Tuesday 24 November 2015

A Feminist Review of How to Get Away With Murder


With HSC Assessment 1 on right now, I was in desperate need of some procrastination material. So I started watching ABC Studio's TV series How to Get Away With Murder. I'm completely hooked, and have two main things to say about the show.

Firstly, every single character is attractive. All of them. It's just so aesthetically pleasing to watch Jack Falehee's face for 45 minutes.

Secondly, the show is very feminist! Nothing makes me happier... I broke it down into three main ways HTGAWM is a solid feminist series, and even if you have never seen it or don't plan to, I'll address some generic issues about diverse representation in the media.


REPRESENTATION OF WOMEN
How to Get Away With Murder is dripping in strong, developed, complex female characters, and it's really quite beautiful. Although the protagonist is (the very good looking) Alfred Enoch, the show straight up establishes many female main characters. Considering that the genre of the show - legal murder mystery - is a typically male dominated sphere in entertainment, it is extremely significant that there is strong female representation. While we usually see only female victims and the occasional female romantic interest in these types of shows, HTGAWM has female murderers, female legal professionals and female law students. The plot revolves around five law students (three male, two female) and their brilliant professor and mentor Annalise Keating. Yep that's right, the highly respected, powerful, in control and terrifying barrister is a woman! This is actually a very unusual sight on TV.
On top of having a solid female cast, HTGAWM goes a step further and actually develops the female characters. So often we have women on TV who are never given as much history and depth as their male counterparts, and if they are, its usually only in relation to their status as love interest/sex toy. In this series, we see multiple women given interesting back stories and multi-faceted personalities that portray these women as actual people. Ugh its amazing! What's more, these personalities don't just stick to typical female tropes; Annalise Keating and her assistant Bonnie Winterbottom actively go against the "nurturing" "motherly" tropes that women are so often stuck with. And on top of this, they are not vilified for being "barren and cold hearted bitches", they're characterised as accomplished lawyers who are worthy of respect.
The good stuff keeps coming, HTGAWM has excellent female casting even in the background (literally). In a courtroom scene, it is pretty standard to see a male judge, male barristers and male court officers etc. Even when your main character is female, you still expect to see these minor characters as male because it is such a normalised masculine situation. Not in this show! Throughout the various cases Annalise takes on, it is very common for the courtroom scene to be female dominated. That's right, not just equally represented, but dominating! So many court scene have female judges, female prosecution attorneys, female solicitors. We are so used to seeing men in these positions that one or two women seems "accepting", and a predominantly female cast in a single scene is outrageously feminist. Why is it that we can so easily accept having a mostly male cast, but a mostly female one is weird, unnatural, "too PC"? Oppression, that's why.

RACIALLY DIVERSE REPRESENTATION.
You know how I said it's so amazing that the powerful barrister is female? She's also black. So is Wes, the protagonist. So is the top student, Michaela. So are two of the judges in the series. So is Annalise's police-officer boyfriend.
In reality, black people are overrepresented in jails and on death row in America, often because the white-dominated legal system is prejudiced against them. This issue is very well addressed in the series, as Annalise's legal team often discuss the difficulty of defending black clients, as they are more likely to receive harsher sentences, especially if they're charged with the murder or assault of a white person. HTGAWM also undermines the stereotype by creating plotlines where the black defendants are usually found to be innocent; framed by the *white* murderer. Whether or not this is statistically common, it sends a very powerful message and helps challenge our racist lens on society.
The other thing I loved about Annalise's characterisation as a black woman was that they didn't ignore her blackness. It's all very well to have strong, wealthy, respected black actors on the screen, but often their characters are represented as... white. Having a black person act as a smart, self-made barrister without acknowledging the socio-cultural factors that affect them as actual black people is the lesser of two evils rather than stupendous African-American representation. HTGAWM however, chooses to actively incorporate aspects of Annalise's life that are linked to her experience as a black woman in America. As the plot investigates her childhood, the audience become aware of things she has experienced as a disadvantaged black person, and how these experiences shaped the person she currently is. Three thumbs up.

RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN MALE AND FEMALE CHARACTERS
Very often the power dynamics between male and female characters regurgitates the old sexist trope of dominant males and submissive females; the male boss and the sexy female assistant. Once again I am pleased to announce that HTGAWM subverts this wonderfully.
One of Annalise's assistants who she bosses around, and who abides by her every word is male. A man subservient to a non-villainised woman on national TV! It's basically Christmas! But seriously, it is so great to finally see a reversal of these tired gender roles, and it makes us realise how conditioned we are to assume that the female's "natural" position is below the man. In your average TV show, we would expect Frank's role to be played by a woman, and the fact that the character is not only male, but also hyper-masculine is very significant in challenging the status quo.
And overall, the relationship between the male and female characters is great; the men respect and admire the women both above and below them, and the women are independent of their male counterparts, yet still pursue healthy, natural interactions with them as people.

