I would like to foreground this post by highlighting my awareness that I write with privilege; "I am white, straight, and cisgender: I [have] never had to deal with the abuse and marginalization that faces people of colour and the LGBTQIA+ community" (David Greenwald). Nonetheless - as an intersectional feminist - I would like to talk about the recent release of The Danish Girl and the responsibility which comes with it.

Tom Hooper has been widely criticised for casting cisgender male, Eddie Redmayne, as the protagonist in The Danish Girl. This casting is an action which undeniably supports Hollywood's aversion to the trans community but Hooper justifies his decision by accentuating Redmayne primarily as an aesthetic choice, focusing on his physical androgyny and the delicacy with which he approaches his roles. Indeed, Redmayne is renowned for his acting accreditation but this casting selection only reminds audiences of the distinct deficiency of representation for the transgender community in the film industry. Despite his shortfalls, however, Hooper is successful in portraying one poignant thing: the film does not climax with the operation Lili Elbe excitedly undergoes in order to become "a real woman" (a quote from the film) - in fact, the surgery is presented as a quotidian and logical step, in spite of its pioneering nature. What I mean to say is that Einar's transition to Lili was very much fully formed prior to the operation, and the operation was a formality to concretise Lili's female identity. In fact, the film does not dwell on the procedure at all, with the only information given being that there would have to be two operations: the first would remove the male genitalia, and the second would construct a vagina - with a dubious prognosis. It is in this way that I believe Hooper fulfilled his responsibility to the biopic and to Lili Elbe herself.

What I really wanted to raise here, however, was inspired by a tweet sharing a recent news story. The story claimed that Redmayne intended to meet with Caitlyn Jenner to discuss "trans issues," and the tweet rightly pointed out that Redmayne is a cis male actor whilst labelling Jenner as a homophobic trans woman. The author of the tweet concluded the tweet by adding a sardonic, "wow, the LGBT+ community be thriving." As problematic as this pair may be, I don't think this supposed meeting is necessarily a bad thing - nor is it a representation of the LGBTQIA+ community. Despite my own personal qualms with the casting of Redmayne, I cannot deny the sensitivity and grace with which he played the role of Lili and I respect that he highlighted his responsibility to the character, the biopic, and the trans community as a result of taking the part: "I felt like, I'm being given this extraordinary experience of being able to play this woman, but with that comes this responsibility of not only educating myself but hopefully using that to educate [the audience]" (Redmayne). Arguably then, with Redmayne's acknowledgement of the gravitas of the role, we may finally have a representative who is largely in the public eye. In addition, Redmayne's status as a cisgender male actor (fortunately and unfortunately) makes him more accessible to a vast heteronormative audience because his voice masculine - and therefore rational. If he is willing to use his powerful voice for a good cause, why criticise him?

Last week saw a small triumph in the removal of awkwardly gendered names for face paint on a website where it appeared both alien and obsolete. The particular website in question is not the first to pioneer this idea; there has been progress in stores across the country where the likes of Toys R Us are removing gendered signage in order to refrain from dictating what children should and shouldn't be allowed to play with, once based on the flimsy societal construction of 'pink for girls' and 'blue for boys.' Indeed, when this was first introduced by Target, it was considered to be a 'bold move,' demonstrating how intrinsic it seems to be to allocate certain toys to each gender. Of course, entwined within this is the notion that there are only two genders which, in itself, is archaic and broken (and, unfortunately, not something I have time to talk about here).

Although this slight semantic elision is a positive step, I cannot proclaim to be optimistic that it is going to revolutionise toy sales. To undermine the social conditioning which has long-prescribed the way in which toys are perceived decidedly and exclusively for girls or boys may be beyond my lifetime; it is no secret that we learn to associate more passively-figured toys, such as electronic stoves and other domestic items, with feminine play whilst the boisterous power tools, vehicles, and likewise were awarded to boys. These, in turn, serve to encourage the preservation of distinct gender roles - forcing fragile children into categories which supposedly determine the way in which humans should act according to the genitalia they were assigned at birth. When we reduce our presupposition of gender into mere biological sex, it becomes apparent how absurd these "stylised repetition of acts" we perform daily, intended to formulate our genders, really are (Judith Butler). In playtime then, toys should offer fluidity between masculinity and femininity because humans are fundamentally more than their gender.

