“Star Trek” mini-rant: Where do Michael and Tyler go from here?

By Monique on Tuesday, January 16, 2018

Each week, Monique will sound off on the current episode of Star Trek: Discovery. For more, read Monique’s Star Trek: Discovery recaps at SlashFilm. These mini-rants will contain SPOILERS–You’re warned.

I think this week’s episode, “The Wolf Inside,” goes up there as one of the best-written episodes of this season of Star Trek: Discovery. There was so much packed into this episode, from the continuation of the Stamets-Culber relationship, to the introduction of some bada$$ Andorians and Tellarites, to Jason Isaacs losing his American accent through parts of his Lorca lines (which was amusing if you caught it, because it was hard to tell if he was legit forgetting to sound American or still trying to use Lorca’s fake Scottish–“Scotty”, if you will–accent from before). Of course, with a title like “The Wolf Inside,” Tyler was the central character. Well, Tyler and Voq. And of course, where Tyler’s concerned, Michael’s not far behind.

So what do I have to say about this episode when it comes to Michael and Tyler’s relationship? Simply that I’m intrigued by everything that’s happened. I feel like it sounds clinical for me to say “intrigued” when Michael was nearly killed by Tyler-turned-Voq and Michael then did turnabout and nearly killed Tyler!Voq by sending him out into space, just so Discovery Prime could beam him aboard for detention (and to acquire the crucial files Michael hid in Tyler’s pocket). But from a writer’s perspective and from a fan of exciting television, I am highly invested to see where this goes. I also feel like regardless of what happens between Michael and Tyler, I won’t be let down.

I’m sure some are reading this trying to figure out how I can say this, when I’m one of the main people saying black women should have prominent love lives on television without the risk of something detrimental happening. If we go by the bare bones of what’s happening–Michael’s relationship is now put in jeopardy, with all signs pointing to a sacrifice of some sort needing to be made–then it looks like we’re getting the same script, different cast. But honestly, I feel like there’s so much more that’s happening here, and the fact that the writers are pushing each character beyond archetypal boundaries makes this story highly fascinating.

Let me break down exactly what I’m talking about:

This romance is less about Michael’s development and more about Tyler’s

It only occurred to me in this episode that the importance of Michael and Tyler’s relationship doesn’t rely on how this romance affects Michael. This romance is all about how it informs Tyler and forces him to mature.

As I wrote in my SlashFilm recap this week, Tyler is a man whose life is informed by those around him, particularly by women.

“…[W]hile Michael is a tether for Tyler, L’Rell is a tether for Voq. As we know, Voq only started waking up after he was in L’Rell’s presence. What’s interesting is that both Tyler and Voq are both the passive parties in their relationships. I’m not saying either one is less “manly,” as it were; in fact, I find it more endearing that they have the capacity to defer to the women in their lives for guidance. But I will say this: whoever Tyler is at the moment, he’ll have to choose who he wants to be in the future. One future has L’Rell and Klingon domination, the other has Michael and a peaceful Federation of Planets. L’Rell and Michael can’t make this decision for him — he’s going to have to choose.”

This is not to say that there’s something wrong with a man who relies on or defers to women as counsel. On the contrary–a man who can recognize the importance of women has more going for him positively than not. As an uncommon point of comparison, look at how Black Panther‘s T’Challa seems both supported and emboldened by the women in his life. Just looking at the trailers, you can see how T’Challa is empowered by the women in his life.

On the flip side, though Tyler seems unhealthily dependent on those he views are stronger than him to define how he should live and what he should do. It just so happens that many of the people he views as being stronger than him are women. Again, seeing a male character recognize the importance of women is cool and very much-needed in these #MeToo times. But Tyler and Voq also manage to subvert their relationships with women; instead of gaining empowerment from them, they wrongly cast them as personal caretakers; L’Rell and Michael don’t just provide Voq and Tyler with love and support; oftentimes they have to do the emotional and tactical heavy lifting.

To be clear, my point of view doesn’t include how Tyler handles his PTSD; Tyler and Voq’s habit of leeching onto stronger counterparts can be seen in earlier episodes. Looking back on Voq’s interactions with L’Rell, L’Rell would always take charge of Voq’s plans, instructing him on how to get his goals achieved. Voq came to rely on L’Rell not just as a right hand and not just even as a significant other, but as a conduit for his own feelings of independence. Without L’Rell, he’s just a Klingon riddled with self-doubt. To some extent, Voq even latched onto T’Kuvma, and in a way, he’s still takes from T’Kuvma in terms of developing an outward, acceptable identity.

Tyler has done the same thing with Michael. Whereas Michael needed him to tell her the truth about his mental situation, he lied. Instead, he continued his pattern of dependence, mining her for her strength and confidence, just like how Voq did with L’Rell. During the times we see the intimate moments between Michael and Tyler, the emotional interplay exists on two different levels. For Michael, she’s viewing the relationship as a mutually supportive one. On the whole, Tyler views their relationship like this, too. But what Tyler isn’t cognizant of is that he’s also running on a different wavelength than Michael. It’s more evident the more Tyler becomes mentally unstable, but it’s becoming clearer that Tyler doesn’t just rely on Michael as, in his words, a “tether.” He also relies on her to do his emotional dirty work for him. He wants her to determine who he should be. Even in regular, real life relationships, that’s too much for one person to handle.

There is a term for someone who sucks up someone else’s emotional energy: psychic vampire. I don’t think Tyler or even Voq latch onto others in their circle maliciously. Yeah, I know Voq is an actual villain, but when it comes to how he engages in relationships, I don’t think he realizes he leeches onto people.

In real life, most psychic vampires don’t realize they do it. More than likely, most of us have been a psychic vampire at some point in time. It’s surprisingly not that hard. But from my own experience, I’ve found that what drives people (including myself at one point) to psychic vampirism is severe self-doubt and low-to-no self-confidence. That lack of confidence can come from a myriad of things, but what can get people out of that vampiric mindset is to 1) become aware of what they do and who they latch onto when they feel self-doubt, anger and/or fear and how they might selfishly twist relationships to meet their ends and 2) develop new habits that foster more self-confidence and less self-doubt.

