---

TW: Mention of verbal, emotional and sexual abuse

This time last year most of us were simply existing, oblivious to the fact that chess is in fact very cool and very sexy.

Come October 2020 and Anna Taylor-Joy and Thomas Brodie-Sangster would enter stage right, in Netflix’s ‘The Queen’s Gambit’,  to show us exactly the life we were missing. The seven-part miniseries was an overnight success, watched by 62 million households in its first month and ranked number one on the streaming site in 63 countries. But a year on, there is another plot twist threatening to tarnish its reign.

What’s the controversy?

“The figure of $5 million of damages is what she is seeking as a result of the “devastating falsehood, undermining and degrading her accomplishments before an audience of many millions”.”

It’s centred around one piece of voice-over spoken in the series’ final episode. Protagonist Beth Harmon competes in the biggest game of her life against a fictionalised Russian Grandmaster. The commentator for the match remarks: “The only unusual thing about her, really, is her sex, and even that’s not unique in Russia.” The camera then pans to a woman in the front row of the watching audience and he continues, “There’s Nona Gaprindashvili, but she’s the female world champion and has never faced men.”

This is false. Gaprindashvili was actually the first female awarded the FIDE title ‘Grandmaster‘ (a big deal in chess terms). Her complaint claims that by 1968, the year the episode was set, she had competed against 59 male chess players. This included 28 simultaneously, and at least 10 Grandmasters. She is also Georgian, not Russian as the final instalment seems to imply.

Gaprindashvili is now 80 and lives in Tbilisi, Georgia, where she continues to compete in senior chess tournaments. The figure of $5 million of damages is what she is seeking as a result of the “devastating falsehood, undermining and degrading her accomplishments before an audience of many millions”.

Gold-Digging Gaprindashvili?

The cynic in me wants to say that this is all very timely and trivial. A year after cementing itself as one of the most successful Netflix originals, and for one short line, how much professional damage could this have really inflicted on a woman who has already enjoyed the majority of her incredibly successful and trailblazing career?

“I was obsessed with the commentary disguised behind the 1960s wardrobe and beautiful cast, about how a woman could enter the male dominated world and put everyone in it to shame. “

However, Gaprindashvili made her concerns about the dialogue known soon after the series broadcast. In her 25-page complaint she “demanded a public statement acknowledging the falsity of the statement, an apology, and a retraction.”

According to her, Netflix responded with ‘extraordinary hubris’ dismissing her assertion of defamation claiming the contested dialogue was ‘innocuous’. The Georgian has responded to this, saying the ‘arrogant refusal to take responsibility for its actions was shockingly tone-deaf, given the sexism and offensiveness of its lie.’

I’m inclined to agree. As one of the many millions who greedily binged the seven-part series, successfully whisking us away from the trials and tribulations of increasing daily cases and decreasing daily walks; I became hooked by the luxurious rise to fame and fortune of this (gorgeous) blue-eyed, red-headed genius woman. I was obsessed with the commentary disguised behind the 1960s wardrobe and beautiful cast, about how a woman could enter the male-dominated world and put everyone in it to shame. A girl with youth and charm and intelligence. What more could you ask for? 

“For a narrative based primarily on female triumph, it feels disturbingly like the streaming platform is implying that it will only tolerate the success of fictionalised women”.”

Re-Written Narrative

I was so obsessed I went ahead and bought the book by the late Walter Tevis, published in 1983. (Because books are always better than adaptations.) I found they had clearly taken liberties with certain parts of the plot, adding in some questionable older love interests, bolting on a lot more excess alcohol consumption onto Harmon’s character for, what one can only assume was, spice, and cutting all the ugly things, as big productions often do, like the verbal, physical and even sexual abuse Harmon suffers at the orphanage at the hands of Jolene. 

It wasn’t an exact re-telling. But it was without a doubt a well-executed one, artistically. It was a romantic story, as adaptations often are. Despite the changes, I was still impressed how the Netflix series used cinematography to bring this vivid narrative to life. 

“I massively enjoyed the series and will be watching it again, but that detail somewhat contradicts the empowering tone of the rest of the series for me.”

