I think it’s interesting that the NYer article was written by a woman, because what I think is going on with the show is along the lines of “being good looking” is a necessary ingredient for a woman to succeed in a men’s arena. And that’s obviously not true and sort of insulting to women who are not former models. At the same time, I think casting a traditionally “ugly” actress would have both cost the show viewers and flipped the dial too far in the other direction–the show would have been too overt a statement about brains over beauty. Her triumph would have been so closely tied to sexism as to overshadow anything else.
I mean, it’s a 7 episode TV show about a chess prodigy. Of course they’re going to have to sex that up. And I don’t fault them for that. Their choice to offer zero knowledge about how to actually play, explain strategy, reveal the core appeal of the game itself–that’s what I take issue with.
(Spoilers in this para) It’s especially weak (for me) because the creators of the show were pretty clearly working with chess metaphors throughout–who is the titular queen? The easy answer is Beth, but it’s her bio-mom who sacrifices herself (we’re led to believe out of a hope (gambit) that Beth will do better in life without her), and then her adoptive mom who also dies after dedicating herself to supporting Beth’s rise in the chess world. Does Beth ever make a sacrifice? What is her “gambit” exactly? Her many male supporters lead us to believe she’s the queen (right down to the twin friends who, for me, came off like a pair of bishops) and they are the other pieces, but doesn’t that make her the king? And is that the real point–Beth emerging as king?
I’m not sure I know, but there’s a lot of (for me) subtext happening to make me want to assign roles in that way–too much for it to be accidental. Yet, if you don’t know anything about chess, you can’t really pick up on any of that.