Both Tyler and Voq are people who have no self-confidence. They’re people who rely on others to fill the holes where their self-confidence and self-reliance should be. Voq was struggling before because of his state as an outcast within Klingon society, but now, after his transformation and his alter-ego’s PTSD and sexual trauma, Voq/Tyler’s mind is more confused than ever before. But somehow, Tyler has to figure out how to come out of this a whole person. This test that Tyler is now under is one that will not only decide the fate of the Federation, but is also one that will call on Tyler to find that confident place within himself to make his own choices. No one else can save Tyler from this but himself–it’s going to come down to him forcing himself to be defiant in the direction he wants his life to go. He has to realize that his life relies solely on what he wants for himself, not what L’Rell or Michael want for him.

Tyler’s arc is tailor-made for today

With all of that said, I want to make it exceptionally clear that I don’t think Tyler is “weak” or somehow less of a man, especially where women are concerned. Tyler subverts the kind of Captain Kirk bravado we’re accustomed to, and his passivity is something we rarely see in male characters on screen. I do think, though, that he inadvertently misuses the women in his life, and his fallacies make Tyler’s arc extremely important in this #MeToo time, in which we’re all rethinking how we view masculinity, femininity, and the interactions between the two. If we take Voq out of this, Tyler is, for me, the kind of leading man we should see more often. It would do us some good to see a leading man who isn’t always guns blazing, but is one who struggles with feelings of inadequacy, vulnerability, and even the very human fear of weakness. At the same time, we also see a man who doesn’t realize that he doesn’t do the greatest job of taking care of he women in his life emotionally. All of this culminates into a layered story of personal growth.

As Shazad Latif told SyFy’s Swapna Krishna:

“Me and Sonequa, we always wanted to push it. Because you meet Tyler and he’s this guy who’s going through this trauma and we’ve seen that story many times. It’s amazing to explore, but we wanted to see him … With him and Michael Burnham, she’s always very strong. She’s the strong one and she’s the one looking after him, and he’s weak around her and he’s vulnerable around her, in the bedroom, in the hallway.

I wanted to make sure that that was clear because, to show a man’s vulnerability and weakness and show that you can still be a man and vice versa, that Sonequa is a very strong female character — it was very important to us in the scenes that we played that and we showed that. It’s nice to play the inner turmoil and suffering and weakness of the man as well, rather than being this classic sort of rogue action hero. There’s more to it than that.

Because when you first see him, he is playing that, we’re playing that sort of archetype. He’s this guy coming from the ship, he’s getting his job and ‘Aha! He’s a classic American hero,’ but really he’s crumbling, and it’s very beautiful to watch.”

I think Tyler’s current problem of fighting the Klingon within is highly salient to our current discussions about what manhood means and what it should look like. Like Tyler, each man is going to have to figure out what type of man they want to be. They can’t rely on others to convince them to be one way or the other; they’ll have to search within themselves and assess their values and then live by them.

That’s basically all Tyler is doing, but in a much more cosmic way–he’s never had to think about what truly matters to him until now. When he was Klingon, he wanted power to force his kind to bow to him. He wanted to rule the entire universe all so he could be accepted by others. All the while, he’s never accepted himself. Meanwhile, Tyler wants to be human and live by the Federation for Michael–it’s not clear if he, at this point in time, cares about the Federation for any other reason. Seeing Tyler’s journey towards self-acceptance, clarity, and peace is going to be turbulent, for sure, but I also feel it’s going to be highly rewarding.

Michael always rises up above trope

As I’ve written last week, I’ve had some misgivings about where the series is headed after Culber’s death. But after seeing the continuation of the Culber-Stamets storyline, plus Wilson Cruz’s own promise that we haven’t seen the last of their love story, has put me tentatively at ease. Interestingly enough, how the writers are handling Michael’s characterization has also put me at ease with where the series is headed, since I now feel that all of the characters, especially Michael, will get deserving ends to their arcs.

Yes, Michael could be at risk for having a relationship go down the tubes. But at this point, it’s way more fruitful to talk about how the characters are organically evolving rather than keep a tally. As I wrote in my Season 2 finale recap of Into the Badlands for Black Girl Nerds, I discuss how Veil’s death doesn’t preclude that black women can’t die in their shows; what matters is how their characters have organically arrived at such a devastating conclusion. If it isn’t earned, then that’s when the characters fall into trope.

“Let’s take out the racial component for a second because the devil’s advocate rebuttal to Veil’s death would be that Black women characters have just as much of a chance to die as white women characters do. In a democratically-written show, this is very true. However, if we take out the racial component, we’re still left with another woman who had to die for there to be “emotional depth.” Couldn’t there have been emotional depth built with her still living? I understand that the writing team probably wanted this season to be one where Sunny comes face to face with the types of horrors his life of clipping can bring, but there could have been other ways for him to deal with those demons other than Veil dying, right?

…The fridging of Veil reiterates how much of a misstep this is for a show that has been praised for its commitment to telling stories a different way. Throughout two seasons, there hadn’t been an egregious fridging of any woman. If anything, we’ve seen the fridging of a man—Ryder—at the expense of Jade’s emotional growth, a remarkable gender role reversal. But Veil is the first woman to receive this extensive treatment, all to further Sunny’s hero’s journey as well as the building anticipation of reaching Azra. And again, she’s also a woman of color, whereas all of the other women who have been able to survive are white (or, in the case of Baroness Chau, Asian). If we’re going to fridge women, did the only fridged woman have to also be a woman of color? Let’s be equal in our annihilation of female characterization, at the very least.”

The same can be said for black women who end up alone on screen. It all comes down to how they’ve organically arrived to that new chapter in their lives, regardless of any racial or social politics that surround the character. If this were just a case of Voq waking up and saying, “I’m bouncing for L’Rell, bye,” and there was no more exploration of anything, that’d be one thing. But it’s another when 1) Tyler/Voq is in a state of mental and physical duress–he’s a man trapped inside another’s body, and the minds of both Tyler and Voq are at war, with Tyler feeling the effects of PTSD and sexual trauma and 2) both sides of Tyler and Voq love two different people. While Voq relies on L’Rell as his reminder of his Klingon self, Tyler relies on Michael to keep him human. There’s a lot going on here, and the complexities of it save the entire exercise from stereotype.

