Mary Chieffo: Discovery Is 'a Feminist Piece'

[Vitalitas]

Interview with Sonequa Martin-Green & Mary Chieffo (Fangirling):

MARY CHIEFFO: What I really appreciated about the story that we're telling is the diversity of the types of women, of the types of men. I mean, I feel it's a feminist piece in both, its male and female characters, that we get the sensitivity of Tyler and Stamets' intellect, and the beauty of Hugh's intelligence and his ability to figure things out that nobody else did, you know and uh. . . .

SONEQUA MARTIN-GREEN: Yea, it's true.

MARY CHIEFFO: And then it's been for me to explore L'Rell being in a patriarchal species. You know, it's—there are a lot of different strong women but they're not strong in the same way.

SONEQUA MARTIN-GREEN: Right. Absolutely. It's like championing diversity in all its forms.

[. . .]

MARY CHIEFFO: Well, one thing that um, has actually been really fun to play with—again, coming back to L'Rell specifically being in a patriarchal species—is what I think in playing her I embodied more—you know she says in episode four, "I live in the shadows, I prefer to work on the sidelines," and um, and she sees herself as someone who is in service of the males in charge. She's powerful but she doesn't realize it yet. And maybe as the audience we're seeing her in a clearer way than she does, so as an alien she also views herself as a woman within the species that she's in.

[. . .]

MARY CHIEFFO: That scene with Tyler—I mean, c'mon. . . .

SONEQUA MARTIN-GREEN: Yes . . . It's something that we discussed from the very beginning that there was going to be a bit of a gender role reversal with this relationship because here you have this man who's so sensitive and so open and so vulnerable, and losing his way, not knowing where he's going and then seeking comfort, and you know, and then you see, you know, the woman in the relationship being the one that's sort of leading and championing, and being the one that is sort of covering him in that way, and I think it's so inspiring to see two people decide to come to that point but—and really do what's best for each other—and again, it speaks to what we're doing on this show in particular because it's very different from what we've seen before.

[. . .]

MARY CHIEFFO: Women power!​

LOL . . .

 

[Refuge]

Deep... real deeeeep. Gosh these promo pieces overthink shit. I mean "I feel it's a feminist piece in both, its male and female characters, that we get the sensitivity of Tyler and Stamets' intellect, and the beauty of Hugh's intelligence and his ability to figure things out that nobody else did, you know and uh. . . ."

We got what? Sensitivity of Tyler?? Ya mean when he snapped the neck of Culber? And Stamet's great intellect that had Michael finish the job for him? Or maybe it was when he decided it was a smart move to use himself as a conduit? Hugh. Well he was sensitive that is true but so dumb! He confronted a possible sleeper agent - alone.

In the end it wasn't L'Rell being an example of patriarchy rebellion or matriarchy or even women power. It was weapon power! A bloody planet threatening weapon won the day, lol.

 

[Awesome Possum]

Funny how the people who mock the idea of being triggered are so easily triggered by anything said or done by a woman or minority.

I'm not sure why the OP found anything funny about the interview. Seems like a fairly benign statement that's not even worth commenting on. But feminism doesn't upset me, so what do I know?

 

[Jayson1]

Well I think we know were this thread is headed. Should a drinking game be started by how many times the word 'sexist" is used!

Anyways I kind of agree they have role reversed Burnham and Tyler but it's been mixed results. The actors have decent chemistry which helps but Tyler sometimes comes off looking to needy and sometimes she comes off like she doesn't care about him but that is how she sometimes comes off about a great deal of things. I know what they are going for. The brooding type who feels so deep but feels the need to keep in all inside For some reason people associate people who don't show emotions as a strength yet this is often seen as one of the worst traits men have because that is how society sort of expects men to behave.. Also I wonder how well this works in Trek. It worked with Picard but I think their is something about Trek where the fans like their series leads to have more dynamic personalities.. The character with little emotion is usually reserved for your secondary character such as Spock,Data,Seven. I'm surprised they didn't try and recreate KIra/Odo if they wanted to go this way. KIra and Odo were both strong and emotional and sensitive as well not to mention they had a sense of humor. They really should have looked at KIra more when creating Burnham IMO. Though I think Tilly would have been a prefered choice. Why not a serious lead who would almost be the comic relief on any of the other shows? Who is kind eccentric and even weird at times. Why can't weird people ever get to lead in Trek? Weird people are usually the most interesting people.

Jason

 

[johnjm22]

This show thinks it's more important and progressive than it is. They talk about it as if it's edgy, when in reality it's a dopey juvenile schlock-fest that's completely reliant on its namesake for relevancy.