As much as the removal of gender-bias in the naming of products is a little victory, it can be plausibly argued that toys in the 21st century have taken two steps back. It is at this point that I would like to offer Lego as an example. When Lego was first innovated, it came in a variety of colours (mainly primary) to entice a target market of young children. The building blocks themselves endorse creativity and learning as children engage hand eye co-ordination to design villages to animals and anything in between. This freedom of play eliminated the notion of gender until Lego brought out a range of "Lego for Girls" in (seemingly) girl colours - namely hues of pink and purple. In attempting to widen their demographic, Lego actually implemented a further divide between masculine and feminine play by insinuating that girls are invited to join in only now that it is available in gender-specific colours. Moreover, the 'customary' pinks and purples are tertiary and secondary colours respectively - further indicating that women and girls are considered to be secondary to the construction of heteronormative masculinity.

Despite a decrease in signage, stores are still inevitably ordering their products by colour, and colours play a small part in the hugely problematic categorisation which forces boys and girls into opposing boxes to account for their behaviour - where men are expected to be strong and women are anticipated as the weaker, more emotional sex. Let us open our minds to the choices that children make themselves, rather than making decisions based on old, failing gender roles.

I'd like to welcome in the new year by starting as I mean to go on. Like all, I have set resolutions and this year I intend to nurture my brain and body properly. To do so, I will exercise my mind by writing one blog post per week (hopefully every Monday!), and it would be lovely if you would join me. Today I am going to tackle (in only a few hundred words) what feminism is and why we should not be afraid of it. It goes without saying that feminism has been popularised in the last few years and this is a huge step in the right direction, but recently I have heard friends, family, and colleagues trivialising the movement with no clear understanding of the aims so I would like to take this opportunity to open a discussion about feminism. 

On 8th April 2015, Lauren Southern became a viral sensation when she famously "shut down feminism" in a YouTube video explaining why she does not need it - claiming that she does not "need feminism because [she] believe[s] in equality, not entitlements and supremacy." In the video, Southern highlights the worryingly large percentage of rapes in male prisons, the fact that she would get a shorter sentence for the same crime, and that she is more likely to get a job in order to fill a quota.  The most problematic part of this short but compelling rant, however, is that all of her views directly align with feminism and, when a person refuses to identify as such (which is completely their choice) whilst perpetuating these views, the movement is widely misconstrued. What is important here is that you do not have to identify as a feminist to hold feminist views.

It is at this point, then, that it would be appropriate to more fully elaborate what is meant by the word 'feminism.' By definition, feminism is the belief in equality, as previously mentioned when I discussed 'Negotiating Gender Roles with the BBC.' As rightly pointed out by Southern, feminism is - of course - a gender-biased word which is why some people choose instead to identify as egalitarian, but the premise is the same. Nonetheless the gender-bias, fem-, stems from the desire for the emancipation of women in the early 20th century and acknowledges the heritage of the movement; "[feminism] is born of the instinct within every natural woman's soul that God designed her as equal, the co-worker, the comrade of the men of her family" (Carrie Chapman Catt). Catt adopts biblical imagery to denote the "men of her family" and correlate with "God," thus inciting all men - rather than implying a closed circle. By doing so,  Suzannah Weiss explores 'What Does "Feminism" Mean? A Brief History of the Word, From its Beginnings all the way up to the present' for Bustle, an online magazine addressing everyday feminist issues, and is useful if you are interested in gaining a comprehensive understanding of the word and its roots. For now, I will simply use the basic dictionary description:

1. The belief that men and women should have equal rights and opportunities.

2. The theory of political, economic, and social equality of the sexes. 

Despite operating under a gender-biased name, feminism is fundamentally inclusive; for too long the campaign for gender equality has been incorrectly perceived, and largely publicised as masquerading as a fight for female supremacy. This is symptomatic of the press who have demonised feminism as tyranny since it began. I encourage you to usher in the new year with an open mind and take the time to research credible feminist action, such as Emma Watson's HeForShe campaign, before you invest in disparaging feminism because, if you support the notion of the equality of the sexes - believe it or not - you are a feminist too. 

I had never really considered the possibility that I would be capable of writing something worthy of publication until I was offered the opportunity. One of my tutors requested the inclusion of an academic review I wrote framing Wes Anderson's "The Life Aquatic with Steve Zissou" in lieu of Nichomachean ethics for a new initiative called The Q Journal, which features exemplar essays for the perusal of students at the University of Exeter. Needless to say, to have somebody ask me if they can publish my work was so flattering and something I was not going to pass by, despite the subsequent difficulties it caused due to a very poorly laptop. I'm quite excited about this so please excuse the clumsy phrasing and any other glaringly obvious mistakes you might come across!

I have attached a copy of the article below as well as providing a link to the PDF format in which it can be found originally. 