Overall, I feel like Star Trek: Discovery just might have one of the most explosive episodes ever, and I’m not just talking about space battles. I’ll admit that dramatic changes, such as Culber’s death last week, are scary. They can make viewers and critics like me doubt a show’s direction. Some of that doubt is earned–too often, we’ve seen when big gambles don’t pay off. But it seems like with Discovery, the gambles just might do more than merely “pay off”–they might propel the show towards even greater heights. We’ll have to see how true this prediction is once the season is over.

Loved this article? Follow JUST ADD COLOR at @COLORwebmag and on Facebook!

entertainment movies

How come Disney doesn’t understand the difference between brownface and “blending in”?

By Monique on Monday, January 15, 2018

(Photo credit: Disney, who needs to treat my boy Aladdin right.)

For the amount of times Disney’s live-action Aladdin has been in the news for the right (and hot) reasons, there’s just as many times the company has put its film in the limelight for highly controversial reasons. It seems like Disney still hasn’t gotten enough of being controversial with this film; they managed to find a way to inject brownface into the proceedings

According to Deadline, The Daily Mail and The Sunday Times both reported that the film had been tanning up white actors needed for background roles, stunt positions, “camel handlers” and dancers during filming at Longcross Studios near London. The Times went further by quoting Kaushal Odedra, an extra hired for filming, who said he saw at least 20 “very fair skinned” actors waiting in line at make-up tents “waiting to have their skin darkened.”

“Disney are sending out a message that your skin colour, your identity, your life experiences amount to nothing that can be powered on and washed off,” he told the newspaper (beware: you need an account to read the rest of the article on the Times’ website).

Disney has since put out a statement via a spokesperson that doesn’t help matters. If anything, it makes things worse.

“Great care was taken to put together one of the largest most diverse casts ever seen on screen. Diversity of our cast and background performers was a requirement and only in a handful of instances when it was a matter of specialty skills, safety and control (special effects rigs, stunt performers and handling of animals) were crew made up to blend in.”

On the one hand, it’s bold for the company to not deny the fact that brownface was used. The fact that they didn’t shy away from it isn’t why I hate this statement. I hate the statement because it acts like brownface was a necessary evil for this movie, when in fact brownface can be avoided at all costs all the time.

If Agrabah is being positioned as a multicultural place—according to Deadline, a reported 400 of 500 of the background actors and performers are Middle Eastern, Indian, African, Asian and Mediterranean, then why can’t the white dancers, animal handlers, stunt people, etc., just be left as they are? Why was it necessary that they “blend in” if there’s already a white person cast as part of the main cast of the movie? In 2017, Billy Magnussen was cast in a brand-new role made exclusively for this film. So why the need for brownface? Color me confused.

Disney, can you please just make this film without any further complications and scandals? I just want Aladdin and Jasmine, two of my favorite Disney prince and princess combos, to be presented right and with some dignity. Please. Thanks.

Loved this article? Follow JUST ADD COLOR at @COLORwebmag and on Facebook!

culture entertainment TV

Native American talent wanted for 2018 Native American TV Writers Lab

By Monique on Monday, January 15, 2018

(Photo credit: laskinsfest.com)

Native American TV writers—take heed of this post! You could be a part of this year’s Native American TV Writers Lab!

According to The Hollywood Reporter, the third annual writers lab, presented by LA Skins Fest, is currently accepting applications through the first week and a half of March.

The five-week workshop, modeled after the workshop created by the National Hispanic Media Coalition, is sponsored by CBS Entertainment Diversity, Netflix, HBO, and Comcast NBCUniversal.

Only six to seven writers will be chosen for the workshop, which will take place between mid-May to late June in Los Angeles. The chosen writers will be able to learn from writers in the business through group workshops, panels, and one-on-one meetings. At the end of the workshop, the writers are expected to have at least a 30-minute comedy or one-hour drama script ready for network executives to read. And by “network executives,” that means the biggest of the big wigs; past iterations of the program have featured executives from Lionsgate, ABC, NBCUniversal, CBS, Bad Robot Productions, Echolake Entertainment, Amazon Studios, Fox, and others.

Here’s more about the workshop from the official website:

The NATIVE AMERICAN TV WRITERS LAB was created in accordance with the LA Skins Fest’s mission to improve media portrayals of Native Americans and to increase the number of Native Americans employed in all facets of the media industry.

The NATIVE AMERICAN TV WRITERS LAB is designed to familiarize participants with the format, characters and storyline structure of television. The five week, total immersion workshop will be mentored and guided by an experienced writer with industry credits. The lab will be conducted in Los Angeles, CA with a maximum of 7 writers accepted.

The five-week lab will consist of group discussions, one on one meetings and workshops. One of the main components to be introduced is the writers room. This is an opportunity to have each participant’s script offered up in a professional capacity as a new television script. All of the writers will participate in offering ideas, suggestions, and thoughts on making each script a strong piece. The goal is that the writers garner the skills necessary to obtain employment in the industry.

The regular deadline for applications is March 2, the late deadline is March 9. Dust off your spec scripts and send your stuff in as soon as possible to laskinsfest.com, where you can find more instructions and information. Good luck to all who enter!

Loved this article? Follow JUST ADD COLOR at @COLORwebmag and on Facebook!

entertainment TV

How can I watch “Miss Sherlock” and “Justice: Qalb Al Adala”?

By Monique on Thursday, January 11, 2018

There’s a plethora of international shows to keep an eye on in 2018, but after reading Deadline Hollywood’s roundup of international TV premieres, two that I hope I’ll have the chance of watching involve women cracking cases and being awesome.

Miss Sherlock (HBO Asia/Hulu Japan)

*Yugo Takeguchi (L) and Shihori Kanjiya in “Miss Sherlock.”*

This Japanese interpretation of the classic Sherlock Holmes character and stories gets a genderbent twist with two women playing Sherlock and Watson. Yugo Takeguchi takes on the title character, while Shihori Kanjiya plays Dr. Wato Tachibana, this universe’s Watson.

