Written by Jackson Adler.
Trigger Warning for Sexual Violence
During the Second World War, Bletchley Park was the UK’s central site of its Government Code and Cypher School. It was at Bletchley Park where Alan Turing and many others decoded Nazi and Axis intelligence, bringing the war to an end two to four years earlier than it could have stretched, saving thousands of lives. The BBC’s TV series The Bletchley Circle follows four (and later, five) fictional White female Bletchley Park code breakers in their lives after the war in the 1950s, during which they start solving crimes. The first season premiered in September of 2012, and the series did not return until April and May of 2014. During the second season there was a female director on the show, and, while there had always been White feminist aspects to the show, the writer Guy Burt’s theme of (White) women standing up for (White) women was taken to a whole new level under Sarah Harding’s direction. That this White (and somewhat) feminist show, which was written by and often directed by White men, was not renewed despite mainly addressing only the basics of White feminism – that (White) women shouldn’t be kidnapped, murdered, and raped (in the first season, the villain worked in that order) – is upsetting. This is the most palatable kind of feminism for rich White men, and yet even this story is silenced.
Not only is the story “palatable,” but the heroines themselves are written as overly “perfect” and not very “threatening.” They are kind, intelligent, empathetic, humble, and rarely confront the men in their lives for their condescension and sexist comments and actions. Meanwhile, shows about White men who solve crimes show the “heroes” as egotistic, unkind, confrontational, and violent. The shows about these male heroes and anti-heroes are everywhere on television, and they get renewed again and again. There is hardly a man or Woman of Color to be seen in The Bletchley Circle, and all of the romances of the characters, all of whom are cisgender, have been heterosexual. This show doesn’t say that all women should not be kidnapped, murdered, and raped. It says White cisgender heterosexual women, particularly ones who are young, skinny, and meet current White cultural expectations of beauty, should not be kidnapped, murdered, and raped. While the show was not cancelled after its first season, the second season showed more “nice guy” characters, probably to placate White male viewers who had a problem with the basics of White feminism depicted in the first season. Though the heroines were still standing up for each other and saving themselves from “bad” guys, the show started depicting more “nice guys” on which the heroines could not only occasionally rely, but also date. The most prominent of these “nice guys” was offended that the character Lucy did not trust him right away, and the show seemed to say that she should have trusted him. If this man is supposed to be an ally to women, a male feminist, then why was he so offended?
It would have been different if this were the start of a character arc, one that showed a man just starting his journey as an ally, showing him making mistakes and learning from them. However, that’s not what happened, and was essentially a “not all men” argument displayed in story form. This is especially problematic because the writer chose Lucy out of all the other female characters to be put in this position. Lucy, played by Sophie Rundle, is quieter and seemingly more “submissive” than the other White female characters, seeming to more easily fit into what is traditionally desired of White women by the White patriarchy. However, being quiet, submissive, “feminine,” and marrying young does not save her from violence at the hands of men.
Lucy’s husband is verbally and physically controlling and abusive. In one day, she is almost raped by a man on the train, only to return home where her husband nearly kills her. And yet, she is shamed for not having trusted this “nice” male coworker in the second season right away? Made to feel embarrassed for being wary of this man who has been overtly flirting with her? Wary of this man who is sometimes condescending to her and gives backhanded compliments? This was seemingly a story line to comfort White male viewers who were made uncomfortable by the basics of White feminism and by White women saving and supporting White women. Instead of Lucy being “the ball,” as Anita Sarkeesian states, in a “nice” men vs “bad” men competition, she is saved from “bad” men by fellow women and her own strength. Though there are times when men assist and support the women of the show, the women are the ones leading the fight against sexism and violence against women. Evidently, many White cismale and (mostly) heterosexual viewers and studio execs were made uncomfortable by the notion that these White women are, for the most part, not saved by White men, but by themselves.
