“The Queen's Gambit” is a show about a chess prodigy in the 1960s. Her name is Beth Harmon and despite all odds, she ends up being very successful. The hit TV show was based on a book of the same name, with largely the same plot, written by a man named Walter Tevis. The show has gotten a huge amount of positive reviews because it portrays a woman who defies gender norms in a time and place, Kentucky in the early ‘60s, where that was an extremely difficult task. Particularly the fact that she excels at chess, an intellect based game dominated by men, shows that she is extremely gifted and tenacious. Harmon is not a hero, but she’s also not an antagonist; she has positive and negative traits just like any well developed character should.
Now, given these unique positive attributes, this show sounds revolutionary, right? Not quite. As I was watching the series, I started to get an odd feeling that this was not the beginning of a new age of accurate female portrayals as I thought it would be. I’ve processed this feeling into this critical review. As I mentioned, this show has gotten a plethora of rave reviews, and many of my peers have thoroughly enjoyed it. It has also gotten some negative reviews. I’d like to help us take both sides into account and understand why both women and men have grown so fond of the show, despite it’s problematic undertones. No piece of art or media is perfect, but it is important to critically examine our preferences and the way we interact with the media we consume. This is just as important for women to consider as it is for men, if not more so. Why is Beth Harmon intriguing as a character? Why do you enjoy watching the show? We can shape the media industry by challenging the products we consume, so let’s go through the main arguments.
Picture: Netflix
As I mentioned earlier, people really like the portrayal of women in the show because Harmon is not a “perfect” character. This is what has gained praise from the feminist community because the Madonna-Whore complex is so prevalent in female leading characters in Hollywood. The Madonna-Whore complex is a phenomenon where female characters are always either depicted as perfect examples of morality who do no wrong, or immoral and evil heathens who are turned into sexual tempestresses through a male narrative. While I agree that it is refreshing to see a character who is neither, I have to point out that her negative traits are not shown in a very realistic way. Many have already criticized the scene where she has a mental breakdown because she still is wearing makeup, has her hair done, and generally does not quite look like she’s as spun-out as it seems like she should be. There is also an edge of oversexualization with the camera shots of her body and the lack of clothing she is wearing. The scene seemed a little unsettling, as if it was a voyeuristic use of the camera. This is the energy I felt in several of the scenes but it felt more appropriate in scenes where Beth Harmon would’ve felt unwanted attention, like at early chess tournaments and events. It felt like there was no distinction between who Beth Harmon was to the world and who she was to herself.
This brings up my next major point: it shouldn’t be a huge surprise that it isn’t an accurate representation of the female experience because the entire writing and producing crew were cis-gender men. The original book was written by Walter Tevis in 1983, a very different time in entertainment. In the long list of screenplay adaptors, Scott Frank and Allan Scott, and executive producers, there is not a single female. Even in the cast, Harmon’s adopted mother and Jolene, her friend from the orphanage, are the only other prominent female characters. This is not to say that men cannot write female characters, although they often have difficulty. However, in a show that intends to depict what it was like for women in a male dominated field in the 1960s, I should think the crew would have made an effort to have at least a couple female voices giving input on what the male gaze feels like and what it’s like to be a woman in general, especially when dealing with hyper-specific experiences like the first menstruation.
All this being said, criticism must be taken with a grain of salt because “The Queen’s Gambit” is a fantastical reimagining of the 1960s. I’d be surprised if any woman trying to make a career for herself in the ‘60s would say this was a holistic representation of their experience. In fact, a female chess player from the 1990s commented on how inexplicably easy it was for Harmon to make it as far as she did. Beth did not experience much backlash for her endeavors. Sure, she wasn't exactly welcomed, but rarely did she experience violent or verbal attacks for her success. Harmon also never experienced sexual harassment, besides the vague allusions in shots of men looking at her crudely. Maybe there was a conscious decision not to discuss these types of experiences, but why not? That’s a huge part of the female experience, particularly for a woman in Harmon’s position. My answer is that which I already discussed: the lack of female voices in the writing and producing rooms.
I would be remiss if I didn’t mention the disappointing attempt at discussing and writing about race. Not only are the writers and producers cis-men, they are also all white. The character of Jolene was written in the early 1980s, something we cannot dismiss. I think there was a valuable opportunity to rewrite this character in a modern context and give her a fully developed personality, but instead, Jolene seems to only exist for Beth’s character development. The way that it has been described is that it uses the “Magical N*gro” trope in which a black character exists with the sole purpose of aiding a white main character. This trope is damaging and offensive for obvious reasons, and it is quite disturbing that so many overlooked it in “The Queen’s Gambit.”
There are many more points to make, both in favor of and against the show. Some of those are as follows: the show uses queer-baiting, alluding to queer relationships without depicting them as such, with Cleo and Beth’s implied relations; it barely passes the Bechtel test because there are very few, if any, conversations between two or more female characters in which they don’t discuss men or relationships of any kind; Beth “others” women and shames those who have children young and seek traditional family roles; there is no support of other struggling women or effort made to mobilize other women’s support (in fact, the only time an effort is made, Harmon shuts it down.). Finally, Anya Taylor-Joy, the actor who plays Beth Harmon, is very attractive, even from the beginning of the show. Sarah Miller of the New Yorker called this the fatal flaw of the series. Miller asserts that the central tension of the book is that Beth feels like she doesn’t matter at all, let alone has what it takes to be a famous chess player. The series loses this by casting Taylor-Joy and allowing the world to accept that she matters which makes it harder to want to root for her. This article would be much too long if I delved into this more deeply, but I highly recommend reading Miller’s article.
As I said in the introduction, this is not meant to make viewers and readers feel guilty about enjoying the show, it is simply intended to bring to another perspective. I enjoyed watching the show as well, but we must take into account that it is not realistic. The show would not be so upsetting if it was received by the public as a fantasy show: a reimagining of history. A world without sexual violence, harassment, or the reality of what it means to be a woman. This is not our world, but again, it’s just a TV show and should be received as such. I hope that in the future there will be more women telling women’s stories and that they will be as loved as this show is.