The series seems to be heavily influenced by the BBC’s Sherlock, even down to certain parts of Sherlock’s flat and Benedict Cumberbatch’s flair for entering crime scenes. However, don’t think I’m shading this version at all; in fact, I think Miss Sherlock could give us what a lot of us BBC Sherlock fans were hoping for, which is direct confirmation of (and confrontation with) the homoromantic/homoerotic themes between Sherlock and Watson’s relationship. Judging from the trailer, it seems like same-sex attraction is a big part of this series. But I write this with my fingers crossed all the while; if you’re used to the media’s bait-and-switch when it come to LGBT representation, then I’d suggest just girding your loins and watching this with hope and skepticism. But the trailer does seem to promise a lot that would definitely make fans happy.

Hopefully the style is all Miss Sherlock will take from Sherlock; I don’t need a repeat of the awful plot with Sherlock’s sister.

Miss Sherlock’s first eight-episode season will debut this April on HBO in almost 20 markets in the region on HBO’s streaming platforms. Perhaps HBO and Hulu will also provide a way for its American subscribers to watch the drama at a later date.

Justice: Qalb Al Adala (Image Nation Abu Dhabi/Beelink Productions/IM Global Television/OSN)

*Fatima Al Taei in “Justice: Qalb Al Adala.”*

This Middle Eastern drama will hopefully give a new take on how we Americans view the Middle East and its cultural and political diversity. The drama, filmed in Abu Dhabi, stars Fatima Al Taei as Farah, a lawyer who has graduated from a U.S. university and has returned home to succeed on her own, despite her father being one of the most prestigious lawyers in the United Arab Emirates.

The show was created by William Finklestein of L.A. Law and NYPD Blue as well as He Named Me Malala producer Walter Parkes. Similar to Law and Order, Justice: Qalb Al Adala has cases based on real cases from the Abu Dhabi Judicial Department. Hearing more about real legal cases something that excites me about this show, aside from learning more about the region in general. No word on if this show will make it to U.S. markets or on what network/streaming service it will be shown on.

More international shows are profiled in the Deadline article; which shows are you excited about viewing? Which shows do you hope make it to America? Give your opinions in the comments section below!

Loved this article? Follow JUST ADD COLOR at @COLORwebmag and on Facebook!

TV entertainment

A new drama inspired by the musical legacy of Selena Quintanilla coming to ABC

By Monique on Thursday, January 11, 2018

ABC Studios, Campanario Entertainment and SB Projects have secured a development deal to bring a drama inspired by the musical legacy of Selena Quintanilla to television!

The drama, written by Miguel Nolla (Scandal), has the support of the Quintanilla family and ABC has given the development project a put pilot commitment. Nolla will act as co-executive producer.

The currently untitled series will focus on a pop star who finds herself starting all over again in her home state of Texas.

The series focuses on Alex Guerra, a chart-topping, award winning pop star who has been estranged from her family for 5 years. She tries to pick up the pieces when a crisis forces her to return home. Alex finds herself back in Texas, juggling a love triangle, the demands of her career and the dark secrets of the family that she now desperately wants to win back.

“We are excited to come on board as producers on an ABC music driven, Latino family drama that celebrates Selena’s musical legacy with a lead character whose music and career is inspired by Selena,” said Suzette Quintanilla Arriaga.

SB Projects founder Scooter Braun also expressed his excitement about the upcoming series.

“We are thrilled to team up with Campanario and ABC Studios and highlight the complexities and family dynamics of a Latin pop superstar coming to grips with the reality of her influence especially in today’s social climate,” he said. “More importantly, we are proud to be collaborators on an incredibly timely show that focuses on a strong Latino family and represents the many Americans who we know will enjoy this series alongside us.”

“This project gives us all an opportunity to showcase a successful, aspirational Latino family in a way that is not currently represented on television,” said Jaime Davila, president of Campanario Entertainment. “Sergio, Rico and I are looking forward to creating with the team an original music-driven drama with authentic characters as multifaceted as our own families.”

Sergio Aguero, Jaime Davila, and Rico Martinez of Campanario Entertainment and Scooter Braun, Scott Manson, and James Shin of SB Projects will serve as non-writing executive producers. Simran A. Singh, and Selena Quintanilla family members Abraham Quintanilla, Jr., and Suzette Quintanilla Arriaga, will join the project as producers.

More about Campanario Entertainment and SB Projects:

Campanario Entertainment is a North American media company that develops and produces broad appeal scripted and unscripted content driven by Latinos and Latinas in front of and behind the camera. Co-founded by Jaime Davila, former development executive at Bravo, and Jaime Davila Sr., former Televisa COO and Univision President and Chairman, Campanario Entertainment strongly supports original voices as well as adapts proven IP for both the U.S. and international television markets. Current productions include unique intellectual properties and adaptations such as FOX’s “Red Band Society,” “Bandolero” with Kenny Ortega (“High School Musical,” “Descendants”), and “Laugh Factory en Español.” Their first project, “Camelia la Texana,” premiered on Telemundo in the US and on Netflix in Mexico, and set a new standard in content and visual quality for Spanish-language programming. For more information, visit Campanario.com.

SB Projects is a diversified entertainment and media company with ventures integrating music, film, television, technology and philanthropy. Guided by the vision of founder Scott “Scooter” Braun (one of Time Magazine’s 100 Most Influential People In the World), SB Projects combines creativity, the ability to engage global audiences, and an understanding of “what’s next” to deliver innovative ideas as a leading architect of popular culture. For more information please visit, www.scooterbraun.com.

Loved this article? Follow JUST ADD COLOR at @COLORwebmag and on Facebook!

entertainment celebrity movies music

Irene Bedard speaks to Indian Country Today about her presidential “Family Feud” role

By Monique on Wednesday, January 10, 2018

(Photo credit: Tidal/YouTube)

One of the highlights of Jay Z’s Family Feud video, directed and conceptualized by Ava DuVernay, is the exploration of female leadership in families and, indeed, in a future America. Seeing scores of diverse women running the country, culminating in co-presidency between Irene Bedard and Omari Hardwick, only made me want to see a full-fledged drama series based around these characters and this new, Afrofuturistic and ethnofuturistic world.