 

[thribs]

The female characters didn’t bother me. I know that some people have issue with that.
I just didn’t find the show that great. The characters were bland and the story telling was just poor. Not to mention the hideous set design.

 

[Lord Garth]

LOL . . .

Hmmmm. Laughing at feminism right from the very first post.

I have thoughts, but I'll keep them to myself. Nature will take its course.

 

[Jayson1]

Still not sure why this isn't in the "future is female" thread but I guess that's okay. If this was Youtube I would expect it come with a mean or distorted pic of Mary Chieffo and it would be perfect click bait.

Jason

 

[Awesome Possum]

This show thinks it's more important and progressive than it is. They talk about it as if it's edgy, when in reality it's a dopey juvenile schlock-fest that's completely reliant on its namesake for relevancy.

It's progressive by the standards of Star Trek, which is roughly 20 years behind the rest of society. Based on some of the fans, it's about 50 years behind. A lot can barely handle a gay character and freak out if the very idea of other LGBTQ representation is brought up. Having a female main character has also shown an extremely sexist viewpoint from many fans. Not that this isn't shockingly common among fandom circles. In many ways, geek culture is intently determined to be straight white males only. They attack and chase off anyone else because they don't want the rest of us ruining their shows.

 

[Spot261]

It's progressive by the standards of Star Trek, which is roughly 20 years behind the rest of society. Based on some of the fans, it's about 50 years behind. A lot can barely handle a gay character and freak out if the very idea of other LGBTQ representation is brought up. Having a female main character has also shown an extremely sexist viewpoint from many fans. Not that this isn't shockingly common among fandom circles. In many ways, geek culture is intently determined to be straight white males only. They attack and chase off anyone else because they don't want the rest of us ruining their shows.

Except have you noticed the lengths so many go to to justify that in any terms whatsoever other than admitting the obvious prejudice?

 

[Awesome Possum]

Except have you noticed the lengths so many go to to justify that in any terms whatsoever other than admitting the obvious prejudice?

Well it's the future, so there isn't any prejudice. So the crew can just be white men, not due to bigotry, but because they were the most qualified. It's clearly not bigotry, they just all happen to be white men. And if a bunch of snowflakes get triggered then they're the real bigots!!!! MAGA!

 

[Jayson1]

It's progressive by the standards of Star Trek, which is roughly 20 years behind the rest of society. Based on some of the fans, it's about 50 years behind. A lot can barely handle a gay character and freak out if the very idea of other LGBTQ representation is brought up. Having a female main character has also shown an extremely sexist viewpoint from many fans. Not that this isn't shockingly common among fandom circles. In many ways, geek culture is intently determined to be straight white males only. They attack and chase off anyone else because they don't want the rest of us ruining their shows.

Is it really more progressive than "DS9" or "Voyager" except when it comes to having a gay character? First black lead and first female lead and KIra and Jadzia where your first really strong female characters and "Voyager" added even more with Janeway,Torres,Seven and even Kes. "DS9" explored just as many issues if not more than any other Trek shows. KIra and Odo and Torres and Paris sort of represented romances that sort of shifts gender roles. In fact they did it better than "Discovery." I think "DS9" had more to say on war than "Discovery" did. One thing "Discovery" has done better has been with the extra's and secondary roles but is that enough to really say they have done more than "DS9" and "Voyager?"

Jason

 

[Refuge]

This show thinks it's more important and progressive than it is. They talk about it as if it's edgy, when in reality it's a dopey juvenile schlock-fest that's completely reliant on its namesake for relevancy.

Agreed. Sonequa and Mary were working it!

 

[johnjm22]

A lot can barely handle a gay character and freak out if the very idea of other LGBTQ representation is brought up. Having a female main character has also shown an extremely sexist viewpoint from many fans. Not that this isn't shockingly common among fandom circles.

I'm sure I can find a few random idiots on Twitter and elsewhere that fit this description, but it doesn't seem to be of any significance. The vast majority of complaing about this show has to do with the fact that it's just bad, or the Klingons, or that it's a prequel, or it's canon-compatibility ect.

In many ways, geek culture is intently determined to be straight white males only. They attack and chase off anyone else because they don't want the rest of us ruining their shows.

Do you really believe this? I see lots women and minorities at "geek" events and they're not being attacked or chased by straight white male boogiemen.

 

[Refuge]

Well it's the future, so there isn't any prejudice. So the crew can just be white men, not due to bigotry, but because they were the most qualified. It's clearly not bigotry, they just all happen to be white men. And if a bunch of snowflakes get triggered then they're the real bigots!!!! MAGA!

I don't understand why you are going on about being triggered? The OP is mostly a quote. Is it the "Lol" ??

