There has been a trend going on in movies and tv-shows that started around 2010's - someone on the internet named it rather aptly - passive progressive. In short, this term means that a movie (or a show) pays lip service to some progressive values but when you delve into them a little deeper they turn out to be rather regressive. This trend has gotten more and more visible in recent years, since executives have decided to suck up to this demographic while not at all actually giving a fuck about these beliefs. I believe that I personally hate passive progressive - type of entertainment more than its conservative counterpart (which is pretty much PureFlix) because it is far more popular, has way bigger budget and is more insidious. I have taken two examples that exhibit a lot of passive progressive traits in them and that are based on books that end up being more progressive than the modern shows based on them (and the Anne - books were written in the early 20th century). Anne especially suffers for terrible loss of context - the show forces a modern worldview (meaning now) on books that were written over a hundred years ago. Also, I really dislike both series for exactly these reasons I am going to list down.
The first thing that caught my attention in these passive progressive series was the erasure of character arcs that women and girls have in the original work. The examples I have perfectly encapsulate this aspect - especially His Dark Materials. Pullman's trilogy was one of my teenage favourites (they came out in the 90's and early 2000's) and it had some of the most intriguing female characters I had yet come across. And interestingly, both of them had quite definite character arcs - Lyra, the main character, starts off as this bratty, selfish liar but progresses into a thoughtful, less self-centred person and more interested in self-improvement. Mrs. Coulter, Lyra's mother, is a cruel person throughout the books but she gives up her fanatical beliefs and quest for power to save her daughter. In the show both of these arcs are gone like a puff of smoke. Lyra is turned into a girl-who-knows-better-than adults (I'm guessing to make her more special, even though she already is), she never makes a wrong choice and important emotional moments that were supposed to center around Lyra aren't about her in the show (like changing Tony Makarios' death to Billy Costa's death, hence it is all about the Costa's suffering and not Lyra facing death the first time). But ultimately the character change that pisses me off by far the most is Mrs. Coulter. In the book she was a cruel liar who felt hideous religiously induced shame about her daughter and hence at first did not care about her in the least. She abandoned Lyra as a baby and then when she met her again, she wanted to make Lyra into her obedient doll. Both she and Asriel (Lyra's dad) abandon Lyra right in front of Lyra's eyes at the end of the first book. In the show this is changed into Mrs. Coulter actually always wanting Lyra and being all "I'm a mother now so I can't go with Asriel to his conquest for power" instead of choosing not to go with Asriel because she wants to have her own quest for power like happened in the book. Also, in the show, neither of them know that Lyra is there, so that adds to not making Mrs. Coulter as cruel as she really was. Neither would Mrs. Coulter lift a fucking finger to help Scoresby unless it somehow benefitted her, unlike in the series.
Anne is quite a known character in the literature world - she is an imaginative, thoroughly good person with quite a resentful personality as a child. The thing about really good people as characters is that unless you make them face some serious hardships, they will very often come across as rather boring and obnoxious characters that never really grow. This is exactly what happened in the Anne with an E - show. In the books Anne lost some very precious people to her and suffered a great deal and that also matured her as a person and it was easier as a reader to relate to her, since she wasn't just good without facing any tragedy. In the series, however, they had decided to make Anne both too virtuous and small-minded. With a competent script, this paradox could have served as a basis for good character - however, this is not what happened. Instead, in the show, Anne is ridiculously inconsistent - not because the series has purposefully created her so but just because they make her act that way (I guess to create extra drama). First she's some kind of miracle hero who rushes headlong into a burning building, and the next a petty malicious brat that looks down on the help. I guess the show creators thought that she had suffered enough by showing her past (which is there for shock value and for nothing else) because everything is handed to this girl on a goddamn silver platter. She doesn't have to work for anything, she doesn't have to lose or compromise something and she never faces any true loss. I do find it rather ironic that a show that so proudly proclaims to be progressive created a young black female character who did not exist in the book, simply to kill her off. So a black woman is killed instead of, you know, the old white guy who dies in the actual book this show claims to be based on. And in the end, her death didn't really mean anything to anybody, even her husband, who was fairly quickly hinted at getting together with the "unorthodox" Miss Stacey. Matthew was the first person who ever loved Anne, so his death was a devastating blow to her and also something that stayed with her the rest of her life and molded her as a person.