Indian Country Today’s Vincent Schilling interviewed Bedard about her role and the importance of honoring female strength in relation to the nation and the world. Here are some key points from her interview.

On getting the call to star in Family Feud while at Standing Rock:

“…In the midst of all of this in Standing Rock, where reception is terrible, I got a call from my agent asking if I could be ready in three days to do a video project in New York. I got on a plane not knowing what I was doing except it was an untitled Ava DuVernay project. I love her and I knew whatever she was doing, it would be awesome. I went with complete faith.”

On hearing she was playing Madame President:

“[DuVernay] looked at me and said, ‘So, you are the President of the United States in the year 2444.’ I was like, ‘What?’ (laughs.) She said, ‘You are actually the co-President because at this time we have realized over the generations that we need to have more balance between the feminine and masculine.’… Of course this was going to done right with a director like Ava, but then to have Beyoncé and Jay-Z? I got to tell my son about this, He was like, ‘what?’ (laughs.) This project gave me some teenager cool points. (laughs.)”

On the importance of representing the matrilineal aspect of leadership:

“…Violence to Mother Earth is another representation of violence against women. Why do we do this? I feel it is because we are out of balance.

If you look at the story of White Buffalo Calf Woman, there are two men who come to her and one man wanted to own her, while the other wanted to give respect and value. The man who wanted to own her got the thunderbolt, the other who wanted to honor her received the gifts, the pipe and the people thrived.

We are lacking in intelligent discourse. I believe that we as a society are much more capable of being tolerant and loving to one another, than what might appear on the internet.”

Read the full interview at Indian Country Today.

entertainment LGBT TV

“Star Trek: Discovery” mini-rant: What the hell?!

By Monique on Tuesday, January 9, 2018

(Wilson Cruz as Dr. Culber on Star Trek: Discovery. Photo credit: CBS)

It’s been over 72 hours as of this post since I’ve seen the midseason premiere of Star Trek: Discovery, and I am still pissed. I don’t know how killing Culber will advance the story in any type of positive way. I also fear that Culber’s death is one of the breadcrumbs that will lead to Tyler ultimately sacrificing himself.

If you’ve read my latest SlashFilm recap already, you know I’ve been quite livid about seeing Culber die on screen. Supposedly, Culber’s death isn’t going to be a “Bury Your Gays” horror (even though it looks like it on the surface.) I quoted Buzzfeed’s Adam B. Vary’s interviews with Wilson Cruz and Star Trek: Discovery‘s showrunners in my recap, but I want to give a shout out to SyFy’s Swapna Krishna, who also interviewed Cruz about his character’s demise. What Cruz told her, as he told Vary, is that we’ll see Culber again.

“I can tell you that we will be seeing Dr. Culber again.

I can even tell you that as part of the longer epic love story we are planning on telling between these two characters there is a scene in this season that is my favorite thing I have ever filmed in my twenty-five years and I can’t wait for you guys to see it. So when I tell you that it’s not over, it really isn’t. There are reasons why the story has taken a turn, but I just ask that you guys trust us in the storytelling. I had conversations with the producers and there is a bigger story here to be told, and we are going to tell it.”

So, he’s telling us that we will see the continuation of Culber’s story and Culber and Stamets’ relationship. HOWEVER, I’m still mad.

Did it have to be this way, showrunners? On the one hand, I understand that if I was in the creator’s chair, I would have qualms killing characters off regardless. As someone who wishes to create her own show one day, I’ve already realized I am too mushy to kill of characters, even if the story calls for it. Perhaps that’s to my detriment. But, a part of me feels like having a dramatic death at the beginning of a premiere is beginning to be a pattern for Star Trek: Discovery. Case in point–the death of Georgiou, another death I thought wasn’t necessary because, similar to Culber’s, it felt like a bait-and-switch.

However, with as much work as Wilson Cruz has done speaking out on behalf of the LGBT community, and with the showrunners themselves running this storyline by GLAAD, I’d like to believe that this gamble will pay off. I mean, it’d better–Star Trek: Discovery’s life is on the line with this type of gamble. If the story can show a death that exists beyond trope, then maybe there’s a conversation worth having. It’s also worth pointing out that one of the showrunners, Aaron Harberts, is openly gay. Perhaps some of his own feelings about the treatment of LGBT characters in the media will make Culber’s death feel more organic and less of a trope. From what he told IndieWire’s Liz Shannon Miller, it would seem that’s the case.

“This is something we knew we wanted to do pretty much from the minute we started breaking the arc of the entire season. We wanted to have this be the first chapter for this gay couple, who we plan to make one of the most important couples on our show. So, to do that, we needed to tell some tough stories to get this couple where they need to be, and to continue to expand their importance in the fabric of the show. So, this is a first step that we knew we had to take, and we weren’t afraid to take it, because we know where it’s going.”

…“It’s absolutely essential [for Culber’s death to be organic]. It was essential that this crime not be gratuitous. It had to push the story, and it had to come from character and emotion. Culber is killed because he’s the smartest person on the ship. He’s not killed because he’s gay. He’s killed because he’s a threat to Tyler, and to what Tyler’s going through.”

I won’t say Culber’s death was entirely for shock value–I believe Harberts when he says he wanted Culber’s death to not be gratutious–but there is still a shocking element to how he died and the type of episode he died on. A midseason premiere is all about bringing eyes back to the show and attracting new eyes as well, but does a death really win more fans? At this point, from what I’ve seen on Twitter, it seems like all it’s done is piss people off–both longtime viewers and prospective viewers, some of whom are now waiting until the season is over to see how the Culber situation is handled. Regardless, for many, Culber’s death is just one more reason to keep distrusting the media’s handling of LGBT characters since they keep getting killed off or denied their right to happiness.

