Once Upon a Time 5x03
What struck me the entire time I was watching this episode was how very gendered David's story line was. Not intentionally on his part, but it was still very much there. This was all about David's perception of his inadequacies. (Is it just me, or is that common for David episodes?) It was about his feelings of helplessness and inaction. And it's not that men are the only ones who feel that, but it's culturally expected that men are take charge and decisive. Men are expected to be proactive, not reactive. So, when David says that he should have stopped Emma from saving everyone by becoming the Dark One, it's a pretty ridiculous statement. Emma's a grown woman and can assess her own risks. It's also something Snow wouldn't say. Now, surely that's partly personality differences. But one can hardly argue that Snow doesn't have a strong sense of responsibility. But she isn't putting Emma's decisions on herself.
David's interactions with Arthur really further the gendered reading. Arthur coming in and joking about how women are always right, for instance. It's the sort of comment that can be offered as humorous but still respectful, but usually has a faint air of condescension. "Ha ha, pat the ladies on the head and tell them how smart they are." It's the sort of thing that sounds affirming, but grows out of a sexist culture. And the entire quest David and Arthur go is in the tradition of the manly adventure.
Not that I think David is actually a chauvinist. Most of this is either working in his subconscious, or is something that exists in the show as a work of fiction, but not in David's inner life. And he's the one who, when Arthur suggests Snow and Guinevere have an archery contest, remarks, "I'm sure they'd love to be pitted against each other to let us feel good about ourselves." David is never anything less than impressed with Snow. He doesn't resent her. Nor does he have interest in denying Emma her autonomy. His declaration that he should have stopped her from becoming the Dark One is after-the-fact frustration about his failure to protect her and the town. When he says, "I don't want to only be remembered as the man who kissed a sleeping princess awake 30 years ago," I believe that's about his own need to make a difference. But it's also a reminder to me just how much the action in OUaT is directed by women. (Primarily Emma, Regina, and Snow.) And it makes me think how ill prepared men are to see women be more active and successful than men are. So, while I not think David resents Snow, I had all that in mind while I was watching.
And it's kind of hilarious how David finding the toadstool near the end is supposed to be his big moment. Snow is all, "David, you did it!" and David beams, when all he actually did was trip over it. I swore I wasn't going to use this review mock David, instead providing a serious gendered analysis. It hasn't been easy.
Also, on the topic of gender analysis, I was really struck last episode just how seductive Dark One!Emma was. Regular Emma is someone with a sexuality, but she's not sultry. She's prickly, and blunt, and afraid of commitment. And I think that some of that is our concept of feminine evil. The "evil is sexy" concept is as common as dirt, but with evil women, the very nature of their sexuality is often directly tied to their evil.
This episode, I did come to think that a lot of that was Emma trying to work Hook. Last episode she was the seductive feminine, which clearly only put Hook off. So, this episode, Emma softens her image, going from sexy black to soft pastels when she's with Hook. And of course, soft pastels aren't really Emma either. I find it interesting that Emma's reaching for these stock feminine archetypes as manipulation tools, when she's always conformed to neither of them.
So, if I felt before that the Camelot setup wasn't very interesting, well. Heck, at first I was just surprised that they actually incorporated the Arthur/Guinevere/Lancelot triangle. I'd assumed that they'd just drop the adultery angle. At first, it sounded like the famous triangle played out in the way the most satisfies me--one in which it's not about anyone being evil; in which the tragedy unfurls not because Arthur, Guinevere, and Lancelot are bad people, but because they are good. But it appears that I assumed to much, Arthur.
I feel pretty weird about trusting Lancelot. I mean, "No time to explain how I came back from the dead, your trusted ally is evil!" is always an iffy sell. Especially since Lancelot has been impersonated by a villain before (Cora). That said, Arthur isn't exactly looking good, to put it mildly. Hiding the toadstool is highly suspect, but his motivation to protect his kingdom could be a sympathetic one. (And how much does Guinevere know about what's going on?) But framing his loyal subordinate and then convincing him to drink poison? Wow. All the horrible villains this show has featured, and I think that was the most chilling thing I've seen. Though I didn't get the whole bit where said subordinate disappeared in a cloud of green smoke. Is he not dead then? The poison from Agrabah vipers has been mentioned before, but I don't remember it doing that. But if he isn't dead, then why did Arthur put so much work into convincing him he was about to die?
Finally, we have Rumpelstiltskin as Emma and the spirit of the Dark One's pawn. They claim they're going to make him a hero. Is this how the show plans to finally redeem Rumpel?
Random observation:
I'm still really enjoying the Snow/Regina/David team up. Also, still shipping them.
This entry was originally posted at http://veleda-k.dreamwidth.org/441559.html. Please consider commenting there.