#joey batey would be on board | Explore Tumblr posts and blogs

thelostgirl21 · 1 year ago

Text

"They'll say that it's not gay and I'll answer yes it is and here is why. They can't take that away from us. We have to keep hold of our ownership of queer coding."

If you insist on wanting to speak our language, as far as I'm concerned, you better believe that the character and the relationship are now officially queer, and they belong to us!

I have mixed feelings when actors are sort of "collaborating" with the situation... i.e. When they are queer coding their character and/or relationship, while denying that any of it is being intentional on their part (i.e. adopting the studio's narrative).

But I do very much respect, and appreciate when they are clear on their own intent, and distancing themselves from the studio's decisions of not acknowledging the queerness of the situation.

The studios might try to say "This was never our intent... the actor took liberties with the character that we never agreed upon. It's their own interpretation, not the official one."

Well, guess what? The actor was working with a director and a script.

If he queer coded his character, and/or improvised certain lines to add some romantic (and/or queerplatonic) subtext to the relationship, and the director didn't force him to change the way he played the scene, you agreed with his interpretation of the character by keeping those scenes and releasing them to the public.

Oscar Isaac made Poe Dameron queer, was very open about it, often talked about his character having romantic feelings for Finn, and you didn't fire nor replace him.

I repeat: he was extremely open about all those liberties that he took with the character, and you didn't fire nor replace him.

Translation: you 100% sanctioned that queer portrayal of the character.

Officially, you were on board with it, regardless of trying to pretend otherwise.

Meaning that Stormpilot (FinnPoe) is canonically queer.

As soon as you allow the actor to make the personal choice of portraying a queer character as being queer - and don't take any steps to prevent it from happening when they are supposedly "going against your will" - you've just made that character queer!

There's no way around that.

If Oscar Isaac says he was playing a romance, and Poe would be interested in sharing a bed with Finn (the intimacy doesn't have to be sexual, but there's still a desire for physical closeness and contact implied, at the very least).

AND his portrayal of the character is heavily queer coded and fits that narrative...

Well, good news! That character is canonically romantically attracted to Finn now.

You allowed it to happen, and it's happening.

I trust the words of the actors when it comes with how they were portraying the character, above the words of anyone else in the industry, because they are the ones expressing the emotions, and the relationship dynamics they wish to convey with their character to the audience.

And sometimes, I've a feeling that they are manipulating an actor's desire to offer the community some queer representation to suit their own purposes as well

For example, Joey Batey apparently kept asking the people on the show what Jaskier's sexuality was, but couldn't get any clear answer until they got to Season 3.

This is very telling, and somewhat troubling to me.

Strategically, it's like they go "Well, let's not make any decision and wait until we have a better understanding of our fan-base's demographics to see if we should allow that character to be queer, or not.

In the meantime, we'll allow the actors to portray them as being subtly queer, you know... Just in case is might come in handy later on..."

And, as an actor, I'm guessing if there is a chance that they might agree to go with that queer representation, then you sort of have to maintain and continue to build upon that queer subtext, so that if a romance or a queeplatonic relationship does happen, then it will feel genuine, earned, and something that the queer audience would have become emotionally invested in.

Two background characters suddenly kissing out of the blue is not good, nor satisfying queer representation.

Well, actually, you can manage to create a new popular and surprisingly engaging ship between two supporting characters in 20 seconds!

One show really pulled it off.

"Shadowhunters", upon learning they'd been cancelled, managed to gift us with one a last minute canon queer ship between two supporting characters that had never met each other before on the show.

They did a brief scene of the two of them getting introduced while attending the same event, and then you could notice them sitting at a table together in the background at some point, looking happy and engrossed in their conversation, and that was it!

But it worked beautifully, because

a) One of those characters was an already established openly gay Shadowhunter, and the other one a queer coded Warlock on the show.

b) We'd been given the chance to get to know them both individually a bit before that meeting between them happened.

c) The two actors, were totally on board with it the moment it was suggested to them, had amazing chemistry together, and totally sold it!

I guess what I'm trying to say is that good representation comes from how much your audience has grown to care and identify with your queer characters, how much the writers themselves care about those characters, and whether the actor themselves experience that portrayal as something truthful to the characters they are portraying.

It comes from the heart.

Yes, that ship suddenly appeared a bit "out of nowhere", without being given any chance to evolve and grow over the course of the series itself.

But, given some of the things we knew about each individual character - and the type of emotional connection they had both individually been suggesting they might be looking for in prior scenes - pairing them together made a lot of sense.

In canon, the only direct interaction we ever had between them, was this:

youtube

And yet, that mere 20 seconds of interaction successfully sparked the audience's interest.