To be honest, killing off characters for dramatic effect has become a go-to for lots of shows nowadays, and it annoys me. The glut of great television has also made TV watchers desensitized to a certain extent–there are show many shows to watch and so little time, so people have to pick and choose what they give their attention to. Therefore, it’s becoming increasingly harder for shows to garner and maintain an audience when there’s so much competition out there. What I’ve been seeing is an increase in “Can you believe X got killed off?!” moments on TV–moments that result in tons of press and tons of online chatter and attention. Killing off a character can mean your show gets a quick boost of notoriety and promotion. The best example of this is The Walking Dead, the originator of the modern-day “Kill off important characters” tactic. At one point in time, doing such a thing was bold, risky even. But nowadays, the tactic has become stale and, in some cases, hokey. At worst, the tactic has become offensive–The Walking Dead has had a habit of killing of black characters, black men in particular. Also, Glenn, a fan favorite, was believed to have been saved by the writers, only to be brutally killed later on. The most recent kill, protagonist Rick Grimes’ son Carl, deviates from the comic book, in which Carl still lives. If I were a regular viewer of that show, I’d consider it a huge betrayal.

My point is this–what do character deaths amount to in the end? Are they entirely necessary for every story? And will Culber’s death prove to be necessary for the story Star Trek: Discovery is trying to tell or will it turn into another Georgiou moment that leaves fans frustrated? We can only wait and see as the story develops.

Regardless, the sting of seeing Culber killed goes deep. As Harberts said in his interview, we know Culber isn’t killed because he’s gay–it’ because of what he knows about Tyler and because Tyler is fighting his Klingon programming (the buried lede in this article is that Tyler is, in fact, Voq. But he’s a Voq at war with himself, because he doesn’t even remember his former life). But even with that knowledge, I hope the folks behind the show realize that there’s a large contingent of fans who might hit pause on Star Trek: Discovery, at least temporarily. After seeing so many LGBT characters treated wrongly, it’s almost second nature to become wary of any death, regardless of the underlying reasons for that death.

It’s on the show now to win back some fans’ trust and allay fears. If they can’t do that, then the show will have a big problem on its hands.

Loved this article? Follow JUST ADD COLOR at @COLORwebmag and on Facebook!

activism entertainment issues movies TV

Golden Globes 2018: Mulling over a night of solidarity, emotional whiplash, and Oprah

By Monique on Monday, January 8, 2018

(The cast of “Big Little Lies” accepting their Golden Globe. Photo credit: Hollywood Foreign Press/NBC)

The Golden Globes took me on a journey this year. To be honest, I wish I wasn’t on a good 50 percent of that journey. But the parts that I stuck around for were worth it.

For instance, let’s take the theme of the night—TIME’S UP. With the Golden Globes red carpet and subsequent awards show, the prevalence of sexual assault and harassment against women in the workforce has been put in the spotlight at such a large scale that it seems virtually impossible for the industry to walk back on it or turn its face away from it. The TIME’S UP Legal Defense Fund, spearheaded by over 300 women in entertainment, is now part of the fabric of Hollywood and will only get stronger year by year.

Time’s up on silence. Time’s up on waiting. Time’s up on tolerating discrimination, harassment and abuse. #TIMESUP. Sign the solidarity letter & donate now to the #TIMESUP Legal Defense Fund. Link in bio.

A post shared by #TIMESUP (@timesupnow) on Jan 1, 2018 at 7:44am PST

It goes without saying that the initiative’s birth comes from the sheer amount of women in Hollywood who shared their heartbreaking stories of harassment and abuse at the hands of producers, directors, and other Hollywood male elite. But, what also helped the initiative take shape was a message of solidarity from the Alianza Nacional de Campesinas (the National Farmworker Women’s Alliance), an organization that combats the harassment female farmworkers face. As TIME’S UP’s website states, the fund partners “with leading advocates for equality and safety to improve laws, employment agreements, and corporate policies; help change the face of corporate boardrooms and the C-suite; and enable more women and men to access our legal system to hold wrongdoers accountable.” In short, the initiative hopes to help all women be protected against abuse and inequitable power structures.

The solidarity between the Alianza Nacional de Campesinas and TIME’S UP is why so many actresses brought WOC activists as their plus ones Sunday. The goal was to advocate for intersectional feminist politics and uplifting female voices and women-led organizations. The eight activists that joined Michelle Williams, Emma Watson, Susan Sarandon, Meryl Streep, Laura Dern, Shailene Woodley, Amy Poehler and Emma Stone were:

Tarana Burke, #MeToo movement founder and activist

Marai Larasi, Executive Director of UK-based black feminist organization Imkaan

Rosa Clemente, Afro-Latinx activist, community organizer and political commenator

Ai-jen Poo, director of the National Domestic Workers Alliance and co-director of Caring Across Generations

Mónica Ramírez, Co-Founder of the Alianza Nacional de Campesinas

Calina Lawrence, Indigenous musician/activist

Billie Jean King, legendary tennis star and activist

Saru Jayaraman, Co-Founder/Co-Director of the Restaurant Opportunities Centers United (ROC United) and Director of the Food Labor Research Center at University of California, Berkeley.

Their joint statement sheds more light on why they chose the Golden Globes red carpet as the avenue to steer the conversation from one of outrage to one of action.

“As longtime organizers, activists and advocates for racial and gender justice, it gives us enormous pride to stand with the members of the TIMES UP campaign who have stood up and spoken out in this groundbreaking historical moment. We have each dedicated our lives to doing work that supports the least visible, most marginalized women in our diverse contexts. We do this work as participants in movements that seek to affirm the dignity and humanity of every person.

“Too much of the recent press attention has been focused on perpetrators and does not adequately address the systematic nature of violence including the importance of race, ethnicity and economic status in sexual violence and other forms of violence against women. Our goal in attending the Golden Globes is to shift the focus back to survivors and on systemic, lasting solutions. Each of us will be highlighting legislative, community-level and interpersonal solutions that contribute to ending violence against women in all our communities. It is our hope that in doing so, we will also help to broaden conversations about the connection to power, privilege and other systemic inequalities.”

After reading more about these women and how they utilized the red carpet as their battleground, I feel like a butt for initially thinking the act of actresses bringing these women was one of performative wokeness. Without any knowledge behind the women’s goal, it certainly has all of the appearances of a selfish act by Hollywood elite to gain brownie points and good press. Without knowing anything about the event, you could easily think the women were being tokenized. It’s easy to believe the worst of Hollywood, even at times like these.