Chris Robé postulates that Wes Anderson’s ‘films embody a melancholic structure whereby loss serves as an absent presence, not often directly addressed but nonetheless significantly influencing both narrative momentum and mise-en-scène’ (107). Indeed, loss permeates Anderson’s third film, The Life Aquatic with Steve Zissou (2004), emblematised by the deaths of Esteban du Plantier (Seymour Cassell) – Steve Zissou’s (Bill Murray) ‘chief diver… [and] closest colleague for years’ (Life Aquatic 01.50) - and Edward “Ned” Plimpton (Owen Wilson), his illegitimate long-lost son. Despite complaints at a distinct lack of narrative momentum from reviewers such as Philip French and Peter Bradshaw, Life Aquatic is constructed through a notion of balance or ‘justice’ (Aristotle 80), which illuminates the critical nature of its stasis. Aristotle’s Nicomachean Ethics outlines how vital proportion is in cultivating justice, as recalled in Anderson’s Life Aquatic through the proportionate deaths of Esteban and Ned. Both accidental, Esteban’s death unbalances the character of Zissou, which thus necessitates the death of Ned in order to return him to a sense of equilibrium. The importance of finalising the oscillation is to nurture Zissou as accessible, imbuing the audience with sympathy for a grieving man beyond the cinematic construction of character. 

Life Aquatic is, indubitably, a revenge narrative; when asked ‘What is next for Team Zissou?’, Zissou replies with his intention to hunt the ‘jaguar shark’ solely for the purpose of ‘revenge’ (Life Aquatic 05.02), with the premise of purging his pain (Robé 111). The deadpan delivery of the line instigates the double audiences’ (both of Anderson’s real film and Zissou’s fictitious film premiere) unease with the emotional stability of the character. Retribution, then, forms the basis for Zissou’s next mission, which seeks to avenge in homage to his lost companion, while additionally reviving Zissou’s failing career as a documentary-maker. Anderson referenced Jacques Cousteau as an inspirational source, dedicating the film to his memory. Furthermore, Anderson remembers Cousteau’s impressive stature as ‘this kind of superhero scientist, but also this star’: a status to which the fictional Zissou unknowingly aspires (Seitz 166). Yet his quest for vengeance, along with his financial difficulties and technological shortcomings, problematises his role as a serious oceanographer and filmmaker, reverting Zissou into a frustratingly juvenile and fundamentally out-of-touch character. Nevertheless, Aristotelian philosophy manifests in Zissou’s venture: ‘men seek to return…evil for evil,…[I]t is by exchange that [justice] holds together’ (88). It is in Zissou’s sheer determination to kill the jaguar shark that Life Aquatic overtly demonstrates his reflection of Nicomachean ethics by attempting to secure justice for Esteban. 

Life Aquatic opens with Zissou showing his latest documentary where he is flailing in the sea, repeatedly screaming ‘Esteban!’ (03.37), crystallising the revenge narrative for the forthcoming diegesis. In perhaps one of the most powerful moments in the film, Murray foregrounds the utter sorrow that Zissou feels for the death of his friend through his frantic, hoarse utterances. His immediate shock response creates panic and fear for the characters and audience alike, encouraging us to emotionally invest in Zissou’s trauma. The events preceding this incident frame the relationship between Zissou and du Plantier as somewhat paternal, where Zissou has his arm around the slightly shorter du Plantier and kisses his head fondly prior to entering the water together. Interestingly this interaction juxtaposes Zissou’s relationship with his “maybe-son” Ned (Woodhouse), with whom he struggles to foster a rapport in the face of vengeance (Robé 112). The affection with which Zissou regards du Plantier cannot be transposed onto his son after Esteban’s death, despite his obligatory paternal role. It is in this way that Zissou is portrayed as out of balance; his emotional progress and thereby his grieving process is blocked by his inability to see past chasing retribution. 