The other major issue that I have in these shows is the strange adherence to traditional masculinity that didn't really exist in the original works. In Anne, they try to draw a contrast between the toxic masculinity of Billy Andrews of all people (making him the villain is the most ridiculous thing ever, if you've read the books) and Gilbert's more "feminist" masculinity which basically means "look, I'm standing up for women by speaking on their behalf". It doesn't really work, since both male characters ultimately look down on women, unintentional or not. What happened to the whole Gilbert can confidently wear an apron in public while the other boys couldn't because they were afraid of being perceived as ninnies? In the books Gilbert wasn't all that ambitious either, he was perfectly content to be a countryside doctor - in the show he wanted to become a world class doctor, curing every illness and study in some fancy school in Toronto. Also, the series' Gilbert is a two-timing prick. In His Dark Materials, however, come by far my biggest beef with this masculinity crap - in the books, Will was not a violent boy and in fact, avoided conflict to the last. There was also nobody in his life that he trusted, especially any men, which is why he took his mother to his former piano teacher, a woman. Will had this whole thing about being as invisible as possible so people would leave him and his mom alone. So, let's make this boy who wants to stay invisible, who dislikes violence and only uses it when forced, into a boxer. Because god forbid a black working-class boy play the fucking piano. Piano is far too emasculating, I guess. This is also disgustingly stereotypical - poor black boys don't play the piano, either because they are poor and black or because it is not masculine enough. Instead make this kid embody the most obvious stereotype of a poor black kid - a boxer. And again, Will only used violence rarely in the second book and in all of the situations his hand was forced - to save his mom from bullies (and as a warning to leave her alone) or to save his or Lyra's life. In fact, when he accidentally kills a man in the beginning of the book, this haunts him throughout both books. In the show, this event is barely discussed in a few scenes and then totally forgotten.
Also, what's up with Anne and her gang constantly being obsessed about boys in the series? They're like 13-16 year old teens, why the hell do they care about boys so much? In the books, Anne never thought about boys, neither did she and her friends really talk about boys, until the third book when they went to college. I find it rather funny that a series that tries so hard to be relevant and progressive ends up being the one that conforms to society's views on women rather than the more conservative books. Benevolent sexism is rife in these series too - ie. women are better than they really are and men are worse than they really are. In Anne, Josie Pye is made into a victim, because that's what women ultimately are, instead of the petty narrow-minded person she really was. In His Dark Materials, Mrs. Coulter is softer in character instead of the cold-hearted villain she really was, because mothers can't be too cruel and Asriel is made into more of a bastard who would abandon both his child and love instead of Mrs. Coulter abandoning Lyra and leaving Asriel first because of the guilt and shame she felt. Religion also played a big part in these parents' narratives - Mrs. Coulter felt religious guilt and shame for the adultery and Lyra, its product, and Asriel was bitter towards the church and God for taking not only his possessions but his family from him as well. Hence, his whole quest for killing God and stuff, whereas Mrs. Coulter poured all her ambition to rising in the church, and thus they left their kid to her own devices to follow their own selfish objectives. The point was in the books, that both of these people were not good parents to their daughter, and realizing in the end that their daughter is the most important to them both and abandoning their ambitions to save their child. Asriel was, in the beginning, marginally the better parent, but even that played into shattering the illusion that Lyra had of him at the end of the first book, when he killed her best friend in front of her. And even when Mrs. Coulter does love Lyra by the third book, Lyra can never trust her, even if she does both love and hate her parents.
A big elephant in the room that is missing from both series is, as I mentioned earlier, religion. Religion is pretty much fundamental to both stories - in His Dark Materials in a more critical way and in Anne more positive way. In His Dark Materials, the show's creators have turned the church into some kind of fascist structure rather than something that clearly emulates the medieval Catholic church. Neither is Mrs. Coulter a calculating religious fanatic or Asriel obsessed about killing God. Atheism and humanism, which were big themes in the original work, are hand-waved away and replaced with some vague notions of modern fascism and modern progressive sensibilities. I understand why these changes were made, of course, - Americans will not watch something that would portray atheism in any way positively. The US is a huge market for entertainment, much like China, so self-censorship in art is a frequent occurence. Anne, on the other hand, has clearly been influenced by its creators shallow liberal ideals, and I say shallow, because that is what they are - these ideals do not tie into any character narratives or stories, they are there just to bear witness how "progressive" the show is. Hence, Montgomery's rather unorthodox views on religion are never seen on screen in Anne and the wonderful humanist ideals that Montgomery imbued her religious beliefs with, are nowhere to be found in the series. Religion is truly almost completely irrelevant in Anne, with one giant exception, and this exception should piss you off even if you generally otherwise like the show - the First Nations residential schools. So, this show about white people in some rural village decided to have an episode about one of the most shameful acts in Canadian history - the stealing of First Nations children, putting them in residential schools, erasing the childrens' culture and indoctrinating them in Christian faith. This awful history is purely there as a framing device to prove how incredibly righteous and good Anne is in this one episode to care about this one First Nations girl who escapes the shool, and then the issue and this girl, are completely ignored and left hanging for the rest of the show. The suffering of an entire group of people is reduced into a fucking footnote to glorify its white leads. White saviourism at its finest, indeed. And here is also the moment when religion is really presented in the show - it is bad and used for evil purposes. All the reverends, as well, that show up in the series are treated as ridiculous or super conservative. I myself am an ex-mormon, so I have no warm feelings towards organised religion, but Montgomery had far m0re nuanced views on religion than this show purports - she actually had quite a few atheist characters in her books and they were portrayed no differently from the believing characters. Montgomery also was not big on religious hypocrisy or religious authoritarianism. For her time, her beliefs were quite radical, and she was married to a pastor, to boot. Ultimately, both these shows are doing a disservice to religion and religious beliefs by ignoring their source materials criticism of said matters as well as their unorthodox and positive views on them.