"Reyhill" became a beloved pairing in the TV show's universe, with plenty of fans writing fanfiction and drawing fanart about the new couple.

If you've built your queer characters well, your audience can see why they connect and care about them connecting, all you need is 20 seconds to make an emotional impact!

It also felt earned and satisfactory, because the "flagship" of the show itself was a relationship between a gay Shadowhunter and a freewheeling bisexual Warlock, that felt as epic and domestic as any cishet romance could be, and was given more love and attention than pretty much any other pairing on the show!

Despite the presence of a few stereotypes (ex: two heterosexual best friends, where the boy is secretly pinning for the girl, that become a romantic couple when she realises how much he loves her and she loves him back, etc.) and a certain lack of nuance at times (ex: their asexual character didn't even dare kiss the girl he had feelings for while they were cuddling, because he wasn't interested in sex...), they got a lot of things right, and were using queer representation in a way that was clearly intended to bring happiness to their queer audience, show appreciation, and respect.

That show had fully earned and deserved our trust, and therefore we knew that they weren't just "throwing some random queer interaction in there" to escape criticism.

Actually, it almost felt like they whent "Ah, shoot! We'd hoped we would have 1 or 2 more seasons of this, but now we've got to wrap things up! Hmm... Is there any way to make this even queerer than it already is... Wait! I know! Let's give Lorenzo and Andrew their own happy ending!"

So that "surprise relationship" that none of us saw coming genuinely felt like a pure gift! Like "Hey guys! Sorry we've got to cut this short, but we just had a thought that these two would make the most adorable couple! So, just in case you'd miss it, here's how they met! Now enjoy continuing their story!"

That's just perfect!

But this?

youtube

This is purely about a studio trying to prove that they value diversity, and giving themselves a "pat on the back" for risking the ire of the more conservative crowds on the western hemisphere; while making it easy for other places to cut all LGBTQ+ content and still agree to play the movie in theaters.

Don't get me wrong, I do love Disney, but they remain a business that ultimately makes choices based on how likely it is to profit them based on a costs vs benefits approach.

I see them as having no personal desire to bring any harm to the LGBTQ+ community, while at the same time having some limits regarding how far they are willing to take risks for them.

Quite frankly, it would be much less insulting for us if they could just openly admit "Look, you guys aren't blind. The queer coding with Poe and Finn's relationship is there. We've even inserted some parallels between Leia/Han and Poe/Finn in some scenes. However, we are unwilling to sacrifice box office numbers in anti-LGBTQ+ countries to support you. So, enjoy a good subtext instead!"

But the studio trying to deny queer intent, and using queer coding as bait, is a wrong and abusive way to use it.

And I think this is why Geraskier is such an odd beast, to me.

Because Joey Batey skillfully used queer coding with queer intent.

The way he had Jaskier interact with Geralt was queer coded because Jaskier was queer.

Because the way Jaskier experiences love for a best friend goes beyond what people typically tend to define as friendship, with a level of emotional and physical intimacy that is typically associated with romantic pairings, but doesn't depend on the presence of romance, nor is it exclusive to it.

It's an amazing example of the way an aromantic experiences love for a best friend and/or someone they wish to form an amorous connection / queerplatonic relationship with.

People on the aromantic spectrum do strongly identify with Jaskier's behavior with and love for Geralt, and that portrayal resonates with them.

Heck! It strongly resonates with people that don't identify as romantic, yet still experience those types of friendships that are technically platonic yet sit a bit in between platonic and romantic.

And truthfully, as someone that experiences both romantic love and alterous love (without feeling like one is stronger or superior to the other), I'd never been able to tell exactly what was going on between Jaskier and Geralt.

I made this fanvid back in september 2022, and wrote in the description:

"Can be interpreted as romantic Geraskier if you so wish (as most romances carry strong elements of friendship as well), or platonic Geraskier (since many friendships also have strong elements of love and commitment to them) if you'd prefer."

Because I couldn't make up my own mind re: how their dynamic felt, especially from Jaskier's perspective.

And I don't know quite exactly why. The love, the yearning for something truly intimate, the desire for companionship, and even the aesthetic appreciation was there... And yes, I absolutely adore romantic fanfictions featuring these two!

But these fanfictions tend to bring in that little "romantic push" that I felt was missing from Joey's interpretation.

I didn't even know there was a word for it back then (alterous), but even doing the freaking video, I couldn't name my own intent with it!

There's a line in the song going "It's obvious that we're not friends," that I felt perfectly worked for that friendship.