Directly mirroring the death of Esteban, the helicopter crash that ends this cycle of revenge begins with the sighting of the ‘fluorescent snapper’ fish (98.17), presumably swimming away from the jaguar shark that ate Zissou’s friend. Foreshadowed by the same ominous streaks of red water washing over the camera, Zissou re-enacts the panic from the earlier scene with his distressed calls for Ned (99.01), paralleling his concern if not as a father, but as a friend. Contrastingly, the scene is characterised by an unnerving sense of calm; Zissou accepts the inevitability of his second loss and ‘only once dead can Ned be any kind of son’ (Gooch 46). However, unlike his experience with Esteban, Zissou is permitted some involvement in protecting his putative son, exhibited by placing his arm across Ned’s chest as though attempting to soften the fall (98.42). This is the first incident in which Zissou accepts his responsibility as a father, albeit a little too late. Ned must die to implement Aristotle’s method of justice: ‘justice is a kind of mean…because it relates to an intermediate amount, while injustice relates to the extremes’ (90). Without Ned’s death, Zissou would have remained in limbo, unable to access his repressed emotions due to the injustice of Esteban’s death, thereby perpetually ‘rejecting mourning’ (Robé 110). Zissou’s purposeful hunt for the jaguar shark, and therefore his attempt to enact justice, fails because he tries to transcend biological boundaries, figuring himself as the predator, subverting the jaguar shark as prey: ‘plan[ning] to blow up the jaguar shark with dynamite to…symbolically reinstate the species divide’ (Shackelford 205). The reversal of roles cannot be procured, however, because the jaguar shark is already culpable for a human death, reasserting its status as the predator. Zissou’s attempts to ‘stabilize and instrumentalize human relations to nonhuman animals [thus] significantly destabilizes the boundaries they intended to secure’ (Shackelford 200). Upon the final encounter with the jaguar shark (107.56), an eight- foot stop motion puppet, it is ultimately depicted as ‘“beautiful” in its massiveness and as a memorial to Esteban and Ned’ (Colatrella 90), facilitating Zissou’s epiphanic moment. The pursuit of revenge is finally eradicated because justice has been realised through the reciprocal deaths, symbolised by the serene confrontation with the jaguar shark. 

Robé argues that ‘Anderson’s protagonists transform their losses into recuperative, performative actions, a[n] endless “game” in which they unconsciously seek revenge on those who have abandoned them’ (106), corresponding with Browning’s assertion that ‘the emotional validity of the shark attack is stated rather than shown’ (54). Indeed, as a ‘dyspeptic, depressive documentary filmmaker’ and as a human being (Past 53), Zissou is fissured by Esteban’s loss, which throws him into stagnancy until the second death stabilises the character. Anderson’s Life Aquatic successfully clarifies Nicomachean ethics, evinced by the proportionate nature of the film’s diegesis. Zissou’s eventual understanding of the fruitlessness of vengeance clarifies his status as an ultimately sympathetic character, ending Life Aquatic with a satisfactory sense of balance. 

KATIE YATES 

(University of Exeter) 

Works Cited 

Anderson, Wes, dir. The Life Aquatic with Steve Zissou. Touchstone Pictures, 2004. DVD. 

Aristotle. The Nicomachean Ethics. Trans. David Ross. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009. Print. 

Browning, Mark. Wes Anderson: Why His Movies Matter. Santa Barbara: Praeger, 2011. Print. 

Colatrella, Carol. ‘The Life Aquatic of Melville, Cousteau, and Zissou at Sea.’ Leviathan 11.3 (2009): 79-90. Web. Project Muse. 1 Feb. 2015. 

Gooch, Joshua. ‘Making a Go of It: Paternity and Prohibition in the Films of Wes Anderson.’ Cinema Journal 47.1 (2007): 26-48. Web. Project Muse. 1 Feb. 2015. 

Past, Elena. ‘Lives Aquatic: Mediterranean Cinema and an Ethics of Underwater Existence.’ Cinema Journal 48.3 (2009): 52-65. Web. Project Muse. 1 Feb. 2015. 135 

Robé, Chris. ‘“Because I Hate Fathers, and I Never Wanted to Be One”: Wes Anderson, Entitled Masculinity, and the “Crisis” of the Patriarch.’ Millennial Masculinity: Men in Contemporary American Cinema. Ed. Timothy Shary. Michigan: Wayne State University Press, 2013. 101-121. Print. 

Seitz, Matt Zoller. ‘The Life Aquatic with Steve Zissou: An Interview.’ The Wes Anderson Collection. Ed. Matt Zoller Seitz. New York: Abrams, 2013. 165-93. Print. 

Shackelford, Laura. ‘Systems Thinking in The Life Aquatic and Moonrise Kingdom.’ The Films of Wes Anderson: Critical Essays on an Indiewood Icon. Ed. Peter C. Kunze. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2014. 199-213. Print. 

Woodhouse, Simon. ‘The Life Aquatic with Steven Zissou.’ Flikreport. N.p. 1 Nov. 2006. Web. 21 Feb. 2015. 

Works Consulted 

Bradshaw, Peter. ‘The Life Aquatic with Steve Zissou.’ The Guardian 18 Feb. 2005. Web. 28 Feb. 2015. 

French, Philip. ‘Something In The Water.’ The Guardian 20 Feb. 2005. Web. 28 Feb. 2015.

Splashed over the pages of the Daily Mail,  Facebook trending stories, and even 'The Lad Bible,' 3 days ago (13th April 2015), nude photographs of Kelly Brook were leaked. Supposedly containing a set of 24 new images, the hacking is reminiscent of this time six months ago when the likes of Jennifer Lawrence and Daisy Lowe were also victimised.

