The Queen’s Gambit. If you don’t like the past just reinvent it.

Netflix’s latest hit puts a happy face on the ugly realities of the past.

This is the midweek what-to-watch edition of Snarky Senior — the newsletter from Erica Manfred, which you can read about here. If you like it and don’t want to miss an issue, you can get it in your inbox by subscribing.

---

I am admitting it reluctantly since I’m distinctly in the minority, but I’m not a big fan of The Queen’s Gambit, the latest craze in the highbrow chick flick space.  

Don’t get me wrong, I have nothing against chick flicks—no one loves a good weepie or rom com more than I do.  But my problem with this series, and others like it, is that they re-invent the past as wishful thinking.  It’s a dangerous business.

Both Netflix series, The Queen’s Gambit and Hollywood  posit an alternative past where sexism, racism and homophobia barely exist or can be easily overcome.  In the 1960s of The Queen’s Gambit, a woman can become a world champion in chess.    In the 1940s of Hollywood there’s no racism or homophobia.

In the real Hollywood of the 1940s being outed as gay was enough to destroy an actor’s career and the only black faces in the movies were servants or porters on trains.   In the 1960s women did not play competitive chess, much less become world champions.  There are no women today playing world championship chess against men. 

I have nothing against alternative history as science fiction, such as Man in the High Castle where the Nazis win World War II or The Plot against America where Charles Lindbergh becomes President and America turns fascist.  I can even appreciate the opposite:  humorous fantasies like Inglorious Bastards where the Nazis get creamed or Once Upon a Time in Hollywood where the Manson family never gets to kill anyone. 

But why invent a female Bobby Fisher when the real Bobby Fisher--a hot mess of a neurotic genius himself--would be a great subject for a mini-series? Why invent a fictional Hollywood where being gay and black is accepted, nay celebrated, when you could do a story about what it was like for real gays and blacks at that time in Hollywood.  Why put a happy face on the ugly reality of the past?

It might seem to be a small step from a cinematic world where the Nazis won World War II to a world where women can be chess champions and Hollywood was never racist or sexist. 

But I find these films much more disturbing-- maybe because I am old enough to have lived in a world where such a reality was not only impossible, but unimaginable. 

 What must young people think when they see Hollywood or The Queen’s Gambit?  Do they even remember a time when being outed as gay could end a film career?  Have they lived through an era when black characters could only be mammies or occasionally tap dance? 

What does it mean to reinvent the past for a generation who didn’t live through the horrors of that time?

  How many young people have ever heard of Bobby Fisher or are actually aware that there aren’t any female chess champions and never have been?

  A friend tells me that her tween daughter sees Beth Harmon, played by a stunningly gorgeous Anya Taylor-Joy as a role model.   But what kind of role model is a fictional character who accomplished the impossible?   She’s close enough to reality for girls to imagine she could have existed.     

Wonder Woman is an appropriate role model for a girl who wants to emulate her kick-ass attitude but realizes that girls can’t fly.   Little Women’s Jo was a great role model—a realistic portrayal of what an extraordinary girl could achieve in that era.

 Beth Harmon isn’t a role model at all but a fairy tale masquerading as real life.   

There may never be a female world champion in chess.  There’s some compelling evidence that there are cognitive differences between the sexes.  Men excel in pattern recognition while women excel in verbal and other skills.   Just like men have more muscle mass and so will always be better at many sports, the same may be true of chess.  Or not. Maybe it’s just sexism and misogyny that discourage girls from trying.   I hope the movie will encourage more research into the real reason. But pretending the scenario in The Queen’s Gambit could have happened isn’t going to help that effort.

As for Hollywood, it’s so cringe worthy it’s in another category altogether.  I couldn’t bear to watch it, although I’m a film buff who loves 1940s movies. A gay film fanatic friend my age said he found it profoundly offensive because it trivialized homophobia.

 Maybe I would have liked The Queen’s Gambit better if I could make heads or tails of chess, but I really am seriously deficient in pattern recognition.    I snoozed through the chess sequences, and woke up for the chick flick plot and glorious period clothes and settings.  But then I lost interest when Beth’s mom died.   Chloe Pirrie in that role, and Moses Ingram as Jolene were the best things about the series.  The male chess players were pretty much stereotypes.

Whether or not painting the past with a rosy glow gives a boost to the future of women in chess, it’s certainly given a boost to Netflix’s bottom line.  After the success of The Queen’s Gambit they raised their subscription fee to $13.99.

Spread the word!

If you know someone who might enjoy some snark in their inbox once or twice a week, forward this newsletter their way. You can subscribe (and link to it) here. You can follow me on Twitter here (Don’t expect much. I hate Twitter), and on Facebook here (I love Facebook. It’s where we older folks hang out). Email me anytime at Askerica@gmail.com. Suggestions and feedback welcome.