So that’s it’s so very disappointing to hear how Netflix has dealt with this situation. For a narrative based primarily on female triumph, it feels uneasy as the streaming platform is implying it will only tolerate the success of fictional women. There is a serious message problem snowballing out of this scandal and threatens to seriously damage the legacy of what is an incredible work of art.

What’s worse is there were alternatives. Tevis’ work does also mention Gaprindashvili. Rather than fictionalising a lack of competition against men, he instead writes she had “met all these Russian Grandmasters many times before”. The adaption also hired two of the world’s leading chess authorities as consultants for the Series:  Garry Kasparov, a Russian former world champion, and American national master Bruce Pandolfini, who was also a consultant to Tevis when he wrote the novel.

Clumsy Critique

This all goes to suggest that Netflix’s script was clumsy. It was a cheap attempt to increase the tension in the final series climax. And it was genuinely misleading.

One viewer told me:

“After finishing ‘The Queen’s Gambit’, I looked up Nona Gaprindashvili, not knowing whether she was a real or fictional chess player. I assumed that if she was, the information about her given by the series would have been true to life. I was quite shocked when I realised the producers of the show deliberately undersold Gaprindashvili’s achievements to heighten the drama. I massively enjoyed the series and will be watching it again, but that detail somewhat contradicts the empowering tone of the rest of the series for me. I don’t think it would have been that difficult to present Gaprindashvili’s success as a point of aspiration for Beth, rather than a slightly disparaging comparison.”

So to me, this story feels like the height of importance. Whether we like it or not, wide-reaching creative work is one of the biggest influencers on people. Re-write an entire historical event with a well-promoted, biased documentary. Release a song about how your ex mistreated you. Suddenly they have no work and millions of people are flooding their posts with disgust.

Get Elon Musk on SNL to shift all that extra Dogecoin you have lying around. Art creates conversation and legacy. Netflix had an opportunity here to celebrate a real-life version of their fictional, Americanised, heroine and they turned very sharply in the opposite direction. Not a great look.

An Important Battle

I say props to Nona Gaprindashvili. For bringing this to the forefront of people’s attention. This court battle is likely to be hard, and costly and more than anything, gruelling. But if she has the means there’s no reason she shouldn’t. It’s about precedent more than anything else. Don’t steal. Don’t defame. Seems obvious but there may be others; for example, POC women or those who may find it even harder than Gaprindashvili to ever have their concerns heard even in the media, let alone in court.

“Gaprindashvili, like Johanson, should be allowed to own her own narrative.”

Maybe it’s a battle that has to be fought, not for the outcome but because it can be. Similar perhaps to ‘Black Widow’ star, Scarlett Johanson’s current war against Disney. Her dispute started over a breach of contract Disney committed after streaming her film at the same time as the cinematic release.

Actors are often sued for breach of their contract, and big conglomerates like Disney more often than not, rake in the cash. If they have the means, those who can, should, for those who could never. Gaprindashvili, like Johanson, should be allowed to own her own narrative. Very Taylor Swift of her if I may. (Swift too is fighting her own battle, currently re-recording her old albums sold off without her consent, so she may own her own masters.)

And even then, if Gaprindashvili didn’t care about the future victims in her position (note she does in her complaint she mentioned half the purpose of this action was for those in similar positions who would be unable to). But even if she didn’t it would still be a valid claim.

Imagine watching steadily defying the odds throughout your life. Entering a ‘male’ career as a woman, and excelling beyond many of their wildest dreams. Then discovering a big-budget fictionalised story all about the rise of a woman in the world of chess. And then suddenly seeing the masses, for whom chess was simply an old person’s past-time, suddenly enthralled by a narrative that so closely mirrors your own.

Even with the blatant Americanisation, if it had stopped at that, it surely would’ve been a thrill for Gaprindashvili to see millions enjoying a story that resembles everything important in her own life. But instead, the Georgian Grandmaster had to watch as a romanticised version of herself heralded as chess’ feminine grace. Her own name presented disparagingly in comparison to this fictional ‘Queen’. 

Yeah, I’d be mad too. 

Image courtesy of GR Stocks on Unsplash. No changes were made to this image. Image license found here.