I have seen countless comments posing the question: "why take nude pics?" The problem is not that these women were proud enough of their bodies to photograph them. We live in a society saturated by an obsession with body image - be it negatively portrayed on various media platforms, or positively encouraged by campaigns such as "This Girl Can" and Dove's "Like A Girl." Indeed, these are invariably one-side examples; male counterparts can be seen in the likes of the Snickers advertisements in which men are demanded to "get some nuts," attempting to uphold the shaky "inherently masculine" values. Taking nude photographs is fundamentally not the issue here - if we are perpetually encouraged to be proud of our bodies and thus have the confidence to take intimate photographs, this is arguably a step in the right direction. On the contrary, the problem lies in the eradication of this good work in the face of the myriad of abuse and "slut-shaming" which stems from it when the recipient of these private images violates human trust by distributing them. 

Lauren Walker highlighted the fact that “commentators [were] shaming Jennifer Lawrence for snapping explicit photographs of [herself],” responding that “a woman’s consensual sharing of sexually explicit photos with a trusted confidante cannot be taken as wide-ranging permission to share them with the public” (Citron and Franks). As a “flagrant violation of privacy,” Jennifer Lawrence’s indecent exposure was beyond her control, much like Kelly Brook's most recent victimisation. Both women spoke out against the images: Brook suggested that the only legitimate nude photographs would only be "leaked" by herself, indicative of her deserving pride in her body and attempting to assuage the shame that victims of similar situations feel. Lawrence responded to tabloids by stating that “it is not a scandal. It is a sex crime. It is a sexual violation... I didn’t tell you that you could look at my naked body.” What Sam Kashner's article in Vogue attempted to do was show that Jennifer Lawrence’s female body could be exposed and ogled, but it would not be silenced by the voyeuristic Internet environment in which her photographs preside.

(Camille Leon, right, and her family © Freddie Claire)

Judith Butler advocated that gender is "a stylised repetition of acts" repeated through time, clearly distinguishable from a persons sex; one is constructed, the other is biological. Throughout my studies at university, reading diverse texts on contemporary issues  permeating today's society in ways we often fail to notice has concretised my utmost belief in Butler's aforementioned statement.

Last Sunday, 5th April 2015, BBC screened Louis Theroux's latest documentary entitled Transgender Kids. Characteristically controversial, Theroux sensitively tackled the stigma surrounding transgender people through explicitly depicting the ways in which gender dysphoria ("a condition where a person experiences discomfort or distress because there is a mismatch between their biological sex and their gender identity" - NHS) affects children as young as Camille who was four when she asked how to "turn into a girl." Indeed, by exploring the issue in relation to children, Theroux opens the discourse to a wider audience, specifically an older generation - would parents support their children if they were to feel this way? Alternatively would they reject it as a phase? Stigma stems from a lack of understanding in a topic and I think Theroux chose a perfect entry point into penetrating mixed perceptions of the transgender community.

Theroux gave his audience an insight into the types of procedures and treatments available to children, teenagers, and young adults, in the USA - where the medical support appears to be much more advanced than it is here. Including the possibility of psychological counselling appropriated to the patient, hormone blockers, and sex reassignment surgery, the team that Theroux met to discuss the technicalities were vibrant, enthusiastic, and, crucially, deeply aware of the pain suffered by the children who were born into the wrong body. 

With focus on Camille, Nikki, and Crystal/Cole, we are exposed to two sets of extremely supportive parents in the cases of the former two, and one less so in relation to Crystal/Cole - whose mother wholeheartedly encouraged them to explore their gender identity, whereas their father outwardly spoke of the unnaturalness of Cole being Crystal. The difficulty here is that the idea of what is "natural" is subjective. Untouched upon is the notion of agender (without gender/genderless), which could give Crystal/Cole the opportunity to alleviate social dysphoria entirely. Nonetheless it was important that Theroux interviewed an opposing view because it highlighted the anxiety that an outside influence can have upon the formation of gender identity. It is from this anxiety that conservative notions of sex and gender as rigidly fixed entities are consolidated which prevents people from properly expressing themselves and thus reinforces stigma.

Theroux's documentary is eye-opening, asking all of the 'awkward' questions to help us to comprehend to our changing culture; it is so important that violence and abuse towards the trans community is eradicated and stigma is mitigated. Fundamentally, if a transgender person feels unnatural in their incorrectly gendered body, why should we have the audacity to prevent them from expressing themselves properly, comfortably, and naturally for them?