Chess has always struck me as a game of great intrigue. Unassuming and accessible in all its physicality, but incredibly complex and all-encompassing in its cerebral glory. However, these very reasons have worked against the game’s allure.
That is, until Netflix released “The Queen’s Gambit” in 2020.
A hit among audiences and critics alike, the show’s unprecedented impact has had far reaching effects. eBay reported a whopping 273% rise in the sales of chess sets within 10 days of the limited series' release. The chess app and social media site, chess.com, saw its daily registrations go up by as much as 400%. Yours truly was in fact one of these new subscribers. Female participation and interest in chess has also skyrocketed due to the influence of its protagonist. The show itself has become the most-watched limited series of all time on Netflix, with a viewership of 62 million households in less than a month. The show's cast has been showered with accolades, especially Anya Taylor-Joy for her breakout performance as Beth.
“The Queen’s Gambit” revolves around a precocious orphan, Beth Harmon, who possesses a natural talent for chess. She embarks on a journey to become the best chess player that the world has to offer. The treatment that the series gives to a chess player is akin to what Hollywood gives to films about a struggling actor or an aspiring musician’s rise to stardom. It’s very bildungsroman, no doubt. But what makes Beth’s journey different is that the biggest obstacle is herself. She is just as much the antagonist as she is the protagonist.
Having binge-watched the series first, I followed it up with an intense read of the novel. I was struck by the differences between the stories told by each medium. Here are my takes on them.
SEXISM
While both the book and the show depict the sexism prevalent in the sixties, the former also depicts the antagonism that accompanied it.
The book showcases the seepage of sexism not only in competitive instances but also in personal. A pre-teen Beth harbours a dark, all-consuming hatred towards the disdainful high school boys she faces off in a simul. Another notable instance is Harry Beltik's palpable fury at playing second fiddle to Beth, after volunteering to train her for a while. Beth also faces off against men who throw chessboards, storm off and refuse to speak to her, owing to their shame of losing to a woman.
On the other hand, the show portrays Beth as someone who's unbothered by gender restrictions and fails to understand them. By virtue of her talent and smarts, she befriends several boys during her journey and is unfazed by them. Rather, the battle of the sexes gets heightened in the professional sphere by means of petty criticism on sartorial choices, and back-handed compliments on being a female chess-player. Unlike the book, Beth's male peers quickly come around to accept, admire and support her
PLOT DEVICES
The importance of plot devices cannot be stressed more. They not only impact the manner of story-telling but also the intended takeaways from the medium concerned. Plot devices wield substantial power to engage or put off the reader or viewer from the story. It was interesting to analyze the angles which the book and the show went for.
The book emphasizes the importance of agency. Beth, as a rather unlikeable protagonist, ends up burning a lot of bridges. For the most part, she ends up taking charge of her life, all by herself. She calls the shots for her recovery process and of her own will, asks for help. By breaking the ice and asking people for help, she gives the reader a clear picture about the most important relationships in her life. Thus agency serves a dual purpose in the plot, making the novel a gritty read.
The show turns Beth into an extremely likeable protagonist who is burdened by the crutch of suppressed trauma and addiction. The events in her life are largely driven by the aforementioned factors. The shows reins the power of happenstance, where Beth finds important people showing up for her during her downward spiral. The message here is that one is never truly alone, even if one can't see it. As much as I liked this uplifting message, I can't help but think that her agency gets downplayed to some extent here. The only plausible explanation for this treatment is that Beth is likeable enough to have people looking out for her.
CHARACTER ARCS
The show diverges from the book in certain aspects by combining various characters into one, changing the character's aesthetic, adding backstories to various supporting characters, while trying to be inclusive and adapting to a modern audience.
And it absolutely pays off.
Every major player and supporting character is equally memorable and distinctive due to the care shown and efforts made by the showrunners and screen-writers. The backstories assigned to even the smallest of players are incredible, telling, poignant, and fit like a glove. This is no easy feat given the time constraints of each episode. LGBTQ+ and black representation are actually integral to the storyline, making it an absolute winner.
The cast does a stellar job of channeling their respective characters' quirks and translating their stories across the screen. Anya Taylor-Joy absolutely carries the show and deserves all the accolades that she has been receiving. Other incredible performances include those of Bill Camp as Mr. Shaibel, Harry Melling as Harry Beltik, Moses Ingram as Jolene, and Marielle Heller as Alma Wheatley. I'd be remiss to not bring up the performance of Isla Johnston as a young Beth. The child actress is one of the prime reasons for drawing viewers into the series as a whole and sets the bar extremely high for her adult counterpart's performance.
P.S. I almost screamed when I saw Harry Melling. For those of you who may have vaguely recognized him, he played Dudley in Harry Potter!
CHESS REFERENCES
The dedication to showcase accurate and realistic chess is seen in spades in the book as well as the show. However, the latter goes the extra mile and makes full-fledged use of its visual medium.
Walter Tevis, being a Class C competitor himself, was adamant about having realistic chess matches in his novel. In fact, he consulted two notable grandmasters for this purpose. His games are well-detailed and a treat for avid chess players.
That being said, the show edges out the novel here. Aside from having the actors play actual chess matches constructed by consultants, the deft editing gives us glimpses of the players emotions, making chess as gripping a sport as those of cricket and soccer. And if that wasn't enough, the fashion and production design make subtle references too. The sets always have the presence of symmetry in various scenes of the show, be it the linoleum or the wallpaper. They symbolize how Beth's world revolves around chess. The fashion of the show has been lauded for various reasons. These beautiful dresses, while appealing, are also indicative of Beth's frame of mind, her competitive strides and her character development. No prizes for guessing what Beth's all-white attire (as seen here) reminds you of!
After considering these differences, my final verdict for this showdown: it's a draw.
The book and the show are equally compelling for a slew of reasons. I'd highly recommend you to watch the show and subsequently follow it up with the book. Even though this opinion is in stark contrast to my long-held view of the book being better, the Netflix adaptation might just be one of the few exceptions. It's that good. Another reason for this view is the ease of keeping up with chess matches. Non-players of chess might find it hard to follow the novel's matches that Tevis deep dives into. The show piques the interest of such viewers, and makes them more inclined to understand the big picture. It also makes the book a lot more interesting with regard to the games and matches!
You're seriously missing out if you haven't watched the show or read the book or done both. So what are you waiting for?