 

[Lord Garth]

I think @Vitalitas should weigh in.

 

[Refuge]

I think @Vitalitas should weigh in.

So this thread is about another poster now is it?

 

[Awesome Possum]

I'm sure I can find a few random idiots on Twitter and elsewhere that fit this description, but it doesn't seem to be of any significance. The vast majority of complaing about this show has to do with the fact that it's just bad, or the Klingons, or that it's a prequel, or it's canon-compatibility ect.

I was referring to this board in particular.

Do you really believe this? I see lots women and minorities at "geek" events and they're not being attacked or chased by straight white male boogiemen.

Just because you don’t see it, doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist. A lot of women will tell you the exact same thing.

I don't understand why you are going on about being triggered? The OP is mostly a quote. Is it the "Lol" ??

Yes.

Is it really more progressive than "DS9" or "Voyager" except when it comes to having a gay character? First black lead and first female lead and KIra and Jadzia where your first really strong female characters and "Voyager" added even more with Janeway,Torres,Seven and even Kes. "DS9" explored just as many issues if not more than any other Trek shows. KIra and Odo and Torres and Paris sort of represented romances that sort of shifts gender roles. In fact they did it better than "Discovery." I think "DS9" had more to say on war than "Discovery" did. One thing "Discovery" has done better has been with the extra's and secondary roles but is that enough to really say they have done more than "DS9" and "Voyager?"

Jason

Yes.

 

[Refuge]

Is it really more progressive than "DS9" or "Voyager" except when it comes to having a gay character? First black lead and first female lead and KIra and Jadzia where your first really strong female characters and "Voyager" added even more with Janeway,Torres,Seven and even Kes. "DS9" explored just as many issues if not more than any other Trek shows. KIra and Odo and Torres and Paris sort of represented romances that sort of shifts gender roles. In fact they did it better than "Discovery." I think "DS9" had more to say on war than "Discovery" did. One thing "Discovery" has done better has been with the extra's and secondary roles but is that enough to really say they have done more than "DS9" and "Voyager?"

Jason

I personally have mixed feelings about the female representation in Discovery but I readily admit I need to like or find characters compelling to get a sense of um - empowerment. Maybe empowerment is too strong a word. Actual representation has to allow that having visibility and presence does not guarantee an admirable character. So yes Discovery has Michael (bla), Georgiou/s, L'Rell, Tilly and my personal favourite - Cornwell. You know I like my female role models to be competent, hate to admit it, but I get a kick out of them being high ranked! I LOVED that Janeway was Captain for seven fricken seasons of Voyager. Stick that up your bum haters Sorry I shouldn't say haters because people are allowed to not like Janeway for her actions and not have it be assigned to them that she is a protected gender. But I do think Voyager deserves at least some recognition for Janeway, B'Elanna, Kes and Seven.

 

[Jayson1]

I personally have mixed feelings about the female representation in Discovery but I readily admit I need to like or find characters compelling to get a sense of um - empowerment. Maybe empowerment is too strong a word. Actual representation has to allow that having visibility and presence does not guarantee an admirable character. So yes Discovery has Michael (bla), Georgiou/s, L'Rell, Tilly and my personal favourite - Cornwell. You know I like my female role models to competent, hate to admit it, but I get a kick out of them being high ranked! I LOVED that Janeway was Captain for seven fricken seasons of Voyager. Stick that up your bum haters Sorry I shouldn't say haters because people are allowed to not like Janeway for her actions and not have it be assigned to them that she is a protected gender. But I do think Voyager deserves at least some recognition for Janeway, B'Elanna, Kes and Seven.

I get that. Women need to right to have crappy characters as well on tv and not see it as a setback when it happens. I guess I can see why high ranked characters mean a great deal to people but personally I wonder how well that matters in shows that don't have a military structure to it It's not something I ever cared much about because I watch so many shows that aren't with that kind of power structure in it.. . Also bulk matters as well. You don't want just a handful of female character buts lots of them just like shows have lots of men. I think this show has done this stuff pretty well and that is a positive for the show but while DS9 and Voyager were lacking in some of these things I think they made up for it with story content. Not to mention being the first to not have a white male lead. Being first at something also carries some extra weight to me. At some poin thought you want the shows to be not just equally represented in casting and the issues they explore but in quality as well. In that regard DS9 still has a advantage but I do think Discovery is way better than Enterprise and close to Voyager and maybe it's equal. Maybe it will even get better because even though I think SMG is a weak actress I have seen better shows with worst actors at the top or at least her equal. Great writing can cover medicore acting. Do we need David Boreenez or however you say it on "Angel" as proof.

Jason