen

Generic Metamorphosis – Scandinavian Investigators. In: DREHER, C. (ed.) Autorenserien II / Auteur Series II. Paderborn: Fink, Wilhelm.

[4] BBC ONE. 2015. From Darkness [Online]. Available: http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b06h7yy4.

[5] Arne Dahl, 1st season

A closer look at women in film, as directors or as characters, provides a basic understanding of the situation of a society. Within this topic one is able to develop a much greater comprehension of if and how gender equality is represented and understood, through simple application of common sense. Gender role models are constructions, made common and perpetuated by media productions.

Movies are reflecting cultural and social relationships in a society, and subsequently have an influence on society as well.   Audience, the often-stressed unknown being, also includes women. In cinemas within some particular age groups, women are even the majority. We, the women, are an integral part of society; without us there would be neither society nor civilization. This is truism, but astonishingly enough it nevertheless has to be mention from time to time again.

Contemporary movies and TV productions are mostly dominated by male producers, directors, commissioning editors and heads of program, yet tell not only stories from that of a male perspective. Even character design is coined by a male view of the world; among the women represented, female characters are frequently designed in a way that gives an overall impression that women would be unable to act as independent human beings. They could be neither able to act as a director nor as female characters embedded in a story that do more than acting as a secretary, nurse, housewife, shop keeper or sex worker. Those characters often lack a name or intelligent dialogue lines, and can be exploited or tortured and murdered more easily than male characters. Productions like FORBYDELSEN (Dk 2007-2012) or BORGEN (Dk 2010-2013), ARNE DAHL (1^st season, S 2011) still are the exception, not a standard.

Having analyzed many movies and TV productions produced during the last decades, one can say about female characters depicted in (especially but not limited to) German productions, that if they are part of the action, they are designed as either bad mothers or cold ‘career women’. In other words, female characters can be characterized as that of the ‘Weak Woman’ or ‘Strong Woman’.

‘Strong woman’ is a term representing the male glance towards women and inheriting dominant conditions of power and the structure of society. This term is corresponding to ‘a man from the boys’ and is directing towards a peculiarity, which throughout that ironic approach is pointing at a nearly unattainable exception. This is expressing that with either a ‚Man From the Boys‘ or a ‚Strong Woman’ a traditional married life will be impossible. Instead, the term is expressing that those kinds of characters are demanding a specific hierarchy and personal freedom.

‘Strong Women’ in film and TV productions- with the exception of the aforementioned productions- usually have to fail miserably. In terms of dramatic action those women are infringing upon the implicit engraved rules of the society, which in the case of the western German tradition, means women should act firstly as ‘good’ wives and mothers. Here one can see the long shadow of the gender role models developed and set with that propaganda machinery during „Third Reich“ continued with post-war cinema made in West Germany. In terms of psychology one can say that those were ‘priming’ the view and opinions of the audience, setting up anchors (Kahneman 2012) for an understanding of society and their codes. Within the hierarchy of such characters, female characters were almost always narrated out of a male position. Thus, they have little to no influence on the narrated action. If it is a female character indulged to be the protagonist, her action is shown as personal, fleshly or erotically motivated, not because of a societal or political motivation or longing of the character.

One can see an example of this given in BARBARA (D 2012, Petzold), the adaptation of DIE FLUCHT (DDR 1977, Gräf). In the DEFA movie the main character, a male doctor, is frustrated about the political and economic circumstances hindering his research, causing him to flee GDR to the west; in BARBARA the female doctor wants to go to the West to live with her love or lover, whom she is meeting for short events to have sex together in the wood or a hotel while he is crossing GDR for business trips, causing her to give up her exceptionally good position at one of the leading research hospitals, Another example is KRIEGERIN (D 2011, Wnendt), like BARBARA, premiered at the Berlinale Film Festival. Within the action the young, blonde female main character, called Marisa, (given by Alina Levshin) is shown as driven into the group of Neo-Nazis by her life situation and circumstances–her mother unable to support her, a bad job, a region undeveloped and of no hope for the young generation. As a result of her one and only human action (helping the illegal migrant to hide) she became sacrificed at the end. Independent decisions made by a female character ignoring the rules of the group she belongs to were not endured. The body of the death Marisa is shown aesthetically exaggerated, in sense of ‘Edelkitsch’ (Friedländer, 1999)

This dramaturgical approach to analyze the significance of the character for the action going on, is within sociology defined as ‚Agency‘. Although this term as such first of all just means someone is able to decide independently (Holland, 1998) and still not the active influence of events happening because of a person character acting in a specific way, that term already is been used to discuss characters, especially female ones, in media productions. But to establish modern / contemporary female characters to show them as independently deciding and acting is a progress, but is not enough. Many films representing female characters with some kind of ‘Agency’, will pass as well the so called ‘Bechdel Test’ or other of these new measurements, but at the same time nevertheless stick to conservative role models. To change the ways of representing women in media productions it is necessary to have many more female writers and directors, who should in numbers correspond to the percentage of women in society and the audience. It is time to change the representation of both genders in media productions to give both of them a better perspective in a civilized world as well.

That this is possible without losing audience and attraction is obvious through mentioning productions like the TV series I mentioned above already – BORGEN, FORBYDELSEN, ARNE DAHL – as well as HATUFIM (ISR 2009-2012, Raff). Within these productions characters are interacting on eyelevel, especially within the dramaturgical structure. Action, hopes, dreams and decisions of female characters are of the same weight and influence for the action going on as those of the male characters. Their decisions and actions are not body directed or only emotion based- they are as clear and rational as those of their male counterparts.

Of course, cinema productions written and directed by women were and are successful, like f.e. movies by Agnès Varda, Agnieszka Holland, Deepa Mehta, Sally Potter, Małgośka Szumowska, Lucrecia Martel, Claire Denis, Jane Campion, Nora Ephron, Kathryn Bigelow, Sofia Coppola, Sussane Bier, Al Mansour Khairiya, El Deghedy, Shafik Viola or Natalya Bondarchuk, Ana Carolina, Věra Chytilová to name just few of the international well known directors. Based in socio-cultural structures in the cinema business movies directed by women were differently discussed, distributed and reviewed than those directed by their male colleagues. A closer look and analysis shows that female directors more often tend to open dramaturgical forms and less often tell classical stories of a hero. Thus, a more open minded reception is needed to give them same respect as traditional male narrated movies.

To support the discussion and critical thinking of representation of gender in Film and TV productions of today we will add here from time to time short reflections on randomly selected examples we came across.

One of those will be the BBC production FROM DARKNESS (BBC 2015) written by Katie Baxendale and directed by Dominic Leclerc or the 2^nd season of ARNE DAHL (S 2015).

Kerstin D. Stutterheim, November 2015

Literaturverzeichnis

FRIEDLÄNDER, S. 1999. Kitsch und Tod: der Widerschein des Nazismus, Frankfurt am Main, Fischer-Taschenbuch-Verl.

HOLLAND, D. C. 1998. Identity and agency in cultural worlds, Cambridge, Mass., Harvard University Press.