But in this case, the opposite is true; the women involved, women who do such important work, weren’t being used, which was my fear (if you go on Twitter, you can read my misgivings and see-sawing from point to point). I was extremely protective of how these women were being perceived by Hollywood. I’m glad to feel like I was being protective for no reason. And whether or not you believe there’s still some tokenism or lack of agency happening, there is still the silver lining that the exposure opened us viewers up to just eight of the many women who do the hard work without much recognition. They do they work because it is their true calling. It’s only right that they become just popular and recognizable, if not more so, as the actresses who partnered with them.

Even when I muddled through my concerns while watching the red carpet, I was positively surprised and heartened to hear how many actresses were ready to talk about issues affecting all women, including taking E! to task—while being interviewed by E!—for their pay gap.

Where the night fell apart was how men were largely let off the hook about speaking up for women’s rights. All they really had to do was wear a “TIME’S UP” pin and a black tuxedo and smile. The actual awards show also didn’t help matters, between snubbing Dee Rees and Greta Gerwig in the Best Director category (as Natalie Portman so poignantly said, only men were nominated), snubbing Mudbound as a Best Picture contender, blocking Get Out from its expected win by putting it in the Comedy/Musical category, and awarding Kirk Douglas, James Franco, and Gary Oldman, all of whom have checkered pasts and allegations of abuse, harassment or sexual assault.

But I was brought back by Oprah Winfrey’s rousing speech. I’ll be honest and say that Oprah had fallen off my radar in the past few years; I still watched OWN from time to time, and I still loved my memories of watching The Oprah Winfrey Show. But as for Oprah herself—I thought she’d gone extremely Hollywood. I thought she’d forgotten who she was before she became the New Age guru she is now. Sometimes, the rich begin to forget the hardships of others, and I’d sadly lumped Oprah in with that group, since it’s a luxury to be able to ponder life’s issues inn a comfy chair in the woods.

But Oprah rightfully schooled me, and everyone else in the Golden Globes audience. She gave everyone an education on what they should prioritize in this fight for equality; it’s not about what we wear or don’t wear, and it’s not about how well we speak or how much money we have. What matters is if we use the platforms we have, big or small, to speak out against bigotry, xenophobia, sexism, harassment and abuse. We need to always lift up those like Recy Taylor who never got the justice they deserved. We need to learn and re-learn our American history, so we don’t go through life not giving women like Rosa Parks, an NAACP investigator (not just a tired seamstress, as we’ve always been taught) their full due.

On a personal level, Oprah also reminded me why I got into this representation game in the first place. Too often, many of us lose our way and forget why we were called to do the things we do in the first place. I started blogging about representation in the media years ago after I realized there was a lot more I could say about film and TV than just who is cast in the new thing. There was an entire market not being addressed, and I felt I had the background and talent to address that market with intelligence and humility. However, the world of social media can make you believe that developing a cult of personality is more important than writing a meaningful post. It can make you think your work doesn’t matter because you might not be as loud or as brash or as excitedly opinionated as others. What Oprah did was inspire me the way she did when I was a child. I remembered why I write about film and TV—it’s because my voice is needed. It’s because all of our voices are needed, not just my own. We all should be able to voice our truths about our lives and experiences and lift each other up, finding commonalities in our stories and areas where we can increase our learning. In a way, Oprah did what she’s always done, including when she holds her conversations in the woods—she’s asking us to showcase vulnerable and relatable humanity to each other.

With that said, it’s kinda ridiculous that reactions to her speech has now devolved into a shouting match on Twitter about whether or not she’s qualified to run for President. Sure, I’d like a politician to run for President, but it’s not as if Oprah’s another Trump—she’s highly intelligent, she’s a humanitarian, and she understands what’s at stake with American politics and society. If Trump’s qualified to run and win, anyone’s qualified to run now. And if that means Oprah’s got a chance, then so be it. I mean, if there’s no one else running against Trump, who else are we going to vote for? There are bigger and more meaningful hills to die on than if Oprah wins the Presidency. (By the way: I didn’t see this much outrage when Dwayne Johnson said he was mulling over a presidential candidacy.) The Twittersphere going H.A.M. over Oprah’s hypothetical candidacy has left a bad taste in my mouth for sure, and it’s definitely indicative of how Twitter as a whole can miss the point of a poignant moment.

I’ll end with this: The Golden Globes were the worst and best of times. Some things happened that were deeply questionable, and other things happened that seemed sketchy at first but turned out to be fantastic. In the end, Oprah cut through the muck and proved to be the guiding light of the evening, and looking with hindsight, none of us should have been surprised at that outcome.♦

Loved this article? Follow JUST ADD COLOR at @COLORwebmag and on Facebook!

celebrity activism entertainment TV video

Watch Oprah Winfrey’s amazing Golden Globes speech again!

By Monique on Monday, January 8, 2018

Oprah Winfrey stole the Golden Globes show, didn’t she? During a night where genuine anger and defiance mixed with performative “wokeness,” Oprah reminded us all why she’s the most respected and revered name in Hollywood.

I’m planning on having my full thoughts on Oprah’s speech and the night as a whole later today. But for now, enjoy Oprah’s amazing speech once again via NBC’s YouTube page and start your day off on the right foot.

Loved this article? Follow JUST ADD COLOR at @COLORwebmag and on Facebook!

TV entertainment

4 things I hope we find out once “Star Trek: Discovery” returns

By Monique on Friday, January 5, 2018

With Star Trek: Discovery around the corner, I’m reviewing some of the things I hope we find out in the second half of the season.

1. The Ash Tyler/Voq mystery will finally be put to rest

*Shazad Latif as Ash Tyler (Photo credit: CBS)*

I’ve written extensively about this in my SlashFilm Star Trek: Discovery recaps, but I personally think that the “Tyler is Voq” theory is past its prime because what’s the most important thing now is how will Tyler overcome the trauma he’s endured at the hands of L’Rell. Whether he’s really Voq inside is no relevance since Tyler can’t remember his former life and his bond with L’Rell anyways. Meanwhile, even though L’Rell might know everything, she’s removed Voq’s ability to consent to anything. So, sorry to say this L’Rell fans, but your girl’s a rapist.

