Sass

Back in the first couple of seasons of Merlin (one the real “interactive television” greats), my friends and I observed that frequently, the day was saved by what we termed “inappropriate sass”—one of the show’s young women would betray her station and challenge the king, leading (directly or indirectly) to the episode’s happy resolution.  The women didn’t have the in-world authority to solve the problems themselves, but their background impertinence often drove the plot.  Perhaps we found it so striking because in the real world, so many of us have developed the subtle skill of insinuating our ideas so as to make those in power believe that they were their ideas.   We have learned, sometimes the hard way, speaking truth to power doesn’t necessarily end that well for the speaker.  So it was refreshing, in those seasons, to see sass rewarded with success.

We called it “inappropriate” sass, but of course the whole concept of “sass” is predicated on inappropriateness.  There is no such thing as sass without hierarchy; sassy people, by their nature, do not conform to their “proper place” in the chain of authority.  Sass is most often the domain of women, particularly women of color, and gay men.  Have you ever heard a straight, white, cis man referred to as “sassy?”  I’d hazard not.  Because sass is a form of insubordination, which of course cannot exist without its predicate, subordination.

Sassy characters are great.  But we should notice that, in some sense, their stories necessarily take place in someone else’s world.   When we see strength as sass, we recognize and perhaps even reinforce a particular power structure.

Three shows in this review, each of which makes me think about this power structure in one way or another.  Interesting, all three are BBC shows about English and British history.  Hmmm.

The Last Kingdom (BBC America, New Fall 2015.  Period Epic).

Watched:  First 4 episodes

Premise:  In England in the 800s (A.D.), a young man navigates between allegiances to the invading Danish (Vikings) and his lineage as an English landowner.

Promise:  there is a grittiness to this that’s reminiscent of Game of Thrones, and it has some of the same medieval epic appeal with fewer of the objectionable elements that make Game of Thrones unwatchable for me.  It takes place in a time and place that wasn’t particularly kind to its women, but it isn’t rapey, and it doesn’t endorse the unfairness.  This story is fictional, but based enough in history to feel genuine, and it succeeds very well at getting across the heady mix of violence and politics that make for a high-stakes epic.  Interestingly, our hero, Uhtred, is a relatively simple-minded man, prone to prideful and ill-considered decisions.  He isn’t just a flawed hero—he’s flawed, period.  But somehow, that only makes the history and people around him feel more genuine.  For my part, I’m watching the show about his best friend and sometimes lover, Brida, who was enslaved by the Danes at the same time as Uhtred when they were children.  She is miles ahead of him in both intelligence and good sense, and is rewarded for that with her fellow characters’ disdain and the viewers’ admiration.

Verdict:  I’m not entirely sure why, but it’s reliably intriguing.

Indian Summers (BBC/Masterpiece.  New to US; aired Fall 2015.  Period Drama.)

Watched: Pilot

Premise:  Politics, romance, and intrigue during the British Raj in India.

Promise:  I think this was angling for a “Downton Abbey” vibe, but it didn’t get there for me.  It matched Downton in its gorgeous setting and filming, and like Downton, it highlighted the stories of people of many classes in a very stratified society.  Here, though, the class dynamic took on a grander scale, as the stratification of the British was superimposed on a place that was highly stratified to begin with.  Overall, though, I think I didn’t connect with it because it lacked the little daily victories and defeats that make the first few seasons of Downton so compelling.  

Verdict:  Alas, kind of boring.

Home Fires (BBC/Masterpiece.  New to US; aired Fall 2015.  Period Drama.)

Watched:  series

Premise:  Stories of women involved in the Women’s Institute in rural Britain during WWII.

Promise:  In contrast to Indian Summers, this show was full of little personal daily victories and defeats, and all the stronger for it.  The show focused on the daily social and political challenges faced by those the war’s noncombatants, and deeply personalized a variety of characters, from society women to servants to teachers to farmers to conscientious objectors and the medically infirm.  Mostly, these were small personal stories, set in the backdrop of national scarcity, frustration, and fear, recognizing that during those years, it was the women who held things together in Britain and, all too often, the men who made it that much harder to do.  And yet—and yet!—these women were all so afraid of losing their dreadfully inconvenient men.  I don’t doubt the story’s realism, nor do I condemn the women for that.  And I understand that from a storytelling perspective, the women’s sometimes-irrational loyalty made for excellent stories.  But I found it striking. 

Verdict:  Charming, entertaining, and sometimes powerful.

On the DVR/Unreviewed:  Blindspot, Scream Queens, Rosewood, Quantico, Supergirl, Wicked City, Flesh and Bone, Into the Badlands, The Expanse.  (I'm trying to get to these before the end of the year, although that seems vanishingly unlikely.  If not, early 2016!)