In my brain I was going "they're not friends, but they're friends", and "it's not platonic, but it is"... And somehow it made sense to me. But I wasn't sure it made sense for anyone else.

So, I basically wrote for anyone watching "please choose whatever interpretation suits you, because I've no idea how to interpret my own video!"

Today I'd say you can still interpret is as you wish, but I think my own intent and the "vibe" I was getting from these two's relationship was that alterous love that I've experienced in my own relationships with certain friends, but couldn't really have named back then.

I'll have to rewatch those scenes, at some point, to try to figure out what was going on in Joey's portrayal that had me feel like the subtext wasn't fully romantic compared to other ships where the emotional intimacy feels more romantic.

It's very subtle... It's like the expression in Poe Dameron's face here looks incredibly romantic.

It has that kind of vibe...

While Jaskier's expression here is not quite that...

He feels more like...

Like Poe and Jaskier are both completely smitten, and experience a strong sense of emotional attraction towards the man in front of them, but the exact nature of their love feels a bit different.

Joey's description here feels extremely accurate, actually...

And, like a puppy, he still needs some stronger emotional connections to certain individuals, and to be fully adopted within his found family.

And I've a feeling I'm going to eventually make a full post about it at some point, because Geralt's situation with Yennefer and Jaskier, in Season 1, is something I've sort of been able to relate to.

Because Geralt is capable of romantic infatuation, love, and has a desire to form an amorous romantic relationship with at least one romantic partner (in the show, Yennefer).

But there are moments that suggest he might, also, be able to experience alterous love and desires, and be emotionally and/or physically intimate with someone he's not necessarily romantically attracted to.

And when you've got a foot in "both worlds", navigating alterous friendships and romances can become very challenging, as it creates a form of polyamorous dynamic between everyone involved, although the exact nature of the love and the involvement varies.

Yennefer called Jaskier an "ever present sing-songy twit". So, I'm guessing that from her perspective, at least, she used to see him as a bit of an obstacle that constantly stood in the way of her relationship with Geralt.

When she and Geralt initially met, she said "Just a friend, I hope" while referring to Jaskier, and was never given an answer.

Later, when Geralt is expressing regret for what he said to Jaskier, and starts saying "he's a..." while letting his words trail off, she suggests "a friend?"

Again, Geralt doesn't confirm nor deny it.

And the fact that he leaves it open, suggests that it's not quite it.

Now, it can be read as Geralt being stubborn and refusing to admit that Jaskier is a friend, sure.

It can be read as Geralt having romantic feelings for Jaskier he's not yet ready to admit to himself or others...

Or it could also be read as Geralt struggling with the word "friend", because that's not exactly the right word to convey his actual feelings.

(Just like I couldn't exactly name the relationship I was trying to represent with my own video!)

And that's the way I personally ended up interpreting it.

The relationship is queer. It's not quite friendship, it's not quite romance. It's platonic, and yet it's not.

And from Geralt's own perspective, he may not desire a fully queerplatonic relationship with Jaskier, especially if he fears that it might prevent him from being with a romantic partner as well.

But I think he's most definitely able to experience alterous love, too.

And that he might be comfortable behaving similarly to the way a queerplatonic partner would while in the company of his closest friend(s), while still needing to connect with a romantic partner as well.

And I've kind of been there. I've had romantic partners telling me they felt like I was too close to some of my friends for their liking, and had a hard time figuring out where they stood in all of this.

For a romantic partner that does not typically experience strong alterous attraction towards their own friends, too, it can be a little confusing, disorienting, and even somewhat threatening, to find themselves with a partner that bonds so strongly with others in the absence of any romantic feelings.

So, Yennefer might have perceived Jaskier as annoying, invading her (i.e. her and Geralt's) romantic privacy, and may even have found herself envying the close emotional bond he and Geralt were comfortable sharing together.

Geralt's inability to call Jaskier a "friend" might have created some insecurities that she would gladly have done without, too.

Meanwhile, Jaskier's own dislike of Yennefer likely came from how she initially assaulted him (she grabbed him by the balls and then blew up the building, after all), perceived her as being predatory, and didn't trust her with Geralt (and/or with himself).

So, Geralt was sort of stuck with two very different loves, that didn't quite trust and barely could tolerate each other, and no clear idea how to make it work.

Because Jaskier had no idea why Geralt could love someone that was as dangerous, manipulative, and selfish as Yennefer.

And Yennefer didn't understand where Jaskier fit in all of this, among others.

It eventually all came to a head when Yennefer left, and Geralt lashed out at Jaskier!

And oddly enough, while Jaskier was absolutely not to blame, I can sort of understand why Geralt emotionally responded the way he did.