The show definitely has its problems, the token gay character Connor is a little stereotypical, and the main representation of Asian people is an IT guy - again quite a stereotype. But overall, How to Get Away With Murder actively portrays its characters as people rather than tropes, and that's what makes it feminist. It is actually very unusual for screenwriters to represent characters as complex humans when there is such a strong trend of following set characterisations, but this just results in regurgitating oppressive stereotypes.

10/10 would recommend.

Hannah

P.S. Here is a picture of Jack Falehee to brighten your day :)


24 comments:

  1. at what point does it become sexist/objectifying for a tv show/film to entice viewers with attractive actors?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. At the point where they do not develop the characters, and instead reduce them to pretty faces without deeper meaning. HTGAWM doesnt do this (yay!)

      Delete
  2. If we take this:

    "It's just so aesthetically pleasing to watch Jack Falehee's face for 45 minutes."

    And applied it to a female lead:

    "It's just so aesthetically pleasing to watch Emma Watson's face for 45 minutes."

    Wouldn't it be a touch objectifying?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It depends on context. Like the lovely commenter below said, "objectifying" is when you reduce something to the status of an object and don't acknowledge the person's personality/background/depth. So often when people comment on a lead female character such as Emma Watson, they are indeed objectifying her because we are conditioned to disregard women's personalities and focus on their sex appeal. So although it is definitely technically ok to say it's aesthetically pleasing to watch Emma Watson's face, more often than not the context /will/ make it objectifying because said context is influenced by the patriarchal status quo. However this premise does not exist in relation to men because we are conditioned to appreciate male characters as people, and male characters are almost always given a degree of depth which their female counterparts are not.
      Society is swung in favour of men, so when we say something about women which is deemed "bad" or "objectifying", it doesn't mean it is "bad" or "objectifying" towards men, because there isnt the same history and meaning behind it.

      Delete
    2. "Society is swung in favour of men, so when we say something about women which is deemed "bad" or "objectifying", it doesn't mean it is "bad" or "objectifying" towards men, because there isn't the same history and meaning behind it."

      So what you're saying is, commenting on a woman's beauty is by default objectifying, while it is not when commenting on the appearance of a man. That's not how language works. I can appreciate that, more often than not, women are objectified when statements on their beauty are made, but to say that equivalent objectification doesn't apply to men is nonsensical. Men are certainly objectified less, but it is still possible for them to be objectified. The word 'objectified' does not specify a gender - it would be sexist if it did.

      In your article, by emphasising several times how attractive that actor is, you simply are objectifying them. You comment, several times, on how hot he is, yet never make specific comments about his merits as a character in the series. Even if history says that this 'probably isn't objectifying,' the fact that you say nothing else about his character, and only comment on his appearance, elucidates the objectifying nature of these comments.

      If you cant recognise the blatant double standard in your writing then... yeah. Read it over again. I'm not saying men are objectified nearly as much as women are (they most certainly aren't), but you are being quite hypocritical in denying your objectification of this male actor in the above article.

      I'd like to stress that I definitely do not think men are objectified anywhere as much as women in our society, especially in the media - that being said, you article still presents a male actor in an objectifying way. Just something to think about.

      Delete
    3. We do not live in a vacuum, we live in a world where we must treat men and women differently because we are conditioned to oppress one over the other.

      http://everydayfeminism.com/2014/07/men-objectified-by-women/

      http://elitedaily.com/life/culture/okay-to-objectify-men/1106317/

      Delete
    4. So we are allowed to objectify men because women are traditionally objectified...

      Are Jews allowed to exterminate Germans because historically Germans oppressed Jews?Are women allowed to rape men because men make up the majority of rapists and women make up the majority of victims?

      Those are extremes, but the principle is identical.

      And we even have a word for this one. Hypocrisy.

      Delete
    5. No, women are not allowed to objectify men, because society isn't set up in a way that allows the objectification of men by women to exist. If women could objectify men, that would indicate that both (assigned) genders existed initially on a level playing field. And in that utopia, it would be equally horrendous for women to pass these comments on men as the other way around. However, we do not live in that world, and current society does not allow for women's comments on men to cause harm in the way men's comments on women causes harm.

      To be honest, as I was writing this article and including the sentences that make clear I find Alfred Enoch and Jack Falehee attractive, I wondered if this discussion would arise. I'm glad it did though, hopefully other viewers can learn something :)

      Delete
    6. "No, women are not allowed to objectify men, because society isn't set up in a way that allows the objectification of men by women to exist"

      since you literally objectified a male actor in the article, I beg to differ.