As I wrote in my last SlashFilm review before the hiatus:

What can I say about Tyler’s graphic nightmare? First of all, it was horrific. What’s even more horrific is that Tyler’s dreams could get worse now that L’Rell is actually on board. Second, the amount of abuse Tyler suffered — and the anger towards the Klingons he’s amassed because of it — negates any credence a “Voq overtakes the Discovery as Tyler” theory. We saw how he instantly went into shock at the sight of L’Rell when he and Michael were aboard the Ship of the Dead. At this point, all Tyler wants is peace, and if anything, the hypothetical scenario of him learning he’s actually a Klingon could make him want to kill L’Rell and all Klingons even more.

How could he go from tortured soul to the newly risen Klingon leader between now and the end of the first season in 2018? With how he’s acted around the Klingons, plus him saying he’s found peace with Michael, it seems like Tyler is with the good guys, regardless of who he is underneath. In short: Tyler or Voq isn’t doing anything to Discovery except save it when push comes to shove. Once the Discovery gets what they want out of L’Rell, he’s either going to take her down or it’ll be a battle between L’Rell and Michael over Tyler. As we have seen from Michael’s fight with Kol and her slaying of T’Kuvma, she’s good at taking down Klingons.

This opinion backs up what I originally wrote about Tyler’s situation in the “Choose Your Pain” recap:

The insinuation that Tyler has been raped repeatedly by the Klingon captain was so subtle in the dialogue between Tyler and Lorca that it’s easy to look past it, or even excuse it away as Tyler purposefully using his sex appeal to his advantage. But the way he swings at the Klingon captain tells a different story. He’s trying to throw back some of the pain she’s caused him.

Tyler’s victimhood might also go unrecognized by some viewers due to how much our society’s view of toxic masculinity keeps us from seeing men as sexual assault victims, especially when it’s at the hands of a woman. Male victims are often scorned or seen as weak. Just look to last week [at the time of writing this review], when Terry Crews revealed he had been sexually assaulted by a powerful Hollywood executive. While Crews received tons of support, there were also people — many of them men — wondering why he didn’t say anything and why he, as a man, didn’t do anything, particularly since his assailant was another man. Some people assumed Crews couldn’t be a victim just because he’s a burly man (that’s not counting the racial implications there are to this assumption).

While women are often wrongly stereotyped as “asking for it,” male victims are also stereotyped in the same way. Somehow, it’s always painted as the victim’s fault — not the perpetrator’s — for their own assault. Even worse for men is when other men might congratulate male victims for “getting lucky” if their assailant happened to be a woman. I haven’t seen much on the internet in the way of actually recognizing Tyler’s trauma — I’ve only seen one person tweet about wanting the show to explore Tyler’s PTSD. I’ve also seen a person say Tyler ended “a relationship” with the Klingon captain? This was no relationship. Hopefully, Discovery will explore this further. After all, Star Trek has always been about using science fiction to tackle real world social, moral, and ethical questions and quandaries. It’s only right for the new show to dig deep here.

At any rate, it’s not going to achieve what some fans hope it does, which is invalidate Tyler’s relationship with Michael. Speaking of:

2. Michael and Tyler’s relationship gets taken to the next level

*Shazad Latif and Sonequa Martin-Green as Tyler and Michael (Photo credit: screencap)*

It’d appear that these two are already getting more serious than I initially thought they would by midseason; maybe I’m just used to shows from the ‘90s that take at least three seasons for a romance to actually get off of first base. But I’m quite excited at the prospect of a big relationship for Michael. It can only help define both her and Tyler grow in a myriad of ways.

I’d also like to bring up something that’s been poking me for a while, and that’s the paranoia I have surrounding some fans steadfastly against Michael having any romantic relationships. Perhaps I’m wrongly lumping some fans in with the fans who are so focused on Tyler being Voq just so they can trample on Tyler and Michael’s relationship. But the conflation of “Michael shouldn’t be with anyone” with “Tyler has to be Voq because of his relationship with Michael” annoys me. With some fans, these two sentiments work in tandem, and having lived through the Sleepy Hollow drama regarding Abbie and Ichabod’s OBVIOUS relationship and the show’s insistence on working against said relationship, plus the Into the Badlands drama with Veil’s death and my subsequent chat with EP Al Gough, my hackles are up. I’m ready to guard this relationship until the canon says otherwise. And even then, I might defend this relationship. That’s my position and I’m sticking to it.

3. More focus on the other bridge crew members

*(L-R) Ronnie Rowe Jr. as Bryce, Emily Coutts as Detmer, Patrick Kwok-Choon as Rhys, Oyin Oladejo as Owosekun, Sara Mitch as Ariam. (Photo credit: CBS)*

The first half of the season was to establish Michael’s story. Perhaps all of this season will be a complete beginning and end to Michael’s first chapter. But I’d like for the rest of this season and subsequent seasons to focus on the other crew members as well as Michael.

We’ve already had Saru’s character exploration episode; I’m now ready for us to get into what’s behind Owosekun, Rhys, and Bryce. I especially want to know the stories behind Airiam, the augmented human (or alien?) who mysteriously never speaks, and Detmer, who now sports ocular and cranial implants due to her injuries from the Battle of the Binary Stars.

If we were in a “standard” Star Trek series, I wouldn’t worry about if we’d ever learn more about these characters, because on every Star Trek series up until Discovery, entire episodes would be set aside to explore smaller characters, such as the Voyager episode “Warhead” featuring Ensign Harry Kim as its major character. With Discovery, the lay of the land is different. But I do hope that element of prior series remains and is explored at some point in Discovery’s lifespan.

4. More Georgiou

*Michelle Yeoh as Capt. Georgiou. (Photo credit: CBS)*

My biggest gripe with Discovery thus far is how little time we spent with Georgiou. With a great talent like Michelle Yeoh, it makes more sense for Discovery to feature her as much as possible. I would love to see more flashbacks with her, or maybe some alternate universe episodes featuring a still-living Georgiou. I just want Georgiou back, point blank. I’m quite sure I’m not alone in that. It has been confirmed that we’d see more of Georgiou, so that’s a bit of news we can hang our hat on.

What do you hope gets addressed during the back half of Discovery’s first season? Give your opinions in the comments section below!

Loved this article? Follow JUST ADD COLOR at @COLORwebmag and on Facebook!