When you deeply love two people, yet each of them treat the other as a nuisance, it can put you under tremendous stress.

And, since Jaskier didn't understand Geralt's love for Yennefer, he couldn't share his heartbreak nor his grief.

For all Geralt knew, Jaskier might secretly have rejoiced that she left, might have found himself trying to convince Geralt that "they didn't need her" or that "she wasn't worth the heartbreak"...

It's not too farfetched that the idea of staying with Jaskier might have made Geralt feel like he was "taking a side" against Yennefer, too.

And Geralt really hates being forced to take sides, apparently!

Or maybe, since Geralt seems to have a rather insecure attachment style (was abandoned "for his own good" by his mother as a child, etc.), Yennefer leaving triggered his own insecurities, and he figured it was just a matter of time before Jaskier realized he wasn't good enough for anyone, either!

It's like it was easier for him to deal with the grief of losing them both - cut all emotional ties , all at once, and go back to being "The Butcher", i.e. the living shell of a person he'd become after Blaviken - rather than trying to figure out how to go on loving one of them while having lost the other; and/or facing his own fears of loss and abandonment.

As twisted as it may sound, by driving Jaskier away, Geralt remained in control of the situation and could convince himself that he didn't need him. That it was his choice to be left alone, not Jaskier that eventually realized he was a unlovable

And a part of Season 2 revolved around Jaskier and Yennefer developing an intimate understanding of each other as well - growing to love each other, rely on each other, save each other, and finally "get" what Geralt saw in the other.

They were allowed to build their own bond and deeply empathize with each other. They finally connected with each other, before each of them reconnected with Geralt.

I believe this is likely why the dynamic they share works so well in Season 3.

Geralt no longer has to choose.

Both he and Yennefer are more emotionally open and vulnerable with those they love...

Jaskier might still find Yennefer "scary" at times, but she's a "scary protector" that sometimes needs protecting, too, rather than a dangerous predator out to devour him and Geralt alive!

Geralt and Yennefer's romantic couple opens up to make room for the love they both have for Jaskier and let him share their home.

They trust him with their daughter, and the three of them are willing to join forces and risk themselves to keep her and each other safe.

And, should anything happen to any of them, the other two would be there for each other, understanding and sharing the pain and the loss together.

Perhaps they could have beautifully worked together as a romantic "trouple", too; but I do love the way they've made it work between the three of them in the show thus far.

I was just the tiniest bit worried about Jaskier and Yennefer's relationship having grown a bit more distant between Season 2 and Season 3, since they're back to being a bit more snarky with each other, but let's say that this moment in the trailer, for part 2, totally put those concerns to rest.

Maybe this is why I'm (cautiously) optimistic about Jaskier finding a way to make it work with Radovid as well...

Because Jaskier doesn't need a romantic partner to "start a family" and "build a future with".

He already has that. He has a family, people that have made a home for him with them, that share their own present and wish to include him in the future they are building for themselves, for as long as Destiny will allow it.

And Jaskier also has Vespula, and possibly other close friendships in his life, that are part of his extended family.

I mean, Jaskier didn't even know he might enjoy sharing a romantic connection with someone until he met Radovid!

So, Jaskier and Radovid are sort of perfectly suited for each other, because they each have very strong emotional commitments and/or responsibilities outside of their romance.

If King Vizimir was to die, and Radovid was to become King, I think that Jaskier would be one of the few people on the Continent that could understand and accept that he has to share the man that he romantically loves with a Queen and the rest of his Kingdom.

He would probably be very happy being the King's lover, coming to live at his court from time to time, while still being free to travel, go on adventures, stay with Geralt, Yennefer, and Ciri for a while, and/or spend time with Vespula, etc.

Right now, what Radovid and Jaskier have is romantic infatuation. For that primary romantic attraction to grow into actual romantic love and intimacy, they need to be able to love each other as they truly are, taking into consideration all the complexities of their respective social situations and affective needs.

And sadly, even if Radovid wished to give up the throne and his Kingdom for Jaskier, as long as he lives, he can be perceived as a potential rival for the throne. The one that would become the monarch might thus wish to have him assassinated.

And Jaskier is the one that was arguing that Ciri was a princess, and would be safer with an army at her back.

So, I think it's possible that he would rather Radovid stayed a prince/king with an army at his command, than having the two of them living on the run while constantly having to watch over their shoulder for people wanting to kill them (well, Radovid, mostly, but they'd likely murder any witness of their crime, too!).

Jaskier is no Witcher. He wouldn't be able to protect Radovid. And Geralt and Yennefer already have their hands full protecting Ciri (and Jaskier himself, when he's with them). They can't become responsible for the safety of yet another prince on the run!