The first season has The Bletchley Circle, led by protagonist Susan (played by Anna Maxwell Martin), solving a serial murder case in which a man is killing women and raping them post-mortem. While the villain could easily have been made into a straw-chauvinist by the male screenwriter to make the other male characters look good, this is not the case. In fact, it is often in regard to the serial murder case that the misogyny in the other male characters surfaces. This underlines the fact that the allowance of microaggressions sets the stage for more blatant sexism, which then makes violence against women and girls more permissible in Western society, and thus creating a culture where rape and violence against women and girls by men and boys is often excused, not taken seriously, and not thoroughly addressed. When Susan’s husband accuses her of neglecting her duties as a mother due to her not staying home as often as he would like, the truth is that she was being a good mother by trying to make the world safer for their daughter and not as damaging to the character of their son.
In the first story arc of the second season, Susan is naturally still traumatized by events of the first season, which include almost being murdered and raped by the villain. Though she leaves the crime solving life behind, she does not leave it until she makes certain that the circle is in good and capable hands. This adds realism to the story in that trauma is not something that can just go away or be ignored, especially not at a moment’s notice. However, it is sad that this rare and realistic portrayal of a hero and the trauma they face was done with one of the few positive and complex female leads of television, while male heroes of similar shows are not shown dealing with their trauma in any where near as realistic a way. They stay on their shows and keep “fighting the good fight” for years despite whatever trauma they face.
Though the show’s cast were always a sort of ensemble, they become more so in the second season. The capable hands in which Susan leaves the circle belong to Alice (played by Hattie Morahan). Alice fits more easily into White cultural expectations of beauty than Susan does, being blonde, blue-eyed, taller and thinner. However, the character is complex, and instead of her “taking charge” of the team, she is welcomed into it, helps in the ways that she can, and the show becomes more of an ensemble than it was previously. This is not to say that Susan was always “taking charge,” just that she pulled the team together in the first place and the script followed her story more than the others. Susan had a child out of wedlock, and was forced to give up the child to adoption due to stigma and cultural standards. During the second season, she reconnects with her now adult daughter Lizzie (played by Faye Marsay), and the two form a sort of warm friendship rarely seen between women on TV and film. The other women of the circle never judge Alice for having sex and a child out of wedlock, nor do they judge each other for whatever choices they make. Shy and conservative Lucy never judges Millie (played by Rachael Stirling), the more outgoing one who likes tight fitting clothing, make-up, and the color red, and Millie never judges Lucy. Jean, the “mother hen” played by Julie Graham, is not judged for being a mature single woman, nor does she judge her younger female friends in their choices. Not only do these women save each others lives, but they also support each other as friends in their personal lives, outside life as code breakers and crime solvers.
In the second arc of the second season, which is the final arc of the show, the story follows Millie just as much if not more than Alice. This is possibly what lead more to the end of the show than other aspects of it. Millie has arguably more autonomy than any of the other characters. Though she is shamed for “getting in trouble” with the Greek mob, what lead her to it was not her fault. She was laid off from work with the government despite being one of the best workers there and having had a history with them, most certainly due to being a female employee. In order to stay financially dependent, she started selling unsanctioned perfume and stockings, not realizing that she was helping the Greek mob in the process. When she realizes that she is helping people who, among other things, traffic underage girls, she works with her female friends to bring the operation down, which they do with very minimal help from “nice” guys. That the female character who is seemingly most in control of her sexuality is the heroine of this arc was probably threatening to male viewers, and probably the reason why this story arc was the show’s last. In rape culture, women supposed to be sexualized but not be sexual. That Millie, a sexual woman, stopped the sexualization of women and girls was “threatening” to rape culture and patriarchy.
This show has strong feminist aspects and is arguably feminist. If it had been allowed to continue, its feminism would most likely have become stronger, and hopefully would have eventually shown Women of Color supporting each other. As it stands, this show that only really showed the basics of White feminism was cancelled, while shows that promote White male supremacy continue to air.