The final issue that I take in these shows has to do with how narratives and characters are built in them and the technical aspects that go with it. These series do not care about character narratives or themes - they ignore some super simple storytelling 101's that the original source material had and hence make both the characters and the story weaker. In His Dark Materials far too much time is wasted on minor characters (like the Costas and most of the witches) but then when there are minor characters that should be focused on they're cut short or cut from the story completely. One example of this is how Will's dad dies - in the book, his death follows a rather tragic pattern, his love and loyalty to his wife ends up being his demise and he is killed by a witch he rejected. In other words, he dies by an ally's hand. Some extra tragedy is brought on by the fact that Will and his father recognize each other a second before his death. Also, all three books end in tragedy of some form - in the first, Lyra is abandoned by her parents and Asriel kills her friend in front of her, the second ends in Grumman's tragic death by one on their side and the third book finishes with Lyra and Will separating through no choice of their own. Making Grumman's death all heroic, by protecting his son against an enemy soldier, goes against the tragic narrative these books have. Other major narrative issues I have are to do with the structure - showing the windows to other worlds before Will enters the picture means pretty much erasing the whole connection that Will had to the knife he receives. Will, the boy through whose eyes we first see a window to another world, inherits a knife that opens these windows. Also, the narrative theme of Will getting a weapon of violence when he dislikes violence is mostly gone from the show. Lyra, a girl who lies constantly, is the only one who can interpret the compass that tells nothing but truth. Since we saw the doorways to other worlds on the very first episode, Will is a boxer hence violence is already part of his life, and Lyra barely lies in the series, both of these narrative themes are gone.
Show, don't tell is also very much missing in both these series. In Anne, rather than showing the deep friendship between Anne and Diana, they create pointless conflicts between the two. It does seem that writing forced conflict is the only way many modern shows and movies know to create tension. Montgomery often used nature to connect to her characters and their narratives but since there exists the obsession of Nolanising goddamn everything in the movie industry, of course we never see this nature and character connection in Anne, but rather, stuff that shouldn't be said by words is conveyed verbally and nothing is left to the imagination or for the viewer to interpret. The series has an opinion on the ready, so fuck those character narratives and any growth in character development, because our lead characters are already perfect and boring and always in the right. His Dark Materials commits this crime of telling instead of showing as well. For example, Lyra's parents meeting, when Mrs. Costa tells her about it, should have been shown as a flashback, since it is not in book form but in picture. Because we have never seen these characters interact, it would make perfect sense to see them together and build some chemistry between them before we see them meet again at the end of the first season. This never happens and instead we get a completely forgettable scene of Ma Costa explaining Lyra's parents' meeting to her. The second season of His Dark Materials has some similar pacing problems that the Two Towers film version has - it drags terribly in the beginning but then the end is far too rushed and characters that needed more focus, like Grumman and Scoresby and their relationship is left to the wayside. Instead the onus shifts to Mrs. Coulter (who was a minor character in the second book) and the show's weird obsession of trying to make her a modern "feminist" character while simultaneously taking from her the only thing that was feminist about her - her narrative arc.
Minor grumbles include that both versions of His Dark Materials (the movie Golden Compass included) had looming behind them more popular and famous fantasy series and it shows - the BBC's series comes off as a discount Game of Thrones. The wonderful cast is also wasted in both shows, especially Ruth Wilson, who was born to play Mrs. Coulter, much like Emma Thompson was born to play Beatrice in Much Ado About Nothing. Both of these series have kinda convinced me that the only form stories that are about children can work in, is animation. Because kids are simply not mature enough to show such deep emotion that is expected from good actors and it shows in these series as well - the children's storylines and character arcs are simplified or erased. This is especially detrimental to series, since they run longer than movies. This ties pretty neatly into what we wrote in an earlier blog post about the modern trend of moral film criticism and how we dislike it because it limits the scope of character narratives and how stories are told (eg. no metaphorical stories, since everything is taken literally). These two shows in their passive progressive preaching are good examples of this trend of pandering to certain views and beliefs instead of focusing on creating compelling and fulfilling narratives and stories. All art is political, I know, but that doesn't mean you have to be so damn hollow and unimaginative about it - otherwise your art might just end up on the same level of substance as PureFlix. And what self-respecting artist wants that?