Radovid tragically does not fully belongs to himself; but the parts of himself that don't belong to his birth, and his blood, and all the responsibilities that come with it, he might be able to share with Jaskier.

Pairing him with a very, very queer lover, that doesn't seem to care much about rules or social norms, is highly creative, can make the best out of the worst situations, and has never really had any romantic expectations, is kind of Radovid's best shot at finding some happiness and love for himself, too!

If he could find a Queen that he would get along well enough to rule his Kingdom with, and she would be open to agreeing to a political marriage that would leave them both free to have their own personal lives and their own lover(s), he could make it work with Jaskier.

As long as Radovid does not attempt to turn Ciri into a political pawn, or attempts to hurt Geralt or Yennefer (or Vespula, or Yarpen Zigrin, or people that Jaskier strongly cares about...), I see a lot more reasons why it would work than why it wouldn't!

And okay, I obviously have way too many feels about Geralt/Yennefer/Jaskier, and Radskier, and just can't stay on topic without my brain making way too many connections! Lol!

So sorry about that...

But yeah, to get back to the actual topic, the situation with Geralt and Jaskier, and the way queer coding was used to convey queer intent, makes that particular ship uniquely complex, in a sense.

In the case of Stormpilot, or Stucky, or any other instance of queerbaiting, the subtext is entirely open to interpretation and people are free to interpret it any way they want!

And that's perfectly okay.

It's just that this time around, while people can still choose to interpret things differently, Jaskier was queer coded to express queer intent.

But it was queer coded to make it queer. Not romantically coded to make it romantic.

And, to people that don't realize how a close intimate friendship between two men can also be queer, it comes across as "queer baiting".

A sapioromantic character not romantically connecting with a best friend they love probably more than anyone on the Continent is not an example of "queer baiting".

It's queer as hell, is what it is! It's rightfully queer coded! It's queer representation!

But it feels like a much less risky representation if we look at the relationship itself alone. A lot of toxic cishet gamers are going to be upset that Jaskier is kissing a dude. They won't get upset that he might have sought a queeplatonic relationship with Geralt, or that he didn't romantically fall in love with him.

And so a bunch of people are left feeling like the show is again trying to say "No homo!", and they are angrily answering "YES, HOMO!"

Except the show is saying "Yes, homoalterous!"

And they are angrily answering "NO, HOMOROMANTIC!"

It's just very confusing and unexpected, because I can't recall anyone ever using queer coding to talk to us about aromance on a TV show!

That's why I'm totally losing my shit over what Batey did, and can't get over it!

Somehow, I just want to sit down with Joey Batey, and ask him where the inspiration came from...

I mean, you're coding rather deep into the Q+ of the LGBTQ+, here, luv...

Please continue, you are doing amazing, sweetie! But that's not a type of representation I ever would have expected to see on screen!

There's an almost surreal element to it, and I kinda want to shower his portrayal of Jaskier, and the way he has him navigating all those different relationships (Geralt, Yennefer, Vespula, Radovid, etc.), with love and recognition, so that studios take notice and let people start writing more of these characters that experience love "outside the box".

Again, so so so sorry for the ridiculous novel here, I totally got carried away and had no idea how to stop my brain!

This is an answer to @thelostgirl21 argument which says:

"queer baiting has conditioned most of us, in the queer community, to read any emotionally intimate friendship between two same-gender characters as romance."

Please don't take this personally, I really enjoy a lot of the things you've written but I disagree with this idea. I think you're missing a crucial part of queer cinema in your conclusion.

Queerbaiting is relatively new issue when it comes to queer representation. And it actually has queer people tendency to see any intimacy between same gender characters at its source. Queer people have created a language made out of subtexte throughout the previous decades because of censorship. It was our way to show representation to other queer people without cishets noticing it. It's something we've been doing since the victorian era (ex: The Picture of Dorian Gray), close male friendship was an inherent subtexte for homosexuality. It got even stronger in cinema because of the Hays code in the 30's and it's something which stayed, it's now part of our artistic language. And not only because of censorship and or need to adapt our art but also because it reflects our reality, this obligation to hide the real nature of our relationships is something very much ingrained in queer history and culture.

And to go back to queerbaiting: queerbaiting Is what happened when cishets discovered all of that storytelling language. Its what happened when being gay started to get a bit more acceptable, when gay marriage got legalised in the west, but at a time where the homophobic audience was still way to big to lose.

All of this to say that platonic and romantic interpretations of stories are not to be put against each others, they can co-exist, because there is never one true interpretation of a story.

17 notes · View notes