      By the way, the argument was never 'objectifying men is as bad/dangerous as objectifying women.' The argument was merely, 'hey you sorta objectified this guy by focussing only on his looks'

      Delete
    7. Funnily enough, I didn't objectify him even if the objectification of men by women was a valid issue. If you read the article, you will see that I'm literally showering all the characters with praise, and raving on about how they are all so developed, complex and interesting people. Sure I emphasise the women because this is a feminist blog (shock horror), but nowhere am I reducing Connor (Jack Falahee's character) to the status of an object. Including a picture of him with a snarky caption doesn't amount to rendering him invaluable and worthless was it not for his good looks. As stated multiple times in the article, the characters (inc. the mega hot Connor) are portrayed as worthy of respect from an audience (inc. me)

      Delete
    8. So if I say 'harry potter has great characters! They're all so advanced. Also emma watson is so hot and has such nice hair and omg nice boobs' its not objectifying?

      You exclusively focused on the appeal of jack lol

      Delete
    9. The main problem with what you hypothetically said was "omg nice boobs". Since this stems from a strong history of men sexually taking advantage of women regardless of their wishes, then that's pretty horrible (also I'm assuming you're a guy.) So yeah, not too cool.
      On the other hand, I as a woman am not in a position for my comments on Falahee's *face* to insinuate rape, because women don't have the history of being in a sexual position of power. Society is built so that my words can't have a violent, negative effect. By the way, that is a super shitty thing, not a "omg women are so lucky they can say what they want," because not having that power means I'm more likely to be raped and not believed, seen as weak, demure, a cold hearted bitch for not having children etc.
      I'm not milking sexism in my favour by saying I <3 Jack Falahee, I'm unwillingly taking part in a larger institutionalised system that severely oppresses me.
      It's not hypocrisy, it's one of the million subtle, seemingly insignificant manifestations of oppression

      Delete
  3. Just a reminder of the definition of 'objectifying':

    'degrade to the status of a mere object'

    ...

    nice!

    ReplyDelete
  4. http://nymag.com/thecut/2014/08/why-we-objectify-men-without-guilt.html#

    Wondered what your thoughts were on this! Great post again Hannah, I fucking love HTGAWM

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Cool article! The only thing I'd say is that the article says Disney princes can't be objectified because they're made up characters. Made up characters, even cartoons can definitely be objectified (just not if they're male).
      The article also alluded to how saying "objectifying" things about men is an expression of female desire which is usually only afforded to men.... Very interesting

      Delete
  5. Imagine how pissed off you would be if I wrote the same thing about another show and then slapped a picture of a hot woman at the end to "to brighten your day". Talk about double standards.

    ReplyDelete
  6. It's not a double standard because there are different premises for talking about males or females. Refer to the above comment chain for an explanation.

    ReplyDelete
  7. I watched this after the suposedly feminist but obviously not "big little lies" and I said "that's how you do feminisn.
    Cristina

    ReplyDelete
  8. 1. Female Bosses are the most normal thing in the world in our society and you can find them in movies and series for decades. James Bond had a female boss, Khaleesi in GOT, a female president in prison break, a female detective boss in Dexter, Devil wears prada, shadowhunters etc. Noone gives a shit anymore except feminists.

    2. Saying you can't objectify men because they are "privileged" is sexist and bullshit. Women in the west are on average more happy with their lives, less often homeless or commit suicide, get lower punishments for the same crime etc. You can google all of this.

    ReplyDelete
  9. omg you can name a handful of examples which contradict me, that must mean my analysis of the widespread social trend is completely wrong! im so glad sexism no longer exists thanks for letting me know

    ReplyDelete
  10. "It's all very well to have strong, wealthy, respected black actors on the screen, but often their characters are represented as... white."

    This comment was racist as hell and it's even worse coming from a white person. If you see a black character on screen, no matter how they act or are represented, they are still black. Now some black people have internalized racism, which you can call it that, if that happens, but not every black character in every story is going to be thinking about racism every minute.

    Also its funny you should talk about the nurturing role, because black women's stereotypes and white women's stereotypes are different regarding that. And Annalise for all her harshness, did want to be a mother and there is nothing wrong with that and that is positive representation for black women.

    ReplyDelete
  11. its funny how what u wrote pissed off so many people (most like ly males) i guess that just proved your point.

    ReplyDelete
  12. saying how attractice a man is is not objectifying him, and even so, objetifying a man isnt as nearly as harmful as doing it to a woman. the point is, it has been done TOO MUch towards women, while to men? not so much, is not a problem in a mans life to be seen as a sexual object, he can be objetified but it just doesnt happen, its not an issue as it is to women, so no its not the same thing. the fact that there are people that are whining about what was written only proves how much were used to accept how women are sexualized but seen the same towards men as unnacceptable.

    ReplyDelete
  13. a mans looks doesnt define who he is, culturally, but a womans looks influence a lot on how she is perceived so its just not the same thing to objectfy men and women, its not the same concern and it doesnt have the same weight, get over it, it just doesnt, most men talk about women like theyre a piece of meat, so intead of complaining about the 'hipocrisy' of what was written here mayybe you should go worry about the amount of men that treats women like crap based on their looks, thats far more concerning. set your priorities straight.

    ReplyDelete

No hate or harmful comments