I was bothered by the fact that you kept pointing at the “white” feminism in this show. Beyond the facts around the time period–which makes the “whiteness” of the show rather realistic–you seem to be attacking the fact that these women are white.Serial killers more often than not have a very specific type when they select victims, which is why only a specific type of women (young, pretty, and –yes–white) were kidnapped, murdered, and raped in the first season. It does not in any way suggest that women of color should get kidnaped, murdered, and raped, nor does it in any way suggest that women of color are not kidnapped, murdered, and raped, just because white women are the subject. Making comments that are accusatory towards “white” feminists acts as a divide within the feminist community and demonizes whiteness. What good does that do?
I absolutely agree that on average women of color have had and continue to have a more difficult struggle due to their assumed Otherness. I also agree that they have their own stories and experiences. why? Because they are human. Each human experiences life differently. In many real life scenarios, a group is likely not to have a person of color in some situations, or any whites people in others. It happens. That does not mean that I do not like white people, nor does it mean that I do not like people of color. Sure they could have added some people of color into the show, but it would have affected the historical accuracy in depicting the women of Bletchley, which was a real place with real women. While I am no expert on the subject of Bletchley, I have not seen anything that indicates women of color worked at Bletchley. That is not the fault of the show: It is a truth of the era. I am happy that the victims were white, since anything different would have made it a case of the white women acting as savior. That would have been something about which to complain.
Before anyone assumes I am just some White feminist complaining, I should let you know that I am not. I look white, bit my Choctaw grandmother would set you right. I grew up exceptionally poor, with an abusive mother, and three sisters. We often went hungry and we rarely received healthcare, let alone proper health care. We certainly did not get much needed dental care. The whiteness that is assumed because of my skin was enough to make my Choctaw side reject me (and my light haired sisters). When I went into a store, I was poor enough that the clerks watched to make sure I was not stealing. When I visited friends, their parents assumed I would have poor manners because of my housing. When I went to school, teachers assumed that I was less intelligent than those around me due to my family. I even had a boyfriend’s parents dislike me because I was not “Irish enough.” The problem with your “white” comments is that you are falling into the same biases, stereotypes, and and assumptions against which you are speaking.
As for the “perfect” depiction of “non-threatening” women, I think you got it wrong. Their intelligence and past experiences make them threatening to the men around them, and because of the era, circumstances forced them to fit into a highly patriarchal and highly hetero-masculine world, which is why they had such a difficult time. Look at how Susan responded to her friend’s domestic violence. She said, “It happens.” That is indicative of the era.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2551486/Pictured-time-The-women-code-breakers-operated-worlds-electronic-computer-Second-World-War.html
I’m not reading it quite like you Elphaba. It seems relevant that the first part of this comment points out that while addressing some feminist issues, this series talks about White cisgender women and does not address Intersectional issues (not so sure about the heterosexual bit, though certainly homosexuality is not evoked or addressed directly). I don’t read it as particularly accusatory – not all films can or should address all feminist issues, but it is well to define and make it clear where the limits of the issues addressed lie. Having defined its limits, the comment then goes on to speak about the issues that ARE addressed and where women and men are depicted in realistic / positive ways. It seems to me that Jackson Adler is, as the title of the article suggests, asking what made it so threatening that it was cancelled, when on the surface it seems so unthreatening (BECAUSE White, non-confrontational etc)). It also seems likely that if the series had been allowed to continue and notably move on into the late 50’s and 60’s, the depiction of Black women would have been a natural historical development.
However I’m not convinced that the show “seemed to say” that Lucy should have trusted her colleague Ben. For me this was another one of those delicious depictions of the way men and women relate(d) to each other – yes the “nice guys” too have unrealistic expectations of the women and yes the women do gently comply, for example by feeling guilty about a perfectly logical lack of trust.
In any case I loved this series and its understated, pertinent social comments. For a series almost entirely created by men I find it extraordinarily sensitive and was relevant and was extremely sorry to see it end.
I also love the Bitch Flicks site, which I’ve just discovered – what a relief to be able to read reviews that actually tell me what I want to know about a film or a series !